Saudi Arabia buys 72 Eurofighters

[stevectaylor]

Saudi Arabia is to buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoons from the UK, in a deal that could be worth more than £6bn.

More... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/business/5262120.stm)

[veerar]

Saudi Arabia is to buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoons from the UK, in a deal that could be worth more than £6bn.

More... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/business/5262120.stm)
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2321759,00.html
As per the above link,Saudi Arabia is the biggest arms puchaser from US too,because of rise in the price of OIL.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_40a.html
Saudi Arabia has greater ambitions,than merely possessing some high-tech warplanes and other gadgetry.
There are lingering doubts that she is having an ongoing nuclear weapons programme,with the help of Pakistan,with whom she has a special relationship.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/saudi/index.html
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031021-112804-8451r.htm
Hence this arms deal eventhough a good one for Britian,from business point of view,seems like purchase of some toys,for the Saudis,who do not know what to do with their petrodollars or is it pounds?!

[Bart Fishermans]

I wish they would give the £6bn to the poor. I can imagine a lot of people are going to go to Hell . When is all this madness going to stop.

[Darth_Tanner]

Where do you think tax payers money goes to at the moment?

I read in my paper toda that those plains that they are buying will be made up from the production run that we were going to be issueing to the RAF, so the Saudis will get our fighters before us.

[von-Scharnhorst]

I read in my paper toda that those plains that they are buying will be made up from the production run that we were going to be issueing to the RAF, so the Saudis will get our fighters before us.
Huh??? The Luftwaffe have been operating a squadron of these for 12 months now. Britain still hasn't got them? :confused:

By the way, the same as happened with the Tornado. The U.S beat the shit out of them with OLD VERSION F-16's in exersises in the States. (Except it was 1950's Phantoms that beat the Tornado. Phantoms so old that the day after the exersise, they were broken up as scrap).

The Dutch, Norwegians, Italians, Swiss, Japanese, Taiwanese and Belgians had the right idea. They saved BILLIONS, and bought the latest version F-16's and F-18's.

[Darth_Tanner]

The euro-fighter is better than either F-16's and F-18's though, and are you sure about the Phantom beating a Torando, those things were crap against Vietnam, they didn't even have guns.

[von-Scharnhorst]

F-16 v Euro fighter. The exercises in the U.S this and last year show the Euro fighter constantly getting beaten. As to stealth, they are no more advanced than the French 1980's Mirage. True niether is the F-16. But it makes no pretence at being "The most advanced fighter" in the world. The Eurofighter DOES.

Phantoms with no guns??? Two under wing cannon pods, one, or two, depending on the version, nose cannons, up to eight side winder missiles plus bombs in the Ground attack roll role. 10 tons of weaponary.

Phantoms are still used by the Luftwaffe and the Israeli air force. They are STILL beating the shit out of Tornados at every gunex and tiger meet.

It is not for nothing, that the U.S, Canadian and Australian air forces in Gulf 1, Bosnia, and now in Afgahnistan and Irak, refuse to fly joint missions with Tornado equiped air forces. (Germany, France, U.K, Italy, Oman and Saudi).

They are to slow, to noisy, are about as stealthy as a Wimpey skip, and the bomb aiming technology needs a second plane for lighting up the target with radar, so the Tornado can follow the tractor. (Radar, guiding beam). The turning circle is nearly double that of an first generation F-16, and they will not say how much larger than an F-18. Suffice to say the reason for the U.S changing from F-16 to F-18, is that it is more manouverable.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Na. O.K, you were right about the guns. But that was solved very early on. WELL before the Tornado was even a "twinkle in the eye".

I do not like Wikipedia, but;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-4_Phantom_II

The F-4's biggest weakness was its lack of a cannon. Because contemporary doctrine held that that turning combat would be impossible at supersonic speeds, no effort was made to teach pilots air combat maneuvering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_combat_maneuvering). In reality, engagements quickly became subsonic; moreover, early missiles were inaccurate and unreliable. To compound the problem, rules of engagement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement) in Vietnam precluded long-range missile attacks. Many pilots found themselves on the tail of an enemy aircraft but too close to fire short-range Falcons or Sidewinders. It did not take long for USAF F-4Cs to begin carrying SUU-16 or SUU-23 external gunpods containing a 20-millimeter M61 Vulcan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan) Gatling cannon. Some Marine aircraft carried two pods for strafing. Combat showed the externally mounted cannon to be inaccurate, yet far more cost-effective than missiles. The lack of cannon was definitively addressed with the F-4E.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-4_Phantom_II#_note-Higham_1978)

[Darth_Tanner]

Well I'm glad we spent so much of our defence budget on these jets instead of armour for our troops or working jeeps.

why are the Saudis buying the things? surely they have access to the best the US can offer

[von-Scharnhorst]

I think there is a "residual contract" due to the fact they cancelled the Tornado deal before taking delivery of the full batch.

