Egyptian Armed Forces

[Frogman]

Hey at least it's a discussion and others contributing besides @The SC and myself!

Not knocking that but some of it does seem a bit pie in the sky. Especially talk of aircraft carriers. A lot of us are still sceptical whether the Mistrals will actually be supported in a manner that allows it to be a proper amphibious capability rather than a metallic show pony.

Yes the lack of transparency isn't helping us see what future procurements are but the plans we know about don't comfort me either. Also the actual amphibious component appears to be light and donated from the Army rather than a Marine force. As of right now it looks like it will be a mix and match fleet of ships that have no business being outside of littoral waters, helicopters from two different sources, and an amphibious force of regular mechanised infantry the majority of whom are conscripts.

Whilst we both know that the difference between a littoral water Navy and a sea faring one isn't the surface combat vessels but the ability to logistically resupply and replenish at sea. Something we only have to aging ships for in Hayaleb and Shalateen.

I want to be wrong and hopefully by 2025 we see something different but as it stands that's what it looks like.

As for the M1 it's still a fine tank. Comparing it to the Merkava IV is a bit unfair since they're for completely different things.

The APS on the Merkava can not stop a kinetic penetrator from a smoothbore. It also emits RFs when in action that is susceptible to location (and then fires) by any En with competent Electronic Support capabilities. Also not a good place to be around if you're infantry.

Its primary use is against current Israeli threat perceptions, which is militia with AT munitions. As such that particular type will provide a greater challenge for Egyptian anti tank teams rather than for MBTs.

The A1 in Egyptian service does need an upgrade, but be careful about what you want. A tank killer? or an urban prowler?

If you want the latter then pursue greater protection whether that be passive or active. Throw on some CROWS. You'll have something that stands up well to atgm threats but is both heavier (entire Egyptian deployment plan into Sinai depends on bridges) and more taxing to operate given the increase in sensors (therefore work load and situational awareness interference).

If you want a better tank killer then invest in new generation of existing sights on the tank, get the commanders sight, and invest in the new generation of ammunition including DU penetrators.

As for the aging Russian farming equipment, it's being replaced by new Russian farming equipment (T-90S/K).

M4 carbine (they also have stockpiles of M-16s)

That's a Canadian C8. The picture was taken in Hereford on the COS' visit to the UK.

 

[HannibalBarca]

the aging Russian farming equipment, it's being replaced by new Russian farming equipment (T-90S/K).

Well... nice End...

 

[Mhmoud]

Not knocking that but some of it does seem a bit pie in the sky. Especially talk of aircraft carriers. A lot of us are still sceptical whether the Mistrals will actually be supported in a manner that allows it to be a proper amphibious capability rather than a metallic show pony.

Yes the lack of transparency isn't helping us see what future procurements are but the plans we know about don't comfort me either. Also the actual amphibious component appears to be light and donated from the Army rather than a Marine force. As of right now it looks like it will be a mix and match fleet of ships that have no business being outside of littoral waters, helicopters from two different sources, and an amphibious force of regular mechanised infantry the majority of whom are conscripts.

Whilst we both know that the difference between a littoral water Navy and a sea faring one isn't the surface combat vessels but the ability to logistically resupply and replenish at sea. Something we only have to aging ships for in Hayaleb and Shalateen.

I want to be wrong and hopefully by 2025 we see something different but as it stands that's what it looks like.

As for the M1 it's still a fine tank. Comparing it to the Merkava IV is a bit unfair since they're for completely different things.

The APS on the Merkava can not stop a kinetic penetrator from a smoothbore. It also emits RFs when in action that is susceptible to location (and then fires) by any En with competent Electronic Support capabilities. Also not a good place to be around if you're infantry.

Its primary use is against current Israeli threat perceptions, which is militia with AT munitions. As such that particular type will provide a greater challenge for Egyptian anti tank teams rather than for MBTs.

The A1 in Egyptian service does need an upgrade, but be careful about what you want. A tank killer? or an urban prowler?

