censored

The total deal (including helicopters) is expected to total some $60 billion, making it the largest single US arms sale in history. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/13/us-arms-deal-saudi-arabia Significantly, the Israeli government has agreed not to oppose the sale in the US Congress. The US has reportedly agreed not to supply the Saudis with advanced stand-off weapons, and will also reportedly downgrade the performance of the aircraft's electronics. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-u-s-downgrades-saudi-arms-deal-over-israeli-concerns-1.306886 There is a lot of politics surrounding this deal. Right now, the Israelis are more concerned with coming to a mutual concensus on dealing with Iran than they are with the possibility that Saudi Arabia might join in the next Arab-Israeli war. On the part of the Saudi government, they have had a long history of viewing these kind of arms sales as a political deal. If a war ever does come (as it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990), the Saudis fully expect that the same patrons whom they bought these weapons from (the US and UK) will come and fight for them. No one expected the Royal Saudi Air Force to drive Saddam out of Kuwait. And no one today expects the Royal Saudi Air Force to take care of business with Iran. According to a report by Israel's Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, Saudi Arabia does not have enough pilots and support personnel to absorb this latest arms purchase, on top of the 153 F-15C/D/S models that they already fly, and the 72 Typhoons that they are currently in the process deploying. "It is doubtful whether it is in the power of Saudi Arabia, where there is no military draft, to find enough people to man this expansion." As many of us know, Saudi Arabia already relies on foreign contractors to supply the necessary maintenance support to keep their air force flying. Add to that another 84 F-15s and they will probably have trouble finding pilots as well. http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/me_gulf0812_08_24.asp

Sikorsky has proposed the S-97 Raider to the US Army as a spin-off from the X2 demonstrator program: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/10/20/348764/sikorsky-unveils-s-97-for-high-speed-scout-and-attack-helicopter-contest.html The S-97 would feature the same coaxial rotor and pusher-propeller technology, but would be scaled up so that it could carry troops and weapons.

India also announced recently that they are initiating talks to purchase an additional three Phalcon AEW aircraft, in addition to the three covered under the current contract. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/09/340359/india-requests-deal-for-three-more-aew-aircraft.html Six AWACS - probably enough to cover two fronts on a 24-7 basis. That's a serious upgrade in India's defensive capabilities.

Reports have been circulating that the next Quadrennial Defense Review being released by the Obama Administration is expected to cut the total number of F-35s being procured, and will also eliminate two carrier battle groups. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/09/qdr-likely-kills-two-carriers-efv/ I knew something like this was coming - although I actually thought that the Obama Administration would want to get all of the bailout bills and health care reform approved by Congress before they told everyone where the money was coming from.

A great find Gepard! That actually means a lot more to me than the reports from a journalist who doesn't have a shred of a connection inside the Israeli armed forces. So the French broke their own embargo . . . so French. The question is, did they do it before or after the Israelis obtained blueprints through Switzerland? And if the French supplied the airframe components, did they also supply the engine hardware? Or did Bet Shemesh (which later produced the J79)?

The Nesher uses the Atar engine - a French design. There was no US hardware in those airframes. Why do you want to find some grand conspiracy? Why not accept that the Israelis received the blueprints and manufactured the airframe and engines themselves? The Israelis definitely produced the J79 from blueprints for the later Kfir program. The Atar engine was certainly no more sophisticated than the J79 of the day (I'd argue that it was less so). Yes, I know. That's ALWAYS been the story that was told. The Israelis paid for the Mirage 5 before the embargo in 1967. Other than Tom Cooper's article, however, it was always put forward that the French paid the money back to the Israelis, and resold the original Mirage 5 airframes to another buyer. The Israelis had to obtain the blueprints through clandestine means to receive the airplanes. But that's not what the video that you quoted says. It says that a pilot, supposedly from Argentina's Air Force, saw "made in France" labels on the airplane. There is no air force that I know where the pilots service their own fighters. The view from the cockpit is going to be limited to the electronics and other gear in the cockpit - not the internals of the wing or fuselage. If you want to make a case for the Nesher airframe being "made in France" then you have to find someone who would have had access to the bulkheads or other internal features - not a pilot. Other than a single airframe flown for flight test purposes, the J79 was never used in the Nesher. The Nesher used the Atar engine - for which the Israelis received the blueprints from Switzerland. As the Israelis discovered in their flight test program, incorporating the J-79 required several modifications to the fuselage to provide adequate cooling for the hotter J-79 afterburner duct and nozzle. The eventual result of that flight test effort was the Kfir program. The bottom line is that other than Tom Cooper's article, written by someone with extensive ties to the Arab and Iranian armed forces and zero connections in Israel, I have yet to see anyone try to claim that the Nesher components were manufactured in France. It's not that I don't believe that the French would break their own embargo, but I simply haven't seen this claim made by a credible source.

