Last week, DID (and Winds) covered the ITAR defense technology waiver crisis in British-American defense relations, and noted that serious trouble was brewing.
Trouble has arrived.
Senior Ministry of Defence officials have confirmed to The Sunday Times of London that Britain is considering its options and contemplating a pullout from the multinational, multi-billion dollar F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program (JSF). It's a 10-nation program: USA, Britain, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Israel [observer], Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore [observer], Turkey); but Britain is the program's only Tier One partner with the USA. They've invested about $2B to develop the F-35B STOVL version that was intended to fly from Britain's future Queen Elizabeth Class carriers - and will also form the future backbone of US Marine Corps aviation.
The British have been issuing escalating warnings for several years now, and it looks like they've just about had it. According to British officials, instructions have been given for alternative strategies for projects affected by American technology-transfer problems - and JSF was included in that list. It was time, one said, to "think the unthinkable."
If Britain goes, a bunch of bad things are going to happen - and the damage will go all the way to the foundations of the US - British alliance. Most Americans aren't even aware that this issue exists, let alone how serious it has become (and thanks to Anglosphere originator James C. Bennett for commenting!). It's time to pay attention.
Because the reason things have reached this point lies in the US Congress, and it's Republicans not Democrats who have created this situation.
What's Going On Here?
ITAR relates to Section 38 of the USA's Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778), and creates a regulated weeks-long approval process for exports of a military nature. They exist to protect and oversee the transfer of American military technologies and secrets to other countries.
ITAR restrictons affect a long list of items, including mundane weapons parts and components. They can also place limits on authorized cooperation until waivers come through for each item involved, because "defense services" are covered as well. Furthermore, the delays involved in getting ITAR approvals for each item can be a real hindrance to allies whose firms are trying to work on joint defense development projects. The resulting stumbling blocks to cooperation essentialy impose an additional time and often an additional monetary cost on allied involvement.
Of course, the alternative of having no scrutiny or approvals process is a non-starter. But what about your closest allies? Is there a point at which you say: "on balance, it's better for us to generally trust folks on joint projects with X and Y"?
Britain, as the USA's closest defense partner, would like to have the ITAR restrictions waived in many cases, essentially conferring automatic approval on British requests. In 2000, Bill Clinton promised both Britain and Australia (another genuine ally who cooperates on a number of defense projects with the USA) that he would work to make this happen. George W. Bush and his administration have also worked to make this happen. Both Bill and W. have failed, however, largely owing to resistance from a few powerful congressional Republicans - esp. House International Relations Committee Chair Henry Hyde [R-IL], and House Armed Services Chair Duncan Hunter [R-CA].
The DID article "UK Warns USA Over ITAR Arms Restrictions" explains all this in more detail. I'll note in fairness that the Republicans involved aren't being completely irrational, and have some valid points. Hyde isn't doing this to play protectionist and get votes - he's retiring in 2006, which means he's doing this because he believes in it.
Which will be awfully cold comfort if the USA proceeds to do major damage to long-term relations with America's REAL allies over things that are frankly a lot less important - especially in the world we live in today.
The Stakes
(click to view full)
A British pullout from the JSF at this crucial juncture could have seismic ramifications, at multiple levels.
Defence Minister Hoon, Britain's Parliamentary Defence Committee, and Prime Minister Tony Blair have all warned the USA that the problem's they're experiencing in this area go beyond the F-35, and affect Britain's overall relationship with the USA. What do you folks down there need, a freaking singing telegram?
Here's a hint: if you get one, it will be the French maid.
If America wants to work with allies in military situations, interoperability matters. A British pullout from the F-35 would compromise that in two ways: directly, and indirectly. The direct effect is obvious. The indirect compromise is worse.
It's one thing to decide that a program doesn't fit military needs, and pull out or reduce orders. It's another thing for your closest ally to more or less decide that they can't work with you on major defense development projects. Which is exactly what a JSF program pullout would represent.
Since going alone is not a financial option, Britain would look elsewhere for defense development cooperation - to European industry, and to EU-led programs to create both a common European defense industry and a European force independent of NATO or the USA. A British military that is more and more interoperable with its European partners, and less and less common with the USA, and also not fostering ties at the weapons program level because cooperation is curtailed... is a Britain that will find itself, slowly but surely pulled away from its special defense relationship with the USA. This will, of course, have ripple effects on its foreign policy. Especially given that broken promises and a breakdown of cooperation would be what led to this whole situation in the first place.
Finally, there's the stakes for the F-35 JSF program itself, currently one of the USA's largest weapons programs as it seeks to replace its aging F-16, F-18, and AV-8 Harrier fleets. Those planes were designed in the 1970s, and many were bought in the 1980s.
You can basically divide any weapons program in two: there's the development costs for the weapon, which you pay even if you never buy one (let's say $100). Then there's the production cost per weapon (let's say $10). If you buy 10 weapons, each costs $20 ((100/10)+10). If you bought 100, each would cost $11 ((100/100)+10). If Britain leaves, and a chunk of fighter orders go with it, the USA has to either choose to subsidize development of the F-35 for other nations, or raise the price. If it raises the price too high, however, other nations may find the F-35 too expensive and buy alternatives. Worse, the F-35 has parts from all the consortium members. Fewer F-35s sold means smaller industrial benefits for participating countries.
2006 is shaping up as a key year for European fighter decisions, and weakness or schism within the program could easily lead other countries to bolt. Countries like Norway and Denamrk are already scoping alternatives, and a British pullout would trigger a groundswell of unease and second thoughts in many of the program's European partners - helped along by the anti-American EUphiles to be sure. As more countries bolt, the development costs fall among fewer fighters andthe industrial benefits for each country shrink, intensifying the financial and political problems. And on it goes.
Obviously, this would be bad for an important US defense program, bad for US industry, and bad for US interoperability with its allies. If protectionism is a motivation here in any way, doing things that will cost several thousand American jobs in the near term doesn't strike me an intelligent way to go about it.
Technology Transfer and the JSF
(click to view full)
As this August 2004 National Defense Magazine article noted:
"With JSF, "we had a difficult start to exchanging the necessary data and technical information on this vital program," said Lord William Bach of Lutterworth, U.K. undersecretary of state and minister of state for defense procurement.... Cooperation was reached on the system design and development phase, but the transfer of data and technical information has been way behind, he said.
A senior Pentagon official speaking to a defense industry conference in London said that some of these problems can be blamed on the U.S. bureaucracy. "The vast majority of acquisition PMs [program managers] were not cognizant of export control requirements until they were informed that a certain license application had not been approved, thereby delaying the next step of a critical international armaments cooperation program," said the official.
As the article notes, organizational workarounds were found for many of those initial problems. Nevertheless, the same issues will replicate themselves across the defense cooperation spectrum.
Other issues remain live within the JSF program itself. For example, Britain is seeking full independent maintainability and control over its F-35 fighters - and one of the most critical and contested areas lies in the plane's massive software source code. Since software will run so many aspects of the F-35's operations, access to the source code is necessary in order to debug many flaws, and may be required to integrate new weapons.
At the same time, the plane's dependence on software makes protecting the securtity of that source code an absolute must. To have even parts of it fall into hostile hands could be a disaster of the first magnitude. On the American side, there is also the quasi-protectionist angle of not wishing to have others copy the software and develop spin-off products in future that are based on US work. Even attempting to scrutinize that would be a challenge, however, creating intrusiveness, approval, and friction problems of its own. The option of American code control as the sole "clearinghouse" for the program is thus an attractive one.
On the other hand, with $2 billion invested as a "Tier One" partner, Britain may justly feel that a full partner should not have to go hat in hand to the USA every time a change is required.
The issue of technology transfers within a specific program is seperable in principle from the issue of ITAR. Nevertheless, in practice the two issues are merging into one broad politico-industrial complaint whose ramifications could be seismic.
Britain: So What's Britain's "Plan B"?
(click to view full)
According to the Times of London, negotiations regarding Britain's 88 Tranche-3 Eurofighters are apparently discussing the possibility of a carrier-suitable variant.
Ironically, it was France's unique insistence on a carrier role for their future fighter, with the accompanying design and specification requirements, that contributed to French negotiating rigidity and broke up the original Eurofighter consortium in 1985. France would go on to develop the Dassault Rafale independently, including a Rafale M carrier version.
Creating a matching "Eurofighter CV" could be done, but contra the breezy confidence displayed in the Sunday Times, it would be a major undertaking. Many of the aircraft's original design decisions vs. the Rafale (increased weight, for instance) diverged precisely because designers were free to ignore the carrier requirement. Dr. Richard North is generally correct about the design and cost implications that a retrofit would create1, extending not only to redesign of the Eurofighter but of the CVF future carriers as well.
Then again, Britain could also just buy the Rafale as its naval fighter, and turn the CVF program into a joint program with France. The latter idea was already under discussion even before the technology-transfer flap with the USA reared its head.
Opinions vary concerning Britain's F-35 JSF bombshell. Is it just a negotiating tactic meant to show seriousness and communicate the stakes? A dead-earnest intention, backed by those who wish to align Britain more closely with the EU? Anglosphere proponents and Atlanticists on both sides of the pond, meanwhile, would argue that it doesn't matter - just getting to this point is a failure of sorts, and could put issues in play that were better left as unspoken matters of trust.
The question is whether resolution of this impasse is possible in the near-term, and sustainable in the longer term.
Conclusion
My complaint with the Left's insincere definition of multilateralism isn't that the USA doesn't need allies. That's ridiculous. It's that the USA needs real allies, not people who pretend to be its friends for advantage, then stab their ally in the back when it becomes convenient. Senator Kerry was both the exemplar and a prime advocate of this definition, which is one of the reasons I opposed his candidacy in 2004.
When trouble comes, people - and countries - learn who their REAL friends are. It isn't always the ones you thought beforehand. Now more than ever, the USA needs real allies.
There's a corollary to this point, and it matters too. Real allies, who stand with you when the going gets tough, are special. The kind of people - and countries - worth being a friend like that FOR will go out out of their way for their real friends. Sometimes a long way out their way. The USA, and the Republicans in Congress who believe wholeheartedly in its larger mission, need to step back and focus on what's really important.
Cicero, and others here on Winds, have described the competing ideologies our world faces. Let me offer my take:
- The continental European EU model of top-down transnational socialism insulated from democracy is one. It is doomed by demographics, by the corrosive effects of its inherent unaccountability and inflexibility, and by the emptiness that lies at its heart. What is in question is what will come after, and whether its roots in the Enlightenment, Western Civilization and the dignity of man will prove strong and deep enough to overcome its failures.
- The authoritarian quasi-capitalism of China (which could morph into something either better, or far worse) and Asia is another option, one that will present a rising challenge both geopolitically and ideologically. Can material prosperity be insulated from political freedom? For how long? If so, there are many places where such a model will be attractive - and a resource-hungry colonialism that depends on its export is hardly out of the question.
- There is, of course, the Islamist alternative, which may acquire an ability to destroy that far surapsses their fallen civilization's utter inability to create. It has blended with the detrius of the 20th centry's failed totalitarian experiments, and that truth is now being observed in affiliation and action as well as in theory. In the end, what remains of Islamic civilization will either learn to love the kuffar [unbeliever] as its brother, or its own internal logic will lead to its death - at another's hands, or at its own. The Fascist death-impulse is strong, and intrinsic, but they rarely die alone. It is time for the decent people to choose, and make a stand.
- And don't forget the Anarchy alternative of warring tribes, artificial failed states, and the shadowy criminal organizations that both feed on and depend on them. for the foreseeable future they, too, will be with us. There are a number of plausible scenarios in which al-Qaeda is just the first challenge of its type, the early wave of a trend rather than the last wave of a long civilizational death-spiral.
Against all of these, there is another tradition. One of civic society organized of individuals, and characterized by accountability, flexibility, and the rule of law. It is not a tradition bound by ethnicity, geography, or past historical status - though it has many of its origins in the historical experiences of the British people and blends deeper Graeco-Roman and Judeo-Christian origins. James C. Bennett and The Anglosphere Institute call it The Anglosphere, and to the extent that Western civilization and its ideals retain a fighting chance in this world, this is where they reside most firmly.
It's a model that has proven its sustainability, and now it is learning the balance between respect for others, duty to others, and its own self-preservation. It is imperfect. It is also, I believe, the best hope for a world that represents a better future for ALL humankind.
Say it with me, Congressmen: I am a member of a civilization.
Britain is the leader that was, America, the leader that is. And if the USA plays its cards as well as Britain did, another will arise in time and become the leader that will be. Of a culture that values the creativity, exploration, freedom, and dignity of all. Perhaps one day, those values will be held by most of humankind. Perhaps one day, they will even extend beyond. I hope so with all my heart.