If you want the latter then pursue greater protection whether that be passive or active. Throw on some CROWS. You'll have something that stands up well to atgm threats but is both heavier (entire Egyptian deployment plan into Sinai depends on bridges) and more taxing to operate given the increase in sensors (therefore work load and situational awareness interference).

If you want a better tank killer then invest in new generation of existing sights on the tank, get the commanders sight, and invest in the new generation of ammunition including DU penetrators.

As for the aging Russian farming equipment, it's being replaced by new Russian farming equipment (T-90S/K).




That's a Canadian C8. The picture was taken in Hereford on the COS' visit to the UK.

I admit that looking back, the Aircraft carrier but was a tad unrealistic.

I believe that the Army needs a bit of shaking up, and for its size, it could be a competent expeditionary force. I hope that the two Mistrals don't turn out to be a massive waste of money like the LHD Algeria bought (like, who will Algeria invade?). However, for a defensive army,it is really really strong, so strong that it had me asking once, what are we protecting ourselves from?

It would be really good for the tanks to pursue the tank killer option rather than the urban warfare, because any commander that orders tanks into a city should be fired. The IFVs should be the ones for urban combat.

I believe that the Army must not accept too many conscripts unless in a total war scenario, whereby it is essential. Having them operate M1s and other heavy equipment brings me doubts as to how organised they will be when the nation calls. We must focus on a real and highly professional army that is willing to handle equipment professionally under extreme pressure. Of you took someone from the street and put him in the middle of a battle, I wouldn't bet that they would coordinate and operate professionally. And as for the conditioning needed to be able to do it, I wouldn't try it on the entire nation. Only the best of the best should get to drive the tanks and man the guns and go to war.

 

[The SC]

Officially 15 MIG-29M/M2/35 delivered by the end of 2017
https://lenta.ru/news/2018/01/05/aircraft/

 

[Gomig-21]

Yes the lack of transparency isn't helping us see what future procurements are but the plans we know about don't comfort me either. Also the actual amphibious component appears to be light and donated from the Army rather than a Marine force. As of right now it looks like it will be a mix and match fleet of ships that have no business being outside of littoral waters, helicopters from two different sources, and an amphibious force of regular mechanised infantry the majority of whom are conscripts.

While I agree with everything you said, the only problem I have is what other helicopter choice of the caliber of the Katran do they have to equip the Mistrals with? Nothing, if you think about it. The US took years to approve an additional 12 Apaches from 2009 and still restricted the Longbow radar and who knows what else? Look at the lethality that is coming with the Katrans. It's outstanding and I'm actually glad they bought the Alligators also as these helos might just put the Egyptian Apaches on 2nd tier. So that, I have no problem with. I wouldn't go near any of the Eurocopters or other choices and the only thing that comes close is the AH-Z1 Viper and even that will come with a pile of restriction, enough is enough with that.

Whilst we both know that the difference between a littoral water Navy and a sea faring one isn't the surface combat vessels but the ability to logistically resupply and replenish at sea. Something we only have to aging ships for in Hayaleb and Shalateen.

Yep, that's what I was telling @Crocodile , both those ships aren't actual replenishing ships by definition since neither are oilers. People think the wish list is unrealistic, and that might be the case as far as procurement and operating cost and of course, large aircraft carriers but it's certainly not impractical for things like additional, much more capable replenishing ships. LHDs need considerable replenishment from supplies to ammo to fuel and all those 3 would need 2 separate ships per carrier if they want to do it the right way. So maybe they don't want to be sea-fairing and these ships will strictly be used for Egyptian territorial waters and they'll be within reach of the new naval bases and they're not interested in moving beyond that, although now, with the Egyptian troops in Eritrea and the Sudanese moving thousands of their troops to counter just that seems to be the ideal mission for one of these Mistrals to head on down there for a show of force, but only if it was fully and properly equipped.

And what the heck is El Shalateen doing in Morocco ATM? This is hardly a replenisher for a ship the size of a Mistral. Something for that would need to be in the 15,000 tonnes displacement category, not 7K.

I guess getting friendly with the Moroccans is only a good thing. Maybe this is a new chapter for better relations and more military cooperation between us and the Maghrebis.

and invest in the new generation of ammunition including DU penetrators.

That's a tough proposition. The US would never partner in such a venture and if others did, that would earn us yet another infraction but hey, at this point, what's the dif, right? Maybe it is wise to start looking at the T-90, despite the entire logistical disaster it presents, but you can see why the shifts are happening? Enough is enough of the "you can have the 50% version and you need to do this and that on top of it." That's getting old very fast.

As for the aging Russian farming equipment, it's being replaced by new Russian farming equipment (T-90S/K).

Tell me what alternative is there? You have 1130 M1A1's, 1,700+ M-60A1's and A3's, 500 T-62 and about 1,100 T-55/Ramses in storage. Where do you go if you want to improve and modernize your substantial tank fleet? We talked about the logistical nightmare but we overlooked the fact that they've been dealing with this logistical nightmare for 40 years. What's the difference now? The M1A2 is never coming to Egypt so do you look to the Germans for the Leopard? Or the Challenger? Brits would laugh at us, those snots! The French Leclerc or the South Korean Black Panther might be options but it's too difficult of a political hurdle to muscle through and get 500 assembled in Egypt in a matter of 2 sit-down meetings like it worked out with the Russians and the T-90. So there are a lot of other consideration to take into account and instead of looking at it as "repeating the same mistakes," perhaps it was never a mistake to begin with?

I look at it in the same way with the MiG-29/35. I see a supply of NEUTERED F-16s -- even the newer block 52s that have features that are not even usable, like the IFF sensors but primarily the BVRAAMs caps. Ok, so we screwed up and racked up all the infractions and the Israelis bitching about the AIM-120 & AIM-9X not withstanding, where is the F-16 platform going also? You said that about the MiG-29 but let's pose the same question for the venerable F-16, which in our case is not so venerable. So the MiG-35 coming with its slew of weapons actually makes it a much more powerful platform than any of the F-16s in the EAF. This is a cold, hard reality.

The French are only going to sell us 36 Rafales (we'd be lucky if the full and final number ever reaches 48, let alone more and we don't even know if the Meteor will actually be part of that package, while the Russians sold us 46 MiGs with every weapon that comes with it in one sitting! Including a helmet mounted sight (albeit the MiG HMS is not the greatest, it perfect for the R-73 so fine for now) but the French didn't and the Americans never will. This alignment makes 100% sense to me and I actually have come around completely when I've put all those factors together.

When you have purchase power and your weapons are not part of an aid package, you have much better leverage and as long as US supplies are through FMA sales, and western suppliers are strongly influenced by the US, you literally have no other choice. The MiG deal opens the door for a much wider and much stronger alternative and makes complete sense under the existing dynamics. Hopefully it creates a healthy and competitive balance of supplies between Russia and China when you add the staggering success of the Chinese UAV/UCAV procurement with all of that.

That's a Canadian C8. The picture was taken in Hereford on the COS' visit to the UK.

Is it really? Interesting. Meh, Canadian copy of the M4. The C7 & C8 are all identical copies of the M-16/AR-15/M4.

 

[Mhmoud]

While I agree with everything you said, the only problem I have is what other helicopter choice of the caliber of the Katran do they have to equip the Mistrals with? Nothing, if you think about it. The US took years to approve an additional 12 Apaches from 2009 and still restricted the Longbow radar and who knows what else? Look at the lethality that is coming with the Katrans. It's outstanding and I'm actually glad they bought the Alligators also as these helos might just put the Egyptian Apaches on 2nd tier. So that, I have no problem with. I wouldn't go near any of the Eurocopters or other choices and the only thing that comes close is the AH-Z1 Viper and even that will come with a pile of restriction, enough is enough with that.



Yep, that's what I was telling @Crocodile , both those ships aren't actual replenishing ships by definition since neither are oilers. People think the wish list is unrealistic, and that might be the case as far as procurement and operating cost and of course, large aircraft carriers but it's certainly not impractical for things like additional, much more capable replenishing ships. LHDs need considerable replenishment from supplies to ammo to fuel and all those 3 would need 2 separate ships per carrier if they want to do it the right way. So maybe they don't want to be sea-fairing and these ships will strictly be used for Egyptian territorial waters and they'll be within reach of the new naval bases and they're not interested in moving beyond that, although now, with the Egyptian troops in Eritrea and the Sudanese moving thousands of their troops to counter just that seems to be the ideal mission for one of these Mistrals to head on down there for a show of force, but only if it was fully and properly equipped.

