USAF Tanker competition: CANCELLED

[Ma Deuce]

After just reading how old the newest KC-135 airframe is, does anyone know how old the newest Boeing 720 is?

I'm pretty sure the last 720 airframe was built in 1979. As for the KC-135, Globalsecurity has a section on their anticipated airframe lives, and how much they have left.

The Air Force projected that E and R models have lifetime flying hours limits of 36,000 and 39,000 hours, respectively. According to the Air Force, only a few KC-135s would reach these limits before 2040, but at that time some of the aircraft would be about 80 years old. The Air Force estimates that their current fleet of KC-135s have between 12,000 to 14,000 flying hours on them-only 33 percent of the lifetime flying hour limit and no KC-135E's will meet the limit until 2040. Flying hours for the KC-135s averaged about 300 hours per year between 1995 and September 2001. Since then, utilization is averaging about 435 hours per year.

Only six KC-135s would need to be retired by 2040 because they would exceed their airframe life. According to 1996 letter from the defense secretary's office, the planes still had 35 years left in them.

According to the Air Force, the Mission Capable Rate for KC-135 tankers is 81 percent-the highest in the Air Force inventory. For comparison purposes, the KC-10 fleet is entirely in the active component, and the 59 KC-10s had an average mission capable rate during the same period of 81.2 percent. The B-2 Mission Capable Rate by comparison was 39 percent.

The March 2004 Defense Science Board Task Force Report on Aerial Refueling Requirements found that "Usage, which induces material fatigue, is not the driving problem. Total flying hours are relatively low for the KC-135s: the current airframe average is about 17,000 hours. Fatigue life is estimated to be 36,000 hours for the E, 39,000 hours for the R. Cycles are commensurately low on average (3800 for the R and 4500 for the E). Thus, the airframes should be capable to the year 2040 based on current usage rates."

A 2005 Air Force study [KC-135 Assessment Report. Air Force Fleet Viability Board. Wright-Patterson AFB. September 2005] estimated, with numerous caveats, that KC-135E aircraft upgraded to the “R” configuration would remain viable until 2030. The "Air Force Fleet Viability Board, KC-135 Assessment Report" cautioned that, before retiring KC-135s, the Air Force needs to conduct destructive testing so it can proceed on an informed basis. However, the Air Force has not complied with that recommendation.

The E-model economic service life is markedly different because of the difference in age and technology of some of its major components, most notably the engines. The basic airframe should, in theory, last as long as the R-model, but the age of the engines points to the likelihood that upkeep could become expensive (in terms of parts and maintenance man-hours). The TF-33 (E-model) engines were previously used but refurbished to an expected 6,000 hour service life. At current use rates, the TF-33 began to need another major overhaul around the turn of the century. Additionally, since the TF-33 does not meet FAA Stage III noise requirements for the year 2000, more time and money must be expended to ensure compliance.

[Sea Skimmer]

Don't confuse airframe age to airframe hours. The B-52 and the KC-135 are relatively young due to their SAC days not flying. The C-17s on the other hand, most less than twenty years old, are getting the shit kicked out of them. They'll be in the bone yards before the last of the 135s.

Airframe age matters very much for corrosion though, which seems to be the big fear with the KC-135 fleet. They’ve already had a lot of corrosion problems, which is what forced the replacement of certain engine pylons, and while for now the problem is in hand it could easily get out of control in the next 30 years. This is pretty unknown territory continuing to fly large jet warplanes for this long.

[Thanas]

Have you flown in an Airbus? Christ, it feels like there's just enough plane to get you to your destination before something falls off. Brand new, the suckers creak, squeak and shake. Next time you're in an Airbus in turbulence, take a good look at the overhead luggage compartments. Then, when you're in turbulence on a good old Boeing 757, take a look at the overhead luggage compartments. See the difference? Oh yeah, the A310 wallows like a fucking pig in turbulence that a 757 punches through.

The Airbus may be a newer design, but I'm not convinced it's a better design. Hell, Airbus is the reason I avoid JetBlue. I'd rather see our uniformed guys and gals in a Boeing that will undoubtedly be kept in service far longer than currently planned. B-52s anyone? They're even older than KC-135s.