[WESTERN RANGER]

Saudi is buying 72 of the things??? with this many,they just might manage about 3 or 4 airworthy ones from the entire fleet.Tornado was a disaster,The
plane it was meant to scratch with the Sukyoi [fencer] was far better.Interdic
tion they did plenty of that crashing on the airfields not pod bombing them as
intended.

[Cookie PArker]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2321759,00.html
As per the above link,Saudi Arabia is the biggest arms puchaser from US too,because of rise in the price of OIL.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_40a.html
Saudi Arabia has greater ambitions,than merely possessing some high-tech warplanes and other gadgetry.
There are lingering doubts that she is having an ongoing nuclear weapons programme,with the help of Pakistan,with whom she has a special relationship.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/saudi/index.html
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031021-112804-8451r.htm
Hence this arms deal eventhough a good one for Britian,from business point of view,seems like purchase of some toys,for the Saudis,who do not know what to do with their petrodollars or is it pounds?!



Now we all know Bush family has had decades of business dealings with the self-appointed royal family and the bin Ladens of the Saudi Arabia...and that he definitely has no heart felt loyalties to the US....so is this a way of taking over Iran, as well? Is Saudi Arabia going to join the attack against Iran with these purchases of all this military hardward?

[WESTERN RANGER]

I was once watching a film clip of former president G,H,W,BUSH bowing down
before the Saudi King camel shit kicker.Bush was so overcome by this tent trash and to be in it's presence must have been very nice for him.These ampu
~tators of poor peoples lives must be the worst in this world.I remember thinking that their fabulous wealth must be a very strong draw,for the former
most powerfull man in the world to kiss their arses like he did.What a sickening
spectacle,the Bush dynasty also made damned sure the Bin Laden family exit
~ed the U.S.the same day after 9/11.Like i have mentioned before though,the
Saudi king pig sucker claims to this very day that the W.T.C.was dropped by
the Israelis and the Americans,why does he keep saying this?

[janahitwadi]

Why should Saudi need fighter crafts? Who is her enemy? Why are she spending on war armour? These questions need answers.

Mr. Bart Fishermans is right. The money could have been used for educating her population, population in neighbouring countries.

[von-Scharnhorst]

In an area that threatens to go to war over a few cartoons, then you need to be sure you are safe.

It is no use waiting until you are attacked to start building an airforce or army. You must be ready.

Britain found that out in 1939.

[WESTERN RANGER]

Why do the Saudis want to buy the Typhoons?or for that matter why do they
buy millatary hardwear at all.With the possible exception of small arms to keep
their population down on it's knees.After all the Americans have looked after
them for decades.What with the sixth fleet in the Med,also the Part of the seventh fleet which cruises the Pacific/Indian oceans.Air bases etc help is very close at hand.They might be breaking of the special relationship with the
U.S.A.and getting their protection from as was mentioned Pakistan,which lets
face it would cause them a lot less trouble with their own Millitants.Iran still
has an old score to settle with them for them giving Iraq led by Saddam billions during the first gulf war,this cost the Iranians one million dead and maimed.Revenge is oh so sweet.

[janahitwadi]

Financially 'Yes' However they have neither training nor infrastructure. Simply buying new equipment would not solve the problem. They should either buy protection or start from scratch.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Financially 'Yes' However they have neither training nor infrastructure.
Actuly the Saudi air force is rather bloody good. And do not forget that most of their army officers are Sandhurst trained. As to troop capability..... they have never really been tried, but they do O.K on exercise.

Not as good as the Sihks and Guhrkas, but then, who is?

[janahitwadi]

Actuly the Saudi air force is rather bloody good. And do not forget that most of their army officers are Sandhurst trained. As to troop capability..... they have never really been tried, but they do O.K on exercise. Not as good as the Sihks and Guhrkas, but then, who is?
Yes the pilots are found good in exercises. What about support? Supporting system needs to be developed and it would be from scratch. The major question is with whom they will fight? I don't see any one who would attack Saudi Arabia.

