PDA

View Full Version : Chavez - give us parts or we give Castro F-16s


MarkD
2nd Nov 2005, 18:33
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4398914.stm

brickhistory
2nd Nov 2005, 18:52
If he does, the Cubans would probably get 'em to run for 40+ years like they have with the 1950s Fords/Chevys.......

Ewan Whosearmy
2nd Nov 2005, 18:53
I don't think that, from a technology-transfer perspective, the US will care too much even if he does go through with his threat.

The FAV operates Block 15 A/B-models that feature *degraded* technology from the 1970s. I suspect China is well beyond that time-frame in foreign technology exploitation terms. Give them to the Cubans and they won't be able to fly them (no spares) and probably wouldn't be able to do anything meaningful with anything they learned from them, either.

Politically, however, it's a different story...

MarkD
3rd Nov 2005, 02:21
I think just the thought of Fidel ordering his boys to turn them into scrap outside Guantanamo for the laugh for the benefit of European and Canadian TV cameras would give the US pause. Never happen of course...

West Coast
3rd Nov 2005, 14:45
Chavez might begin to wonder why no one will sell him stuff with all the cool buzzers, bells and alarms should he transfer the aircraft. Just the stripped down model if anything will be all that any government will be willing to risk.

g126
3rd Nov 2005, 15:08
I think this is typical of the Americans. They sell this hardware to foreign nations, there is a change in leadership and then they suddenly have a problem. The famous cases of course being Afganistan and Iraq in recent times

I would like to say, I hope the American Government gets everything it deserves, but I can't because at the end of the day there are lives on the line, and not just American. But they see the chance to make a profit and to hell with what ever happens in five or ten years. The UK sells a lot of arms, why do we not see this issue on the same scale. Maybe because we have the smallest amount of forethought?

G

steamchicken
3rd Nov 2005, 16:12
He certainly understands the art of chutzpah.

Data-Lynx
3rd Nov 2005, 16:59
g126. Not sure that history supports a UK-good/USA-bad consideration for weapon sales; a bit of googling certainly doesn't. Meanwhile this F16 spat is a gem. The CNN version (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/11/01/venezuela.jets.ap/) adds China as a possible beneficiary while the BBC's Robin Lustig interview (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4359386.stm) with Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez, suggests this is a man who really understands George W. He is in possession of intelligence showing that the United States plans to invade his country and that the US was after his nation's oil, much as it had been after Iraq's. Reuters expect this Nov 4-5 summit of 34 leaders from the Americas, in an Argentine beach resort, to offer a rare chance to see the two sparring partners in the same forum. Washington is struggling with an increasing number of Latin Americans angry over the Iraq war and years of U.S.-encouraged market reforms.

Sit back and watch the sparks.

MarkD
3rd Nov 2005, 17:10
West Coast

I don't think he really gives a crap because with $60 oil and a willingness to give it cheap to people he likes he has no shortage of friends... for now.

g126
3rd Nov 2005, 18:03
I'm not saying that our weapons sales are good weopons sales, or that they don't have a habit of blowing up in our faces (if you'll exuse the pun) because they do, but it just seems like the yanks seem to provide weopons to a lot of countries that then end up turning them around and pointing them at American Soldiers, albeit politically this time.

Like with the first gulf war. The USA had just provided Saddam with a shed load of munitions to fight the Iran-Iraq war and then under a year later they are being used against American and coalition forces.

We are not entirely beyond blame, I agree, we've had our fair share of mistakes when it comes to the arms market as well. Although not quite on the same scale as the yanks. Or maybe we just don't hear about when our weapons get pointed against us.

Ewan Whosearmy
3rd Nov 2005, 18:11
I don't think you can sit there and pretend that we're somehow a better race of people because we've sold less than the Amercians. It's certainly not been for want of trying; the reality is that since the 70s, they've had better kit to sell. OK, so we did good business selling the Tornado ADV/IDS and Hawk to the Saudis, but more recently they've bought the F-15C/D and F-15S. Guess which ones they think are 'best'?