I am sorry, is there an argument in there or are you just too busy fellating your local Boeing rep?

Then why have a competition in the first place?

Fall-out from the scandal which resulted from the attempt to lease tankers. It's a political farce driven by the need to make it look competitive while there's not much actual desire to buy Airbus.

Then why let Airbus win in the first place? No, it seems to me as if there was enough will to buy the superior product and then Boeing had some strings pulled. It is also not very smart to waste what little goodwill the US has left by giving Europe the impression that they are being screwed with. Heck, it is not like it has been suddenly discovered that the Airbus product sucks.

[Sidewinder]

No, it seems to me as if there was enough will to buy the superior product and then Boeing had some strings pulled. It is also not very smart to waste what little goodwill the US has left by giving Europe the impression that they are being screwed with. Heck, it is not like it has been suddenly discovered that the Airbus product sucks.

When the GAO faulted the Air Force's handling of the KC-X competition this year, I got the impression the generals were thinking, "Fuck those cheating, bribing scumbags at Boeing for trying to swindle the Air Force out of billions of dollars with that KC-767 lease! Fuck, just give the contract to anyone who's not Boeing! That'll teach them!" and that was one reason Airbus won.

[Stormbringer]

Fall-out from the scandal which resulted from the attempt to lease tankers. It's a political farce driven by the need to make it look competitive while there's not much actual desire to buy Airbus.

Then why let Airbus win in the first place? No, it seems to me as if there was enough will to buy the superior product and then Boeing had some strings pulled.

Frankly, the politics of this are screwed up. The Air Force actually wanted to get the 767s and while the deal was not entirely on the up and up, the Air Force was generally behind it. Then the scandal broke and Congress got offended when they found out a lease was a sub-optimal way of acquiring the aircraft (as if they'd never had a car loan or lease!). When the dust settles, both tankers seem to be acceptable to the Air Force and they just want any tanker aircraft.

That doesn't mean that Congress and others don't have a good reason to realize that awarding it to a US company might be a smart thing to do. What you call pulling strings, others would call looking out for US business. You can certainly be offended but this is being done for reasons of rational self-interest on the part of the US.

It is also not very smart to waste what little goodwill the US has left by giving Europe the impression that they are being screwed with.

If Europe can't understand why the US favors it's own defense contractors, that's too bad.

[Wicked Pilot]

Although in this case I don't think it would be nearly enough in enough time considering our current requirements.

So basically, there's NO WAY the Air Force will get enough tankers to serve its needs before the KC-135s literally fall apart in midair? Even assuming our allies are willing to provide their tankers on an as needed basis (from their already strained fleets, which means they're probably unable to spare any)?

Fuck.

I was simply saying it is unlikely that a 'Blackwater' fleet would be available to fill in the tanker gap. If it where a high enough priority we could recapitalize in a timely manner, but we're buying two wars right now, the economy is taking a dump, and there are another million and a half other vital projects that need funding.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

If Europe can't understand why the US favors it's own defense contractors, that's too bad.

And Europe will be less inclined to favour US contractors, much less develop anything specifically for the American market. It goes both ways.

[Count Chocula]

Thanas wrote:

argument in there or are you just too busy fellating your local Boeing rep?

(Smack, smack). Mmmm, tasty! In-flight peanuts!

No argument, venting. I've flown on Boeings since I was 9, from 727s to 777s and the 'new' [McDonnell-Douglas] Boeing 717 aka MD-80. I simply don't like the thumps, bangs, squeaks and shakes I experience in an Airbus. If I'm not driving a Cessna or Piper, I'd rather ride a Boeing.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

No argument, venting. I've flown on Boeings since I was 9, from 727s to 777s and the 'new' [McDonnell-Douglas] Boeing 717 aka MD-80. I simply don't like the thumps, bangs, squeaks and shakes I experience in an Airbus. If I'm not driving a Cessna or Piper, I'd rather ride a Boeing.

Just about any damn Boeing I have flown has bangs, squeeks, etc. All that hinges on the pilot, whether there's turbulence etc.

