| Author |
Message |
|
geogen
|
 Posted: Oct 24, 2011 - 07:21 AM
|
 
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Mar 11, 2008 - 03:28 PM
Posts: 2804
Location: 45 km offshore, New England
Status: Offline
|
Yakuza,
That's not a bad guess. I should have thought of that hypothetical too, with regards to transferred UAE M2000-9. It sounds plausible. What would you think about some form of joint AU-Arab League Air-policing assignment in the near-term, to provide general air-sovereignty?
And southernphantom... not quite sure what you mean about 'No political negotiations necessary??" Everything is negotiable always, be they with France, South Africa, UK, or Russia. With regards to any potential Kremlin proposals for fighters... that was of course a the future assumption when the former power base was in power, but going forward, there will be a different table on which to negotiate for sure. |
_________________
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 18, 2013 - 6:27 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
southernphantom
|
|
Posted: Oct 24, 2011 - 02:25 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Aug 06, 2011 - 06:18 PM
Posts: 745
Location: Somewhere in Dixie
Status: Offline
|
|
geogen wrote:
Yakuza,
That's not a bad guess. I should have thought of that hypothetical too, with regards to transferred UAE M2000-9. It sounds plausible. What would you think about some form of joint AU-Arab League Air-policing assignment in the near-term, to provide general air-sovereignty?
And southernphantom... not quite sure what you mean about 'No political negotiations necessary??" Everything is negotiable always, be they with France, South Africa, UK, or Russia. With regards to any potential Kremlin proposals for fighters... that was of course a the future assumption when the former power base was in power, but going forward, there will be a different table on which to negotiate for sure.
Urk, sorry about that. I meant that a Russian (or possibly Chinese) there likely would not be the more stringent Western arms-control policies to deal with, and Libya could probably buy regardless of the new government's conduct. Conversely, an effort to buy European/American would probably require the new government to demonstrate a good human-rights record- not exactly something Russia or China require as a prerequisite. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st503rdsgt
|
|
Posted: Oct 24, 2011 - 03:11 PM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jan 23, 2011 - 01:23 AM
Posts: 1549
Status: Offline
|
|
southernphantom wrote:
Urk, sorry about that. I meant that a Russian (or possibly Chinese) there likely would not be the more stringent Western arms-control policies to deal with, and Libya could probably buy regardless of the new government's conduct. Conversely, an effort to buy European/American would probably require the new government to demonstrate a good human-rights record- not exactly something Russia or China require as a prerequisite.
Human rights behavior isn't so much an issue for most western nations either when it comes to supplying arms. The only real qualification that we typically want to be met is the not-bat$hit-crazy requirement, which, of course, the Russians and Chinese have no problem with as long as all the crazy is directed against the West. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TC
|
|
Posted: Oct 25, 2011 - 04:06 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Moderator
Joined: Jan 14, 2004 - 07:06 AM
Posts: 4006
Status: Offline
|
| Something else to consider, is the fact that right now, the Libyans will want to limit their purchases to the things that they need in the immediate future. Their first aviation purchases might end up being helos. It will take time simply to unite all sides of this conflict. They need to build their country before they build a military. Til then, the NATO Coalition will continue, albeit, possibly with limited cooperation from some of the players. |
_________________
"He counted on America to be passive...He counted wrong." -- President Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