And what the heck is El Shalateen doing in Morocco ATM? This is hardly a replenisher for a ship the size of a Mistral. Something for that would need to be in the 15,000 tonnes displacement category, not 7K.

I guess getting friendly with the Moroccans is only a good thing. Maybe this is a new chapter for better relations and more military cooperation between us and the Maghrebis.

That's a tough proposition. The US would never partner in such a venture and if others did, that would earn us yet another infraction but hey, at this point, what's the dif, right? Maybe it is wise to start looking at the T-90, despite the entire logistical disaster it presents, but you can see why the shifts are happening? Enough is enough of the "you can have the 50% version and you need to do this and that on top of it." That's getting old very fast.



Tell me what alternative is there? You have 1130 M1A1's, 1,700+ M-60A1's and A3's, 500 T-62 and about 1,100 T-55/Ramses in storage. Where do you go if you want to improve and modernize your substantial tank fleet? We talked about the logistical nightmare but we overlooked the fact that they've been dealing with this logistical nightmare for 40 years. What's the difference now? The M1A2 is never coming to Egypt so do you look to the Germans for the Leopard? Or the Challenger? Brits would laugh at us, those snots! The French Leclerc or the South Korean Black Panther might be options but it's too difficult of a political hurdle to muscle through and get 500 assembled in Egypt in a matter of 2 sit-down meetings like it worked out with the Russians and the T-90. So there are a lot of other consideration to take into account and instead of looking at it as "repeating the same mistakes," perhaps it was never a mistake to begin with?

I look at it in the same way with the MiG-29/35. I see a supply of NEUTERED F-16s -- even the newer block 52s that have features that are not even usable, like the IFF sensors but primarily the BVRAAMs caps. Ok, so we screwed up and racked up all the infractions and the Israelis bitching about the AIM-120 & AIM-9X not withstanding, where is the F-16 platform going also? You said that about the MiG-29 but let's pose the same question for the venerable F-16, which in our case is not so venerable. So the MiG-35 coming with its slew of weapons actually makes it a much more powerful platform than any of the F-16s in the EAF. This is a cold, hard reality.

The French are only going to sell us 36 Rafales (we'd be lucky if the full and final number ever reaches 48, let alone more and we don't even know if the Meteor will actually be part of that package, while the Russians sold us 46 MiGs with every weapon that comes with it in one sitting! Including a helmet mounted sight (albeit the MiG HMS is not the greatest, it perfect for the R-73 so fine for now) but the French didn't and the Americans never will. This alignment makes 100% sense to me and I actually have come around completely when I've put all those factors together.

When you have purchase power and your weapons are not part of an aid package, you have much better leverage and as long as US supplies are through FMA sales, and western suppliers are strongly influenced by the US, you literally have no other choice. The MiG deal opens the door for a much wider and much stronger alternative and makes complete sense under the existing dynamics. Hopefully it creates a healthy and competitive balance of supplies between Russia and China when you add the staggering success of the Chinese UAV/UCAV procurement with all of that.



Is it really? Interesting. Meh, Canadian copy of the M4. The C7 & C8 are all identical copies of the M-16/AR-15/M4.

If the hurdle of neutered F-16s lies in America refusing to sell BVR missiles, then couldn't Egypt possibly buy them from, say, Turkey or some other Muslim country? Because the bulk of the air force, I believe, needs to be "equipped for the latest threats" as defence companies usually say. This gives us two choices; either we get the missile or we ditch the plane. Developing the missile ourselves is a lot less a pain in the neck, but still a pain. Might also be better than having our asses exposed to Israel.
To be honest, I really don't trust the Russian stuff. As a child I read about the serial engagements between the Israelis and the Syrians. In one scenario, all they had to do was bomb the MiGs in the ground, because they could not get them flying again. Russian aerospace industries are notorious for their bad customer services, especially regarding the spare parts. It would be wise to use the current deal as a test for the feasibility of having them, while ordering massive amounts of spares to be able to cover ourselves when in times of need.
Couldn't we order something like the FC-31, which was made specifically for F-35 rejects? A fifth gen aircraft after about 10 or 15 years might be available for is, but I hope we don't make the same mistake to buy from America again.
Also, we need those factories to be churning out equipment again, like in the good old days. This might be the perfect time to do so.

