Egyptian Armed Forces

[MICA]

That is fine by me we are not gonna use these anyway.
I think egypt is not gonna to buy fighter jets from USA anymore france is more friendly and reliable.

but soon we will receive the 12 Block 52 planes

 

[masud]

but soon we will receive the 12 Block 52 planes

Block 52 but no (AIM -120) AMRAAM right..............

 

[MICA]

Block 52 but no (AIM -120) AMRAAM right..............

yes and also no AIM-9X

 

[masud]

yes and also no AIM-9X

i am little bit queries, what is the reason egypt bring block 52? are those f-16 is coming free from usa............

 

[MICA]

i am little bit queries, what is the reason egypt bring block 52? are those f-16 is coming free from usa............

- it's free so why not !
- the f-16 still a good fighter with the rest of it's Armament.
- it's not expensive to run.

 

[masud]

- it's free so why not !
- the f-16 still a good fighter with the rest of it's Armament.
- it's not expensive to run.

i think something more then that. it has something to do with fighter formation and tackticks. can someone provide me a website or like where i can get details about egyptian airforce, formation, airfield location, picture etc. it will be very helpfull.........

 

[MICA]

you can use f-16 website , i can't link something yet

 

[Taygibay]

- it's free so why not !

Free is not quite right, brother. Yes, some years, the US gave funds to Egypt that covered its buys …
so that in the end it was virtually free. There is a cost however.
The US Foreign policy acts on FMS ( +- "free" ) sales. At times, it favors a slant : Cold War = sales to anyone openly anti-communist. At times it favors an ideology : Carter or Obama opposing sales to "bad" human rights countries ( dictators or coup makers as in President al-Sisi takeover dispute ).
Egypt F-16 Peace Vector
At all times, the USA keeps a potential option ( assistance or technology based ) to limit the use of these weapons.
France always sells, albeit with financial assistance and training to friends, its weapons. That makes these pricier but in exchange, the only holdback is through parts and maintenance. Once the weapons are acquired, the only real technological holdback applies to war against the customer.

Example : Egypt has F-16s and now Rafales.
When it wants to use the Falcons, Washington may lock systems on a case by case basis, making their use difficult if not impossible ( say to bomb Israel if things went bad … or Libya last year? ).
When it will want to use the Raffys, Paris will only disable the systems if Egypt is facing France in a war. Any other case is your choice to make.

The difference in this more or less covers the difference in price.
It is for each buyer to decide if its context warrants one or the other.
When 100% aligned with America, FMS sales are very interesting. The only drawback to that paradigm is that changes in viewpoint from Washington can vary over 4 years ( a Presidential term ).
When more autonomous, buying from the more autonomous seller fits better.

In all honesty, Russia is on average closer to French ways and less regarding.

I hope this helps, Tay.

 

[MICA]

Free is not quite right, brother. Yes, some years, the US gave funds to Egypt that covered its buys …
so that in the end it was virtually free. There is a cost however.
The US Foreign policy acts on FMS ( +- "free" ) sales. At times, it favors a slant : Cold War = sales to anyone openly anti-communist. At times it favors an ideology : Carter or Obama opposing sales to "bad" human rights countries ( dictators or coup makers as in President al-Sisi takeover dispute ).
Egypt F-16 Peace Vector
At all times, the USA keeps a potential option ( assistance or technology based ) to limit the use of these weapons.
France always sells, albeit with financial assistance and training to friends, its weapons. That makes these pricier but in exchange, the only holdback is through parts and maintenance. Once the weapons are acquired, the only real technological holdback applies to war against the customer.

Example : Egypt has F-16s and now Rafales.
When it wants to use the Falcons, Washington may lock systems on a case by case basis, making their use difficult if not impossible ( say to bomb Israel if things went bad … or Libya last year? ).
When it will want to use the Raffys, Paris will only disable the systems if Egypt is facing France in a war. Any other case is your choice to make.

The difference in this more or less covers the difference in price.
It is for each buyer to decide if its context warrants one or the other.
When 100% aligned with America, FMS sales are very interesting. The only drawback to that paradigm is that changes in viewpoint from Washington can vary over 4 years ( a Presidential term ).
When more autonomous, buying from the more autonomous seller fits better.

In all honesty, Russia is on average closer to French ways and less regarding.

I hope this helps, Tay.

what do you mean by locking systems ? do you mean that they can shut off the planes because if you think so you might be wrong , and about the peace victory between us and israel the US HAVE TO arm us it's one of the conditions and its an annual aid which we don't have to pay for anything

last thing not related to the post the last article talking about (on defense news website) the rafale going to egypt they mention the F3 or the F3R cuz i am confused which one we are getting

 

[Taygibay]

what do you mean by locking systems ? do you mean that they can shut off the planes because if you think so you might be wrong , and about the peace victory between us and israel the US HAVE TO arm us it's one of the conditions and its an annual aid which we don't have to pay for anything

Well, I'm sorry mate but I saw this kind of disruption activated with my own eyes in equipment not related to our discussion. Not the engines mind you to even the plane's commands ... but the radar, yes, it exists.
The usual way though is to have techs present to shut down systems.
As for your confidence in treaties and promises, it honors you but let m give you a recent example :
Ukraine's territorial integrity was guaranteed in 1994 by the US and UK and Russia by treaty …
we now know what that promise was worth? Bye Bye Crimea!

last thing not related to the post the last article talking about (on defense news website) the rafale going to egypt they mention the F3 or the F3R cuz i am confused which one we are getting

I can answer on Rafale : you guys are getting F3 which is the production standard today.
F3R is slated for delivery in 2018 but its mostly software.
So if you were to get Meteor, the patch would be simple enough.

Have a great day, Tay.

 

[MICA]

NASR 13 Exercise

 

[Taygibay]

Troll mode on
* That looks way too realistic, Egypt!
You could learn a thing or two on how
mili exercises should look from GP-9.*
Troll mode off.

Nice gazelles BTW, Tay.

 

[MICA]

Troll mode on
* That looks way too realistic, Egypt!
You could learn a thing or two on how
mili exercises should look from GP-9.*
Troll mode off.

Nice gazelles BTW, Tay.

excuse me but what is GP-9 ?

 

[Taygibay]

@Kamal_dbk
Iran Great prophet 9 wargame, target: mock aircraft carrier

 

[Hell NO]