I don't like the fact : I buy you something just if you buy something from me. It's biased for the competition imho.
The parties that were involved in the deal were the IAF (as an user, and he gave an advisory priority to the M-346), Elbit and IAI (as buyers through a joint venture, that will rent flight hours to the IAF ).Originally Posted by Kadrun
The Italian proposal was generous with IAI (so I guess IAI was in favor of the M-346), while Korean proposal (Iron Dome) was good for Rafael, but Rafael is not a part of the deal.
^
Korea offered purchasing 2~4 AWAC so no difference at all.
But apparently refused to make a formal commitment for the offset.
^^
Exactly what I understood from the press, the formal commitment was the main issue.
That's business, quid pro quo
At the same time Korea wants to sell it's trainers, tanks and fleet replenishment ships to Europe, but when European companies try to sell aircraft in Korea (and Japan) it's heavily biased in favour of US companies
I know it's business. And politics too. It's almost everywhere the same thing.
As expected, some of you Europeans still easily fall victim to the general stereotype and typical, overused excuse to explain off Europe's legitimate lack of overwhelming success in the Korean arms market, which is actually because the US defense industry is, in fact, still a very efficient and competitive rival. See for yourself how little we purchased US weapons in the past several years in our strenuous efforts to diversify our defense import. While our fighter fleet does seem to favor US designs, it's not quite so in other areas. We use many types of European and Russian-designed trainers, helicopters, and support aircraft for our Air Force and Army, and our naval shipbuilding enjoys good partnership with European companies via the likes of Thales and BAE Systems. Do you think BAE Hawk, Il-103, Bo-105, CN-235, Dassault Falcon, Hawker 800, KA-32, Super Puma, Super Lynx, had been American made? America supplied the SMART-L radar and Goalkeepers on our flagship Dokdo? KM-SAM and Surion have been developed with American cooperation? Non-US companies have won many significant defense contracts in Korea since ages ago. Most purchases above are now age-old, not recent ones, so even from a long-term historical perspective Europe indeed long had heavy presence in Korea in spite of America's own long years of firm establishment. It's time that you Europeans sincerely tried to find more revolutionary, practical measures to bring the Euro-Korean industrial cooperation to a new level instead of perpetually blaming your loss to the US to our political alliance, which is not very stable where economic and industrial considerations are concerned (of course, the real decision makers in the European defense industry already know an do just that). The US buys more Korean defense products and technologies for its own armed forces than Europe does, for example. The US is the biggest buyer of Korean defense export, while Europe is one of the smallest. There are many ways that Europe can change that. UK can buy our fleet tankers, we can buy UK-made naval systems. How can that be so bad?
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...=1#post6026149
The flight hour of the M-346 is less expensive and this was an important point for a trainer (according to an article in Hebrew).
When you don't make a formal commitment ,don't cry ,even though i don't think that it's the main reason not to buy the Korean plane.
Congrats to alenia, the better trainer won
EDIT: NVM
10 chars.
Why is S.Korea so butthurt for losing the contract? You win some you lose some. If they realy need our tech, like the Iron Dome and the tankers, they'll get them either way; if not it's not our problem. Sure we lose a 1 billion (and change) dollar contract, but there are plenty of other countries to sell to.
The operating cost of a trainer is an important point, because the flight hours will be sold to the IAF:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...190927,00.htmlAnother security establishment official added that "our pilots have flown dozens of sorties to test the training jets, in South Korea as well as in Italy. Many parameters were examined, particularly the quality of training, safety and price. During these tests we came to the conclusion that in addition to the professional advantages, the Italian planes would be cheaper to operate."
That's very interesting considering the M346 is a dual engine jet trainer whilst the T-50 is a single engine jet trainer.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