 

[Gomig-21]

If the hurdle of neutered F-16s lies in America refusing to sell BVR missiles, then couldn't Egypt possibly buy them from, say, Turkey or some other Muslim country? Because the bulk of the air force, I believe, needs to be "equipped for the latest threats" as defence companies usually say. This gives us two choices; either we get the missile or we ditch the plane. Developing the missile ourselves is a lot less a pain in the neck, but still a pain. Might also be better than having our asses exposed to Israel.

I wish it was that simple. To add a BVR missile to the current Egyptian F-16s would be practically impossible without the source codes for the on-board FC computer system, and the software along with the radar would need a veritable upgrade in order for the missiles to work. This is all with using the American AIM-120, never mind another type of missile and under the current contract, in order not to create a violation of the agreement with the US, we would need their permission to do so. These are the tough conditions that come with this type of thing.

Somehow convincing the Americans to provide (even for just the 19 block 52s) the AIM-120 & 9X would be the best and easiest solution for that problem. Other than that, keep them limited to their current role and hope the MICA lives up to its reputation and the Meteor eventually comes. So at least there is the French BVR set up and maybe with the acquisition of the R-77 & 73, there can be a way to convince the US to provide the AIM-120 and 9X. You never know.

To be honest, I really don't trust the Russian stuff. As a child I read about the serial engagements between the Israelis and the Syrians. In one scenario, all they had to do was bomb the MiGs in the ground, because they could not get them flying again. Russian aerospace industries are notorious for their bad customer services, especially regarding the spare parts. It would be wise to use the current deal as a test for the feasibility of having them, while ordering massive amounts of spares to be able to cover ourselves when in times of need.

I know people say that about the Russian hardware, but I think that along with the R-27 and the rest of the munitions that platform is capable of shooting & dropping, it makes it a very lethal platform. It also opens the door for other possibilities if they decide the F-16 run is over.

Couldn't we order something like the FC-31, which was made specifically for F-35 rejects? A fifth gen aircraft after about 10 or 15 years might be available for is, but I hope we don't make the same mistake to buy from America again.

Sure, why not. I don't think it's critically important ATM to consider a 5th gen aircraft, but why not get in line for potentially one of the offerings from China or Russia, even in a small quantity since the prospect of getting into the western 5th generation is close to nil. When you're left with no other options, you have 2 choices - go with the alternative or do nothing. I prefer the former to the latter.

 

[Mhmoud]

I wish it was that simple. To add a BVR missile to the current Egyptian F-16s would be practically impossible without the source codes for the on-board FC computer system, and the software along with the radar would need a veritable upgrade in order for the missiles to work. This is all with using the American AIM-120, never mind another type of missile and under the current contract, in order not to create a violation of the agreement with the US, we would need their permission to do so. These are the tough conditions that come with this type of thing.

Somehow convincing the Americans to provide (even for just the 19 block 52s) the AIM-120 & 9X would be the best and easiest solution for that problem. Other than that, keep them limited to their current role and hope the MICA lives up to its reputation and the Meteor eventually comes. So at least there is the French BVR set up and maybe with the acquisition of the R-77 & 73, there can be a way to convince the US to provide the AIM-120 and 9X. You never know.



I know people say that about the Russian hardware, but I think that along with the R-27 and the rest of the munitions that platform is capable of shooting & dropping, it makes it a very lethal platform. It also opens the door for other possibilities if they decide the F-16 run is over.



Sure, why not. I don't think it's critically important ATM to consider a 5th gen aircraft, but why not get in line for potentially one of the offerings from China or Russia, even in a small quantity since the prospect of getting into the western 5th generation is close to nil. When you're left with no other options, you have 2 choices - go with the alternative or do nothing. I prefer the former to the latter.

