Jump to content

F-35


colin

Recommended Posts

I would really hope not to see that happen. Personally I would like to see NATO suspend/remove Turkey as a member. I dont like the way they seem to be heading. They have purchased a Russian Anti-Aircraft missle system. There are also rumors of them possibly joining/forming a Russian, Chinese, asian treaty organization similar to NATO. However i feel that most likely we will see the F-35’s delivered to Turkey since they are a partner in NATO. Again these are my opinions. 

 

Dennis

 

PS - Of course there was a defense spending bill signed a day or two after i wrote this. Supposedly suspending transfer of F-35’s to Turkey. Experts dont see this lasting though, due to the increased cost of F-35’s for all other partner countries. 

Edited by Corsairfoxfouruncle
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Lira's value down against the USD by over 40pc this year then the price of the F35 (as well as every other import) has gone through the roof from a Turkish perspective. We've seen what the fall in Sterling has done to the cost of programmes such as the F35, Apache E and Poseidon P8 programmes here and Turkey's experience is even more extreme so it seems unlikely.

One report has suggested that the country's foreign exchange funding requirement is around $218bn per annum so unless somebody is prepared to get their chequebook out to fund this then presumably there will have to be some sharp cuts in spending. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 9:49 AM, Jure Miljevic said:

If lira is down 40% then tarrifs of 50% make Turkish steel only slightly more expensive. Also, depreciated currency boosts export. I am not saying tarrifs have no impact at all, but measures like this are not as effective as it sounds. Cheers

Jure

I don't think the price of steel has anything to do with whether Turkey can afford the F35. Yes, a depreciated currency boosts exports but it also costs more to import goods and services. By way of example the cost of a barrel of crude oil in Lira terms now costs three(!) times what it did in 2008 when Brent Crude hit a peak $147 per barrel and Turkey imports virtually all of its oil. The country's trade with the rest of the world was in deficit to the tune of $41bn for the first six months of this year. The way that this gap is bridged is through borrowing in foreign currency such as US$, Yen, € etc to pay for the imports. As the Lira falls so those loans cost more to repay. 

 

A depreciating currency also feeds through to inflation as those imported goods cost more, a tank of petrol being a perfect example. Ordinarily the central bank would raise interest rates to encourage foreigners to buy Lira and domestic bank account holders to save money in their accounts as well as suppressing demand. Unfortunately because Erdogan is leaning on the central bank not to raise interest rates to an appropriate level the Lira continues to fall. Foreign investors then worry about their loans not being repaid when due and hence Turkish corporations default and panic ensues not least for the man in the street who sees the purchasing power of his wage packet disappear. We're not there yet with Turkey but the Weimar Republic, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela and Zimbabwe to name but a few offer illustrations of economies gone wrong at various times. 

 

In short, where will Turkey get the cold, hard foreign currency from to afford 100 F35s? We wait and see.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Latinbear

I agree with your post in principle, although I doubt economic situation in Turkey is that severe or is going to become such in short or medium terms. Oil can be purchased from Iran (through intermediates, to mask it pro forma) and thus avoid strong dollar trap altogether. Turkey allegedly did business with IS so this would hardly be any worse. Also, while in most cases currency depreciation causes inflation I doubt this would push Turkey into hyperinflation. By the way, we had hyperinflation for the last year or two before Yugoslavia collapsed. One learns to cope with that. When a couple of months into independence we also got our own currency it took me some time to adjust back to (relatively) normal economic situation.

To me the question is not if Turkey can afford to buy F-35s, but if USA can afford, from PR point of view, to suspend plane's deliveries for much longer. Many Turks will dismiss detention of American pastor as the main reason for US ´sanctions´ and will see this as a mere front for the real reason, Turkey's recent purchase of S-400 SAM systems and more or less tolerable relations with Russia. That most of Near and Middle East countries is on a fence on this last question seems to be lost on USA. Still, a solution of sorts is probably going to appear soon. Buy American, or else ... is hardly an effective advertising slogan. Just my thoughts. Cheers

Jure

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, thank you gents for keeping this a laudably civil discussion bereft of histrionics so far.  I'd just like to post a note of caution to anyone that hasn't yet realised that we have a fairly large Turkish contingent on the forums, so that we can avoid any ill-advised generalisations and so forth that might kick up a fuss.  While it continues in this manner we're happy to let it continue, but if it dives too much toward politics and the in-fighting that usually stimulates, we'll have no choice but to close it down :)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duly noted, Mike. In such debates it is difficult to avoid wandering into ever present realm of politics. I wish now I had expressed some of my opinions differently. In my defence, I meant no harm to anybody. Anyway, one strong reason for USA to resume deliveries is that one of F-35 maintenance centers for European NATO countries is to be located in Turkey. I meant to include this in my previous post, but somehow managed to left it out. Cheers

