Jump to content

Indonesia wants to buy Austria's Eurofighters?


Slater

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

Yes, about that... you still owe us 24 Spits bought and paid for in 1943 that we didn't get to keep in 1945 at the disbandment of 322 Sqn RAF.

 

True story.

:P

 

We buried them in Myanmar for safe keeping. I thought you had the map.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, alt-92 said:

Now that is still a rumour.

Sadly, yes.

A little off topic (sorry) but when I was in Myanmar in 2013, our guide swore blind that her relatives knew where the Spits were buried and everyone was digging in completely the wrong place. I am sure this was complete fantasy, but it was an unsolicited remark...

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

On 7/26/2020 at 1:01 AM, alt-92 said:

Yes, about that... you still owe us 24 Spits bought and paid for in 1943 that we didn't get to keep in 1945 at the disbandment of 322 Sqn RAF.

 

True story.

:P

 

Ah but the unpaid airfield parking charges since 1945 and eventual disposal charges ...... 😃

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been told that the Spits are in a large, underground chamber, full of deadly snakes. There's also a big, dusty box in one corner with some funny-looking writing on it. No-one knows what's in the box, but I reckon it could be a new-mould 1/32nd SR-71. This has yet to be confirmed, however.

 

Chris. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2020 at 10:10 AM, spruecutter96 said:

I've been told that the Spits are in a large, underground chamber, full of deadly snakes. There's also a big, dusty box in one corner with some funny-looking writing on it. No-one knows what's in the box, but I reckon it could be a new-mould 1/32nd SR-71. This has yet to be confirmed, however.

 

Chris. 

You mean? The holy grail at last !!!!

Edited by noelh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I  think  Austria's  problem is that of many smaller or neutral, non aligned countries in that buying and maintaining state of the art fighters or even not quite state of the art, is simply unaffordable. Hence for example New Zealand's decision to  phase out fast jets. 

 

It was all very well when the state of the art were Spitfires. In fact  here in Ireland the last true fighter in service was the Seafire III. After that jet fighters were simply off the radar.

 

Even older models like the F16 require a level of support and infrastructure that smaller countries can't afford.

 

Larger  countries are not immune either. The RAF is a lot smaller now.  F35s are quite expensive as we all know.

 

So Austria had to  make a  decision to  cut its losses. On the other hand whether it makes sense for Indonesia to buy their Typhoons is another matter. 

 

Time will tell.

 

 

Edited by noelh
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austria sure has problems financing its army, jets are only a part (but a big one actually) of the problem.

Mone, is an issue certainly and everywhere, but political fear/ weakness  is the reason. Fighter jets in Austria are only popular with modelers and airshow visitors...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indonesia might buy the Typhoons a real bargain price, but I don't think they will enjoy the sky-high maintenance and operational costs involved with the airframes. Still, it will probably be less money than buying the last technological "hot rod" and paying for all the back-up services and such (F-35, anyone?).

 

Chris.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2020 at 7:06 AM, Britman said:

If Austria is serious about disposal of the Typhoons ( eurofighter ) I would rather see them go to New Zealand. It still seems strange with NZ's history it has decided not have a self defence force.

 

Keith

I suspect that modern air forces and small countries with correspondingly small tax bases, such as NZ and Ireland, don't really go together, unless they happen to be Singapore.

Edited by JosephLalor
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JosephLalor said:
On 7/24/2020 at 4:06 PM, Britman said:

 

I suspect that modern air forces and small countries with correspondingly small tax bases, such as NZ and Ireland, don't really go together,


In New Zealand’s case, I presume it’s also the fact that no adversary is really in a position to threaten them directly, given their relative isolation.

 

Of course, China’s emerging capabilities may force a re-think, in years to come...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, noelh said:

I  think  Austria's  problem is that of many smaller or neutral, non aligned countries in that buying and maintaining state of the art fighters or even not quite state of the art, is simply unaffordable. Hence for example New Zealand's decision to  phase out fast jets. 

 

 

Sadly, New Zealand as a country didn't choose to phase out the combat force.  It was an ideological rather than fiscal decision taken by the newly elected Prime Minister at the time, who was known to have been a student protestor at the dockside when the Skyhawks were delivered. None of this was signaled in the lead up to the election though.

There's also a common misconception that she ditched our fleet of Skyhawks, when in fact it was F-16s that were really ditched, along with the Macchi 339s of course.

I guess we'll never know whether or not we'd have ever been able to afford to keep them flying.

:crying:

C130Js have been publicly confirmed and luckily (with another election due this year) I think/hope there is cross-party support for replacing the 50+year old 'H' models.

