Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 87

Thread: Alenia Aermacchi M-346 won the Israeli competetion

  1. #16
    Senior Member frenchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    2,354

    Default

    I don't like the fact : I buy you something just if you buy something from me. It's biased for the competition imho.

  2. #17
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kadrun View Post
    Korea offered more purchases than Italy. It is not 1 bil like other article said.
    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 ).
    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.

  3. #18
    Senior Member Kadrun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    the Holy Imperial States of Earth, Universe is ours!
    Posts
    2,377

    Default

    ^
    Korea offered purchasing 2~4 AWAC so no difference at all.

  4. #19
    Senior Member JGXL836's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Israel, Sderot
    Age
    30
    Posts
    3,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kadrun View Post
    Korea offered more purchases than Italy.
    But apparently refused to make a formal commitment for the offset.

  5. #20
    Member Swarovski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    ישראל
    Posts
    192

    Default

    ^^
    Exactly what I understood from the press, the formal commitment was the main issue.

  6. #21
    Senior Member Eoin666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The Black Country
    Posts
    1,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frenchy View Post
    I don't like the fact : I buy you something just if you buy something from me. It's biased for the competition imho.
    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

  7. #22
    Senior Member frenchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    2,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eoin666 View Post
    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.

  8. #23
    Senior Member Ambassador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Weehan
    Posts
    7,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eoin666 View Post
    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
    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

  9. #24
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,935

    Default

    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).

  10. #25
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    655

    Default

    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.

  11. #26
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Congrats to alenia, the better trainer won

  12. #27
    Daddy's little boy RSone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Age
    25
    Posts
    13,830

    Default

    EDIT: NVM
    10 chars.

  13. #28
    Senior Member deathil93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Zionist Empire
    Posts
    1,884

    Default

    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.

  14. #29
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    55
    Posts
    15,935

    Default

    The operating cost of a trainer is an important point, because the flight hours will be sold to the IAF:

    Another 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."
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...190927,00.html

  15. #30
    Member lander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Camera View Post
    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.html
    That's very interesting considering the M346 is a dual engine jet trainer whilst the T-50 is a single engine jet trainer.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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