Jure

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be really rather spiffing if the Yanks gave those destined for Turkey to Her Majesty's Royal Air Force instead. Enough for 19, 23, 25, 56, 74 and 111 squadrons there.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2018 at 6:28 AM, whiskey said:

I personally hope not. The main thing for me is that I am sick and tired of us fattening our wallet by selling arms to both Turkey and Greece, fueling the fire that has always existed between the two. And I've always seen it from the perspective that we only done business with Turkey for strategic purposes to keep them away from Russian hands.

I would suggest that had the West had not supplied equipment to both Countries, the requirement would have been fulfilled by Russia and the PRC.  It is the way Politics work at a global level.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely agree. But what do you do when you have two allies that have a continuous threat of open war with each other? Do you pick and choose which one you are siding with, give them an upper hand (F-35), or supply both of them so they can blow each other to hell, or stay out of it completely?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Riot said:

Would be really rather spiffing if the Yanks gave those destined for Turkey to Her Majesty's Royal Air Force instead. Enough for 19, 23, 25, 56, 74 and 111 squadrons there.

I don't think they will be giving them away thats for sure 😀

23 hours ago, Jure Miljevic said:

Duly noted, Mike. In such debates it is difficult to avoid wandering into ever present realm of politics. I wish now I had expressed some of my opinions differently. In my defence, I meant no harm to anybody. Anyway, one strong reason for USA to resume deliveries is that one of F-35 maintenance centers for European NATO countries is to be located in Turkey. I meant to include this in my previous post, but somehow managed to left it out. Cheers

Jure

Interesting note about the maintenance side for Europe with Turkey, I had forgot about that, it was the engine side of the maintenance now I've refreshed my memory via google

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

23 hours ago, whiskey said:

Absolutely agree. But what do you do when you have two allies that have a continuous threat of open war with each other? Do you pick and choose which one you are siding with, give them an upper hand (F-35), or supply both of them so they can blow each other to hell, or stay out of it completely?

 

 

I refer you to my previous answer.  It matters not who provides the Military hardware, the political situation would be no different between the two nations. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2018 at 2:22 PM, Lord Riot said:

Would be really rather spiffing if the Yanks gave those destined for Turkey to Her Majesty's Royal Air Force instead. Enough for 19, 23, 25, 56, 74 and 111 squadrons there.

Nutz to that mate....RN not that either force has the manpower reasources or money to actually run them

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, junglierating said:

Nutz to that mate....RN not that either force has the manpower reasources or money to actually run them

 

Big recruiting drive needed then! From a lower population in the 70s we had enough to crew up several squadrons of Buccaneers, Jags, Lightnings, Vulcans and Phantoms, plus a RN carrier wing. And that was before women were accepted as frontline aircrew, so we should have more than twice the available manpower potentially today. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2018 at 8:31 AM, Lord Riot said:

 

Big recruiting drive needed then! From a lower population in the 70s we had enough to crew up several squadrons of Buccaneers, Jags, Lightnings, Vulcans and Phantoms, plus a RN carrier wing. And that was before women were accepted as frontline aircrew, so we should have more than twice the available manpower potentially today. 

 

 

It's not a question of bodies, it's a question of how much it costs to pay, house, and care for those bodies. The UK also spent 5%+ of GDP on defence in the 1970s, as opposed to 2% now. Weapons systems are additionally more complex and thus more expensive to procure and maintain as well now.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 8/19/2018 at 2:31 PM, Lord Riot said:

 

Big recruiting drive needed then! From a lower population in the 70s we had enough to crew up several squadrons of Buccaneers, Jags, Lightnings, Vulcans and Phantoms, plus a RN carrier wing. And that was before women were accepted as frontline aircrew, so we should have more than twice the available manpower potentially today. 

 

 

of course there is a traditional way to get the numbers into the navy..........but I'm not sure that raiding pubs over the south of england will provide the quality we need, worse, you might even pick up the odd off duty crab 😨

 

heard at work today that the F-35Bs have finally landed on the QE - should be a press release tomorrow. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What might be of interest (seeing as we're talking about F-35b's) is that F-35b's with the USMC had their combat debut today:

http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/Media/News/Display/Article/1646942/usmc-f-35b-conducts-first-combat-strike-in-centcom-aor/linkId/100000003597741/linkId/100000003598933/

 

Best wishes,

Sam

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...