But not if we fracture now, when the world most needs us to stand together amidst the swirls and eddies of history. Not if we balk our true friends, instead of finding ways to deepen our ties and prepare, together, for what may come. Not if we ruin the opportunity before us in shortsighteness, And all over what, I ask you?
Madness.
These are your best friends we're talking about, Congressmen. Act like it.
Straighten up, and fly right.
Anglosphere Originator James C. Bennett Chimes In
See the full blog post at Albion's Seedlings:
"The ultimate solution may well be in what I have proposed in my book, an integrated "defense industry community" agreement between the US, the UK, and other nations willing and able to abide by its strict destination rules on thirrd-party transfer. (This would not be restricted to Anglosphere nations, but it's likely that such would be its core.) Within this community, technology transfer and cooperation would be essentially transparent, and mergers would be possible without many of the burdens that today limit and hedge foreign ownership of defense-sensitive companies in the US. Such a community would be a powerful carrot to the UK's high-tech and defense industries. However, it would almost certainly mean the curtailment of some portion of the UK's participation in pan-European mergers and combinations.
A combination of increasing (and largely valid) US concerns over third-party destination controls (fed by Clinton-era blunders in technology-transfer controls to China), and increasingly aggressive EU plans for defense integration, combined with a strategy of triangulation with the US's strategic rivals, is making the UK's position of choice over the past decades increasingly untenable. Blair, or perhaps Prime Minister Brown (or perhaps even Prime Minister Cameron, who needs to be addressing this issue) will soon have to make a choice. Americans should be thinking over a better offer to Britain than a continuation of the status quo, or the status quo minus further restictions. This is a moment for strategic, long-term thinking and an honest view of the real options. So far the only people doing this are the Europeanists, who already understand the choice and are working hard to ensure that Britain is pushed their way. It would be stupid of the US and the UK to let this happen by default."
UPDATE... F-35 Lightning II: Final Resolution
The US and Britain did get everything straightened out in the end, and their points of agreement became the basis for a multilateral deal with all of the program participants. All of whom went on to sign the F-35 Production Phase Memorandum of Understanding, which will put the industrial infrastructure for F-35 manufacture in place and determine work shares. The final stage will be actual military procurement contracts from the various partner nations.
- DID Focus Article - F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Events & Contracts 2007 (updated)
- DID (Dec 14/06) - Britain Formally Signs F-35 Production Phase MoU
- DID (Aug 4/06) - F-35 JSF Program: US & UK Reach Technology Transfer Agreement
Footnotes
1 Dr. North's insistence that the USA would be happy to cancel the F-35B STOVL version, however, is grievously in error. The F-35B STOVL version is also required by the US Marines and by the USA's substantial set of LHA/LHD amphibious assault ships; the F-35A (standard) and F-35C (carrier) versions have had cancellation discussed, but even excluding foreign sales opportunities, the F-35B has both a substantial US constituency and no plausible substitute.
(Originally posted to Winds of Change.NET on Dec. 13, 2005)
Having read the DID article, I'm going to have to stand with Hyde on this one. He has substantive ojections that Britian apparently isn't addressing. It sounds like Britian hasn't decided whether it wishes to be a European or Anglospheric power.
Is this a case of trying to have your cake and eating it?
Wow, tremendous work following all this.
My first thought was similar to lurker's, though.
Isn't "Britain's lack of specific laws that prevent transfers of military technology to third parties" a legitimate concern?
I dont see how we can question Britain after the way they have stood shoulder to shoulder with us in the last 4 years. Give them what they ask for.
"top-down transnational socialism insulated from democracy"
The problem with this formulation of course, is that the real socialists in Europe dont want a more centralized EU (at least with its current membership) since that would mean adopting a socio-economic model that largely excludes large scale nationalized industy, central planning, etc. To claim that the EU is transnational socialism you have to claim that Blairite Thirdwayism - a free market with a relatively extensive social safety net - is socialism. And thats just silly. Socialists may support welfare states, but support for a welfare state isnt definitional of socialism. And if it IS, then UK, Australia and Israel (even with Bibi as Fin Minister) are ALL socialist. Only the US isnt, and almost half of Americans are socialists too. This definition is too broad, and too different from historical definitions of socialism to be meaningful.
Indeed it leads to confusion, like this
"It sounds like Britian hasn't decided whether it wishes to be a European or Anglospheric power"
AFAICT most Britons dont accept this distinction - they see Europe and the US as still allied, and Britain as playing a role as a bridge.
And BTW, socialism, one way or the other, didn't enter my thinking at all.
Wow. This is a tremendous story that I have heard exactly nothing on until now. Hail the blogoshpere, and great work, JK!
Now, I am a huge Anglophile, and God Bless Tony Blair and the British Armed Forces for what they have done since 9/11.
Now let me try to add to Hyde's argument.
Lurker, the term "socialism" is the FIRST thing that came to my mind. Because socialism murders every single solitary thing it gets it's hideous gargoyle claws upon, it is killing NATO and the transatlantic relationship, and it might be killing the US-Britian one.
Fine. John Kerry and others can quote chapter and verse on US wrongdoings that have brought us here. But what about the other side of the Atlantic? The fact is, the British Left is de facto European, and is HUGELY powerful. They own the BBC, lock, stock, and barrel, and the BBC is as powerful an enemy of the US and "liberty...arian" culture and creed, as, say, North Korea. NK cannot poison the minds of millions of peoples all around the globe against us... the BBC can, and does.
Point is... we can trust Mr. Blair, even though HE is basically socialist (another day's argument). Can we trust his successor, or his second successor?
Blair's enourmously popular Labour Party has not been shy about it's opinions (many against Blair himself).... of the US, of it's Republican Party that may very well be in charge for some time to come, of our existential battle in the Middle East, of the capitalism that has built the West, of those who are willing to stand for and fight for all of the above.
Meanwhile, just like Europe, it is simply hardwired to not take military organizations, their use, their needs, their benefits... seriously. At all. (At that BBC, so representative, there are multiple stories of young women working there dating British soldiers who categorically have to hide, at all costs, the fact that they do so, because of the reaction of bosses and fellow employees.)
Can we trust our vaunted British allies? Painfully, I cannot answer that. Can we trust the enourmously powerful socialists of Britian and the Continent?
Not for a minute. They hate us, they despise Western Civilization, are joyously "deconstucting" it as we speak in the name of West-loathing "multiculturalism", and have not bothered to be bashful about any of that at all. And they have felt this way long before Mr. Dubya Bush showed up. The difference is they are much more powerfully placed than previous to now.