While an interesting anecdote, it does not answer the question at hand. Argentina was black-listed by the US and UK after the Falklands War. As was already reported long ago, any of the electronics gear that had previously been supplied (through the Israelis) from Marconi Electronic Systems (UK) had to be replaced by equipment supplied by Thomson-CSF (later renamed Thales - France). The fact that you can find "made in France" hardware in today's cockpit is interesting - but it does not settle who made the airframe. In principal, it wouldn't surprise me that the French might announce an embargo and then secretly break it. What makes the Tom Cooper article so completely unbelievable is his insistence on US involvement. If the French wanted to break their own embargo, they would not have needed the US to help them deliver the parts, and the Israelis would not have needed the US to assemble them. The Israelis had been servicing the Mirage for nearly a decade. The US had zero experience supporting this airframe. Added to the fact is that this particular author - Tom Cooper - is best known for his books on the Arab and Iranian armed forces. You know, the same guys who brought us "Baghdad Bob"? These are Tom Cooper's sources. The fantasies that he has repeated from them in the past make his credibility more than suspect. What is a proven fact is that a Swiss engineer was caught red-handed, delivering Mirage blueprints to the Israelis - and served jail time for it. If someone wants to claim that the airframes were assembled from parts made in France and delivered to Israel (a possibility), they need to supply something other than suspect sources.

How much more unbelievable can this get? As if the United States needed to ship French aircraft to Israel. Why? Because the Mirage was so superior to the A-4 Skyhawks and F-4 Phantoms that they were already supplying to Israel? It's amazing what some people will believe. The Israelis produced the Nesher to get out from under the endless cycles of arms embargos that they had experienced with Europe. Israel's political leaders wanted an Israeli arms alternative that could not be cut off at the whim of Paris, London or Washington. So according to Tom Cooper, Alfred Frauenknecht - the Swiss engineer who supplied the blueprints for the Mirage to the Israelis - served 4 1/2 years in prison for no reason. I'm sure it was all just a Mossad plot. According to this line of reasoning, the all-powerful Mossad was able to fake Israeli production of the Mirage 5, fake having stolen the blueprints and sent a Swiss engineer to jail for no reason, but was unable to actually produce the airplane in Israel. Yeah, right. Cooper needs to leave the conspiracy theories to the UFO crowd.

I understand that Australia needed a stopgap measure to fill out their wings until the F-35 production ramps up. However, as Air Marshal Mark Binskin recently emphasized, this will be a one-time order. The Bug is not seen as being the long term solution to Australia's fighter-bomber needs. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/...ys-no-more.html

As many of us know, a total of 25 Kfir C1's were leased by the US Navy and USMC to serve as Aggressor aircraft between 1985 and 1989. The Navy aircraft wore air superiority gray and the USMC aircraft were flown in a multicolor camoflage. The aircraft were labeled as the F-21A in US service. Since the end of the Cold War, however, the US Navy and USAF have been gradually cutting back on the number of aircraft dedicated to Aggressor and Adversary squadrons, and private contractors have been asked to step in to fill some of the gaps in dissimilar air combat training being made available to US National Guard and NATO allied units. The aircraft that you saw were most likely flown by one such contractor: a company called ATAC (Airborne Tactical Advantage Company) which operates out of Newport News, Virginia. ATAC provides training and test platforms for the US Navy, US Air Force, and US Air National Guard. They reportedly fly six Kfir C7 and two Saab Draken fighters. Note that their aircraft are of the later, C7 vintage - not the C1 variety flown by the US Navy and USMC decades ago. http://www.atacusa.com/sections/operations.html ATAC is not the only company that has stepped in to provide air combat training opportunities that were once offered by the Navy and Air Force. Another private firm, ATSI (Advanced Training Systems International) offers similar training opportunities flying the A-4 Skyhawk. http://www.atsifightertraining.com/index.html

Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion. The difference is that mine is informed by direct experience. To provide some sense for how long it takes to manufacture a weapons system as complex as the Raptor, consider that if the US Congress decides to continue production of the F-22 for another year - into 2012 - the long lead time items that would go into those airplanes would need to be purchased this year - within the next 9 months. In other words, Congress would have to force the Pentagon to release the balance of funding that was reserved late last year, to extend the F-22 production line by another 20 aircraft. To date, the Pentagon has released sufficient funds for only another 4 aircraft (bringing the total production run from 183 to 187), withholding the balance: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...-unsettled.html Shut down the production line and scrap the tooling for those long lead time items, and you can multiply that lead time by a factor of two or more. The same can be said for the unit cost. Once the production line is terminated for the F-22, it will be closed for good. With regard to China, the two major issues that the US military faces in contingency planning for that region of the world are: The availability and security of forward bases of operation (such as Kadena); and The overwhelming numerical superiority that China is evolving towards. If you want to understand what this means in practical terms, I would recommend reviewing slides 10 and 42-50 of the Rand study that was broadcast over the internet last year: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewl...nd-air-pow.html