[von-Scharnhorst]

The major question is with whom they will fight? I don't see any one who would attack Saudi Arabia.
Possibly not at the moment. But the wholöe area are as nutty as bloody fruit cakes. You don't know WHEN one of these countrys is, Iran style, going to fall to revolution.

Once that happens. it is ANY ones guess who will be attacking who.

It is to late to then start trying to build up an efficient army and air force. You must have it in place ready.

[kieronantony]

Britain found that out in 1939.

I can see where you're coming from Von-Sharnhorst but we were actually rearming from 1937 onwards, although this however was no match to Hitler's Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe, which had been rearming from around 1934 onwards. And the Saudis buying euro-fighters from us, who cares, 72 is'nt that much, and to who they are arming themselves against, I would suspect one of two things, either; they are scared of Israel, and quite frankly who wouldn't be they have on of the most technologicaly advanced militaries in the world, another thing could be they wish to delve into the realms of nuclear activity and with what's going on in Iran, they should arm themselves up to shoulders.

[von-Scharnhorst]

they are scared of Israel, and quite frankly who wouldn't be they have on of the most technologicaly advanced militaries in the world,
Which was beaten by an unruly gang of Lebenese chav scum just recently.

You can have the best, biggest army in the world. But if your troops are crap, you may as well sell all your equipment and go in for something slightly less dangerous like, combat basket weaving, or something.

[Crowly]

72 Eurofighters isn't a lot?!

Uhm, as far as I know, that's one of the largest purchases of Eurofighters in the world, more than Spain or Austria have ordered.

Plus, the Eurofighter is a modern fighter-bomber, with long range, exceptional technologies etc etc.

You could probably turn a country as small as Israel into a wasteland with 72.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Bollocks. They are as crap as the Tornadoes they are replacing.

They have the same "stealth signature" as 1970's Dassault Mirage, and 1970's/80's F-16's.

They can not fly from Berlin to Athens withjout re-fuel.

Talking to pilots, they fly like a brick, and can not out turn F-16's, let allone F-18's and F-22's. The Mig 29 (Early 80's Soviet technology), can beat them to a pulp on any exercise.

They carry fewer bombs than a 1950's designed Phantom.

The European people have been sold a piece of shite wrapped up as a Rollex.

[Crowly]

You're wrong.

In combat scenarios 1 eurofighter can take out 2 F-15E's at once.
(http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=673262005)

Their performance is favourable compared to all bar the F-22 raptor.
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/03/mil-050322-afpn02.htm)

Blah blah, I hate tech specs, but suffice to say the Eurofighter could wrap most planes up and shoot them into the sun.

[von-Scharnhorst]

The fact remains that in Simulated battle conditions, IE Exercises, They have lost against F-4 Phantoms.

In combat scenarios 1 eurofighter can take out 2 F-15E's at once. I should bloody hope so. The F-15 was made to replace the Phantom in the 70's. This is NOT a browny point for the Euro fighter.

How many times did the F-15's win?
suffice to say the Eurofighter could wrap most planes up and shoot them into the sun. Except they can't. Not in real life. They look good on paper. But in actual combat they get the shit ripped out of them by virtualy ALL the other aircraft in service.

Not every time, but the fact that the supossed LATEST technology in Fighter aircraft is taken out by 1950's kit AT ALL, means SOMETHING is wrong.

The "Thyphoon" as they are now calling it, was designed to take over from the Tornado in European air forces. It was designed in the LATE 70's early 80's!! It was MEANT to have been delivered in 1990. IT IS STILL NOT FULLY OPPERATIONAL.

[kieronantony]

Which was beaten by an unruly gang of Lebenese chav scum just recently.

You can have the best, biggest army in the world. But if your troops are crap, you may as well sell all your equipment and go in for something slightly less dangerous like, combat basket weaving, or something.

In light to the first paragraph of your reply, the Isrealies suffered heavy casualties but they didn't get beaten, they did slowly advance into Lebanon as far north as the Latani river, and lets not forget that Hizbullah were financed by Iran, as far as I know.

And about the second part, well I think the Americans found out that in Vietnam lol :p

[kieronantony]

72 Eurofighters isn't a lot?!

Uhm, as far as I know, that's one of the largest purchases of Eurofighters in the world, more than Spain or Austria have ordered.