And that is the dilemma that Mr. Hyde and Co. confront. Unfortunately, I offer analysis, but no answers here. I am distraught that we have come to this pass.
Lurker,
Kim Philby's actions were of that kind of disastrous magnitude - but it was not a barrier to continued cooperation. The alliance was bigger than that, and the risk of leakage was acknowledged as a possibility wherever one cooperates with another (or even if one doesn't - Aldritch Ames, anyone?).
Britain's argument is that they've never deliberately let the USA down here before, and these two countries have worked together for a long time. If they insist on that position (essentially, a test of trust), the alliance as a whole is the more valuable consideration and this is an area where a smart country in the USA's position ought to give a little.
As the USA has demonstrated with Israel, if it decides it doesn't like what is actually being done, there are all sorts of ways to pull one's partner back into line. Or force a very unpleasant choice. Especially when you're the larger party.
I'm looking into the claim by Dr. Richard North that some of Britain's other cooperation treaties et. al. with Europe prevent it from passing the kind of restrictive laws Rep. Hyde wants. Haven't got a response yet, but that might explain the British emphasis on their own recognizance rather than a law.
And none of this explains the holdup re: Australia, which was also in line for an ITAR waiver.
By the way, the lone country that has a partial ITAR waiver?
Canada.
Liberalhawk (#5)
Socialists may support welfare states, but support for a welfare state isnt definitional of socialism. And if it IS, then UK, Australia and Israel (even with Bibi as Fin Minister) are ALL socialist. Only the US isnt, and almost half of Americans are socialists too.
True.
In today's world, any political party is somehow Socialist, though only the most radical are decorated with the "Socialist" label.
AFAICT most Britons dont accept this distinction - they see Europe and the US as still allied, and Britain as playing a role as a bridge.
True again.
What is all this about? Easily-to-leak software source code? A fight between lovers? I-want-it-I-don't-give-you-I'll-do-something-that-hurts-you...
In, how many? maybe ten years? the code will be as outdated as today is Windows 95.
lurker: It sounds like Britian hasn't decided whether it wishes to be a European or Anglospheric power. Is this a case of trying to have your cake and eating it?
Culturally, Britain is a European country, and it is also an English-speaking country. It doesn't have to choose between the two, and most British people would regard the suggestion that it has to as ridiculous.
That's culturally. Now, regarding foreign policy, it may be the case that Britain has to choose between Europe and America. Tony Blair believes this is not the case. (We can be reasonably certain he genuinely believes it, since the Iraq War didn't do him any favours politically). The US government, OTOH, might feel that Britain has to choose between the two. If they do make Britain choose, it will almost certainly choose Europe.
On the specific point of the F-35, there are two issues:
(1) stealth technology. Will Britain be getting the fully stealthed version, or be fobbed of with a crippled not-so-stealthy variant?
(2) software. Britain needs the source code firstly so it can integrate its own weapons, and secondly so it can remove any backdoors the USA has put in the code that allow it to de-activate the aircraft remotely. (I'm assuming that most complex military technology has these backdoors in it -- there are reports that Exocet missiles did in 1982 and France gave the codes to Britain so it could neutralise Argentine Exocets).
If Britain doesn't get its way on these points then IMO it would not be in the UK national interest to buy the F-35. And since Britain would have a weak negotiating position if it didn't have a fallback aircraft, it should start publicly considering alternatives such as the Rafale, a navalised Eurofighter, and perhaps the Sukhoi Su-33 navalised Flanker. It would also make sense for Britain to jointly negotiate a common negotiating position on the F-35 with other European countries considering buying it, since the same issues will also arise for those countries, and if European countries negotiate jointly with the USA they will have a better negotiating position.
If Europeans do make a common negotiating position, then given that a large proportion of the F-35's potential exports are likely to go to Europe, it would probably make sense for the USA to agree to what Europe asks for.
This whole issue would not have arisen if the original agreement between the USA and UK had specified all the details, including exactly what technology would be transferred. Certainly the UK should not have handed any money over to the USA without a detailed agreement being in place.
Jeff: Isn't "Britain's lack of specific laws that prevent transfers of military technology to third parties" a legitimate concern?
If it is, and the US government took it up with the British government, I expect the UK government would be willing to pass laws.
My understanding is that Britain does have laws governing transfer of military technology. (IANAL nor do I know what these laws are).
Joe Katzman: As the USA has demonstrated with Israel, if it decides it doesn't like what is actually being done, there are all sorts of ways to pull one's partner back into line. Or force a very unpleasant choice. Especially when you're the larger party.
And there you have it: the case for closer British defence integration within the European Union. I couldn't have put it better myself.
This is not true. The life of military software can be measured in decades, and it's besides the point too. Much of America's military superiority is due to software, epsecially the algorithms. A leak could save a potential competitor decades of effort, or allow them to exploit vulnerabilites that they otherwise couldn't.
This is much more serious than Windows 95, which can be easily reverse engineered since the executables aren't secret.
With military equipment the executables are as secret as the source. Many devices can automatically erase or destroy components containing software in the event of an accident so an emeny can't recover anything sensitive.
The US government will not force anything. There will just be more and more situations like that of Military technology, where Britain will have to choose. Eventually, the sum of their choices well make the decision for them. If Britain's European military partners continue to insist on cooperating with dictatorial regimes to "balance" the American "hyperpower", then any compromise seems unlikely.
It's clear that it is the Europeans, especially Germany and France, that are pulling away from the alliance, not America. Why would there be any need to "balance" the power of a friend? They are still mired in 19th century balance of power games, which obviously leads to the conclusion that they aren't on-board with the whole "Brotherhood of Democracy" program, or at the very least don't conside America a member in good standing.
I reckon now is as good a time as any for Britain to decide for themselves who it is they think needs "balancing", and maybe which side their bread is buttered on.
lurker: The Anglosphere meme isn't mine, but it carries some validitity. To say that a time couldn't come where Britons must decide, even culturally, is a bit closed minded and ignores many facts.
Ignores what facts? Britain is an English-speaking country, indeed the country where the English language originates. Any definition of a cultural "Anglosphere" that doesn't include Britain is patently absurd. (That doesn't mean that English-speaking peoples will always agree politically, indeed they often don't and have fought wars).
It's clear that it is the Europeans, especially Germany and France, that are pulling away from the alliance, not America.
Really? It was America, not Germany or France, that stabbed its two largest NATO allies in the back in 1956. If America doesn't change it's mind on the F-35, then it's America, not Germany or France, that does its best to prevent its allies from getting access to modern military technology, and which tried to keep its allies subservient.
Why would there be any need to "balance" the power of a friend?
There isn't. Does America remember the Suez Crisis? I'm sure the British and French governments do.
I reckon now is as good a time as any for Britain to decide ... which side their bread is buttered on.
I agree. Britain should only buy military hardware from countries that allow us to integrate our own weapons with that hardware. That's the side our bread is buttered on.
Certainly, this is all true. Cultural ties extend far beyond a common language though. Yes I've read a little about that. There's a case to be made that de-colonization shouldn't have been pushed so hard or so fast. I don't know. Do you really think this is where NATO started to faulter? What's Germany's beef? And American's should only integrate with the armed forces of countries that can guarantee that its military secrets are protected by the force of law. Perhaps so. I never meant to imply that it was anyone's decision except Britain's.
I apologize if my writing skills lack the necessary subtlety to preclude your taking offense. Sincerely.
Joe, I think you missed the critical point on this matter. Please read Wikipedia On the F-35
I think the technical parameters of the Rolls Royce engine are a "little light". I suspect UAV success will see an erosion of the perceived F-35 role.
The smart technical decision seems to be to downsize the project and focus on UAVs and F-22s.
Let's see how this plays out. The Brits don't seem to be contributing much of technical merit to this project. I suspect they simply want to buy the technology rather than invent it.
Do you need allies like that?
"...real Allies..."?
Balderdash. It's a business decision.
With a component that says British First, and a component that, aside present sentiments about Iraq, fears the US is politically unpredictible on the world stage.
lurker: [regarding Suez Crisis] Do you really think this is where NATO started to faulter? What's Germany's beef?
I think that Britain and France reacted to Suez in opposite ways: Britain decided to align itself closely to the USA, and France decided that American power was a threat, and decided to become more independent. Bandwaggoning versus balancing, to use geopolitical terms.
What's happening with NATO now, is something different, I think. With the dissolution of the USSR, NATO's original purpose is redundant and European interests are less similar to US interests than they used to be. So it's not surprising that Europe and the USA are drifting apart politically.
Germany was opposed to the Iraq War not because it is hostile towards the USA but because it doesn't like war in general. Modern Germany is the least warlike major country in the world; they are still in reaction to when they used to be the most warlike country in the world (1933-1945).
Another factor in the relationship between the USA and Europe is the current US president, who sometimes comes across in ways that Europeans don't like. Consider that the last two US presidents managed to get Europe to fight alongside them in wars (Bush's dad in a war against Iraq, no less). If another American (e.g. Colin Powell) had been president and had also invaded Iraq, it's likely that relations between the USA and Europe would be better than they are now.
And American's should only integrate with the armed forces of countries that can guarantee that its military secrets are protected by the force of law.
America, like all states, has a legitimate interest in ensuring that its military secrets stay secret. But it also has a commercial interest in exporting weapon systems, and if it will only offer them for sale on terms the customers don't like, it will sell less. The USA needs to decide where the balance lies here.
The problem that's happened with the F-35 is essentially that the entire details of what would be sold to Britain weren't specified in advance, which is why the British government now thinks it has been short-changed. If the whole deal had been worked out with clarity at the beginning, there would be no ill-feeling between the UK and US governments now on the issue.
At the end of the day it isn't really that important in itself whether Britain buys the F-35, after all there are plenty of American weapons Britain hasn't bought. The important issue is, whether Britain does or doesn't buy the F-35, it happens in a way that neither country feels aggrieved.
I apologize if my writing skills lack the necessary subtlety to preclude your taking offense. Sincerely.
Apology accepted -- it's often the case with Internet discussions that people misread the tone of others' comments, as I appear to have done.
That's sort of my point. Given the lack of a compelling common threat (for now!), Britain will, over decades, make a series of little decisions after which it will be obvious if they are truly European or if there's really anything to this Anglosphere concept.
In my opinion, it will be virtually impossible for them to pull away from Europe. Of course anything could happen, depending on how the European experiment ultimately turns out.
This seems wrong. Germany didn't oppose Gulf War I or the action against Serbia. Are you really saying that German leaders make geopolitical decisions based on the personalities of democratically elected foreign leaders? Seems unserious to me. Besides, I thought it was the cowboy Americans that lacked nuance and understanding?The difference with Gulf War II, is that the interests of Germany had diverged enough from those of America, that they decided to actively oppose the endeavor, let alone just keep quiet about it. Diverging interests are to be expected, especially given the waning of the Soviet threat and and visceral American reaction to 9-11. So I'm not making a value judgement here about that.
What's interesting is that France seems to have drawn them into their balance of power game and into direct opposition to clearly articulated American interests.
The joint exercises (France) with and the temporally suspended plans to sell arms to China (France & Germany) are things that should certainly make every American wonder who their allies really are, especially considering the commitment to defend Taiwan.
Let's now consider Americas closest European ally, Britain. This still stout ally, has agreements to share military technology with it's European partners, one of which is France, who actively works against American interests to balance American power, with the other being Germany, who recently seems to be taking that same approach.
Now Britain would like to have access to F-35 technology without review, and doesn't have and will not create laws against disclosing this technology, but does have existing treaty obligations to share military technology with the other, less ardent allies. This seems little protection at all. Who would prosecute a leaker? Who would convict him?
Perhaps so. If the agreement were up for approval now, it would likely fail based on the same objections noted before.If if were brought up for approval before 9-11, the high level of integration that Britain is seeking might well have been approved. Unfortunaetly, subsequent objections post 9-11, might've led to it's abrogation since the same issues would have arisen. Given the two choices, e.g. misunderstanding vs. abrogation, is it possible that the optimum outcome is unfolding?
Phil Hunt
1. Are you the Phil Hunt from SHWI? Just curious - i lurk there from time to time.
2. Suez, oh geez. Look, we screwed you over Suez, you didnt back us in Viet Nam, lets call it even, huh? :) You could no more have made a long term gain for yourselves or the West in Suez, than we could have in VN. I think we can all move on now.
liberalhawk: Are you the Phil Hunt from SHWI?
Yep. You got it. (Everyone is famous for 15 people, it seems)
lurker: [replying to: Germany was opposed to the Iraq War not because it is hostile towards the USA but because it doesn't like war in general.] This seems wrong. Germany didn't oppose Gulf War I or the action against Serbia.