Once production is shut down - it is over. The tooling to produce the major fuselage components will be scrapped, and the cost of reconstructing all of the tooling - and then recertifying production processes - would ensure that no one ever thought of building it again. These are not automobiles. The technology that goes into the manufacturing processes behind these warplanes is of a different order than what people experience in everyday life. That is the reason that these weapons cost so much. As for whether or not Raptor production should continue, that really depends on whether or not you believe that the US will ever face an opponent that could contest the USAF and USN for air superiority. The Russians are planning to fly the prototype PAK-FA stealth fighter later this year - but it remains in doubt as to whether Russia can afford to build the airplane in any quantity. In terms of a likely scenario where the US could potentially be overwhelmed by an opponent with larger numbers of aircraft (and missiles), all of the talk keeps coming back to one subject: China, and the Taiwan Straits. Like Russia, China is also reportedly developing a stealth fighter (sometimes labeled as the J-XX). Unlike Russia, China has seen double-digit increases in its defense budget for every year in the past decade. Project that trend to 2020, keep in mind that the US can - at most - deploy only a third of its fighter force to any one theatre at a time, and ask yourself if you're feeling lucky.

The reality is that the F-22 has been targeted for termination by both Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wa...0,6323828.story and by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...8s3j-W8zeUUdpkg The USAF has very few friends in the Pentagon these days. With the US economy in a shambles, and a new President who has pledged to increase funding for social programs, deep cuts are inevitable. In the eyes of these Washington insiders, the F-22 was designed to fight a war against an enemy we no longer have. The possibility that the US might have to fight, or deter a far more capable opponent (in the form of a revitalized Russia or China's growing arsenal) doesn't concern them. They will not be in office when that happens. The only friends that the USAF has left are the Congressmen who have elements of the F-22 being produced in their home districts. If Congress had not earmarked funding for another 20 F-22's earlier this year, production would have halted at 183 fighters in 2009. Even now, with the Pentagon doling the funds out in small batches, the Air Force may only see 187 fighters - only 4 additional fighters out of the 20 approved by Congress. It's not looking good for the Raptor.

The F-22 line is on the verge of being shut down - permanently. Congress approved funding for one more year's production of the F-22 (20 fighters worth), but the Pentagon (which wants to kill the airplane) has been doling the funding out in small batches - driving the unit cost up even further and ensuring that the next President will approve their plans to terminate the program. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...-unsettled.html With so little time remaining, there really is not an opportunity to develop an export version of the F-22. As of right now, the F-22 production line will be shut down for good in 2009 - unless Congress intervenes to force the Pentagon's hand. Lockheed and the Pentagon are already haggling over the contract termination costs for shutting down the production line. Sorry guys, it looks like this one is over.

For the benefit of anyone who hadn't already heard, China's Zhuhai Air Show was kicked off today - and will be running from 4th thru 9th of November. Among other things, this show marks the air show debut of China's J-10 fighter: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-10...ent_7134832.htm http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=378...c=AIR&s=TOP There have already been at least a couple of videos released: http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNTEyMDE4MDQ=.html?full=true . . . and more than a few photos: http://i37.tinypic.com/307lymx.jpg http://i33.tinypic.com/23ihukn.jpg http://i37.tinypic.com/1qqyrm.jpg http://i38.tinypic.com/5yzztu.jpg http://i38.tinypic.com/j9yqyw.jpg http://i38.tinypic.com/29ve88j.jpg http://i35.tinypic.com/250hw80.jpg http://i38.tinypic.com/1hz4av.jpg http://i35.tinypic.com/2115ce9.jpg http://i35.tinypic.com/s28d2d.jpg http://i34.tinypic.com/2wbrwr9.jpg http://i38.tinypic.com/2j3rxi0.jpg http://i38.tinypic.com/vcvxjc.jpg http://i35.tinypic.com/71ia9k.jpg Hopefully we'll get to see a closer look at this airplane. Pakistan is currently in line to buy a batch of these. China will probably be rolling out their sales presentation for the benefit of other prospective buyers for the first time.