Law of averages says that if you sell more kit to more nations, you'll get a proportionally higher number of problems like this in the decades that follow.

pr00ne
3rd Nov 2005, 18:22
g126,

Not wishing to rain on your parade but weren’t the Iraqi and Afghan armed forces absolutely chock full of Russian and French arms rather than US or UK made?
Hordes of Migs, Sukhois, Mirages etc rather than Brit or Yank shiny stuff.

g126
3rd Nov 2005, 18:24
I did not mention anything about race, so please don't bring that into it. And as I said, we are not beyond blame, by any stretch of the imagination. Ok, being sporting I will add this before someone uses against me, the UK has provided training to many rogue nations including Iraq and Argentina pre-Falklands. So yes, we are still at fault. So why is it the Americans seem to come a cropper? Maybe they get into more scuffles than we do?

But if you take the Saudi's as your example and the Iraqi's as mine, then which one is really more likely to turn?

And the same in Afganistan where the USA provided arms to terrorists who they knew were anti-American at the time. The arms business its self I think is a seperate discussion and one that could fill many pages, but returning to my point I still think that they could be a little more selective as to who they sell to and if they are not willing to do this then maybe they shouldn't be policing the world as much as they do.

And pr00ne, yes this is true, but I was referring to the items like the Stinger missiles that the Americans were rather keen to re-aquire after the Russian-Afghan war. I shudder to think what damage could be done to one of our harriers out there.

brickhistory
3rd Nov 2005, 19:33
quotes:

But they see the chance to make a profit and to hell with what ever happens in five or ten years. The UK sells a lot of arms, why do we not see this issue.....

Or maybe we just don't hear about when our weapons get pointed against us.

I still think that they could be a little more selective as to who they sell to and if they are not willing to do this then maybe they shouldn't be policing the world as much as they do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

g126,

So BAe, et al, are in the milk and cookies business? (BTW, I am not slamming BAe or other companies for selling arms, or the UK, for that matter, there's always a demand....)

So your history books of UK intervention in Borneo, Indonesia, Muscat/Oman, various African countries, etc. etc. are exactly examples of what?

When it was the UK's turn at bat as a superpower, your governments did the same things and caught the same flak from the less-enamored with things British world during the 19th and early 20th century. For now, we're it. Probably within my lifetime, it'll be the Chinese. Being American does not inherently = bad. Just the reality of, for now, being the biggest kid on the block. Wish we did some things better, but it still amazes me how the countries that hate us still keep trying to get their citizens in.......

Now, to get back on thread - Chavez, posturing little simp. South American governments have a way of sorting themselves out with or without US government and/or corporate intervention. A/B models of F-16s aren't exactly state of the art anymore.....

Ewan Whosearmy
3rd Nov 2005, 19:47
I used the term 'race' in the broader sense, if it offends you, substitute it for the term 'nation'.

What munitions did the US give Iraq to fight Iran? Certainly nothing of significance - Iraq's IADS was built by the French, and its Tanks, APCs and entire Air Force came from Russia and the French (Mirage F1.EQs etc.).

As for Stingers in Afghanistan, have you ever heard of a 'shelf life'? The biggest threat in OEF was from midairs with other coalition aircraft, and, I'd hasten to add, it was the Americans that did the overwhelming majority of precision strike, time sensitive taskings and CAS out there. So, if you insist that yours is a valid argument (which it isn't because the unaccounted Stingers were considered to be knackered), then it was the Yanks that went in and faced any possible repurcussions.

I haven't had the threat briefing that the Harrier guys get in Afghanistan, but I doubt very much that it includes warnings about Stingers. It's much more likely that the MANPAD threat from the Taliban consists of SA-7/14s, which are, erm, Russian...

Bottom line is that if our policy allows us to sell to the likes of Malaysia and Saudi, then I doubt we'd shy away from selling hardware to many other nations. It's more a question of whose kit is better, not who has the fewer scruples.

West Coast
3rd Nov 2005, 19:54
Mark
He may get some kit from some one, but no one is going to sell him top of the line equipment (read avionics and weapons) I don't care who it is, the Yanks, the Chinese, Brits, French, etc. He may end up with a gutted F22 in a few years but with Cessna radios and a radar from a F4 in the boneyard.
If he sells the vipers today, whats to stop him or his successors from selling the top of the line Chinese stuff tomorrow after the winds of political change sweep through? Nothing, and I don't believe any country would want that exposure with the best they have. There have been arguments here about transfers to our closest allies, let alone a questionable buyer.

g126
3rd Nov 2005, 20:14
How about the 8-12 million landmines, of which approximately six million were sold to Iraq by the U.S. The U.S. knew that Iraq was a rogue state, and that it had used gas on the kurds, which was one of their major arguments for entering Iraq in the first place (WMD's, supposedly), and that the gas itself was sold to Iraq by the US.

Also, many of the bunkers were designed and built by German companies. It's all one big dangerous game, and everyone is involved all the 'friendly' nations including us, and i say this again, because it sounds like people believe that i think the UK is resolved from blame, which i do not.


Ok, fair enough about the stingers, i'm not up-to-date with that obviously, but they were concerned about them post Afghan War.

brickhistory
3rd Nov 2005, 20:16
quote: (out of context)

i'm not up-to-date with that obviously:ok:

g126
3rd Nov 2005, 20:27
that's low, and as you said, out of context.

OFBSLF
3rd Nov 2005, 20:32
Like with the first gulf war. The USA had just provided Saddam with a shed load of munitions to fight the Iran-Iraq war and then under a year later they are being used against American and coalition forces.Really? And just which weapons were those?

Did the US provide Saddam with AK47s and RPGs? No, that was all sov-block stuff.

Did the US provide Saddam with squad automatic weapons and AAA? No, that was all sov-block stuff.

How about artillery? Nope, that was sov-block and some South African.

Did the US provide Saddam with armor? Nope, he got those T72s and BMPs from the sov-block.

Did the US provide Saddam with Migs and Sukhois and Mirages? Nope, those came from the USSR and France.

Did the US provide Saddam with IL-76 transport aircraft? Nope.

How about his helicopters? Most were Soviet, some French.

How about his SAM? Nope, Soviet and French.

So do tell, g126. Where are the shedloads of weapons that the US provided to Saddam?

If you're going to do the usual pprune yank-bashing willy-waving, next time how about bashing us for something we actually did?

g126
3rd Nov 2005, 20:41
Possibly in the 3,444 minefields still suspected to be in Iraq.

I know of a briefing to some US troops where they were told that the landmine situation was a serious threat and that while they suspected he had up to 12million landmines across Iraq, they knew that he had six million state of the art landmines because they still had the receipts for them. (this was pre-GW1)

brickhistory
3rd Nov 2005, 20:58
quote:
I know of a briefing to some US troops where they were told that the landmine situation was a serious threat
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Landmines a serious threat? Do tell!?


(On a serious note- one of the saddest things I've seen come through was a report of a 19 yr. old USAF supply airman, who a week prior was shivering his n***s off at Minot AFB, North Dakota, stepped off the marked path at a base in Afghanistan and blew his leg off. This happened not too long after OEF launched. I know too many guys have been killed/wounded since, but that one really struck me hard. Poor, young b*****d.)

NZLeardriver
3rd Nov 2005, 21:10
Not that I support Chavez or anything, but if the US sells his country the planes and has a contract for parts, what do they expect him to do when they break their side of the agreement?
Does the agreement say that we will sell you these planes and will provide parts as long as you are our vassal? Almost a bit like blackmail isn't it?

OFBSLF
3rd Nov 2005, 21:11
And do you have a link to documentation that the US provided Saddam with landmines?

I've seen links that said the US spread land mines in GW1:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0218/p11s02-coop.html

But none that said we sold Saddam land mines.

And if the US did sell land mines to Saddam, how does that make us a major supplier of arms to Saddam, when compared against the USSR and France?

g126
3rd Nov 2005, 21:12
Sorry, a bit of an understatement there, I meant the number of them.

And it is exactly that, landmines are one of the horrors of modern warfare, and for the US to supply six million to Iraq is questionable, to say the least.

Ok, maybe this is my fault. My fault for laying the blame initially at the feet of America. As both myself and others have said it is many different nations that are to blame for arms sales, and as Brickhistory said:

"(BTW, I am not slamming BAe or other companies for selling arms, or the UK, for that matter, there's always a demand....)"

It's true that these countries will sale arms to anyone who will buy them, and believe it or not I'm not a 'conshy' or a ‘lefty’ or anything like that. It just saddens and angers me to see US/British/Western Weapons being used against their own men. And I suppose that is just one of those things we have to except in today's globalised world.

However, it has to be said that if the USA does not want it's secrets (and whether the F16 is still secret is another story) to be revealed to it's enemies then it needs to be more careful who it sells them to.

OFBSLF
3rd Nov 2005, 21:14
Again, you've provided no documentation that the US provided 6M mines to Saddam.

Where's the proof?

The Helpful Stacker
3rd Nov 2005, 21:17
Not all military assistance given to a 'dodgy' country has to be in the form of hardware. Lets not forget that before Gulf War 1 many officers of the Republican Guard and Iraqi Army were trained in such glorious military establishments as West Point, Sandhurst and other fine training bases throughout the US and the UK.

Now days most of these ex-senior officers with outstanding military knowledge are supplementing their lack of military pay (good decision Bremner) with back handers for technical assistance from the very people we are trying to fight at the moment in Iraq.

Then we have our friendly CIA trained chums from Afghanistan and we all know how good they are at what they've been trained to do....

Of course all of this is the result of the Cold War being fought by proxy. Let some poor sap at the other world do the fighting whilst us folk in the west and the red menace in the east throw the occasional tip bit into the mêlée.

One day we may learn that these things always seem to bite us in the arse.

g126
3rd Nov 2005, 21:17
Unfortunately my source was a video. I will try my best to track down written documentation of this.

brickhistory
3rd Nov 2005, 21:18
quotes:

Does the agreement say that we will sell you these planes and will provide parts as long as you are our vassal? Almost a bit like blackmail isn't it?

However, it has to be said that if the USA does not want it's secrets (and whether the F16 is still secret is another story) to be revealed to it's enemies then it needs to be more careful who it sells them to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the former comment:

And that's a bad thing in our national interests because.......?

For the latter:
Right, guess we'll rethink our partners in the JSF..............(and I do not mean this comment seriously. Also, not related to the JSF thread on pprune.)

Ewan Whosearmy
3rd Nov 2005, 21:21
G

Don't get me wrong, the foreign military sales policies of the US *and* the UK are aspects to both countries that I find reprehensible, particularly America's (seemingly) bottomless pit of money for toys to Israel, and our sales of Hawks to Malaysia. That's my personal view, but it's one also tempered by pragmatism. We need oil and political clout; they need weapons. Period. I'll just have to learn to live with it.

However, my beef with your post is that you singled-out the Spams because they've sold more than we have to a greater number of customers. My whole point is that they have done so principally because their products are, on the whole, more desirable; and if you want to pick your home team, America will probably be the first guy you choose.

I'm not sure that, when one looks at the Iraqi Order of Battle, the land mines you mention are anything more than a minor embarrassment for the Yanks. You can't actually throw a landmine at someone, but you can protect your own territory with one. It's a little different in my view from supplying them with offensive weaponry.

g126
3rd Nov 2005, 21:29
"In the 1980s the United States sold more than $134 billion in weapons and military services to more than 160 nations and political movements. American sales increased further during the 1990s. In 1993, the United States controlled nearly 73% of the weapons trade to the Third World [32]. A large part of American arms exports -- 85% has been estimated -- has gone to non-democratic and often brutal regimes; in Panama, Iraq, and Somalia such arms were turned against American forces. American arms also fuel conflicts and increase regional tensions."

from: http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/V3Sidel.html

Still looking for landmine specifics.

Ewan,

I did apologise that my original post was directed solely at the US, that was possibly because it was the US involved in this particular case, I have, a few times now, stated that it is not solely the US who are responsible.

I believe that there were more than landmines provided but I nothing that I can think of in specific terms at this moment.

brickhistory
3rd Nov 2005, 21:34
quote:
"American arms also fuel conflicts and increase regional tensions."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did not read the entire article from the medical (medical?! WTFO!?) journal you sited, but putting aside the facts and figures in it, it loses crediblity when editorial comments are inserted.


Your point is made, the US leads the world in arms sales. That point has been addressed numerous times already in this thread. Let the poor deceased nag lie in peace.

Now, what will Chavez do with his old F-16s and do we care? Me thinks not.

g126
3rd Nov 2005, 21:42
No, by the sounds of things on here they are passed their sell-by-date anyway.

Possibly a bluff, maybe the cubans can turn them into novelty cigar lighters.:}


Won't effect immediate world situation.

My apologies, kind of a pointless argument really. Still fun though.