The difference is that the 2003 war seemed to be fought for American self-interest, i.e. they were percieved as invading to gain control over the region's oil. The 1991 war was different becasue Iraq was clearly an aggressor, having invaded Kuwait.
The Kosovo war was also fought for altruistic, not self-interested reasons, because Kosovo wasn't strategically important for the USA or Western European countries. And because the victims of oppression were white European people, there was much popular support for the war, both in Western Europe and in the USA. (compare Kosovo to Rwanda in this respect -- Germans are to some extent racists, like everyone else).
Are you really saying that German leaders make geopolitical decisions based on the personalities of democratically elected foreign leaders? Seems unserious to me.
I think all political decisions are to some extent based on personalities. I don't really think that can be avoided. But regarding Bush, the main effect of his personality (or rather, the way he's portrayed in the media), in on the German public, not directly on the gobvernment of that country. And German governments have to take the views of the public into account.
Besides, I thought it was the cowboy Americans that lacked nuance and understanding?
:-)
Everyone lacks understanding.
Now Britain would like to have access to F-35 technology without review, and doesn't have and will not create laws against disclosing this technology, but does have existing treaty obligations to share military technology with the other, less ardent allies. This seems little protection at all. Who would prosecute a leaker? Who would convict him?
These are sensible questions. It may be that the UK could reassure the USA on these points by passing new laws. Or maybe not. I don't think it would be at all sensible for the UK to buy an aircraft where it cannot fit new missiles to it, on its own accord. If this means that US and European military programs are going to diverge, and not use the same kit, then everyone is just going to have to accept that reality.
(Note that using the same kit is not a pre-requisite for interoperability; but using common communication protocols, e.g. for automatic interchange of data on a battlefield internet, is a pre-requisite for inter-country co-operation, and NATO should be working on this if they are not already, e.g. so sensor fusion automatically works between all NATO aircraft).
Perhaps so. If the agreement were up for approval now, it would likely fail based on the same objections noted before. If if were brought up for approval before 9-11, the high level of integration that Britain is seeking might well have been approved. Unfortunaetly, subsequent objections post 9-11, might've led to it's abrogation since the same issues would have arisen. Given the two choices, e.g. misunderstanding vs. abrogation, is it possible that the optimum outcome is unfolding?
I don't think 9-11 ought to make much difference, since al-Qa'ida is a franchised ideology not a country. Regarding an agreement that was later abrogated by the USA, I imagine that any full contract would have penalty clauses so the UK would get a load of money if the USA went back on its word.
Joe,
The British must either have laws on tech transfer or get out of the F-35 program.
The threat of tech transfer to the French via Labour's EU-philia is to bloody high.
This is what I said in the Networked Force article in March 2004:
Right now the only military forces that can safely operate on the same battlefield as American forces are the small Special Forces establishments of European NATO allies and the Anglosphere (I don’t know enough about the Japanese and South Korean Special Forces to say if they can or not). This is because these troops are very good, they speak English, and American Special Forces share our digital communications equipment with the non-American Special Forces freely.
Before the extended Iraqi operations British ground forces at squad, platoon and company levels were marginally superior to American Army and Marine units at low to mid intensity peace keeping/urban combat. This margin has changed since then in the American military’s favor. I don’t know enough about Aussie and Canadian ground force units to make the call, but I read good things about “the diggers” in the East Timor operations.
At higher than company levels the American Army and Marine ground force units are superior to all comes because of American ground forces signals, combat service and combat service support establishments.
The British conventional forces can operate on the flanks of an American conventional offensive, but their lack of both signals and the density of trucks in their logistical trains mean they cannot keep up and communicate with Americans on a fast moving battlefield. The A-10 strafing of British armored columns in Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom make that clear.
As for keeping up with the Americans, I am afraid that the purchase and license production of American military equipment and digital networks for small, deployable, military units is the only way to go for the smaller powers.
The British Army is considering a variant of the American FMTV truck (NOTE: THey chose a German design) for its next truck and has adopted American digital standards in its signals establishment. Yet it went with a French firm for its next carrier for EU related political reasons. The “EU connection” that British Labour is cultivating in its ‘defence establishment’ is going to be the British military’s biggest obstacle to interoperability with American forces.
bq.Consider that the last two US presidents managed to get Europe to fight alongside them in wars (Bush's dad in a war against Iraq, no less). If another American (e.g. Colin Powell) had been president and had also invaded Iraq, it's likely that relations between the USA and Europe would be better than they are now.
I would disagree with this assessment. Superficially, the three (four?) wars appear to be the same, but the risk/reward ratio changed dramatically from the 1991 Iraq conflict to the 2003 confrontation.
Saddam gave money to the GIA. Algerian terrorists began a bombing campaign in France. France withdrew from operations Northern Watch and Southern Watch. France backs introduction of the UN Oil-for-Food program. Frenchmen benefit. French agree to take part in 2003 Iraq invasion, but only if France gets to occupy significant portions of the Sunni triangle. Given experience in Bosnia and Kosovo, Bush turns them down. Ricin is found in subway locker in France, linked to Zarqawi. France doesn't take part in 2003 conflict.
Saddam learned two things in 1991:
1) His forces were no match for the US in a conventional conflict.
2) Chemical and Biological (and biotoxin) weapons are an effective deterrent against US forces.
We are seeing the results of these lessons today.
Phil -
I think that to say "the Kosovo war was also fought for altruistic, not self-interested reasons, because Kosovo wasn't strategically important for the USA or Western European countries" is a tad disenguous.
The Balkans have always been "strategically important" to some extent. The fact is, Milosevic's mayhem posed an immediate threat, most specifically, to the EU project as a whole. To be blunt, I believe Kosovo was far more "altruistic" on the part of the US, which James Baker said "didn't have a dog in that fight", than to Europeans, who were directly affected and subject to the effects of spreading instability in the Balkans..... AGAIN.
Rabid instability on one's border is never a time for disinterest.
Further, re: "The difference is that the 2003 war seemed to be fought for American self-interest, i.e. they were percieved as invading to gain control over the region's oil."
Well, thanks for the "seemed" and "perceived" caveats. But is it not true that "seeming" and "perceiving" are judgements of the perceiver (in this case Europeans), and not the event itself?
Point is, persuant to what I mentioned in Post #7, "it's all about oil" is a hopelessly outdated, neo-Marxist, childishly simplistic analysis. It is just as true that no two democracies ever waged war upon each other, and that the US has a HUGE interest in fostering democracy for that reason alone, just as Europe had in stabilizing the Balkans. That reason alone requires no mention of human rights, UN credibility, the inherent nature of psyopathic tyranny, WMD (yes), and a host of other reasons, INCLUDING, yes, oil, namely the power that oil gives a monstrous dictator to act on every single whim he might have.