I wish it was that simple. To add a BVR missile to the current Egyptian F-16s would be practically impossible without the source codes for the on-board FC computer system, and the software along with the radar would need a veritable upgrade in order for the missiles to work. This is all with using the American AIM-120, never mind another type of missile and under the current contract, in order not to create a violation of the agreement with the US, we would need their permission to do so. These are the tough conditions that come with this type of thing.

Somehow convincing the Americans to provide (even for just the 19 block 52s) the AIM-120 & 9X would be the best and easiest solution for that problem. Other than that, keep them limited to their current role and hope the MICA lives up to its reputation and the Meteor eventually comes. So at least there is the French BVR set up and maybe with the acquisition of the R-77 & 73, there can be a way to convince the US to provide the AIM-120 and 9X. You never know.



I know people say that about the Russian hardware, but I think that along with the R-27 and the rest of the munitions that platform is capable of shooting & dropping, it makes it a very lethal platform. It also opens the door for other possibilities if they decide the F-16 run is over.



Sure, why not. I don't think it's critically important ATM to consider a 5th gen aircraft, but why not get in line for potentially one of the offerings from China or Russia, even in a small quantity since the prospect of getting into the western 5th generation is close to nil. When you're left with no other options, you have 2 choices - go with the alternative or do nothing. I prefer the former to the latter.

Looking from another perspective, if AWACS was to support the planes, couldn't they somehow hide from enemy radars by flying through valleys until the AWACS tells them where to strike, then strike when getting close enough? It seems quite reasonable if Egypt has some top-of-the-line AWACS planes which is unlikely. But I'm guessing that any old AWACS could detect a forth gen plane, especially an F-15.
If we want to get creative, buying Turkish missiles for the Rafales with a likely agreement from France would also give a diversification in the sources of missiles, so if MICA and Meteor don't do their jobs we have another option. I'm also sure that France wouldn't mind if our Mirage 5s and 2000s turned even deadlier. They're already deadly enough with a good BVR capability, but to make them even better,which would require French support, would be theoretically even cheaper than buying more Rafales or even MiG-35s.

Those planes are basically F-16s but without the limitation. It would be wise to buy some from countries in the gulf thinking of phasing it out, like Qatar (in exchange for easing the embargo) or the UAE for a price.
I also think that we should ask the US for the F-4 source codes. They're already old enough, and fitting them might give the engineers in some new startup the foundation for newer avionics. We could also 'comfiscate' some MiG-23s from Libya to see what is inside. Might give the companies some experience in integrating missiles or developing avionics or architecture. That would be a fine start.
I really don't see why the US would block the source codes of a plane 50 years old.
But you're right. Diversification is really important. The less suppliers, the more conditions.
If Egypt came upon an alliance with some gulf countries, could they put some of their planes in Egypt as well as their missiles, so an Egyptian pilot could man, say, an Emirati F-16, or is it somehow illegal under international law? It would be an excellent circumvention to the rules made by the supplier, as the Emiratis could choose where they put their planes and who could fly them, so it might be fine?

 

[HannibalBarca]

Looking from another perspective, if AWACS was to support the planes, couldn't they somehow hide from enemy radars by flying through valleys until the AWACS tells them where to strike, then strike when getting close enough? It seems quite reasonable if Egypt has some top-of-the-line AWACS planes which is unlikely. But I'm guessing that any old AWACS could detect a forth gen plane, especially an F-15.
If we want to get creative, buying Turkish missiles for the Rafales with a likely agreement from France would also give a diversification in the sources of missiles, so if MICA and Meteor don't do their jobs we have another option. I'm also sure that France wouldn't mind if our Mirage 5s and 2000s turned even deadlier. They're already deadly enough with a good BVR capability, but to make them even better,which would require French support, would be theoretically even cheaper than buying more Rafales or even MiG-35s.