Another interesting piece of journalism to come out of this Air Show: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewl...-chinas-j1.html The author of this particular article (posted on Flight International's website) is a Russian-based journalist, with contacts within the Russian aerospace industry (which supplied technical support and engines for the J-10). It would appear that the Russians have now concluded (belatedly) that they have supplied China with the means to close much of the gap between their own, latest technology fighters and the 1960s classics that the Chinese were still building a little more than a decade ago.

Word of warning: Once released on the web, forever released on the web. There is a duplicate copy of this video already available on YouTube. I've seen other copies of these videos available on Indian websites, and both Aviation Week and Flight International already have commentaries posted on the video on their respective websites. This genie isn't going back in the bottle.

Probably for the same reasons that the Mirage 2000 and Rafale have a fixed probe. A retractable probe adds weight - and the performance specs for the airplane were probably written in such a way that the manufacturer wasn't required to include the probe when demonstrating contractual requirements.

Just a quick noted on this year's Zhuhai Air Show. The show is scheduled to run from Nov 4-9 - and will mark the first air show appearance of China's J-10 fighter (being marketed overseas as the F-10). Hopefully some details on this and other Chinese weapons projects emerge from this year's trade literature: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-10...ent_7134832.htm http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=378...c=AIR&s=TOP

The missile in the center is a PL-12 (or SD-10 in its export version) - which is intended to be the Chinese counterpart to the AIM-120. The active radar seeker was reportedly developed with Russian assistance. There should be no surprise here. Photos of the PL-12 are pretty common. The missile has been in active duty service for some time. The smaller missiles to either side are more interesting. This photograph first circulated back in April of this year. The missiles bear an uncanny resemblence to South Africa's R-Darter radar guided missile. It's been known for some time that South Africa was supplying technical assistance to China, and China's PL-ASR (later relabeled as the PL-13) is based heavily on South Africa's A-Darter short range, heat seeking missile. The missiles in this photo might eventually be designated as the PL-14 - that's just speculation. For now, however, this is a developmental weapon. The airplane depicted in the picture appears to be a JH-7 (based on the wingtip rail geometry). I'd stay tuned on this subject. China's Zhuhai Air Show is scheduled in two weeks, so you will probably be catching a glimpse of a lot of new technology in short order.

No one has withdrawn from the F-35 program. The Italians are withdrawing from the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) phase of development, whereby they would have received two F-35s from the third lot of Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft. They will probably also cancel their purchase of another two fighters from the fourth lot of LRIP aircraft. In other words, the Italians have announced that they will delay purchase of the F-35 until after the flight test program is complete, and the airplane has entered full rate production (with full combat capability). http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...-programme.html I also have seen the claims that the UK is contemplating withdrawing from the F-35 program. So far, we have only seen these claims appear in one British newspaper - leading me to question whether this is just another attempt at sensationalism on the part of a few journalists hoping to boost newsprint sales: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837746.ece The UK fought long and hard to obtain special priveleges under the F-35 program. They are the only JSF partner who has been guaranteed technology access to maintain all of the airplane's components - including its stealth features. Everyone else (including the Israelis) will have to send hardware back to the US for replacement or repair. The UK also has a much larger share in the manufacturing contract, with Rolls Royce supplying the lift fan for all F-35B fighters, as well as 40-percent of the F136 "alternative engine" still under development. I would not be surprised if the UK, like Italy, withdrew from the Low Rate Initial Production phase of the program as a cost-cutting measure. However, there is no other stealth strike fighter on the drawing board in the US or Europe. Much less one with STOVL capability. The F-35 is pretty much the only game in town, and we should expect to see a UK purchase once the airplane reaches full rate production in 2013. Meanwhile, the US Air Force has finally announced a plan to bridge funding gaps for full rate F-35 production, by retiring some 300 of its older model F-15 and F-16 airframes ahead of their original stand-down date. The retired USAF fighters could also be refurbished and resold to provide additional funding in support of future F-35 procurement needs. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...lster-f-35.html As for the Israeli fighter buy, the Israeli air force has been planning to purchase the F-35 in lots of 25 fighters per purchase for sometime. The Israelis might be able to take delivery as soon as 2013, although 2014 is the more likely initial delivery date. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...ifications.html http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...f-35-fleet.html The Israelis have also reserved the right to purchase the F-35B during future production buys - an option that is of questionable merit. Adding the lift fan robs both fuel and payload space. If the Israelis are primarily concerned about long-range threats such as Iran, it makes little sense to buy a version with less range. The "large combat ships" are expected to be versions of the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ships. Purchase of the vessels is being explored as a "low cost" route to provide the Israeli navy with a larger, longer range capability. These vessels are designed to carry up to two helicopters - hardly an aircraft carrier. And of course, the rest of the Israeli armed forces (army and air force) have not agreed to delegate the necessary funds to the Israeli navy. The real central issue for Isreali negotiators will be the extent of Israeli content in the avionics suite of the airplanes delivered to Israel. The Israeli air force will want to ensure that Israeli weapons can be integrated with the fighter, and that the airplane can be fitted with Israeli avionics packages that will provide it with an edge over any F-35 fighters that might be flown by any opposing air force in decades to come. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...or-foreign.html http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...int-strike.html

