Saudi Jets

[Kurnass]

You can also add the RAF, USAF or any other Air force heading the Middle East, or Turkey, Afghanistan to this discussion (which is, in my humble opinion quite useless)

Regards

[seven]

Nothing happening here that hasn't been for a few decades now. If it wasn't us supplying them it would be the Russians, or China. Better to have it this way is it not?

7

[C24]

You asked for an opinion.

Post such threads in General Chat.
Tread softly and carry a big stick.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
War will only cease when there is one man alive.
Defence is the best form of attack.

Keep taking the images and do something about World overpopulation.

[POL]

It may sound crass, but I don't really care what the aircraft are used for. I like to see aircraft, photograph them and write down their serial numbers. Beyond that (and learning to fly them) my interest is almost non-existent.

[page_verify]

It may sound crass, but I don't really care what the aircraft are used for.

Gosh, while everyone's entitled to their view, that's quite a difficult one to understand.

[Steven]

It's a perfectly appropriate topic of discussion for the Fighter Control Mess section as far as I am concerned.

For what it's worth, I think it comes down to money, money, money and money. All of the Arab countries have plenty of it and are willing to throw it at 'defence' projects -

Qatar spends $21.2 billion on 72 Boeing F-15QA's and $7 billion on 24 Dassault Rafales.
Kuwait orders 40 Boeing F/A-18E/F's for $10.1 billion and 28 Eurofighter Typhoons for $9 billion.
Saudi Arabia spends $29.4 billion on 84 Boeing F-15SA's and $6 billion on Typhoons and Hawks.
Bahrain is evaluating the new F-16V and Typhoon

It goes on and on - what the buyer ends up using the aircraft for is of no concern to the seller and government once the i's have been dotted and the t's crossed on the contract and payment has been received - especially when the figures being spent are as eye-popping as those recent purchases in the Middle East. And as said earlier - these countries would still have bought aircraft - if the West had said 'we will not sell you these aircraft because of your questionable attitude towards human rights" etc then the Saudis/Qataris et all would simply have said "OK - Russia we would like to buy 100 Sukhoi Su-30's from you then please"

So my opinion is that these sales would have gone through regardless of public perception and therefore the aircraft should be enjoyed, photographed, recorded and whatever else.

Money talks.

[Ghastly Whisper]

Military aircraft are a weapon, no different to a tank a cruiser a rifle or a submarine. They are either an asset or a commodity. what particular goverments do with them is entirely up to them.

[yellowcake-uf6]

what the buyer ends up using the aircraft for is of no concern to the seller and government once the i's have been dotted and the t's crossed on the contract .

I think if the US Government had foreseen the event across the Straits of Hormuz in 1979, they might not have been so eager to export the F-14 and its (then) state-of-the-art technology.

[slogen51]

I am with EGCP on this - I am just interested in the numbers.

However British Exports mean British jobs - so that is a big plus.

Middle East politics often have twists and turns i.e Iran have (until trump?) been gradually returning to the international community , witness big orders from Airbus. I just hope the the big sales to Saudi don't bite us in the bum and we see Hornets up against Typhoons! In future decades.

Anyway let's hope the Deliveries continue through Lakenheath.

[Supra]

[quote="slogen51"]I am with EGCP on this - I am just interested in the numbers.... Edited

Has he moved from Middle Wallop to Thorne Airfield then?
Quite agree with the sentiment here. The UK cannot afford to be 'World Police' & allow political do-good attitudes to derail a sizeable trade deal. Human Rights issues shouldn't be ignored but neither can they be permitted to obstruct business that others will gladly fulfil!

[slogen51]

Sorry EGVP - Middle Wallop - fine place.

I have more problems with Norway and Japan due to their Whaling policy.

[POL]

Back up near EGCC now, I just can't be bothered getting my username changed again

[CHINOOKER]

It's very much a case of "perspective".....How many of us still love to see the Lancaster flying at events,but how many of us recall the untold destruction it's forebears created in cities like Dresden and Hamburg when we do?.....Similarly the same must be said for a whole range of a/c.....B52s wrecked havoc in Vietnam etc,similarly A10s in Iraq/Afghanistan,yet should any of these turn up in the UK,we all rush to see them!.
As a previous poster stated...."if it's not us selling them,it would be someone else".......That's the way of the world we live in!

[plmc135]

One wonders what everyone's view would be if we ended up in a situation with Saudi F-15's and Typhoons or Egyptian F-16's going up against Israeli F-15's and 16's. The more arms we sell the greater the risk becomes.

[Thunder]

One wonders what everyone's view would be if we ended up in a situation with Saudi F-15's and Typhoons or Egyptian F-16's going up against Israeli F-15's and 16's. The more arms we sell the greater the risk becomes.

Why would that matter, unless of course you're an Israeli, Saudi or Egyptian pilot?

[plmc135]

One wonders what everyone's view would be if we ended up in a situation with Saudi F-15's and Typhoons or Egyptian F-16's going up against Israeli F-15's and 16's. The more arms we sell the greater the risk becomes.

Why would that matter, unless of course you're an Israeli, Saudi or Egyptian pilot?

I think that in the event of that type of confrontation there would be every possibility of us getting drawn into the conflict. Who was one of the main parties involved in the formal formation of Israel and the division of the then Palestine, the good old UK. Yet another blunder we made.

[Thunder]

What difference does it make in what a/c they fly, if we were to get drawn into such a conflict then it would be down to politics rather than what a/c they're using to shoot at each other.

The likelihood of any of the countries mentioned above attacking the other is low, they have a mutual distrust of each other but again they relay on each other in order to keep at times an unstable peace in the region. As the saying goes 'keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer.'

[C24]

" The enemy of my enemy is my friend ".

And, didn't the French sell Exocet to the Argentinians? There is no simple solution. In reality there is no complicated one either.

[Hammy]

It may sound crass, but I don't really care what the aircraft are used for.

Gosh, while everyone's entitled to their view, that's quite a difficult one to understand.

Is it? Would so many people attend airshows if they couldn't separate military aircraft from their intended purpose? I highly doubt it.

[RubyRoo]

Forum members who don't show any regard for human life when it isn't them who are constantly under the threat of being bombed every day should be criticised, and the argument 'if it isn't us it would just be someone else' is stupid beyond words. Let's throw away our morality because the Chinese/Russians would do it. That says more about them than it does us. I don't care about British jobs if it means arming nations who have no interest in using weapons/machines for self-defence purposes.

The Saudis, Israelis and Russians proclaim that any civilian casualties caused during operations have been done in self-defence of their nation's security, but has it really made any difference? Many Western nations have faced terrorist attacks regardless of the operations within Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iraq and everywhere else to try and curb this. If anything, they've only increased.

If the aforementioned countries want to engage in ops somewhere else, they can develop their own aircraft and weaponry to do it. We shouldn't be helping them in any way.