Ewan Whosearmy
3rd Nov 2005, 21:54
G

I missed you clarification, so my bad for banging on unecessarily.

The the VAF Block 15 Vipers might well make for good scrap, but what would the Cubans do about the hydrazine? Now, there's a topic for friends of the earth to sink their teeth into ;)

The Helpful Stacker
3rd Nov 2005, 22:09
Why are F16's known as Vipers these days? I'm sure in the 'Big Noddy Guide To All The Worlds Wooshy Bangy Things' they used to be know as Falcons.

Is Falcon not cool enough or something for the modern battlefield/tin pot country?

brickhistory
3rd Nov 2005, 22:23
"Why are F16's known as Vipers these days?"


The official name is "Fighting Falcon" which is the USAF Academy team name.

When the jet first came out, a sci-fi show called "Battlestar Galactica" had neat looking space fighters called "Vipers."

Since the F-16 was the first US all-up FBW jet, and probably because it sounded 'cool,' Viper name was born.

Fairly sure about this anyway........

Ewan Whosearmy
3rd Nov 2005, 22:40
Brick

That's also what I understood. I've heard of Eagle drivers who like to call their simulated kills thus: "Kill, Fighting Falcon in the climbing right turn". Gets some peoples' backs-up, apparently :).

brickhistory
3rd Nov 2005, 23:25
Ewan,

Yep. The converse is "Kill, tennis court, popping flares, 20K."
for size of the F-15.

Also for fighter name trivia, when I was at Kadena, the 67FS had the oldest F-15s in the inventory. The "Fighting Cocks" became the "Jurassic" Cocks. Funny patch.........

OFBSLF
4th Nov 2005, 13:57
In the 1980s the United States sold more than $134 billion in weapons and military services to more than 160 nations and political movements. American sales increased further during the 1990s. In 1993, the United States controlled nearly 73% of the weapons trade to the Third World [32]. A large part of American arms exports -- 85% has been estimated -- has gone to non-democratic and often brutal regimes; in Panama, Iraq, and Somalia such arms were turned against American forces. American arms also fuel conflicts and increase regional tensions."g126:

First, that quote does not exactly come from an impartial source -- clearly they've got an axe to grind against the US. Second, there is no backup. Third, there is no detail. What did the US sell to Iraq? It doesn't say that we sold them mines. It doesn't say what we sold them. It doesn't say how much we sold them. It doesn't say that the US was a major supplier of arms to Iraq. In fact, it doesn't say much at all.

The fact is the US was not a major supplier of arms to Iraq. The major suppliers of weapons to Iraq were 1) the USSR, and 2) France. So why aren't you criticizing those two countries?

You have failed to name a single major weapons system that the US sold to Iraq. That's because there wasn't any.

So, will you now, finally, agree that the US was not a major supplier of arms to Iraq?

Ewan Whosearmy
4th Nov 2005, 15:12
Brick

You familiar with any of the newer derogatory names for the Viper? I particularly liked Flying Dorito, which was 'new' a few years back.

brickhistory
4th Nov 2005, 16:08
"Lawn Dart' is an oldie, but still in vogue.

Hadn't heard 'dorito,' what's the connotation?

g126
4th Nov 2005, 16:29
OFBSLF,

only if you read the last umpteen post and agree that in almost every post since my initial one now I have said that it was not just the US but many other countries, including the UK, France, USSR, South Africa, Germany and a thousand other countries as well, that supply arms to countries that they shouldn't. Now as brick said:

"That point has been addressed numerous times already in this thread. Let the poor deceased nag lie in peace."

G

Rakshasa
4th Nov 2005, 16:49
Doesn't Lawn Dart get recycled alot? I seem to recall it referring to the F100 too.

brickhistory
4th Nov 2005, 16:58
Doesn't Lawn Dart get recycled alot? I seem to recall it referring to the F100 too.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, guess it's that nasty tendency of fighters to smack into the ground.

Terra firma = Pk 1.0

Ewan Whosearmy
4th Nov 2005, 18:07
Brick

Apparently comes from the strap-line of said delicious snack: "You Keep Crunchin' 'Em, We'll Keep Makin' 'Em!"

West Coast
4th Nov 2005, 20:07
"You Keep Crunchin' 'Em, We'll Keep Makin' 'Em!"

Buy some land around Luke AFB and you can have your very own F16. Just wait.