Plus, the Eurofighter is a modern fighter-bomber, with long range, exceptional technologies etc etc.

You could probably turn a country as small as Israel into a wasteland with 72.

When I said that isn't alot I didn't mean thier capabilities, and just because the Spanish & the Austrians haven't ordered that many still doesn't make it a larger number, but anyway what I meant was that alot of countries have airforces larger than 72 planes, so when in a warzone I don't think 72 is that many, especially seeing that in world war 2, during the battle of Britain we lost more than triple that in one week of fighting.

[WESTERN RANGER]

As Von Scharnhorst wrote the eurofighter is a load of pie on the ground.Simp
~ly because they claim this or that doesn't mean it's "true".These airframes
that's if you can find a passed for combat one!!! anywhere in the world.Would
never in a million years outfight a F15 with a battle ready pilot.The yanks in
WW2 had their turkey shoot that is what this would be.This aircraft had some
fine ideas although they are no nearer readyness than the bottom of the ocean.Too many countries too many things to go wrong.War planes designed
by commitee end up being neither one thing or the other the Eurofighter is typical of this shitty compromised design structure.I would have thought the
Thud or Tornado to give it the real name still doesn't work right,the nose radar never has they fly around with concrete instead of ground hugging infa
~red.The jaguar cuoldn't take off without a refuel and it's engines were underpowerd,though in a dogfight i would rather be in the Jaguar than the thud.Thud came from the Thunderchief a Vietnam era Airplane which crashed
more than normal,then the Tornado came along!!!!The desert of Iraq was strewn with them,the American pilots praised our lads guts but they said that
they themselves wouldn't take the thing for a test flight!!

[von-Scharnhorst]

As the biggest aircraft carriers only carry twenty fighters, that means that Saudi has ordered about 3 and 2/3 air craft carriers worth. Not a lot at all to defend 2 1/4 million Km².

Also as to the need, look at who the neigbours are; Yemen in the South, Irak to the North and Iran, just accross the Persian gulf. Accross the red sea, Kassala, Eritrea and Sudan. NOT what I would call a "secure geographical location".

[WESTERN RANGER]

The only country which can afford Carriers is the U.S.Their Nimitz class ships can remain on station for years thirteen in fact without refuel.The air wing on
the Nimitz it's self is eighty eight planes.The latest ship the Ronald Reagan has
room for another twenty planes mainly F18s the updated version.The venerable
F14 having been cascaded to A.N,G, units country wide.The Royal Navy with it's
through deck Cruiser platforms are by their size very limited.Also the aircraft like the Sea Harrier are overdue replacement.The latest Carriers for the Royal
Navy at least are true Carriers even if they are built in France,i don't know the exact displacement but these ships are like the old Ark Royal and the Hermes fifty thousand tons or there abouts.Along with the Helo landing assault ship i hope the Navy at last has some decent ships and a lot more room.

[Crowly]

Please can you tidy up your posts a little western ranger? I can't understand them.

[von-Scharnhorst]

The only country which can afford Carriers is the U.S.
BOLLOCKS!

The British have three (three on order as replacements),
Brazil (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/summary.htm#br)
Chile (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/summary.htm#ch)
China (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/summary.htm#prc)
France (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/summary.htm#fr)
India (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/summary.htm#in)
Italy (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/summary.htm#it)
Japan (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/summary.htm#ja)
Peru (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/summary.htm#pe)
Russia (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/summary.htm#ru)
Spain (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/summary.htm#sp)
Thailand (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/summary.htm#th)
United States of America (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/summary.htm#us)

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/summary.htm

All have air craft carriers as defined by the U.S Navy, and NATO.

[WESTERN RANGER]

crowly/ You are quite right and i will from now on tidy up the texts.
Von Scharnhorst,yes there are plenty of other Carriers on the high seas,i think i
have been overdoing the news feeds a bit.I started to get the idea that unless
it was American it was worthless.I have been overdoing the FOX news,i got the
idea that back in 45 when our sad ASSES were saved we had been cave dwelle
~rs.I am going straight to Amerdetox to restore objectivity.Sorry bout that pesky lapse into uncle Sam mania.:)

[Crowly]

Technically, our 'sad asses' were saved in 1942.

Although if you actually study the history of the affair, it seems far more likely that Britain wouldn't have fallen, since the RAF had overcome the Luftwaffe and Operation: Sealion was now totally unworkable.