But the philsophical monstrosity called "socialism" cannot allow for anything but "it's all about US oil/money/greed" etc, and so went an entire continent down the rabbit hole, or so it seems, and now possibly NATO and beyond with it.
If our allies... or "allies", I am afraid to say, truly believe that "it was all about oil", then they really don't have any business being allies at all do they? That's true for either side, which makes it a mortal danger to the transatlantic relationship.
And, as this is true of the British left that will choose George Galloway over George Bush, that is, as I wrote, Henry Hydes' issue, and why many are so wary of sending US military technology overseas in such a manner.
I wish it were not so, but to blithely state that Kosovo was all about human rights while Iraq '03 was (perceived as) all about oil points out glaringly the size of the growing chasm that is the Atlantic today, much to my dismay.
Great work, Joe. Though I'm of course concerned about the opportunity for our most-secret secrets leaking to unsavory types, we should NOT be going out of our way to make things overly difficult for our biggest baddest closest tightest ally.
Again, great work. I've got a post on MO coming out tomorrow noting what you've put together here.
Keep fightin' the good fight...
Are you really saying that German leaders make geopolitical decisions based on the personalities of democratically elected foreign leaders? Seems unserious to me. Besides, I thought it was the cowboy Americans that lacked nuance and understanding?
When facing the USA, yes, they do. The American system is far more personality-driven than the European. Bush was a double-disappointment to the Europeans because they thought they knew him: son of an aristocratic Yale family, father had been head of CIA, ambassador to UN, President.
But he turned out to be a cowboy. How jarring.
European diplomacy, especially, is much more the province of professionals (who just happen to largely be drawn from similar class and social backgrounds) who have also attended the same schools. Amateur ambassadors such as we send abroad (for fundraising prowess?) would be unthinkable in Europe.
W represents a confluence of all that they find abhorrent. Parvenu, arrogant, unwilling to abide by outmoded niceties, inarticulate. Plus after 9/11 and the European pledges of solidarity, Bush screwed them over Iraq. What did we expect?
Stickler -
As we struggle to ment the transatlantic realtionship, just a question for you.
What are we Americans to do about the fact that someone like Jaque Chirac is "a confluence of all that we find abhorrent".
A elitist from the start, basically has been on the public tit from day one, surrounded by people completely within his "class", arrogant to a fault, and not just to the US but to much of the rest of Europe, particularily "New" Europe, and when the time comes for tough decisions, can be counted on to pick the most craven response possible.
So what? Is this an excuse to react with public and even state-driven loathing? Is France's current diplomatic position, in which they have antagonized New Europe, are constantly battling the Brits, are seeing their sactified German relationship falter, are finding that the propers they thought they'd earned in the Arab world are worth exactly nothing in a crises such as the French riots, and have poisoned their relations with the US for a generation or more, while every pot they have bet on, like Germany and the UN, has failed them..... THIS is the brilliant diplomacy that is "much more the province of professionals"?
Um, count me less than impressed.
(You are totally right about US ambassadorships though. A disgrace.)
Trent Telenko:
UK "went with a French firm for its next carrier for EU related political reasons."
From most accounts in British press, the CVF ship design contracts had been awarded to Thales UK - that's the British subsidiary of the French company - based on bid price. Thales will handle designing the ship and propulsion systems and other bits related to (a)floating and (b)moving about. With construction by UK shipbuilders Babcock BES, BAE Systems Govan, Swan Hunter and Vosper Thorneycroft.
BUT the prime contractor, responsible for systems integration and the electronics relating to weapons systems, communications etc. will be BAE Systems.
See here for details.
BAE probably won over Thales efforts to be sole contractor precisely because there are some technologies involved too sensitive militarily or commercially for Thales to handle. And it's not all BAE because of price, and MoD rows with BAE over previous contracts.
This is not really a matter of Labour Party europhilia; previous Conservative govts also pursued European procurement co-operation. And future ones will as well, I'd bet.
OTOH, there could be a good case for the US pressing the UK over the European Galileo GPS satellite project.
Dropping in quickly. DID covered the CVF. BAE and Thales UK each had a design, and the government liked aspects of each design and what they brought to the table. So it brought the 2 bidders together to produce an Alliance design and team. See pictures here
After the disasters of the Charles De Gaulle class, the French have decided to go with a modified CVF design as well for their second "PA2" carrier, even though it means a non-nuclear ship. Thales in France will handle that one, along with the French DCN.
Americans forget what a major undertaking building even a medium sized carrier is - this is a real stretch for the British to pull off. To the extent that expertise can be shared, that's a good idea. It's also a very expensive program, and as with everything (the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter being a fine example), if you can get the numbers up, there are cost benefits and also greater depth in terms of maintenance resources, the "long tail" of involved firms, etc.
I would have done the same in their place.
John Farren: OTOH, there could be a good case for the US pressing the UK over the European Galileo GPS satellite project.
In what way do you envisage this "pressing"? I expect that if the US told the UK to get out of Galileo, the UK would reply "f*ck off".
Trent,
Don't kid yourself, it won't just be the British getting out of JSF. It will be the British, Danish, Norwegians - and as the cost per plane rises as a result, add the Dutch, the Italians (other than a couple dozen F-35Bs as Harrier succcessors on their two mini-carriers), and pretty soon the Turks. The vote of cooperation non-confidence from the British, of all people, will also be telling - and will be used to good effect by hostile Eurocrats and their allies at EADS, Dassault, et. al.
At which point America will be left as the major flyer of the JSF, along with possibly Australia and Israel (though those two will be facing a budget crunch and serious questions). The planes will be around $80-100 million each instead of $45-60 million, the US buy will have been cut (driving prices still higher), and the USA will get to do a 1:3 replacement for the core of its tactical fighter fleet (better hope those UAVs really pan out). American firms will lose work and jobs from the cuts, and allied interoperability will be badly damaged.
On the bright side, an ally who had never sold you out before would be prevented from... avoiding a bureaucratic process that extends way down below the level of anything secret.
Canada's ITAR waiver is not absolute. Britain's would not have to be, either. Side agreements can be crafted re: IP sharing for specific, major programs. Other folks do that all the time. There are all kinds of options, here, that do NOT require pushing America's major ally to give up on major defense program cooperation with the USA.