[Sidewinder]

If Europe can't understand why the US favors it's own defense contractors, that's too bad.

And Europe will be less inclined to favour US contractors, much less develop anything specifically for the American market. It goes both ways.

Problem: Europe's arms industries are NOWHERE as well-funded as those of the US. They have alternatives for SOME products, e.g., land-based fighters (Eurofighter, Dassault, Saab), missiles (EADS), and tanks, but for items that require many billions of dollars in R & D BEFORE it enters mass production, like STOVL aircraft that can be launched from small carriers (e.g., the F-35), ballistic missile defense systems (e.g., Aegis), long-range cruise missiles (e.g., the Tomahawk), Link 16 and other C4ISR systems? The European nations can fund these things ONLY by collaborating with each other, and successes like the Eurofighter Typhoon are, unfortunately, the exceptions that prove the rule, the rule being each government will fight to direct the defense program to fulfill its needs, regardless of the inconvenience to other nations, until the entire program collapses. And unless the EU members decide to buy Russian or Chinese, the choices are US products that are available NOW or in the (relatively) near future, or the eventual products of European programs that will be billions of dollars over budget and be delayed for DECADES.

For comparison, let's look at the Airbus A400M, a program that was launched in 1982, but whose prototype has yet to make its first flight. Meanwhile, Lockheed launched the C-130J program in 1989, and delivered the first "Super Hercules" in 1996.

[K. A. Pital]

For comparison, let's look at the Airbus A400M, a program that was launched in 1982, but whose prototype has yet to make its first flight. Meanwhile, Lockheed launched the C-130J program in 1989, and delivered the first "Super Hercules" in 1996.

Singular examples as proof of superiority? US companies failed to make a supersonic airliner, while Concorde and Tu-144 flew. That would be the kind of "proof" we use those days when evaluating contracts? Boeing and Airbus are competing very closely in both military and civilian sectors. Failures are shunned while successes are trumpheted around the world. That's common for this industry. Evaluation should come basing on convenience as well, of course, but if Boeing suddenly loses it, what's so bad about it?

Yes, Europe's arms industry is smaller. Yes, the US does have a reason to deny them contracts. So do they, and arms trade with Russia and China isn't so far fetched now with the EU trying to overcome arms trade limitations regarding developing nations.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Problem: Europe's arms industries are NOWHERE as well-funded as those of the US. They have alternatives for SOME products, e.g., land-based fighters (Eurofighter, Dassault, Saab), missiles (EADS), and tanks, but for items that require many billions of dollars in R & D BEFORE it enters mass production, like STOVL aircraft that can be launched from small carriers (e.g., the F-35), ballistic missile defense systems (e.g., Aegis), long-range cruise missiles (e.g., the Tomahawk), Link 16 and other C4ISR systems? The European nations can fund these things ONLY by collaborating with each other, and successes like the Eurofighter Typhoon are, unfortunately, the exceptions that prove the rule, the rule being each government will fight to direct the defense program to fulfill its needs, regardless of the inconvenience to other nations, until the entire program collapses. And unless the EU members decide to buy Russian or Chinese, the choices are US products that are available NOW or in the (relatively) near future, or the eventual products of European programs that will be billions of dollars over budget and be delayed for DECADES.

For comparison, let's look at the Airbus A400M, a program that was launched in 1982, but whose prototype has yet to make its first flight. Meanwhile, Lockheed launched the C-130J program in 1989, and delivered the first "Super Hercules" in 1996.

Er yeah, the Europeans are smaller, but then the US manufacturers can also be shut out from European competitions if the US does the same. Also, US may be the biggest arms buyer, but it is also the most competitive, winners takes all. Making profit alone relying on the US is hardly a good business strategy, and getting shut out from the second biggest market in the world? Or did you fail to read the first part of my argument? And, you do know that France has its own SLBM system, right? And STOVL aircraft? You are forgetting the Harrier are you?

[Sidewinder]

For comparison, let's look at the Airbus A400M, a program that was launched in 1982, but whose prototype has yet to make its first flight. Meanwhile, Lockheed launched the C-130J program in 1989, and delivered the first "Super Hercules" in 1996.