Those planes are basically F-16s but without the limitation. It would be wise to buy some from countries in the gulf thinking of phasing it out, like Qatar (in exchange for easing the embargo) or the UAE for a price.
I also think that we should ask the US for the F-4 source codes. They're already old enough, and fitting them might give the engineers in some new startup the foundation for newer avionics. We could also 'comfiscate' some MiG-23s from Libya to see what is inside. Might give the companies some experience in integrating missiles or developing avionics or architecture. That would be a fine start.
I really don't see why the US would block the source codes of a plane 50 years old.
But you're right. Diversification is really important. The less suppliers, the more conditions.
If Egypt came upon an alliance with some gulf countries, could they put some of their planes in Egypt as well as their missiles, so an Egyptian pilot could man, say, an Emirati F-16, or is it somehow illegal under international law? It would be an excellent circumvention to the rules made by the supplier, as the Emiratis could choose where they put their planes and who could fly them, so it might be fine?

UAE choosed to upgrade them, and no other available on the market.

 

[Mhmoud]

UAE choosed to upgrade them, and no other available on the market.

I thought Qatar was phasing their mirages out for the Rafales?
Eurofighter might also be a good option. Austria is replacing theirs with another platform due to high costs, while Italy is reportedly replacing them with F-35s. Might be a good option to snap them up before others do.

EDIT: eurofighter, not firefighter (autocorrect)

 

[HannibalBarca]

I thought Qatar was phasing their mirages out for the Rafales?
Firefighter might also be a good option. Austria is replacing theirs with another platform due to high costs, while Italy is reportedly replacing them with F-35s. Might be a good option to snap them up before others do.

I don't think they will be sold... at least not in the near future. They are interesting platforms, and still capable.

 

[Gomig-21]

Looking from another perspective, if AWACS was to support the planes, couldn't they somehow hide from enemy radars by flying through valleys until the AWACS tells them where to strike, then strike when getting close enough? It seems quite reasonable if Egypt has some top-of-the-line AWACS planes which is unlikely. But I'm guessing that any old AWACS could detect a forth gen plane, especially an F-15.

They do operate 8 E-2C Hawkeyes for AWACS and so does the US Navy, so those are pretty decent, as a matter of fact, those are excellent platforms but it's hard to tell the level of effectiveness since AWACS technology is not as easy to level compared to fighters. But, that also presents that problem of interoperability with the Russian aircraft. If they're able to network everything then they should be fine, but there are other really good choices for AWACS out there and they have to consider making the Russian fighters as strong as possible if this is a new route they'll be going. A bunch of lethal MiGs won't have a strong bite if they're not operating with as much help as they can get.

Detecting stealth aircraft is a whole other ball game, and we don't really know how extensive the EAF has invested in SIGINT operations and what threat library they have on other aircraft (especially ones being operated in the region) and radars and even ships and all that stuff. So without knowing where they are as far as that is concerned, trying to detect stealth aircraft is on a whole other level. I'm guessing that the E-2Cs have an existing threat library that is constantly updated with information on new signals being picked up, but how extensive is it, is the question? How much does the US have a say in what information is being fed and used? What secure, coms caps do they have with other, out of link-16 networked aircraft? Not talking about the netwrok itself, but secure communications within and outside of that network for the other birds such as the MiGs. There's so much to consider.

If they were to introduce another platform, just think of how extensive the work would be to transfer the data that is already being operated by the E-2Cs to whatever they would get? It's a tremendous operation that would take years to finally catch up and work well beyond the capabilities that they currently have.

If we want to get creative, buying Turkish missiles for the Rafales with a likely agreement from France would also give a diversification in the sources of missiles, so if MICA and Meteor don't do their jobs we have another option. I'm also sure that France wouldn't mind if our Mirage 5s and 2000s turned even deadlier. They're already deadly enough with a good BVR capability, but to make them even better,which would require French support, would be theoretically even cheaper than buying more Rafales or even MiG-35s.

I can see what you're saying but honestly, they're old. Heck the Mirage 2Ks (which there are only 18 of them; maybe less we don't know) are even older than the retired F-16 block 15 that is in the museum! Those were the first generation of Mirage 2K that were built by Dassault. The Mirage 5's are even older than the 2Ks.

I say it's time to put them all in a package deal to whomever country will buy them, with the understanding from the French to work with whomever buys them and for all 100 or so aircraft between all the models, work out a deal for an additional 24 Rafale F4s. Then you have 60 Rafales all together and that's equivalent to 200+ old Mirage V/2Ks.

If neither of those two scenarios work (selling the old/buying the new), the EAF will just have to keep using them and speed up the retirement process. We don't even know what their MLUs are at and if they've gone through them or what, but we know they are super old and time to move on.

All indications are that the EAF is beyond happy with the Rafale and it makes sense to stick with it and add to it. Whether that's possible or not is a whole other ball game.

Rafale Pilot using the Fighter Sphere tablet. Sphere is an integrated Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) that greatly reduces pilot workload dealing with important but non-critical tasks during pre-flight and in flight. Photo: Dassault Aviation by P. Sagnes.
Given its role replacing Mirage 2000 variants currently in service, Rafale F4 will likely include weapon integration modifications to include new variants of air/air Mica, Scalp and the nuclear cruise missile ASMP-A (currently deployed exclusively on Mirage 2000N). However, due to the relatively short span of the program, it is likely to focus mainly on capabilities based on software and limited hardware upgrades.

Further, into the future, the program could introduce significant airframe changes, as part of the Rafale’s mid-life modifications. These upgrades could include cockpit redesign or introduction of low-observability modifications to better position this 4.5 generation fighter against modern and future fighters.

“The F4 standard will incorporate operational experience feedback and enable continuous improvement of the RAFALE to be maintained. It will reinforce the national skills and technological capabilities essential for preparing the development of the next generation of combat aircraft”, stated Eric Trappier, Chairman and CEO of Dassault Aviation. “I am also delighted that the Defense Ministry underlines the need to continue with the acquisition of the Rafale, beyond the 4th tranche currently in production, in order primarily to meet the needs of the French Air Force,” Trappier added.

The Rafale entered service with the French Navy in 2004 and with the French Air Force in 2006. With more than 30,000 flight hours in operations, it has proven its worth in combat in Afghanistan, Libya, Mali, Iraq, and Syria. Beyond France (180 aircraft ordered) the Rafale was ordered by Egypt (24), Qatar (24) and India (32).

http://www.indiandefence.wiki/threads/next-gen-rafale-f4-to-fly-in-2023.2299/

 

[The SC]

I thought Qatar was phasing their mirages out for the Rafales?
Eurofighter might also be a good option. Austria is replacing theirs with another platform due to high costs, while Italy is reportedly replacing them with F-35s. Might be a good option to snap them up before others do.

EDIT: eurofighter, not firefighter (autocorrect)

Qatar has already ordered 24 EF Typhoon just recently..on top of 24 +12 Rafales and 36 F-15 QA.. just to keep you updated.. there are old and recent threads on this section about all the Qatari fighters deals deals..

 

[The SC]

New batch of MRAPs to Egypt.. videos on Facebook and Twitter

There are two contracts, the first contract was on 762 armoured vehicles

The armed forces contracted a number of American MRAP armor from surplus US military stockpiles in late 2015, specifically on September 11, 2015. Within the Excess Defense Articles EDA program, the US military surplus to the allied and friendly countries, whether free or in return for a small amount of money to rationalize the expenses of the US military necessary to maintain this equipment in good technical storage.


The armoured vehicles are divided into several types:

* 400 armored CAIMAN CAT I

* 90 Armored RG-33L HAGA CAIMAN CAT I

* 260 RG-33 CAT II armored vehicle

* 12 Armored MAXXPRO MRV (dedicated to the rescue of damaged armor)

*** The armoured vehicles are in a very good technical condition like new because it is basically a surplus of US military stocks

http://dsca.mil/programs/excess-defense-articles-eda

This was the first deal.. now the new deliveries are from the second deal.. So Egypt will have more than a 1000 MRAPs now..

 

[HannibalBarca]

How come no contract/deal is published by the US for this second contract... ... or maybe I didn't see it...
Are we sure that is not a second batch of the initial 700+ pcs?