Too much faith in stealth technology?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I have no idea about the technical details, but I can tell a little story about the last two aircraft that the RAAF as its principal fighters.

We purchased 75 F-18s in the 1980s and they have provided us with a potent air defence and strike capability.

In the 1960s we purchased 100 Mirage IIIs which provided us with a potent fighter, and some strike capability.

Both aircraft were a technical success. But I am old enough to tell you the Mirages were remembered with less than any feeling of affection.

Our usage of the F-18s were more or less free from foreign intervention regarding our Foreign policy decisions, ie, we could use them as we saw fit. Our usage of our Mirages was constantly interefered with by the French Government..... in the 1960s they threatened the Australian Government with a boycott on spare parts if we deployed any Mirages to Vietnam. Fast forward 10 years. During the French nuclear testing programs of the 1970s, which included French spies bombing and sinking the Rainbow warrior in New Zealand, killing two people, Australia was "restrained" by the frenach government, again with threats of witholding spares for our Mirage fleet.

Australia has never purchased any fighters from the French ever again, nor are we ever going to use any French, or part French aircraft. I can tell you from my generation of fleet and air force commanders (some of which I knew personally), that nothing from Europe of any consequence would ever be purchased. They would make the procurement shortlists and be eliminated for one reason or another. The only exception to this was the purchase of the BAE Hawk Trainers.

We are far better off sticking with US equipment for reasons other than the aircrafts actual performance. not that there is anything wrong with the performance of US military hardware. Our experience with US equipment has always been quite okay.
 
We are far better off sticking with US equipment for reasons other than the aircrafts actual performance. not that there is anything wrong with the performance of US military hardware. Our experience with US equipment has always been quite okay.

Well except for the Seasprite fiasco, perhaps. I like your post.

I have always wondered what software hooks are installed in modern programs to keep foreign customers "in line" if things go south in relationships. Like the F-14s we sold to Tehran and how their avionics were disabled before our maintenance support folks moved out.
 
"... Like the F-14s we sold to Tehran and how their avionics were disabled before our maintenance support folks moved out."

Well they couldn't have done much of a job .. or the Iranians are even smarter than I give them credit for ... ... because they got great use out of the TomCats against Saddam ... as I understand it, they deployed the Cats as forward AWAC controllers - using those same very advanced radar and avionics to direct simpler aircraft like Northrop F-5's.

MM
 
I dont agree that countries that supply weapons should enter into post purchase control. If they dont like the country to which they are selling the weapons, they should not sell them in the first place.

Controlling a smaller nations FP by the wapons it buys is the ultimate breach of trust.

Of course there are exceptions....like when a country turns its weapons on its own people, or is clearly acting outside International laws. We werent doing that when the French started playing their games.
 
".... If they dont like the country to which they are selling the weapons, they should not sell them in the first place. "

France (and Russia) have never met a country with money that they didn't like.

MM
 
".... If they dont like the country to which they are selling the weapons, they should not sell them in the first place. "

France (and Russia) have never met a country with money that they didn't like.

MM


What about selling S-300 missiles to Iran? Didn't Russians withdrawn from the deal?

And I think it's unfair to say that only France and Russia are selling weapons to some dubious countries. For example many countries were selling weapons to Libya (under Gaddafi rule). Few examples Poland, Italy, Great Britain, Germany.

More info here: EU arms exports to Libya: who armed Gaddafi? | News | guardian.co.uk

and here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdGFBN1NWM0hrbFc0OWd1dDR2dUVfbnc&hl=en#gid=0

And I don't want to accuse anybody, but I think that arms trade is often ruled by politics and big money and such a combination can be very dirty.
 
Last edited:

There are few saints in this business but the French are a class act in this. Think of the 50 Mirage V they sold to Isreal, kept the money and didn't deliver the aircraft, the Mirage fighters, AML 90 Armoured cars, APC's and heavy weapons all sold to South Africa at the height of the embargo. The slow delivery of spares to countries they had disagreements with including the pressure appplied to New Zealand and others.
 


It would be understandable if the french were reacting to a rogue state, or a state that had turned on its own people. Australia cannot be accused of being a rogue state and generally does not use its military equipment on its own people.
 

Yeah, but my understanding is that the tactical modes were disabled.
 
I am guessing the ability to access the tactical programs in the computer were removed. I would guess targeting, radar, etc. I am guessing as I know nothing about this topic, but the items I posted would be my guess. Possibly weapons selection and arming? What's the answer?
 
".... the tactical modes were disabled. "

Which means ... what?

MM

Well that depends upon whom you believe. Some claim that they were sabotaged by contractors and others claim by sympathetic IRAF personnel. Most credible reports that I have read related to the sabotage effort indicate that the radar/targeting modes associated with the AIM-54 were disabled. Myth? Perhaps. I know that some claim the AIM-54 was used in the Iran/Iraq war, but other credible sources don't back that up with hard evidence. If anyone has credible information (e.g., DoD statements, after action reports from US warships monitoring the Gulf, etc.), I would really like to read it.
 
And the arm-twisting the UK had to apply to persuade them to provide details on Exocet missiles during the Falklands War. Nice to have allies...

I'm sure that current potential customers of French weapon systems greeted with joy the fact that their supplier would reveal the secrets they've paid for.
Combine that with political pressures parsifal was posting about and one is not surprised to find out that Germany surpassed France in weapon sales with ratio of 2:1 in last 12 months.
 

Users who are viewing this thread