Singular examples as proof of superiority? US companies failed to make a supersonic airliner, while Concorde and Tu-144 flew.

All three SST programs were complete and utter failures from a financial POV, i.e., how many products were sold and how much profit they brought to the developers (note the French and British governments had to force their national airlines to buy the Concorde). With that kind of history, no aerospace company will R & D a SST without SUBSTANTIAL government funding (the supersonic business jets developed now are BUSINESS JETS, i.e., to be owned by obscenely rich people, NOT by airlines trying to make a profit by ferrying middle-class travelers and tourists).

Yes, Europe's arms industry is smaller. Yes, the US does have a reason to deny them contracts. So do they, and arms trade with Russia and China isn't so far fetched now with the EU trying to overcome arms trade limitations regarding developing nations.

Russia has its own arms industries because it doesn't have viable alternatives to them. Even if European governments will allow EADS to sell long-range cruise missiles to the Russian military, a military that was a threat to many of these governments (specifically, NATO members), what makes you think EADS can develop and produce a long-range cruise missile cheaply and quickly enough to meet the Russian military's needs?

One reason European nations like to buy American is because doing so often costs less (financially and chronologically) than starting their own weapons programs.

[Sidewinder]

You are forgetting the Harrier are you?

The Harrier II would've gotten nowhere without SUBSTANTIAL financial support from the US. Note that the resulting product is a ground attack aircraft designed for the USMC, NOT a dogfighter designed for the RAF.

[K. A. Pital]

One reason European nations like to buy American is because doing so often costs less (financially and chronologically) than starting their own weapons programs.

And yet, they already made their own ALCM and are now buying it (the Spanish for example). They are going more independent regarding arms production, and more diverse.

All three SST programs were complete and utter failures from a financial POV

Military programs are entirely state-funded and turn out no profit, just like the SST. And?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You are forgetting the Harrier are you?

The Harrier II would've gotten nowhere without SUBSTANTIAL financial support from the US. Note that the resulting product is a ground attack aircraft designed for the USMC, NOT a dogfighter designed for the RAF.

And the Harrier I? So what is the point you are trying to make?

How about Dassault's own Mirage line and the Rafale? Those are indigenous French products, designed by and made by France. Europe might be slower in bringing in the top of the line products, but by no means are they completely incapable of committing to big projects.

[Sidewinder]

One reason European nations like to buy American is because doing so often costs less (financially and chronologically) than starting their own weapons programs.

And yet, they already made their own ALCM and are now buying it (the Spanish for example). They are going more independent regarding arms production, and more diverse.

The Tomahawk has a range of 1250-2500 kilometers, depending on model. The Taurus has a range of "over 350 kilometers," while the SCALP/Storm Shadow has a range of "over 250 kilometers."

Military programs are entirely state-funded and turn out no profit, just like the SST. And?

Military programs DO turn a profit when the products are exported. There's a reason many air forces and navies use American products to fulfill their requirements for AEW: they'd rather have American taxpayers pay the billions of dollars it takes to develop a radar light enough to mount on an aircraft (and in some cases, an aircraft light enough to be carrier-borne), yet powerful enough to assist in anti-cruise missile defense.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Military programs DO turn a profit when the products are exported. There's a reason many air forces and navies use American products to fulfill their requirements for AEW: they'd rather have American taxpayers pay the billions of dollars it takes to develop a radar light enough to mount on an aircraft (and in some cases, an aircraft light enough to be carrier-borne), yet powerful enough to assist in anti-cruise missile defense.

And then we are back to the issue of the US screwing the Europeans, and the Europeans retaliating in kind. The US by the way, by no means has a monopoly on airbourne radars.

And by the way, the Spanish went on their own domestic ALCM because the US put a number of caveats on the usage of Tomahawks. Throwing all that numbers on the range is pretty much useless since it means shit when they need US approval to use the weapon.

Not to mention, the US is often loathe to share with the Europeans a number of their secrets, which nearly led to the UK walking out on the JSF contract.

I'm not even sure what you are fucking arguing about, beyond your dissing of the European defence industry.

