IDF gets world's best attack helicopters

Three Apache Longbow helicopters arrive in Israel as part of USD 640 million defense-upgrade project; equipped with advanced night-vision system; remaining choppers to arrive by the end of 2006.

The Israeli Air Force (IAF) received three Apache Longbow helicopters Sunday as part of a newly-established 20-helicopter squadron.

The highly advanced chopper can fly in all weather conditions and at nighttime, as it comes equipped with a night-vision system that transfers images directly to the pilot's eyes, a senior IAF officer said.

Another major advantage of the chopper pertains to its radar, which permits the detection of more than one target at a time and enables the pilot to launch a missile without maintaining eye-contact with the target, he said.

"This technique, which is called 'Launch and Forget,' offers us an efficient way to deal with the current risks helicopters face - from Kalashnikov gunfire, to anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft fire," the officer said.

"The cockpit is a story in itself. Each activity or malfunction on the helicopter appears on the screen," another IAF officer said. "Everything is very user-friendly."

Each helicopter cost an estimated USD 27 million, and all in all Israel has invested some USD 640 million in the project, including the upgrading of Israeli-manufactured choppers and infrastructure development.

The remaining Apaches are expected to arrive in the country by the end of 2006 as part of a deal that was struck five years ago between the Defense Ministry and a number of American companies, including Boeing.

"This is a helicopter that brings unique capabilities to a long list of (military) operational aspects," an IDF official said.

Upon the establishment of the new IAF squadron, a number of Apache helicopter squadron pilots were sent to the U.S. to study the advanced helicopter.

Despite the recent positive developments in the Middle East, the IAF is certain the acquisition of the Apache Longbows is a necessity.

"We must prepare for any situation, including a 'classic' war," an IAF officer said.

"You can Google for more information, given that other sites may have their own agenda. WRMEA Claims 2 billion a year in loan guarantees, much of which is later made into grants."

WRMEA has a hate US, hate Bush, hate Israel, Socialist agenda. Why are you using this site with its article by Stephen Zunes? Here is his bio:

"Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He writes frequently for such leftwing publications as The Nation, CommonDreams.org, AlterNet.org, AntiWar.com, and FromOccupiedPalestine.org. His numerous writings exhibit a deep obsession with and disdain for American support of Israel. In addition, he characterizes the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as "illegal" and "immoral." In May 2004 he made a speech at a Santa Cruz, California event co-sponsored by the radical Committee for Justice in Palestine (CJP), entitled 'From Iraq to Palestine: U.S. Imperialism in the Middle East."

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1575

As to Googling, most of the hits come from Palestinian, Arab or leftwing and Socialist groups. So yes I distrust their agenda.

In addition, have you ever asked the question how much US foreign aid goes to Europe? Unlike aid to Israel this aid is buried in the defense budget under NATO funding. Nevertheless this is aid to Europe. Wealthy countries, our 'friends' like France, Germany and Spain opt to spend their saved money on extensive social programs instead of decent defense since they can rely on the US.

Here are some thoughts from the Middle East Forum, a US think tank founded in 1990:

......................

Kurz: But American policy by every U.S. president since Truman has been to try to advance peace and stability in the Middle East. Stability in that volatile region is worth a lot. We and our allies spent $60 billion in the Gulf war. That's a lot of money, and it was spent in a few months of a major military campaign. Peace is considerably cheaper than war. If the region can be stabilized that brings benefits to the United States—not just policy benefits but also monetary benefits. Oil flows more freely, the threat of war diminishes, U.S. influence increases. The long term hope is that as the threats to Israel decline, and Israel's military is strong enough to respond to whatever threat exists, then it will no longer need as much military assistance as now. Unfortunately, looking ahead over the next few years, the military threats to Israel are increasing dramatically. The Syria aid package is a finite deal. It's not a Camp David–type deal where the mistake was made of providing Israel with large loans that she is still repaying today

MEQ: $100 billion dollars has by now been invested in Camp David.

Kurz: Yes, but much of the money to Israel was loans, not grants, and at very high interest rates.

Fradkin: When Israel first reached the plateau of $3 billion dollars in aid back in 1985, Israel's per-capita income was, let's say, half of what it is today. Are Israel's needs twice what they were fifteen years ago? Or can Israel better afford to pay its own way?

Kurz: The per-capita rationale is misleading and unfair. When we look at our expenditures in Europe for NATO, we don't look at the per-capita income of the average European—which is very high. We look at what our interests in the region are; what needs to be done to meet those interests; and how much aid you need to do that. That's the kind of calculation we make in determining our defense budget, and it's the kind of calculation we make to determine our foreign-aid budget.

Fradkin: You don't factor in Israel's economic success at all?

Kurz: I do, but just as Israel's economy is doing much better, the military threats against her are much greater. Look at what's happening in the region: the nuclear threat, the missile threat, where they are coming from, the distances involved from rogue regimes like Iran and Iraq. All of those new threats are much more difficult, much more expensive, and much harder for Israel to meet on her own.

Here's an example: In 1994, Israel had to make a major purchase of planes in order to begin replacing over one hundred aging aircraft. It had to decide whether to buy F-16s that cost $20-$30 million per plane but could not reach Iran or F-15s that have the range to reach Iran but cost $100 million a plane. It ended up buying the $100 million plane, but only twenty-one of them because of the costs involved. So, if you look at Israel's military today, it is facing real needs that are not being met even with the American aid. Their defense budget is one of the highest in the world. It's 10 percent of Israel's gross national product; that's three times what we pay for defense and it's higher than in any other Western country

Clawson: But it's less than the average that we paid during the cold war. Israel is a country of a $100 billion-a-year GNP [gross national product]. It's spending $10 billion dollars a year on defense, but at one point when Israel had half the income of its current level, it was spending 25 percent of its income on defense. So Israel's income has gone up, and the percentage of its GNP spent on defense has come down. If Israel increased its expenditure on defense from 10 percent of GNP to 13 percent of GNP, it would mean no U.S. assistance. None. That's only 3 percent of GNP to replace U.S. assistance and leave this whole issue of aid behind.
Going back to what Ester said, I don't like the analogy between Israel and NATO. If we're present in Western Europe, it's because we think we're defending the United States, and to the extent that what we're doing in Israel is defending the United States, it should be in the defense budget.

Kurz: Some have argued that it should. We should remember, however, that the money we give to Israel is both to help Israel defend herself and to defend American interests in the region. The money we give to NATO is for the support of American troops to defend Europe and American interests in Europe. As an American, I would much rather give money to another country to help defend our needs in the region than to have American troops in the region. That makes a lot more sense and is a lot cheaper.

Clawson: The United States should defend the United States. When it provides assistance to an ally, then it's appropriate for the assistance to be in the defense budget. But it's not appropriate to put money for the defense of the United States in the foreign-aid budget. Nor is it appropriate for the United States to ask others to defend its interests.

http://www.meforum.org/article/63

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.