Many consider F-16 fleet in EAF as falcons without claws!
But you do know the reasons behind the non-existence of Aim-120 and standoff munition
I'm well aware of the reasons why the US restricts certain weapons systems and that's the exact reason why the EAF should move away from a US fighter as its backbone.
The restructuring of US military aid to Egypt will make it even harder to procure conventional weapons systems. So anything like the AIM-9X or AIM-120 may be out of the question.
My preference would be to do exactly what the US want us to do with that aid, funnel it towards counter terrorism endeavours.
Specifically I would attempt to funnel the yearly aid money into procurements for the Special Forces (but maintaining current capability) and in doing so bolster an underdeveloped part of the Armed Forces.
My starting point would be a small dedicated aircraft wing for the SF comprised of tactical lift aircraft ( eg.
MC-130), utility helicopters (eg.
MH-60), and light helicopters (e.h
MH-6). Not only would this boost the SF in terms of their COIN and fill gaps within the Armed Forces (e.g
MERT/
PEDRO equivalent i.e combat search and rescue/ medical emergency response) but it will also be of great value in conventional operations.
Only very few numbers were upgraded, acquiring mig-29m/m2 or mig-35 are more convenient and sufficient to upgrade the entire Russian/Chinese-origin fleet.
That wasn't my point. The point was an obsolete aircraft had a capability that our backbone didn't. Which is unacceptable.
I'm not arguing to upgrade the Mig-21 its obsolete and our airframes have been worn to dust.
There's a lot of discussion regarding the main role of the F-16s.
Although it's a multi-role fighter but its weapon package made many believe that its role almost inclosed to close air support, reconnaissance and others tasks you mentioned.
I don't expect that F-16s are to take the air-superiority missions in EAF, Mirage-2000 are much reliable and there are many photos of EAF Mirage-2000 escorting E-2 Hawkeye.
The Mirage 2000 is due to be retired in the next five years (I don't see them continuing beyond that due to their age). In my opinion going after the UAE M2K would be a waste of resources (even if the UAE offered them at a preferable price) that could be pushed towards more Rafales.
I don't think that EAF has the privilege to sell any F-16s for many reasons, politically at least.
I do agree with you about increasing the numbers of Rafales, and I think many Egyptians do!
I also agree re, Mig-35 but my opinion is not the same as for Su-35 I wanna see this bad a** serving in EAF
The Jordanians sold some of their -16s to Pakistan and many eastern European nations are looking for economical fighters. I don't think the US would veto any such sale especially if there is an intention to upgrade a part of the fleet.
A word of caution on the SU-35 and soviet era fighters in general. These beasts were intended to be used to destruction on the battlefield and not push out flying hours during peace time.
The entire Soviet maintenance and training doctrine was based on this idea. Their top of the line fighter would remain under wraps (rarely used) while pilots flew twin seat training aircraft ( eg. MiG-29UB).
Hence the common theme of Russian aircraft requiring overhauls/rebuilds more often than their western counterparts, they never intended for their airframes to fly 10,000 hours over a lifetime. The same goes with their engines.
So invariably the pilots on western aircraft will get more flying time and thus more experience whereas those flying Russian/Soviet aircraft will fly less due to the number of hours the airframe/engine can manage before a rebuild or change.
As for "local production/assembly" Rafales/Migs/Sus .. it's the big dream I hope it'll become real in the near future
More important than local assembly or production is becoming a partner in the program. I mean we built the Mirage 2000 but then, zip. The same with the Alpha Jet and the K-8E.
Becoming a partner means you're actively involved in the program and dictating but also contributing towards what you want. The Saudis and the Typhoon are an example, KSA is actively pushing what it wants for the Typhoon and is literally dragging the partners involved in the program along (except for the UK).