[Sidewinder]

You are forgetting the Harrier are you?

The Harrier II would've gotten nowhere without SUBSTANTIAL financial support from the US. Note that the resulting product is a ground attack aircraft designed for the USMC, NOT a dogfighter designed for the RAF.

And the Harrier I? So what is the point you are trying to make?

SUM single-seat Harrier-- 237

SUM Harrier trainers-- 46

SUM Sea Harrier-- 98

SUM GEN-1 HARRIER-- 381

SUM single-seat Harrier II-- 396

SUM Harrier II trainers-- 38

SUM GEN-II HARRIER-- 434

In short, more new-build Harrier IIs were sold than new-build Harriers.

How about Dassault's own Mirage line and the Rafale?

4,498 TOTAL PHANTOM FIGHTER PRODUCTION

697 TOTAL PHANTOM RECONNAISSANCE PRODUCTION

5,195 TOTAL PHANTOM PRODUCTION

The follow-on Dassault "Mirage 2000" fighter, basically a completely new aircraft with only the same general configuration as the Mirage III, is discussed in a separate document, as is the scaled-up "Mirage IV" bomber...

This should be regarded as an approximate list, since guaranteeing these numbers would be a major and difficult task. The key "1S" indicates a single-seat Mirage fighter, while "2S" indicates a two-seat Mirage, and "PR" indicates a photo-reconnaissance machine.

_______________________________________________________________________

ABU DHABI 1S: 12 5AD + 5 EAD
2S: 3 5DAD
PR: 5 RAD

ARGENTINA 1S: 19 IIICJ + 17 IIIEA + 10 5P
2S: 3 IIIBJ + 4 IIIDA
Plus 35 IAI 1S Dagger-A & 2S Dagger-B.
IIICJs & IIIBJs were ex-Israeli, 5Ps were ex-Peruvian.

AUSTRALIA 1S: 49 IIIO(F) + 51 IIIO(A)
2S: 16 IIID
All produced locally, survivors sold to Pakistan in 1990.

BELGIUM 1S: 63 5BA
2S: 16 5BD
PR: 27 5BR
Minor upgrade performed on survivors in early 1990s, but
all were then retired.

BRAZIL 1S: 16 IIIEBR + 4 IIIEBR-2
2S: 6 IIIDBR + 2 IIIDBR-2
2 IIIDBR, all IIDBR-2 & IIIEBR-2 were ex-AdA.
Many assembled locally. Survivors upgraded with canards &
so on in early 1990s. All retired in 2005.

CHILE 1S: 6 50C + 8 50FC
2S: 3 50DC
50FC were upgraded by Dassault from AdA 5Fs. Chilean
survivors mostly updated to Pantera standard.

COLOMBIA 1S: 14 5COA
2S: 2 5COD
PR: 2 5COR
Plus 12 IAI Kfir-C2 & 1 Kfir TC7. Most Colombian Mirages
upgraded in early 1990s to improved Kfir standard.

EGYPT 1S: 54 5SDE + 16 5E2
2S: 6 5SDD
PR: 6 5SDR

FRANCE 1S: 95 IIIC + 183 IIIE + 58 5F
2S: 27 IIIB + 5 IIIB1 + 10 IIIB2(RV) + 20 IIIBE
PR: 50 IIIR + 20 IIIRD

GABON 1S: 3 5G + 2 5G-2
2S: 4 5DG
Two surviving 5Gs were updated to 5G-2 spec.

ISRAEL 1S: 72 IIICJ
2S: 5 IIIBJ
IAI built 61 Nesher / Daggers, with 51 single-seaters and
10 two-seat Nesher-Ts; and 212 Kfirs, with 40 early Kfir-1s
(many updated to Kfir-C1 spec), about 12 Kifr-TC2 trainers,
and the rest Kfir-C2s. Confusing pattern of upgrades to
Kfir-C7 and Kfir-TC7.

LEBANON 1S: 10 IIIEL
2S: 2 IIIBL
All out of service.

LIBYA 1S: 53 5D + 32 5DE
2S: 15 5DD
PR: 10 5DR
Most or all out of service.

