Print 65 comment(s) - last by Chillin1248.. on Aug 16 at 2:50 AM

  (Source: Lockheed Martin)
The Israeli government will receive a first order of 20 JSF by the end of 2015, with

Israel is still considering whether or not it wants to purchase the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (also known as the Joint Strike Fighter) aircraft, as Defense Minister Ehud Barak and other Israeli government officials discuss the expensive investment.

Previous approval granted Israel the right to purchase 75 JSFs, but Israel initially only wants just 20 aircraft.  The country expects to pay more than $140 million for each F-35, and it's unknown if Israel will be able to install all of its own equipment into the aircraft.

Previously, the U.S. government said it would remove some of its own hardware and offer an alternative or allow the purchasing nation to make slight alternations.  Continued negotiations take place, but it's likely Israel will fulfill the rest of its order after the first 20 aircraft are accepted.

"We work according to the assumption that other countries will receive the jet, and that is why we need to be the first,” an IDF officer recently disclosed.  "The JSF not only provides unbelievable capabilities, but will also assist Israel in boosting its deterrence.”

After agreed upon configurations, Israel will begin to receive its new aircraft by the end of 2015, with future orders expected to arrive shortly after.  Although there are some early contract problems, Israel and the United States are expected to come to a fair agreement as quickly as possible.

Lockheed Martin has been given approval to sell the aircraft to select countries, but cannot offer certain electronics and hardware aboard the aircraft.

The Australian military is interested in purchasing up to 100 JSF, but want to see additional testing information before purchasing the costly aircraft.  If an agreement with Lockheed cannot be finalized, it's possible Australia will work with Russia.  Canada is expected to purchase up to 65 JSF -- negotiations are ongoing with other countries as well.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Not dogging Israel
By cruisin3style on 8/14/2010 4:20:34 PM , Rating: 0
Please tell me which part(s) of what I said was nonsensical (like saying tax cuts don't add to the debt because deficits were going down (cite source?) when there are any number of factors that go into deficits and debt creation, and in any case the amount added to the gross debt of the US was NOT coming down in the later years under Bush. The deficit is merely the difference between on the budget federal gov. receipts vs. outlays per fiscal year [kind of like horsepower, which isn't an actual measurement of anything just an equation based on torque and rpm], while the debt is like the torque in that it is a real figure which in this case we have to pay back),

which part(s) were unclear (like the reason for your inability to understand that I clarified my meaning of, and intention with, using the word "spent" but you continued in later comments to beat into the ground that we definitely did not spend money directly on tax cuts, which I agreed with in my 2nd comment and had in fact not intended to mean in the first place),

and which part(s) I was trying to obfuscate (like taking a couple paragraphs worth of comment apart sometimes sentence by sentence so as to make the whole of the posting less coherent and comment on each piece sometimes each sentence as though this were a comedic-talent pissing contest).

Any conversation or argument is an evolving discussion, yet you continue to comment as if my original comment is my current, exact, and unwavering stance without taking into consideration that I have clarified my meaning ad nauseum: that we didn't collect 2.3 trillion in taxes and yet spent much more than that over the last 9 years for which that 2.3 trillion could have helped "shore us up" in a fiscal sense. It is your apparent inability to grasp what I am saying and my love of argument/debate that makes me want to continue to comment, not a wounded ego.

If you look back through our comments, you seem to be commenting by way of juxtapositions your stance on my original comment and how that original comment does not correlate with my more recent postings. It's almost as if you are arguing with two people: the "original me" who didn't explain thoroughly enough my meaning of the word "spent", and the "current me" to whom you are seem to be saying "that's not what you said originally and you can't take it back now, nah-nah-nanah-nah!"

"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki