U.K. to block any sale of JAS-39s to Argentina

[The Nihilistic view]

It did, but for our good pals in Argentina I'm sure we could work something out

The cost of re-opening production facilities for an extraordinarily small production run would make the F-22 programme (Argentina edition) even more expensive than the original programme. They would probably struggle to afford even one aircraft.
But by all means, lets work something out and let them blow their money on such a small order, at least the US would make a bit of money out of the deal and the Argentines would be able to parade around their fancy new toys.

I would say such a small production run with the restart of the production facilities and you would be looking at about $250-$300m per plane. 24 planes are therefore between $6-7.2bn. Argentina's defence budget for 2015 is planned to be about $5.9bn.

There was a report a few years ago where they said if the US ordered 75 more planes the cost would be $225m per aircraft.

[Imperializt Russia]

The cost of re-opening production facilities for an extraordinarily small production run would make the F-22 programme (Argentina edition) even more expensive than the original programme. They would probably struggle to afford even one aircraft.
But by all means, lets work something out and let them blow their money on such a small order, at least the US would make a bit of money out of the deal and the Argentines would be able to parade around their fancy new toys.

I would say such a small production run with the restart of the production facilities and you would be looking at about $250-$300m per plane. 24 planes are therefore between $6-7.2bn. Argentina's defence budget for 2015 is planned to be about $5.9bn.

There was a report a few years ago where they said if the US ordered 75 more planes the cost would be $225m per aircraft.

Costs don't work this way.

That $225mn per aircraft would be for the US government to contract them from American manufacturers. Argentina is not America. A hypothetical price for the F-22 sold to anyone not the US, for political reasons, would likely be greatly inflated. Unit costs usually also include maintenance and supply chain costs, parts, facilities, expertise - which the US already has and Argentina has none of.
There's no point debating a price because the US will never sell F-22s to Argentina, but it would be ludicrously high.

Six billion dollars in an annual six-billion-dollar budget is like a 20-30 year cost.

[The Nihilistic view]

I would say such a small production run with the restart of the production facilities and you would be looking at about $250-$300m per plane. 24 planes are therefore between $6-7.2bn. Argentina's defence budget for 2015 is planned to be about $5.9bn.

There was a report a few years ago where they said if the US ordered 75 more planes the cost would be $225m per aircraft.

Costs don't work this way.

That $225mn per aircraft would be for the US government to contract them from American manufacturers. Argentina is not America. A hypothetical price for the F-22 sold to anyone not the US, for political reasons, would likely be greatly inflated. Unit costs usually also include maintenance and supply chain costs, parts, facilities, expertise - which the US already has and Argentina has none of.

There's no point debating a price because the US will never sell F-22s to Argentina, but it would be ludicrously high.

And flyaway costs work in exactly this way, they are the marginal cost of producing one unit.

[Dalcaria]

Argentina can afford them, and it seems quite idiotic to me that the UK would block a deal.

And let's not debate ownership of the Malvinas/Falklands.

I fail to see how it would be idiotic for the UK to block future threats to it's territory. As for the debate on ownership of the Falklands, there is no debate. Falkland Islanders live there, and they have every right to stay there and enjoy their land. Should they chose in the future to secede from Britain, that's their prerogative, and theirs alone. That said, I still fail to see what's idiotic about it. Wouldn't the US try to block a deal to ship war machines of some kind to Iran, a nation that has demonstrated a pretty vehement hatred towards Israel, a US ally? As for if Argentina can afford them or not, I can't be certain, but the nation defaulted on it's debt, so I question if they can when even Canada (who is probably doing better than Argentina) can barely afford new jets.

[Dalcaria]

I personally find it highly unlikely that Argentina will be able to afford the Gripen. The Aircraft might be simply too expensive for the country that defaulted earlier this year. I can also see why the UK will block the sale, as it represents a threat to the Falkland Islands.

So, what do you think NSG? Is the UK in the right here to attempt to block a sale? Will Argentina be able to afford them?

Note: Though I know it will come up eventually, but please don't debate ownership of the Falklands.

I think the UK has the right to block the sale as much as the US has the right to at least attempt to block the sale of weapons to a nation like Iran for instance. They pose a threat to a US ally, and Argentina poses a threat to UK citizens, whom they have every right to make efforts to protect. And on the note of debating "ownership", let's lay that to rest by answering the question, who lives in the Falklands? Brits. So the UK is well within their rights to defend a territory they defacto own and that is home to their own citizens. And if anyone wants to debate it again, they can ask David Cameron to give them another referendum on the issue.

[Imperializt Russia]

Costs don't work this way.

That $225mn per aircraft would be for the US government to contract them from American manufacturers. Argentina is not America. A hypothetical price for the F-22 sold to anyone not the US, for political reasons, would likely be greatly inflated. Unit costs usually also include maintenance and supply chain costs, parts, facilities, expertise - which the US already has and Argentina has none of.

There's no point debating a price because the US will never sell F-22s to Argentina, but it would be ludicrously high.

And flyaway costs work in exactly this way, they are the marginal cost of producing one unit.

And flyaway costs are not relevant to an export consumer.

Political considerations dictate the cost of a contract. "Export prices" for Leopard 2 vehicles, as part of contracts, have wavered from under (I'm sure) $1mn to $8-15mn per vehicle.
Pretty sure the Egyptians got some M1 tanks for hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece, while the Iraqis spent seven million each on an order of 175 M1A1M vehicles.

[Keyboard Warriors]

No, the point is that the world isn't going to end if they block the sale. It's not as if this sale is economically crucial or some such.

No, but there's also the absence of a logical reason for blocking it.

Aside from the frequent Argentine threats towards the Falklands of course? Logic isn't relative, if being consistent means being wrong twice then I guess inconsistency is the better option.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Costs don't work this way.

That $225mn per aircraft would be for the US government to contract them from American manufacturers. Argentina is not America. A hypothetical price for the F-22 sold to anyone not the US, for political reasons, would likely be greatly inflated. Unit costs usually also include maintenance and supply chain costs, parts, facilities, expertise - which the US already has and Argentina has none of.

There's no point debating a price because the US will never sell F-22s to Argentina, but it would be ludicrously high.

And flyaway costs work in exactly this way, they are the marginal cost of producing one unit.

Which means Argentina could buy F-22's for $225 million each to sit on the tarmac and look tough.

[The Nihilistic view]

And flyaway costs work in exactly this way, they are the marginal cost of producing one unit.

And flyaway costs are not relevant to an export consumer.

Political considerations dictate the cost of a contract. "Export prices" for Leopard 2 vehicles, as part of contracts, have wavered from under (I'm sure) $1mn to $8-15mn per vehicle.
Pretty sure the Egyptians got some M1 tanks for hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece, while the Iraqis spent seven million each on an order of 175 M1A1M vehicles.

The cost of the contract with have several components. I was just talking about one element, the flyway cost. Obviously there will ahigher what is called weapon system cost but that's not what I was comparing.

And $7m for an Abrams is not a great deal of markup once inflation is taken into account. Back in the late 90's the A1 cost almost $5m each for America. What year did Iraq buy them? because inflation adjusting almost $5m from the late 90s to 2014 levels would come to around $7m anyway.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's important to note that the M1A1M is an ex-US service M1A1 with various downgrades and upgrades applied to it.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Apparently you missed the bollocks a few months ago where the Spanish tried to impose a fee to cross the border. And all the times they've complained when fishing vessels "straying" over the line get stopped.

Yet somehow they've managed to acquire eurofighter and join NATO. Clearly and ongoing territorial dispute does not prevent peaceful, if not amicable, relations.

Claiming that is the case with Argentina is more than dishonest and you know it.

I don't really understand why you're so set on the sale being made, are you really that concerned about the money that will be lost if the sale isn't made?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

It did, but for our good pals in Argentina I'm sure we could work something out

The cost of re-opening production facilities for an extraordinarily small production run would make the F-22 programme (Argentina edition) even more expensive than the original programme. They would probably struggle to afford even one aircraft.
But by all means, lets work something out and let them blow their money on such a small order, at least the US would make a bit of money out of the deal and the Argentines would be able to parade around their fancy new toys.

He was obviously being funny. Selling F-22s to Argentina would imply that they would possess fighters superior to those of the UK, hence the ensuing lulz when Argentina whoops British ass with American planes.

[Risottia]

Selling F-22s to Argentina would imply that they would possess fighters superior to those of the UK

F-22, superior to the Eurofighter. Uh uh.

rain caused "shorts and failures in sophisticated electrical components" when F-22s were posted to Guam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_M ... d_training

[Imperializt Russia]

Selling F-22s to Argentina would imply that they would possess fighters superior to those of the UK

F-22, superior to the Eurofighter. Uh uh.

rain caused "shorts and failures in sophisticated electrical components" when F-22s were posted to Guam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_M ... d_training

And the Eurofighter took half a decade to receive air-to-ground targeting capabilities.
Your point?

The F-22 is a more advanced and possibly more capable aircraft than the Eurofighter.
It's not built for the same mission.

[Calimera II]

Argentina can afford them, and it seems quite idiotic to me that the UK would block a deal.

And let's not debate ownership of the Malvinas/Falklands.

As for if Argentina can afford them or not, I can't be certain, but the nation defaulted on it's debt, so I question if they can when even Canada (who is probably doing better than Argentina) can barely afford new jets.

Argentina has always been able to pay its debt. Technically it has never defaulted, and Argentina is fiscally relatively stable.

[The Nihilistic view]

As for if Argentina can afford them or not, I can't be certain, but the nation defaulted on it's debt, so I question if they can when even Canada (who is probably doing better than Argentina) can barely afford new jets.

Argentina has always been able to pay its debt. Technically it has never defaulted, and Argentina is fiscally relatively stable.

Well apart from in 1827, 1890, 1915, 1930, 1982, 1989, 2001 and 2014. But apart from those 8 times Argentina has always been able to pay it's debt and never defaulted.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Selling F-22s to Argentina would imply that they would possess fighters superior to those of the UK

F-22, superior to the Eurofighter. Uh uh.

rain caused "shorts and failures in sophisticated electrical components" when F-22s were posted to Guam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_M ... d_training

The F-22 is overall superior to any aircraft in existence as far as air combat is concerned.

[The Nihilistic view]

F-22, superior to the Eurofighter. Uh uh.

rain caused "shorts and failures in sophisticated electrical components" when F-22s were posted to Guam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_M ... d_training

The F-22 is overall superior to any aircraft in existence as far as air combat is concerned.

Not in closer air combat. The F-22 main advantages are in BVR, but once within this then most of the other top fighters around the world like the Typhoon can equal it. The philosophy is kill from a longer range which is all well and good until somebody finds a tactic to get in closer and negate the F-22's main advantage.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

The F-22 is overall superior to any aircraft in existence as far as air combat is concerned.

Not in closer air combat. The F-22 main advantages are in BVR, but once within this then most of the other top fighters around the world like the Typhoon can equal it. The philosophy is kill from a longer range which is all well and good until somebody finds a tactic to get in closer and negate the F-22's main advantage.

until someone can do that, what I said holds true

[New Tsavon]

The F-22 is overall superior to any aircraft in existence as far as air combat is concerned.

Not in closer air combat. The F-22 main advantages are in BVR, but once within this then most of the other top fighters around the world like the Typhoon can equal it. The philosophy is kill from a longer range which is all well and good until somebody finds a tactic to get in closer and negate the F-22's main advantage.

Well, you could always throw fighters at the F-22 untill it runs out of missiles and leaves.

Of course you'd be throwing away planes, and worse yet experienced pilots for little gain.

Which means Argentina could buy F-22's for $225 million each to sit on the tarmac and look tough.

>implying we'd sell anyone F22's

[Imperializt Russia]

The F-22 is overall superior to any aircraft in existence as far as air combat is concerned.

Not in closer air combat. The F-22 main advantages are in BVR, but once within this then most of the other top fighters around the world like the Typhoon can equal it. The philosophy is kill from a longer range which is all well and good until somebody finds a tactic to get in closer and negate the F-22's main advantage.

In a 1v1 close combat engagement, yes. This isn't how aerial warfare is conducted though, unless USAF forces upon its F-22 fighter Wings Vietnam-era rules of engagement.

When equipped with the AMRAAM missile, the F-22 should more often than not be able to detect, track, engage and kill almost any other combat fighter aircraft before it can attempt likewise.
Real-world factors such as rules of engagement (above), radar interference, limitations of kill probability, force composition, mission range, situational awareness, countermeasures and electronic warfare operations will preclude this likelihood from properly realising itself.

[WestRedMaple]

As for if Argentina can afford them or not, I can't be certain, but the nation defaulted on it's debt, so I question if they can when even Canada (who is probably doing better than Argentina) can barely afford new jets.

Argentina has always been able to pay its debt. Technically it has never defaulted, and Argentina is fiscally relatively stable.

So then Argentina just CHOSE not to pay......how is that any better for a creditor?

[Calimera II]

Argentina has always been able to pay its debt. Technically it has never defaulted, and Argentina is fiscally relatively stable.

Well apart from in 1827, 1890, 1915, 1930, 1982, 1989, 2001 and 2014. But apart from those 8 times Argentina has always been able to pay it's debt and never defaulted.

Pre-1982 can be dismissed, all nations have defaulted several times.
1989 - Hyperinflation caused by American shitty policies
2001 - Idiotic politicians
2014 - Argentina did not default technically

Fiscally, Argentina is healthy.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well apart from in 1827, 1890, 1915, 1930, 1982, 1989, 2001 and 2014. But apart from those 8 times Argentina has always been able to pay it's debt and never defaulted.

Pre-1982 can be dismissed, all nations have defaulted several times.
1989 - Hyperinflation caused by American shitty policies
2001 - Idiotic politicians
2014 - Argentina did not default technically

Fiscally, Argentina is healthy.

So...
Your claim that Argentina has never defaulted is demonstrably false.

[Calimera II]

Pre-1982 can be dismissed, all nations have defaulted several times.
1989 - Hyperinflation caused by American shitty policies
2001 - Idiotic politicians
2014 - Argentina did not default technically

Fiscally, Argentina is healthy.

So...
Your claim that Argentina has never defaulted is demonstrably false.

I was talking about 2014..