PAKISTAN 1S: 18 IIIEP + 43 III(0) + 28 5PA + 28 5PA2 + 12 5PA3
2S: 5 IIIDP + 7 IIID + 2 5DPA2
PR: 13 IIIRP
The III(0) and IIIDs were ex-Australian and locally
refurbished. Some source hint a few were converted into
reconnaissance machines.

PERU 1S: 22 5P + 10 5P3 + 2 5P4
2S: 4 5DP + 2 5DP3
Some upgraded.

SOUTH AFRICA 1S: 16 IIICZ + 17 IIIEZ
2S: 3 IIIBZ + 3 IIIDZ + 11 IIID2Z
PR: 4 IIIRZ + 4 IIIR2Z
All out of service, some having been upgraded to Cheetah
standard. There were about 16 Cheetah-E conversions (all
out of service); 38 Cheetah-C conversions; 16 Cheetah-D
conversions; and one Cheetah-R conversion.

SPAIN 1S: 24 IIIEE
2S: 6 IIIDE
Withdrawn from service in early 1990s.

SWITZERLAND 1S: 1 IIICS + 36 IIIS
2S: 4 IIIBS + 2 IIIDS
PR: 18 IIIRS
Most built locally, many upgraded with canards, etc.
All retired by the end of 2003.

VENEZUELA 1S: 7 IIIEV + 6 5V + 9 50EV
2S: 3 IIIDV + 1 50DV
Survivors mostly updated to 50 standard.

ZAIRE / CONGO 1S: 8 5M
2S: 3 5DM
All out of service.

Total number of new-build Mirage III and derivatives: Approximately 1728.

The very last of 2,231 USAF F-16s was delivered on 18 March 2005...

The Belgians obtained a total of 160 F-16A/Bs...

The Danes obtained a total of 70 new-built F-16A/Bs...

The Netherlands obtained a total of 213 F-16A/Bs...

The Norwegians received a total of 74 F-16A/Bs, including 60 F-16As and 12 F-16Bs, once more consisting of Blocks 1 / 5 / 10 / 15, and with all Block 1 and 5 machines upgraded to Block 10 spec. Two F-16Bs were ordered as attrition replacements from the Fort Worth plant in the late 1980s...

Greece purchased 170 F-16C/Ds...

Poland signed a deal for 48 Block 62 F-16s in 2002...

Portugal obtained a total of 20 Block 15 OCU F-16A/Bs...

Bahrain obtained 22 GE F110-powered Block 40 F-16C/Ds...

Egypt obtained a total of 220 F-16s...

Many of the initial Israeli F-16s were obtained from production originally slated for a deal with Iran that fell through with the Islamic Revolution. Four batches of F-16s totalling 260 machines were obtained...

The Israelis have 102 "F-16Is" on order, with initial delivery in early 2004...

The Turks are major users of the F-16, having obtained a total of 240 F-16C/Ds...

In early 2000, Lockheed Martin closed a deal with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for the sale of 80 F-16s...

The Sultanate of Oman, on the southern edge of the Arabian peninsula, obtained twelve Block 52+ F-16s...

Indonesia obtained a total of 12 Block 15 OCU F-16A/Bs...

Pakistan obtained a total of 40 Block 15 F-16A/Bs...

As of 2006, the Pakistanis were looking forward to finally seeing the 28 embargoed machines made good, plus an order of up to 18 Block 50/52 Plus machines...

Singapore has obtained four batches of F-16s under the "Peace Carvin" series of programs:

* A batch of 8 F-16A/Bs, built to Block 15 OCU standard, including 4 F-16As and 4 F-16Bs, with initial deliveries in 1990.

* The second batch included 30 Block 52 F-16C/Ds, including 18 F-16Cs and 12 F-16Ds, with initial deliveries in 1998. Singapore leased a dozen F-16s for stateside training as part of the deal. Singapore's F-16s carry the AIM-7 Sparrow as well as the Sidewinder, and possibly Israeli Python heatseeking AAMs. The Singaporean F-16Ds feature the fat spine fitted to Israeli F-16Ds and are apparently configured in much the same way.

