FBWNo one has posted the Saudi MOU on S-400 systems yet? Wow:
http://www.janes.com/article/74677/saudi-arabia-and-russia-sign-s-400-mou
FBWThe 27 billion number does not include any of the FMS requests 2016-17, so the actual amount is in the mid 30 billions over the last eight years. As to how many have been approved and what the final value of those recent contracts was is more research than I feel like doing to answer your query.
In 2016, the value was 773 million in actual exports to UAE, and 19 billion from 2001-2013 (and that was before the massive spending spree over the last four years).
To put that in perspective, the total value of all Russian arms exports was 13.5 – 15 billion in 2016.
FBWIf the deal is truly in the works, it could signal a shift by the country away from its long time partner the United States, or it could be an attempt by authorities in Dubai to gain political leverage over their counterparts in Washington.
Since 2009, there have been 27 billion in FMS requests by UAE. The US share of the UAE defense market is upward of 70%. This isn’t a shift in policy. There are several factors in play: UAE is unhappy about the speed of FMS requests being approved by congress, and the refusal to sell the F-35.
Many in Congress are calling on a pause regarding the sale of advanced weapons to UAE due to the situation in Yemen (which is odd considering the massive recent proposed sale of weapons to the Saudi gov), this could indeed be a message directed at U.S. Congress.
However, UAE is tired of the U.S. dragging it’s feet on FMS sales, they are still waiting for Congress to approve the 3.5 billion dollar AH-64E contract approved by the State dept. last year. If Russia will fast track the deliveries, they may have a chance to pull off this Su-35 contract. But overall, there isn’t likely to be a shift policy barring an action by Congress or a major diplomatic row.
FBWLonevolk,
I know you may find this difficult to understand with all the Sputnik horsesh@t in your ears. But free press, means free press. As in, even if some, all, or no one disagrees with a pundits views, they still have a right to express them.
FBWIndependent functional media at its best
– yes it is, exactly.
It is a pundit expressing his opinions (however right, wrong, or inaccurate). He isn’t a mouthpiece for the government or any faction thereof. It is exactly the ability to publish articles that may challenge convention, or be contrary to prevailing views that make freedom of the press. And however odd, or incorrect his opinions (as Tr1 stated below, in an Op-Ed), he certainly has that right. You know, in the vein of Voltaire?
FBWNice readin indeed. However how will you fix the tenths of ton mat necessary for VSTOL and ALICE communication s issue in “austere” conditions?
In regard to the AM-2 mats, the sections for one landing mat could be carried by 2 Ch-53k or 3 V-22. The Marines had been testing several new matting options (33% & 50% weight reduction respectively), have not heard any more regarding those. The Navy and Marines recently ordered more AM-2 pallets and mats so take from that what you will.
From what the Marine Aviation plan and previous comments have alluded, these M-Farps are to refuel and rearm the F-35B not to sustain them. Their plan is to use existing austere runways and two lane roads. The small number of F-35B to be operated off each would require perhaps one landing pad and fiberglass folding mats for fod protection. The use of rolling vertical landing has been discussed.
ALIS isn’t an issue for the distributed operations plan, the aircraft don’t have to be networked to operate from the M-FARPS for short periods of time. Those F-35B would still be based on LHA/LHD or “main” airbases. The idea is to improve survivability by increasing the number of aimpoints enemy would need to target and increase sorties and presence in forward areas.
Addition- The real logistics issues aren’t related to the AM-2 mats or ALIS. It has more to do with moving the M-FARP teams into theater then supplying them with the tons of fuel, weapons, etc needed to support a small number of F-35B’s for 24-36 hours until moving to the next M-FARP. Interesting paper from the Naval War college highlighting these problems:
https://usnwc2.usnwc.edu/getattachment/10f62895-b4c2-4fa7-b853-73753a139f08/Distributed-STOVL-Operations-and-Air-Mobility-Supp.aspx
FBWF-35 B can operate from L61, certainly, but from austere bases????
How familiar are you with the Marine aviation operations concepts?
The F-35B is intended to operate from M-FARPs as part of their plan for distributed operations.
Better you read it:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3525927/2017-Marine-Aviation-Plan.pdf
FBW1)- Russia has been mapping the areas east of Euphrates since the DEZ liberation was near or after its liberation. (We see that with the images released from the Russian MoD)
2)- Russian forces detected no fire-fights or its visual proof in the area. (Hence Russia considered that areas to be infested with radical jihadis or under their control)
So the fact that the area in question shows no firefights “proves” US is helping ISIS? Maybe because the US special forces are embedded with Kurdish units. The Kurds have not reached the Euphrates river in DEZ yet.
3)- VKS struck east of Euphrates on areas infested by radical jihadis. (As per Russian intelligence/recce stated above)
4)- Jihadi coalition comes out accusing VKS of striking their pets position east of Euphrates last week. (Russia denied striking the SDF, but AFAIK, Russia did not deny striking east of Euphrates. This was b’coz they believed they were striking IS position based on their intl
Perhaps that’s because Russia (and by extension your posts) tend to deem every combatant who’s not allied with Assad as “ISIS”.
It was Kurdish units that claimed they were bombed, last time i checked they are not ISIS.
5)- Since the Jihadi coalition came up with official confirmation that its their position east of Euphrates, Russian military updated their info and showed us that muricans and their pets are safely entrenched inside radical jihadii infested area.
So, the Kurds (who have been fighting ISIS since it’s inception) and USSOCOM are in cohoots to “help” ISIS at DEZ after fighting them across northwest Syria… right. ( edit-northeast Syria)
And the “proof” is satellite photos of Humvee (of which ISIS captured thousands from Iraqi forces, and ones that differ from the GMV used by U.S. special forces) and Cougar MRAP (which again are not used by special forces, they use RG-31/RG-33).
Again, you really have to suspend belief to buy this garbage. This type of propaganda is aimed at those who want to believe US-ISIS collusion so much that even when the evidence released contradicts that premise, some buy it wholeheartedly.
FBWFBWStayed away from this thread due to the thick manure of propaganda being spread across the issue:
But seriously, how stupid do you have to be to swallow the B.S. coming out of certain outlets (including MoD) of US “proof” of collusion with ISIS due to Humvee being parked in the desert in ISIS territory. Yeah because ISIS didn’t capture any of those from the Iraqi forces. I suppose the Syrian tanks in ISIS possession show Assad’s complicit cooperation with ISIS too?
Or maybe ISIS is using captured vehicles, just a thought. (P.S. U.S. special forces use a different variant of the Humvee the GMV, the ones in sat pics look like the uparmored versions passed to the Iraqi forces)
FBWhad always understood that 2b and 3i software worked on the same hardware, to get to 3F you needed to go through a technical refresh.
roughly the same software, different hardware. aircraft running 3i have TR-2 hardware.
It does intrigue me that people think that the OCU should be equipped with aircraft that cannot have external stores and not all the sensors are integrated with.
What sensors are you referring to? They are all integrated, and the software patch of four ship fusion was tested and fielded long ago.
FBWWow, and vvery soon i’ll learn that “it was always the plan”… And no, a conversion unit equiped with subpar standard is not a good idea. You are qualifying pilots on subpar stds (aka not fully qualified)
First, my response what directed at your comment about “very expensive trainers”- which was a red herring as OCU squadrons obviously use the freaking aircraft the pilots are converting to.
Second, how many aircraft are we talking about? I don’t have a firm number on how many of those 108 F-35’s are still in 2B configuration. Out of those, we’ve no idea how many will or won’t be upgraded to 3F as it’s just a proposal right now.
Even if we operate on the unsupported assumption that all F-35’s in 2B configuration in US service aren’t upgraded, it is a paltry number considering the eventual size of the fleet. Those aircraft not upgraded will still have roles. The first F-16’s produced were all converted (F-16XL, F-16CCV, larger stab testing, J79, etc). Most of the Block 1 and block 5 were used in TFTS right up until retirement. Can we make the argument that block 1 F-16’s were somehow more capable for training pilots to fly block 30 F-16 than Block 2B F-35’s are for training 3F and beyond F-35’s? I don’t think so.
FBWEjection seat issue not so fixed???
Safety Experts: Some F-35 Ejections Pose ‘Serious’ Death Risk
http://www.rollcall.com/news//safety…us-death-risk/
@ Hallow
Problem has never been the seats themselves. The MB Mk16E isn’t worse than the MK16A used in the Typhoon, or the MkF16F used in the Rafale, it is likely is safer than either (especially for pilots at the weight extremes). The Mk16E has a larger headrest to accommodate the HMDS (it even has airbags that deploy to secure the pilots head!), and in fact, is certified for pilots weighing less that 150lbs unlike previous seats.
The issue is weight on the pilot’s head. I posted the study on ejections done by the USN. The bottom line is that putting weight on a pilot’s head in the form of JHMCS or HMDS increases risk in ejections.
The points about testing the ejection seat in an uncontrolled event are spurious. None of the seats in service have been tested like that. Whether they should is a different question, I would say yes. New aircraft should have safer ejection seats than previous ones, the question is how to incorporate that into a fighter.
FBWI don’t know about Typhoons, but Rafale from 2/92 are F3.4 type afaik.Again i did not originally comment.
Here’s my issue with your comment:
But if so, quite expensive for a trainer…
You don’t seem to get how a fleet is organized. In every competent air force, some of the fleet strength is going to be used for training (or OCU, and many European airforces call those units), some will be used for static trainers for maintenance ground crews, some will be used for test and eval, others stored as attrition airframes.
Is it imperative that the entire fleet be brought to the same standard? Even when many will never be combat coded? Were all F-16’s built upgraded with APG-68, or made compatable with Lantirn, or AMRAAM when they became available?
Let’s look at the AdlA Rafale fleet:
As of 2017, some 149 have been delivered. Roughly 110 to the AdlA.
There are four frontline squadrons, one OCU, one test. The three squadrons in France have roughly 20 aircraft apiece, the OCU has/had 6, 1/30 Côte d’Argent has 5, and EC 1/7 Provence (which had 20 aircraft when in France, likely 6 when deployed to Al Dhafra)
That means that there are roughly 75-80 aircraft serving between the active squadrons, OCU, and test. You state that they are all F3.4 standard. What about the other 30 aircraft? Are the ones currently not assigned to a squadron upgraded to F3.4?
How many of those are going to be upgraded to F4?
It might be helpful to look at the state of every other airforce and fleet before throwing passive-aggressive barbs at the USAF plans for the F-35. In a perfect world, all aircraft in everyone’s service were up to date, combat capable, and well maintained. Reality does not support that.
Edit- 1/7 has 14 aircraft. 3/30 “Lorraine” had 6 previously, likely does not have 20 on strength.
FBWBut if so, quite expensive for a trainer…
– Hallow, what are you talking about?
Read my post from above, even IF every F-35 ever built (and to be built) was brought up to the latest standards, 1/3 of them would not be combat coded. Furthermore, the aircraft used in the training squadrons don’t have to be updated to the latest hardware/software standards.
Calling them expensive for a trainer is an ignorant statement. Are the Typhoons in OCU units “expensive” for a trainer? Are the Rafale in 2/92 Aquitaine “expensive” training aircraft.
Yes- and you need them to convert pilots to the type. Not to mention the maintenance trainers for each wing. Do you think they need to be 3F to serve their purpose?
Sign In