The engine that the Chinese developed for their Flanker knock-off was not a duplicate of the Russian AL-31F that powers the Flanker. It was a new engine, that used the commercial CFM-56 core as its starting point. All accounts that I have seen suggest that the Chinese engine (the WS-10A) is underpowered compared to the Russian alternative. Reverse engineering a jet engine is far more difficult than reverse engineering the airframe. The same can be said for designing a new engine from scratch. Even starting from a widely available and well known core such as that provided by the CFM-56, the Chinese would have had difficulty matching the extremely tight tolerances, and specialized material processing that goes into that engine. Engine technology, and not airframe technology, remains China's achille's heal.

I know that as of 2002, Rolls Royce was still shipping completed engines to China, not just parts. They may have tranistioned to shipping kits since then. Most nations that "license manufacture" US, UK, or other Western hardware actually produce very few of the components that go into that aircraft or engine. Their "license" to manufacture is usually just a "license" to assemble. You are correct about the P&W engines, however. China purchased the engines from P&W's Canada division, ostensibly for a civilian helicopter application. The engines were later diverted to the WZ-10 military helicopter program.

Just what US-origin technology do you think the Israelis sold to China? You've been reading too many editorials by people who don't know any better - and who tend to believe that anything that Israel develops for itself must automaticly belong to the US. The Phalcon AWACS system (which the Israelis never delivered) was Israeli developed, not US. Its AESA radar is at least two generations removed from the E-2 Hawkeyes that were delivered to Israel back in the 1970s. The Israelis, as some of us recall, had to develop the Phalcon on their own. There was no US equivalent available at the time. The aerodynamic design of the Lavi, as well as the structural design of that airframe were performed by Israel Aircraft Industries, not some US firm. The Israelis could (and did) provide technical assistance to China based on their Lavi experience, without having to transfer any US-developed components. The US does not have a monopoly on airframe design experience. The Harpy drone was developed in Israel. It has no US equivalent, and contains no US technology. The only rumored technology transfer that I have yet seen Israel accused of, that involved US-origin hardware, was the mis-reported transfer of Patriot missile technology - a rumor that made the rounds of Washington more than a decade ago. A US Defense Department team dispatched to Israel to investigate this rumor back in March 1992 reported that there was "no evidence of an unauthorized transfer" Put simply, the US expects that because it supplies considerable military assistance to Israel, it should have veto authority over all Israeli arms exports, regardless of whether they involve US technology or not. During the early and mid 1990s, the US was lax with regard to the transfer of technology to China. US firms sold "dual use" technology that they had no export license for, and Israel and the UK competed openly to supply AWACS to China - while the US failed to protest the competition. It was not until the late 1990s that the US reversed its policy and insisted that Israel cancel ALL military cooperation with China - including existing contracts. The Israelis had little choice but to comply, and the Phalcon contract was cancelled. After considerable US pressure, the Israelis also cancelled a previously signed contract to supply spares and technical support for the Harpy drones that they had already delivered. The US of course has no such influence over its allies elsewhere. The UK continues to sell Spey engines to equip China's JH-7 fighter-bomber, and Italy continued to cooperate with China in the development of the WZ-10 helicopter. The US exercises a degree of influence over Israel that it does not hold over anyone else. With regard as to whether the US would sell Israel the F-22, that very much depends on whether the US believes that the Israelis will have to go downtown over Tehran. The F-22 would be invaluable, both in providing air cover, and to target Iranian SAM sites in support of a larger strike package. Particularly if paired with the F-35 strike fighter, the F-22 would provide a lethal combination. US arms sales to Israel have always been a strategic investment, and if it appears likely that diplomacy with Iran is going to fail, there are some in the US who might prefer to have a proxy that can eliminate the Iranian nuclear sites rather than having to do the dirty work on their own.

With the exception of the last episode - which contains a lot of speculation and subjective opinion - I have also enjoyed most of the series. The producers tend to do well when they have actual, historical dogfights to retell, and can interview the pilots who took part in them. Many of the pilots that the interview are aviators that I had heard of and read about prior to seeing the series. I was also familiar with some of the historians that they interviewed. Overall, a good series to own.