* The third batch included 12 more Block 52 F-16C/Ds, including 4 F-16Cs and 8 F-16Ds, with initial deliveries in 1999. These feature the new holographic wide-angle HUD developed for the European MLU program.

* Singapore is now acquiring 20 new Block 52 Block F-16C/Ds...

South Korea has acquired a large fleet of F-16s in two steps. The first step was fairly small, with the country obtaining a total of 40 Block 32 F-16C/Ds in 1986 and 1988, including 30 F-16Cs and 10 F-16Ds, under the "Peace Bridge / Victory Falcon" program.

In 1989, South Korea then considered a much larger fighter buy and decided to buy 120 F/A-18 Hornets, but the deal fell through and the government decided to buy 120 Block 52 F-16s instead. The initial 12 of this batch were supplied from Fort Worth, with the next 36 provided in knock-down kit form for assembly in South Korea by Samsung Aerospace, and the rest built by Samsung Aerospace. Initial deliveries of the South Korean Block 52 F-16s were in 1994, with the mix consisting of 80 F-16Cs and 40 F-16Ds. These machines were fitted with the Northrop Grumman / ITT "AN/ALQ-165 Airborne Self-Protection Jammer (ASPJ)".

A follow-on order of 14 F-16Cs and 6 F-16Ds was placed in 2000, giving a total fleet of 180 F-16s...

Although the US cut off Taiwan from advanced arms shipments in the 1970s, the Americans gradually began to become less sensitive to mainland Chinese protests over arms sales. In 1992, the US government approved a sale of 150 F-16A/Bs...

Thailand has obtained a total of 46 F-16s, not counting two spares hulks, in several batches:

* The country obtained an initial batch of 18 Block 15 OCU F-16A/Bs, including 14 F-16As and 4 F-16Bs, with initial deliveries in 1988. These machines carry the Israeli Python heatseeking AAM, as well as the French Tompson-CSF (now Thales) Atlis II targeting pod and Rubis navigation pod.

* They were followed by a second batch of 18 Block 15 OCU machines, including 12 F-16As and 6 F-16Bs, with initial deliveries in 1995...

Venezuela obtained 24 Block 15 F-16A/Bs...

Total number of new-build F-16s sold (excluding derivatives): Approximately 4464.

The table below gives a list of Mirage 2000 users and variants:

_____________________________________________________________________

FRANCE 315 124 Mirage 2000C single-seat fighter.
30 Mirage 2000B two-seater with Mirage 2000C kit.
75 Mirage 2000N two-seat nuclear strike variant.
86 Mirage 2000D two-seat conventional strike variant.
- 37 Mirage 2000C updated to gen-2 Mirage 2000-5F spec.

BRAZIL 12 - 12 AdA Mirage 2000C hand-me-downs.
EGYPT 20 16 Mirage 2000EM, similar to Mirage 2000C.
4 Mirage 2000BM two-seat trainer.
GREECE 55 36 Mirage 2000EG, similar to Mirage 2000C.
4 Mirage 2000DG two-seat trainer.
15 Mirage 2000-5 Mk 2 multirole fighter.
- 10 machines to be updated to Mirage 2000-5 Mk 2.
INDIA 59 52 Mirage 2000H, comparable to Mirage 2000C.
7 Mirage 2000TH two-seat trainer.
PERU 12 10 Mirage 2000EP single-seat multirole fighter.
2 Mirage 2000DP two-seat trainer.
QATAR 12 9 Mirage 2000-5EDA single seat fighter.
3 Mirage 2000-5DDA two-seat trainer.
UAE 68 22 Mirage 2000EAD single-seat multirole fighter.
8 Mirage 2000RAD unique reconnaissance variant.
6 Mirage 2000DAD two-seat trainer.
20 Mirage 2000-9 single-seaters.
12 Mirage 2000-9D two-seat trainers.
- Older machines upgraded to Mirage 2000-9 spec.
TAIWAN 60 48 Mirage 2000-5EI, similar to Mirage 2000-5.
12 Mirage 2000-5DI, similar to Mirage 2000-5D.
_____________________________________________________________________

TOTAL 601

It's obvious American products sell better (I think we can safely exclude the Rafale, as the French military is its only operator).

