Interesting take on the co-ordination that went into the journey over.
A look at how the RAF brought the new F-35Bs across the pond
A look at how the RAF brought the new F-35Bs across the pond
It will be particularly fascinating if the US decides to seize the now Turkish planes to prevent their NATO allies the Turks from flying their own aircraft back to their own country.The first Turkish F-35A has been handed over in the now familiar ceremony at Fort Worth.
The soap opera will now play out over the next few months as US political opposition to the sale argues against further deliveries and - presumably - any F-35s being allowed to fly to Turkey.
Regards,
MM
It will be particularly fascinating if the US decides to seize the now Turkish planes to prevent their NATO allies the Turks from flying their own aircraft back to their own country.
That Rubicon however has yet to be crossed.
Yes, but that just amounts to them being seized. The mechanics of the seizure are irrelevant.Access to the base and aircraft will already be strictly controlled, as they are for all foreign personnel irrespective of what insignia an aircraft is wearing. There is no way the Turks could steal the aircraft and get them back to Turkey without US consent.
If the Turks are banned from having their jets before they go back to Turkey, they'd just have to leave them behind in the US (as Iran experienced with their final F-14 in 1979).
To do that with fighter aircraft would be unacceptable to almost any sovereign state and cause many to question the wisdom of buying important weapon systems from the US.One option would be for the US Administration to dictate Turkish F-35s remain on US bases unless and until a specified threat was identified against Turkey. That already happens with some other nation's hardware but I suspect would be unacceptable to Ankara.
Yes, but that just amounts to them being seized. The mechanics of the seizure are irrelevant...
...To do that with fighter aircraft would be unacceptable to almost any sovereign state and cause many to question the wisdom of buying important weapon systems from the US...
...What hardware were you referring to by the way?...
And this has driven the Chileans to look at having Israel upgrade their F-16s to get out from under US control over them, so apparently they find this unacceptable. Apparently the Chileans had to get US permission to use their F-16s with AIM-120 missiles to provide security over Santiago during a summit meeting between Latin American, Caribbean, and EU leaders.(...) I understand that some weapons and systems are ‘held’ in the US for certain countries and would only be released under specific circumstances. AIM-120 was a former example where some nations bought the weapon and were trained in its use. However, the weapons would not released until comparable active AAMs were introduced in the region. Peru’s procurement of AA-12 for instance allowed delivery of AIM-120 to Chile. (...)
The Chilean Air Force is looking again at putting some of its 46 Lockheed Martin F-16 fighters through a service life extension programme (SLEP), local military sources have told Jane’s .
The SLEP, which would incorporate upgrades to avionics and weapons sourced from Israel, would free the aircraft from end-user controls and limitations set by the United States under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system.
According to the sources, the deployment of F-16s armed with AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs) to provide security over Santiago City during a 2013 summit between Latin American, Caribbean, and EU leaders required US authorisation.
And this has driven the Chileans to look at having Israel upgrade their F-16s to get out from under US control over them, so apparently they find this unacceptable...
Funny old thing US arms limitations for customers. For quite some time in KSA BAe Australia employees couldn't work on AIM 9Ls because access was restricted as they were classed as third world nationals. Regardless of the fact that at least one had done a full course at China Lake.I’m not arguing that it’s not a disincentive or that it isn’t unacceptable to some countries (although Chile continues to operate AMRAAM armed F-16s). I’m just stating that it does happen and it may be one option open to the Trump administration.
Regards,
MM
The US vetoed a sale of UK nuclear submarines to Canada because they didn't want Canada to have them due to a territorial dispute in the Arctic (long story already covered on another thread). The submarines contained some US technology (I think something to do with reactors in particular) so any sales required US approval. We eventually ended up buying a diesel version instead (yes, those ones).Funny old thing US arms limitations for customers. For quite some time in KSA BAe Australia employees couldn't work on AIM 9Ls because access was restricted as they were classed as third world nationals. Regardless of the fact that at least one had done a full course at China Lake.
They whined for ages about it.
Yup, Uncle Sam looks after Uncle Sam. No shocks there...The US vetoed a sale of UK nuclear submarines to Canada because they didn't want Canada to have them due to a territorial dispute in the Arctic (long story already covered on another thread). The submarines contained some US technology (I think something to do with reactors in particular) so any sales required US approval. We eventually ended up buying a diesel version instead (yes, those ones).
Personally I would rather just buy from someone who was more interested in taking our money than they were in what we did with the arms.
Yup, Uncle Sam looks after Uncle Sam. No shocks there...
Access to the base and aircraft will already be strictly controlled, as they are for all foreign personnel irrespective of what insignia an aircraft is wearing. There is no way the Turks could steal the aircraft and get them back to Turkey without US consent.
Regards,
MM