 

Gaz

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's happening is what could be known as 'economic disarmament'. Modern weapons have become so costly that it's too expensive for poorer or smaller nations to maintain any kind of large and/or 'sophisticated' fighting force. It's left up to the big boys like the US, Russia, and China to waste spend their money on large armies and the latest gold-plated weapon systems. I remember reading an article in The Atlantic Monthly many years ago about the inexorably increasing costs of aircraft being so rapid, that by the year 2040 (or something like that), if present trends continued, the United States would only be able to afford one fighter aeroplane, and it would have to be shared amongst the various services! The statement was made rather jokingly (that was the first mention of the term 'economic disarmament' I'd seen), but I'm not so certain it's that far from the truth. Frankly, if military weapons became too expensive for any nation to have, I wouldn't be averse to that situation.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

Edited by Learstang
Further comments added (of course).
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎29‎/‎2020 at 5:53 AM, Learstang said:

What's happening is what could be known as 'economic disarmament'. Modern weapons have become so costly that it's too expensive for poorer or smaller nations to maintain any kind of large and/or 'sophisticated' fighting force. It's left up to the big boys like the US, Russia, and China to waste spend their money on large armies and the latest gold-plated weapon systems. I remember reading an article in The Atlantic Monthly many years ago about the inexorably increasing costs of aircraft being so rapid, that by the year 2040 (or something like that), if present trends continued, the United States would only be able to afford one fighter aeroplane, and it would have to be shared amongst the various services! The statement was made rather jokingly (that was the first mention of the term 'economic disarmament' I'd seen), but I'm not so certain it's that far from the truth. Frankly, if military weapons became too expensive for any nation to have, I wouldn't be averse to that situation.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

There's a major problem with this concept. If the US government were to allow this to happen, then the enormous military-industrial complex would be forced to shut down. No new orders means no reason to keep the factories open or keep paying your huge work-forces. American politicians will not stand for hundreds of thousands of their electorate being made redundant in this way.  Also, if companies go out of business, they are no longer paying billions in taxes to the US government. It is effectively establishing a vicious circle. 

 

Additionally, all military-machines have major accidents (particularly airframes), have to be upgraded on a regular basis, suffer damage through everyday usage  and - eventually - reach a point when they are considered obsolete. The operational-lifetime service contracts can be worth enormous sums of money. For these reasons, the idea of only having one aircraft in service is a complete non-starter - although I appreciate the original poster said it was a "tongue-in-cheek" reference.  

 

Chris. 

 

PS: Considering how many people are starving to death on this planet and the staggering amount money that is spent on weapons every year, maybe it would a great deal more sense to stop buying the arms and take a more merciful attitude towards our fellow man. Still, politics, eh? 

Edited by spruecutter96
Amending some information.
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of the cost of fighter aircraft, I remember reading many moons ago that the Belgian government built all their F-16's under licence in Belgian factories. According to this account, they spent so much money building the airframes that, for many years, they could not afford to actually fly them!

 

Chris. 

Edited by spruecutter96
Amending some information.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, that modern combat aircraft are becoming increasingly expensive. However, something does not add up here. How comes, that during the (first) Cold war every self-respecting country counted pieces of its heavy military hardware like combat aircraft and helicopters, MBT-s, APC-s and other stuff in hundreds if not in thousands and still maintained fairly decent standard of living of its population? Cheers

Jure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest an answer to some of the questions posed above is that human beings and their governments react to perceived threat scenarios. Car drivers slow down for police traffics vehicles, people wash hands and wear masks when nasty bugs are about, folks buy insurance if they think the risk outweighs the cost of premiums and governments spend on defence if they see a realistic threat. New Zealand and Eire (no offence meant here) can shelter under the wing of a large benevolent neighbour - pretty much with exceptions yes. Hence they don’t have such a compelling need to spend tax dollars on defence as say a country at the other end of that spectrum like say South Korea or Israel. It’s just being human really 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good example of that is Canada. I sometimes wonder why it has any real military at all*, except for national pride (yes I realise that Canada has NATO responsibilities, but I'm talking about a real need, not what are basically contractual obligations). The only credible threat to Canada is Russia, and any conflict between Russia and Canada would almost of necessity involve the United States, so it's not going to happen. The only other possible threat to Canada is the United States, and if the United States wanted to take over (not keep, mind you, but invade and occupy it for a time), there's little the Canadians could do to stop it, no matter how much they spent on defence. Still, I suppose nationalism and the old military-industrial complex are alive and well in Canada, as they are in the United States, so there are Canadians who still want to see a larger military, whether there's a real need or not, just as in the United States.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

 

*I'm not talking about some local security forces, or some sort of coast guard/coastal air force, which given Canada's huge coastline, is necessary.

Edited by Learstang
Additional comments added.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Slater said:

Back in 2017, New Zealand requested some old P-8A's for upgrading. Presumably that fell by the wayside? 

There are no old P-8A's.  The P-8A is the current production version.


NZ ihas ordered 4 P-8A's . Work is underway on their new facilities at the moment 

  • Like 1
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...