Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 71

Thread: Will Israel be able to sell the Arrow system to India?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,992

    Default Will Israel be able to sell the Arrow system to India?

    Elements within Israel’s industries believe that a change has occurred in the US position regarding the sale of the Arrow system to India following the weakening of the US’s special standing with the sub-continent

    Arie Egozi

    (...)

    In the past, India showed interest in the Israeli Arrow system, but the US did not even allow the system to be shown to them. As is known, India purchased the Green Pine radar, which is a part of the Arrow system.

    (...)

    Last week, the US announced it was willing to consider selling systems for intercepting ballistic missiles to India in order to assist India in defense against nuclear threats. Presently, China is the central threat to Asian countries.
    The US began initial talks with India for the sale of missile-defense systems against ballistic missiles nearly three years ago; most of the talks were at a technical level.
    According to analysts, the US hoped to sell the Patriot Pac-3 missile to India, however, India is more interested in building its own systems than procuring parts of them from the US, or alternatively, procuring systems with greater capabilities. One such system is the operational Arrow-2 and Arrow-3 that is presently in the advanced development stage.

    Since the US is a partner in the development of the Arrow system by way of funding, and because Boeing produces some of the missiles in its factories, the Israel-US system may be presented after all.
    “If India requests it, then it will be very difficult for the Americans to refuse, since they are part of the Arrow project and the changes in policy have created a new situation,” said an Israeli source well connected on the subject.
    Israel is refusing to respond to such an assessment, but is considering it during deliberations.
    India is also taking strides towards its own development of a missile-based system against ballistic missiles, but is currently only in initial development stages.

    http://www.israeldefense.com/?Catego...&ArticleID=822

  2. #2
    Senior Member twinblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    In front of the telly, watching cricket.
    Posts
    5,038

    Default

    That should be interesting, especially after homegrown interceptors are going strong. I am not so sure about swordfish radar though.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Ambassador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Weehan
    Posts
    7,425

    Default

    How is the profit from a potential sale distributed?

  4. #4
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,992

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ambassador View Post
    How is the profit from a potential sale distributed?
    Initially, IAI produced Arrow 2. Later, IAI passed contracts to Boeing as subcontractor.
    For Arrow 3, Boeing will produce 40-50% of the system.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minis...fense_(Israel)

  5. #5
    Senior Member Ambassador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Weehan
    Posts
    7,425

    Default

    How does the royalty mechanism work? The US pumped $2 billion into the system's development. UAE for example also paid the entire cost of F-16 Block 60 development and that is why each time the variant is sold to another country, UAE will be receiving a fraction of the profit even without producing any parts for the aircraft or having actively participated in the development.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,992

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ambassador View Post
    How does the royalty mechanism work? The US pumped $2 billion into the system's development. UAE for example also paid the entire cost of F-16 Block 60 development and that is why each time the variant is sold to another country, UAE will be receiving a fraction of the profit even without producing any parts for the aircraft or having actively participated in the development.
    I don't know the answer for this question. The funding of the Arrow line was made over 20 years both by the US and the Israeli governments.

  7. #7
    Senior Member gresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Age
    24
    Posts
    6,669

    Default

    Interesting. Glad to see the Arrow program going strong. What's the reason the US isn't adopting this again? Because of THAAD, right?

  8. #8
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    26,447

    Default

    No. Not without the US's okay.

  9. #9
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    26,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gresh View Post
    Interesting. Glad to see the Arrow program going strong. What's the reason the US isn't adopting this again? Because of THAAD, right?
    THAAD is better and it would be largely superfluous. It would probably be a good gap-filler between PAC-3 and THAAD but that's about it.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,992

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gresh View Post
    Interesting. Glad to see the Arrow program going strong. What's the reason the US isn't adopting this again? Because of THAAD, right?
    The Arrow 2 can be moved from a launching site to another but it is not a mobile system. (I think it could not meet US needs of a fully mobile system.) A Thaad missile is 7-8 more expensive than an Arrow 2, as long as I remember.
    The Arrow 3 will be fully mobile and could be also mounted on ships. The cost of Arrow 3 missile will be inferior to Arrow 2.

  11. #11
    Senior Member gresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Age
    24
    Posts
    6,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    THAAD is better and it would be largely superfluous. It would probably be a good gap-filler between PAC-3 and THAAD but that's about it.
    Okay, just wondering. I knew it had a higher operational altitude but I don't know all the details. A lot of times I wonder why we don't use a lot of of Israeli gear, a lot of it is just adaptations of US gear but better. For example, Israeli avionics/EW systems and urban warfare kit.

  12. #12
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    26,447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gresh View Post
    Okay, just wondering. I knew it had a higher operational altitude but I don't know all the details. A lot of times I wonder why we don't use a lot of of Israeli gear, a lot of it is just adaptations of US gear but better. For example, Israeli avionics/EW systems and urban warfare kit.
    Arrow is partially a US design, partially US funded, built in the US, etc. And better for Israeli requirements doesn't always translate into better for US requirements.

  13. #13
    Senior Member gresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Age
    24
    Posts
    6,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    Arrow is partially a US design, partially US funded, built in the US, etc. And better for Israeli requirements doesn't always translate into better for US requirements.
    Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up, I always wondered.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,992

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    THAAD is better and it would be largely superfluous. It would probably be a good gap-filler between PAC-3 and THAAD but that's about it.
    Thaad is a later development than Arrow 2.
    It seems that Arrow 3 will be superior to Thaad for high altitude interception, besides being mobile and much less expensive

  15. #15
    Senior Member gresh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Age
    24
    Posts
    6,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Camera View Post
    Thaad is a later development than Arrow 2.
    It seems that Arrow 3 will be superior to Thaad for high altitude interception, besides being mobile and much less expensive
    Yeah, see that's why I was confused. In the Wikipedia article it says "The design of Arrow 3 promises to be an extremely capable system, more advanced than what we have ever attempted in the U.S. with our programs. [...] This has to do with the seekers that have greater flexibility and other aspects, such as propulsion systems – it will be an extremely capable system."

    So I guess it's down to seeker design, mobility and propulsion system. Then again, it hasn't been tested yet so we'll see how is stacks up against THAAD.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •