F-16 Viper

lixun

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
656
Likes
1,036
Country flag
All contested areas are very near an airfield from our mainland. That's how ridiculous China's claims are.
The islands and reefs of the South China Sea were China’s spoils of World War II. Both the Communist Party and the Kuomintang recognized that the Nansha Islands belonged to China. At that time, the Philippines was still a colony. The first Chinese fishermen to reach the Nansha Islands should belong to China under international law
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,161
Likes
6,325
Country flag
The islands and reefs of the South China Sea were China’s spoils of World War II. Both the Communist Party and the Kuomintang recognized that the Nansha Islands belonged to China. At that time, the Philippines was still a colony. The first Chinese fishermen to reach the Nansha Islands should belong to China under international law

First, those are not islands in the legal definition. Therefore, not being islands they do not produce baselines under UNCLOS. The baselines are from our main islands. So the 200 mile EEZ shall be drawn from our main islands while China's EEZ is from China's mainland. These militarized reefs therefore forms part of our EEZ.

China cannot deny this legal rule since it ratified UNCLOS wothout reservations to baseline rules.

Second, China's evidence of historocal occupation/claim of these reefs was foumd to be bogus by the UNCLOS Tribunal.

Third, these reefs are historically fishing areas and refuge for Philippine fishermen for a long time. So we have been exercising our economic rights in those reefs even before UNCLOS was ratified.
 

lixun

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
656
Likes
1,036
Country flag
First, those are not islands in the legal definition. Therefore, not being islands they do not produce baselines under UNCLOS. The baselines are from our main islands. So the 200 mile EEZ shall be drawn from our main islands while China's EEZ is from China's mainland. These militarized reefs therefore forms part of our EEZ.

China cannot deny this legal rule since it ratified UNCLOS wothout reservations to baseline rules.

Second, China's evidence of historocal occupation/claim of these reefs was foumd to be bogus by the UNCLOS Tribunal.

Third, these reefs are historically fishing areas and refuge for Philippine fishermen for a long time. So we have been exercising our economic rights in those reefs even before UNCLOS was ratified.
First, the Chinese fishermen first discovered these islands. This is a written record. Of course, Filipino fishermen often fish there, but this is the first discovered by the Chinese, and it belongs to China in terms of international law.
Second, these are islands, with fresh water, plants, and animals above sea level all the year round. They are not coral reefs.
Third, the Ocean Court is not an agency under the jurisdiction of the United Nations and has no legitimacy. China will neither participate in nor recognize this Ocean Court controlled by the Americans.
Fourth, Filipino fishermen can certainly fish here, just like I loaned the house to a neighbor’s house, but the ownership of the house is still mine.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,161
Likes
6,325
Country flag
First, the Chinese fishermen first discovered these islands. This is a written record. Of course, Filipino fishermen often fish there, but this is the first discovered by the Chinese, and it belongs to China in terms of international law.
Second, these are islands, with fresh water, plants, and animals above sea level all the year round. They are not coral reefs.
Third, the Ocean Court is not an agency under the jurisdiction of the United Nations and has no legitimacy. China will neither participate in nor recognize this Ocean Court controlled by the Americans.
Fourth, Filipino fishermen can certainly fish here, just like I loaned the house to a neighbor’s house, but the ownership of the house is still mine.

There's no proof of who exactly discovered it first. Note that these reefs are closer to our main island so most likely our ancient fishermen discovered it first. More impirtantlt, China's "manufactured map" was tossed out by UNCLOS for being bogus.

As to UNCLOS, China ratified it so it's bound by it. As to UNCLOS Tribunal, China filed briefs in our case so it has recognized it as having authority on the issue.
 

lixun

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
656
Likes
1,036
Country flag
There's no proof of who exactly discovered it first. Note that these reefs are closer to our main island so most likely our ancient fishermen discovered it first. More impirtantlt, China's "manufactured map" was tossed out by UNCLOS for being bogus.

As to UNCLOS, China ratified it so it's bound by it. As to UNCLOS Tribunal, China filed briefs in our case so it has recognized it as having authority on the issue.
1625103131151.png

This is the earliest record of South China Sea islands in China and the earliest record of South China Sea islands in the world. If the Philippines has other written records, please take it out. UNCLOS stipulates that the first discoverer has the ownership of the island and should comply with UNCLOS. Philippines,
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,161
Likes
6,325
Country flag
View attachment 97564
This is the earliest record of South China Sea islands in China and the earliest record of South China Sea islands in the world. If the Philippines has other written records, please take it out. UNCLOS stipulates that the first discoverer has the ownership of the island and should comply with UNCLOS. Philippines,

I wonder why China did not submit that "written record" to UNCLOS tribunal...
:bplease:

Qnd talking about ancient records, it's a fact that the Philippines is far from China in this field. As a matter of fact there was no Philippines as we know it in ancient tomes as the country was a collection if smaller sultanates and tribes. But pre-Philippines Filipinos were known sea fishermen amd fearers that traded with the rest of South East Asia for a long time before the Spaniards arrived.
 

lixun

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
656
Likes
1,036
Country flag
I wonder why China did not submit that "written record" to UNCLOS tribunal...
:bplease:

Qnd talking about ancient records, it's a fact that the Philippines is far from China in this field. As a matter of fact there was no Philippines as we know it in ancient tomes as the country was a collection if smaller sultanates and tribes. But pre-Philippines Filipinos were known sea fishermen amd fearers that traded with the rest of South East Asia for a long time before the Spaniards arrived.
You can say that the Philippines once occupied the American continent and no one is going to take care of you. We have written records. Does the Philippines have it? China does not recognize the Ocean Court. Naturally, there is no need to submit evidence.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,161
Likes
6,325
Country flag
You can say that the Philippines once occupied the American continent and no one is going to take care of you. We have written records. Does the Philippines have it? China does not recognize the Ocean Court. Naturally, there is no need to submit evidence.

We have the "Law of the Sea" that your country has ratified (thus bound itself) on our side versus your doubtful records.
 

Abhay Rajput 02

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
413
Likes
1,041
That's not flyaway cost. That $2.5B is the entire program cost, aircraft+ trainings+simulators+maintenance+parts+weapons+sensors+ground infrastructures. But we do not know tge actual break down yet.
lets compare it with rafale deal of iaf. 230 million dollar per jet. infrastructure for 2 airbase. spares for 5 years . 50 % offset and some 700 million euro weapons pacakge. to me it looks like f16 and rafale more or less cost the same. the f16 deal doesnt include offset. FYI india is now manufacturing tr modules for rafale aesa radar under offset deal
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,161
Likes
6,325
Country flag
lets compare it with rafale deal of iaf. 230 million dollar per jet. infrastructure for 2 airbase. spares for 5 years . 50 % offset and some 700 million euro weapons pacakge. to me it looks like f16 and rafale more or less cost the same. the f16 deal doesnt include offset. FYI india is now manufacturing tr modules for rafale aesa radar under offset deal
There's simply no way Rafale's per unit (fly away) price will be lower than the F-16. The sheer volume of F-16s produced at 4,600+ alone versus Rafale's 200+ is a good indicator of their per unit prices.

Even F-35, which still has to match F-16's vilume to date, is found to be cheaper than Rafale by the Swiss.
 

Abhay Rajput 02

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
413
Likes
1,041
There's simply no way Rafale's per unit (fly away) price will be lower than the F-16. The sheer volume of F-16s produced at 4,600+ alone versus Rafale's 200+ is a good indicator of their per unit prices.

Even F-35, which still has to match F-16's vilume to date, is found to be cheaper than Rafale by the Swiss.
please rights facts as i have written for you. it doesnt matter what is the cost price of f16 is to usa. What matters how much they are sold to foreign countries especially first time user. according to the above deal its quite clear how much f16 cost to a new user.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,161
Likes
6,325
Country flag
please rights facts as i have written for you. it doesnt matter what is the cost price of f16 is to usa. What matters how much they are sold to foreign countries especially first time user. according to the above deal its quite clear how much f16 cost to a new user.
So what is the actual and real per unit (fly away) cost of Rafales sold to the IAF? You might be so high up in the chain of command that you have access to the actual figures which are usually confidential information for obvious reasons.

As to our F-16 acquisition, well I'm just a simple military fanboy with no access to confidential information. I therefore admit that I cannot give you actual figures.

What I can give you however is the conclusion of the Swiss fighter tender that found F-35 cheaper (and better) than Rafale:

20210701_160300.jpg

20210701_152800.jpg


Now from this findings I can deduce that 1. (obviously) Rafale is more expensive than the F-35 based on Swiss evaluation, which jibes well with the 2016 $8.8B price of 36 Rafale purchase by the IAF, 2. That between the newer 5th gen F-35 and F-16, the latter is cheaper for obvious reasons.
 

Abhay Rajput 02

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
413
Likes
1,041
So what is the actual and real per unit (fly away) cost of Rafales sold to the IAF? You might be so high up in the chain of command that you have access to the actual figures which are usually confidential information for obvious reasons.

As to our F-16 acquisition, well I'm just a simple military fanboy with no access to confidential information. I therefore admit that I cannot give you actual figures.

What I can give you however is the conclusion of the Swiss fighter tender that found F-35 cheaper (and better) than Rafale:

View attachment 97602
View attachment 97596

Now from this findings I can deduce that 1. (obviously) Rafale is more expensive than F-35 based on Swiss evaluation and if compared to $8.8B (in 2016) 36 Rafale purchase of the IAF, 2. That between the newer 5th gen F-35 and F-16, the latter is cheaper for obvious reasons.
are you serious, when did i ask for report i asked for facts . 208 million dollars f16 and 230 million dollar rafale from philipphines and indian contract. rafale is better choice between the two.
I wasnt talking about f35 but f16. this thread is f16 isnt it ? . as far as f35 goes it is cheaper and better than rafale no doubt about it. but it isnt on offer to us and never will due to s400. and you are forgetting some important facts like ,offset spares, ground infrastructure, weapons pacakges is not mention here so we cant directly compare it to 230 million dollar rafale deal .
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,161
Likes
6,325
Country flag
are you serious, when did i ask for report i asked for facts . 208 million dollars f16 and 230 million dollar rafale from philipphines and indian contract. rafale is better choice between the two.
I wasnt talking about f35 but f16. this thread is f16 isnt it ? . as far as f35 goes it is cheaper and better than rafale no doubt about it. but it isnt on offer to us and never will due to s400.
Do the math, Indian purchase of 36 Rafales (in 2016) was valued at $8.8B while Philippines' planned purchase for 12 F-16's (in 2021) is valued at $2.43B...

Note that Philippine infrastructure to support MRFs, F-16 in particular, is non-existent, while the IAF has established structures that can be easily repurposed for Rafale, and the Indian purchase was based on an exchange rate 5-10 years ago while the Philippine order was initiated only last year, so based on an exchange rate last year.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,161
Likes
6,325
Country flag
This comparison of IAF Rafale versus Philippine F-16 purchases are very rough estimates purely on program costs, the details of which are totally known.

The Swiss on the other hand compared the F-35 against Rafale based on concrete figures. And unless you want to claim that the F-16 is more expensive than the F-35, should be a good reference on real F-16 cost vis-a-vis Rafale.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,161
Likes
6,325
Country flag
The 2016 Rafale rough purchase price (based on 2007 or 2015 USD?) is $244M/unit.

The Philippine F-16 purchase (based on 2020 or 2021 USD) is $202M/unit.
 

Abhay Rajput 02

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
413
Likes
1,041
The 2016 Rafale rough purchase price (based on 2007 or 2015 USD?) is $244M/unit.

The Philippine F-16 purchase (based on 2020 or 2021 USD) is $202M/unit.
fine , except the fact that india had infrastructure for rafale. we built new shelters for them . plus you forget that indian rafale deal includes 50% offset so you should also reduce a little bit of price incase of rafale. and there you have it, only little expensive than f16 but far better than f16.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,161
Likes
6,325
Country flag
fine , except the fact that india had infrastructure for rafale. we built new shelters for them . plus you forget that indian rafale deal includes 50% offset so you should also reduce a little bit of price incase of rafale. and there you have it, only little expensive than f16 but far better than f16.

What you're trying to say is very hypothetical for we do not know if the French will give us favorable pricing for Rafale since unlike India we do not intend to buy more than 12 fighters and our defense sector and purchases is well below that of India.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top