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Again, what is the fucking point you are trying to make? Trying to inundate me with a whole list of figures? ARe you fucking arguing at different wavelengths? How is "American products sell better" relevant to my original argument:

And Europe will be less inclined to favour US contractors, much less develop anything specifically for the American market. It goes both ways.

[Shroom Man 777]

Sidewinder, stop wanking American gear man. I mean, from my experiences in SDN World, Russian military-spec equipment is decisively formidable - many times even more so than their American counterparts, for all the hype over stealth and other such hi-tech gizmos.

Besides, recent American procurement plans have been rather less-than-ideal. With models such as the Eurofighter and modern Sukhois and Migs growing more superior to old school F-15s and F-16s, and with America unwilling to sell its vaunted F-22s and F-35s to nations like India, perhaps the market will look rather different in the near future...

The Europeans have centuries of experience in dickery and murdering each other, so don't count them out. Once they get their shit together, we'll be in for a bloody spectacle.

[K. A. Pital]

He says over a thousand Mirages were sold and he doesn't even see how the figure is well comparable with the 4000 figure for American fighters he cites right beside it? Considering France doesn't have even 1/10th the kind of massive influence on the world the United States has and had a superpower?

Sidewinder, seriously.

[Ma Deuce]

He says over a thousand Mirages were sold and he doesn't even see how the figure is well comparable with the 4000 figure for American fighters he cites right beside it? Considering France doesn't have even 1/10th the kind of massive influence on the world the United States has and had a superpower?

Don't forget that the Mirage series (which is actually several different aircraft) were around for almost 2 decades longer than the F-16 family, and throughout most of their history were almost the only fixed-wing combat aircraft exported by France: Such was not the case with the US and the F-16.

Besides, recent American procurement plans have been rather less-than-ideal. With models such as the Eurofighter and modern Sukhois and Migs growing more superior to old school F-15s and F-16s, and with America unwilling to sell its vaunted F-22s and F-35s to nations like India, perhaps the market will look rather different in the near future...

Actually, last I checked India is in talks to buy the F-35, and given the recent nuclear technology deal signed with the US I'd say they have a good chance of getting it.

[Sidewinder]

Again, what is the fucking point you are trying to make? Trying to inundate me with a whole list of figures? ARe you fucking arguing at different wavelengths? How is "American products sell better" relevant to my original argument:

And Europe will be less inclined to favour US contractors, much less develop anything specifically for the American market. It goes both ways.

The point is that American products are like Microsoft Windows: you might not be inclined to favor "Made in USA," you might look longingly at alternatives such as Apple or Linux (Dassault or Saab in the case of fighters), but when 90% of all computers on Earth are designed to be Windows compatible, it doesn't seem to make as much sense to get the alternatives.

Yes, European nations do develop and buy "Made in [insert European nation here]," but this is like a street racer devoting thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars customizing and upgrading a Mitsubishi Lancer to go from 0-60 mph within 5 seconds, when a Porsche dealership is just a couple of miles away.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Tomahawk has a range of 1250-2500 kilometers, depending on model. The Taurus has a range of "over 350 kilometers," while the SCALP/Storm Shadow has a range of "over 250 kilometers."

So what? Tomahawk is a naval missile that can only be fired from a Mk41 VLS or for certain versions, a torpedo tube, those Euro missiles are air launched and thus easily adapted to a wide range of airframes. Compared to Tomahawk they have shorter range sure, but they have bigger warheads, better guidance systems, fly faster and have stealthy airframes. A comparison to JASSM would a hell of a lot more relevant.

As for Mirage sales, perfect example of marketing over function. The Mirage III wasn’t that good, and wasn’t selling very well until the Six Days War. Then it was by far the most popular export fighter in the world for a time, but Dassault themselves saw its limitations which is why the Mirage F.1 ditched the delta wing. Mirage 2000 brought it back because by then fly by wire made it a lot more viable. Still Dassaults planes ell quite well up until Rafael, which was pretty much doomed by the end of the cold war and a declining number of states able to afford new fighters.