In my opinion without the US support Germany was still on the course for defeat, since released Soviet documents show that Stalin had planned to attack Germany in 1943 anyway, operation: Barbarossa only having taken them by surprise.

It is a fallacy that America won WWII, if the credit is to go to anyone, the credit must go to the USSR, as they fought over 75% of the wermacht troops on the eastern front, whereas the US merely bulked out allied armies

[von-Scharnhorst]

The RAF did NOT overcome the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffes squadrons that were flagged for the "Battle of Britain" were split up and were moved East to join the attack on Russia, North to cover the invasion of Norway, and down to the Med for the war in Africa.

It was only the over extention of the Luftwaffe by Hitler, and the battle of the Atlantic, after the U.S joined in, that saved Britains ass.

[Crowly]

No.

Although I realise I am entering dangerous ground debating this with a person with a degree in military history, I did history for a bit at university and from what I know Hitler over extended his bombing campaign in Britain, forcing his bombers to act without adequate fighter support, which lead to unprecedented losses and let the RAF build back up to it's neccessary strength.

By the time of America's joining the war, hopes for invading Britain were long dashed.

[von-Scharnhorst]

I know Hitler over extended his bombing campaign in Britain, forcing his bombers to act without adequate fighter support,
The REASON he was short on bombers was that to many had been sent to other theaters. The same with the fighters.

As far as the U.S involvement goes, I meant that regarding to the Battle of the Atlantic, not the "battle of Britain", allthough there were quite a few U.S volunteers in the RAF, at the time.

The US Navy handed over 50 destroyers to the British in May 41. But on the 01/02/41, had allready started their own air patrols to protect convoys to and from U.K.

My main point of debate on this, is "that the Battle of Britain, in the over all run of the war, was not the make and brake battle it is portrayed to be".

Remember, if "Sealion" (invasion of Britain), had gone ahead, the Luftwaffe, due to Göring, were NOT allowed to work with the Navy.

The landing craft that were ear marked for Sealion, were not sea worthy for the Channel. The Royal Navy would have made, not just mince meat, but ground gruel, out of the crossing armada. They MAY have lost a few ships to air attack, but it would NOT have helped the invasion fleet.

On the 15/09/40, in a German raid, the RAF lost 54 aircraft, giving the Germans air superiorrity.

Then, for some reason the attacks virtualy stopped. (You will remember the scene from the end of the film "Battle of Britain", the first day without a scramble?)

The plans for Sealion were abandoned by Hitler on 12/10/40. In preparation for the attack on Russia. BUT he forgot to tell any one.

Another reason the Germans did not win the BoB, was the raids on London. This, not an actual part of the BoB opperations plan, diverted bombers, and the fighters needed for cover, from the main task of bombing airfields and aircraft factorys.

IF Hitler had stuck to the plan, IF he had not lost interest in sealion, which meant he could now withdraw the Luftwaffe, then the BoB was within days of being a total loss to the British.

However the battle of the Atlantic had begun literaly on the first day of the war, and was still ongoing on Germanys surrender in 1945.

In 1940/41 and into 42, the battle was WON by the Germans, except for the "clearing up". The Germans had reached the target of sinking 10% more ships than could be rebuilt or repaired per month. (The target was actualy surpased, the actual figure ABOVE rebuild/repair rate was 15 to 29%).

It was only the entry of the U.S navy in full force that retrieved the situation.

If the battle of the Atlantic had have been lost, then the airforce could have won as much as they wanted over the channel, because there would be no supplys arriving. ALL sea routs to and from Britain were under German control, No Canadians, ANZACS, South Africans, Indians. NO resupply of the USSR, no oil coming from ANY WHERE. No invassion of Italy, No ressuply to the eighth army, hence Africa, and the oil would have been lost, IF they could have transported it any way.

So, as you see, in the run of things, the battle of Britain was, in theory lost, and the Battle of the Atlantic was by far the most important of the two any way.

[Crowly]

'Even if this island or a large part of it, which I do not for a moment believe is possible, were subjugated by the enemy, Britains empire beyond the seas, armed and supplied by her navies, will continue the fight...'

-Churchill.

The problem with what if's is they're too easy to swing with either figures. If hitler hadn't screwed up, yes. If Britain had layed the smackdown in 1937, no. etc etc.

Not a cop out, but a genuine just 'I disagree.'