I had, until very recently, thought the Democrats were being classicly dishonest with their talk about the need for allies, and the GOP's aversion to same.
Reading this thread is causing me to reassess that view. They probably were being classicly dishonest, given their own record of behaviour. But their point re: a GOP that believes America doesn't need major alliances may have a lot of truth to it.
Phil Hunt:
No, I wouldn't expect UK to bail on Galileo; or the US to press for it.
I was thinking of certain guarantees re. quality and security of Galileo services sold to third parties.
Of course, if such an arrangement was made, it would likely never become public anyway.
Ultimately the message from the UK, and any administration it has agreements with on these matters, to Congressional objectors can only be confidential assurances and the question "do you trust us or do you not?"
The problem of binding succeesive administrations to predecessors policies and arrangements, AND getting the more awkward customers on the Hill to go along is a hardy perennial of transatlantic policy.
Phil Hunt,
All parties will get the "fully" stealthed version. I put that in quotes because the F-35 is best described as "semi-stealth" - unlike its big brother, the F/A-22 Raptor which is full stealth (the YF-23 Black Widow had even more stealth, but sacrificed supermaneuverability to do it and lost the competition). The F-35 uses some form-shaping techniques et. al., there's a special paint (which will come from America), and a few other tricks.
Re: your comment in #12. If you think the EU or its member nations won't use witholding of criticalforeign defense components as a a foreign policy lever when member states do things they don't like, you're under-informed. There is ample precedent in that regard.
What happened with the USA and Israel is that the US reacted to specific Israeli practices (its defense trade with China, which the USA had previously encouraged and now wanted stopped), and began shutting down Israeli access to joint projects involving sensitive techology until Israel caved and signed a bilateral agreement.
I have no beef with that, by the way. The USA was reacting to specific actions, which it believed were worth straining an alliance over. In the UK's case, however, it's basing policy on hypotheticals when dealing with a country that HAS behaved well - and risks damaging its own commercial interests, defense readiness, and its most critical global alliance in the bargain.
If one believes that Britain's cooperative European defense projects are creating obstacles to interoperability and joint action (for reasons technical), I fail to see how driving the British away from US defense cooperation is the solution.
We are mad to be picking this fight right now. Is there anything in the JSF technology that (worst case scenario- everything leaks directly to all our enemies and they manage to make heads or tails of it- plus the Chinese start up a factory and sell exact duplicates at a cut rate) is worth botching up our relations with Britain (not to mention the rest of NATO) and screwing up our own procurement by driving the price throught the roof? Whats the point of keeping the tech in house if they become to expensive to build?
I want Britain to remain a starong ally. Truly. Without laws protecting American Technology and treaties requiring technology sharing with European partners, then how can any British government guarantee that there won't be leaks? Or if there are, that any leakers would be legally punished?
All it would take would be one guy with access to the data to give it to the French and then the cat is out of the bag. Would the leaker suffer any legal penalty? How? It's not against the law and he's just doing his duty as for as the European militray cooperation treaties are concerned.
This is my hang up. Is it Henry Hyde's as well?
Lurker, several ways.
[1] ITAR waivers need not be absolute. Canada's isn't, and we DO have treaties with the USA that led to the waiver. A very intelligent debate could be had re: where to set the exemption limit for Britain and Australia - but Hyde and Hunter seem to prefer a blanket "no," consequences be damned.
[2] A bilateral agreement for the project itself would work. Linked to that...
[3] Classified information can be designated such that sharing it without authorization creates penalties. Defense contractors have to abide by those. Even another treaty won't get around that, and Britain's agreements with Europe are based more around increased openness of defense markets and a framework that enables collaborative projects, rather than mandatory cooperaton (which, if you look at the European defense market, would be a complete joke).
There are reasons that the current administration, including Rumsfeld, Rice, and W., are all OK with the idea of a waiver (so is the State Department, but in matters like these their view counts for absolutely nothing with me). None of those people need reminding about France and Germany - or China. All of them are cognizant of the European defense picture.
It is not an insoluble issue - IF the USA is prepared to be fexible in its approach.
Joe, thanks for covering this topic.
It seems Hyde is looking for something that would be binding on future British governments. A law would do that.
The DID artcle doesn't seem to make it clear what objections Britian's government has with pursuing the specific weapons export laws that Hyde prefers. Is there any information about what these objections are and why they are so irreconcilable? Would they be incompatible with standing EU agreements?
Joe Katzman: Don't kid yourself, it won't just be the British getting out of JSF. It will be the British, Danish, Norwegians - and as the cost per plane rises as a result, add the Dutch, the Italians (other than a couple dozen F-35Bs as Harrier succcessors on their two mini-carriers), and pretty soon the Turks. The vote of cooperation non-confidence from the British, of all people, will also be telling - and will be used to good effect by hostile Eurocrats and their allies at EADS, Dassault, et. al.
You're probably right here, though I'd add that the Spanish and possibly the Thais will also want STOVL aircraft for their carriers.
Canada's ITAR waiver is not absolute. Britain's would not have to be, either. Side agreements can be crafted re: IP sharing for specific, major programs. Other folks do that all the time. There are all kinds of options, here, that do NOT require pushing America's major ally to give up on major defense program cooperation with the USA.
I think you're right in that a deal probably could be done that gives both sides most of what they want.
I hope that's what does happen, because the STOVL F-35 would give a lot of flexibility to British (and other European) armed forces, since it can operate both from small carriers and from short airbases. (As an aside: I wonder if a STOSL version of the Eurofighter, Rafale or Gripen would be possible? One could use JATO to shorten the take-off, and arrestor wires to shorten the landing).
John Farren: No, I wouldn't expect UK to bail on Galileo; or the US to press for it. I was thinking of certain guarantees re. quality and security of Galileo services sold to third parties. Of course, if such an arrangement was made, it would likely never become public anyway.
Something along these lines is probably achievable, particularly if the USA isn't extreme in its demands. (For example, one use planned for Galileo is for safety-critical services such as automated aircraft landing. If the USA asked the EU to turn this off over Europe, the EU would very probably not comply).
lurker,
This is not true. The life of military software can be measured in decades, and it's besides the point too. Much of America's military superiority is due to software, epsecially the algorithms.
AFAIK, the Spanish AF fully reprogrammed its F-18A flight control system software during the 1990's... maybe here we are talking about a full suite for F-35 but, in the end, the software will become outdated and will be possible to release it to your allies and let their technicians have some fun. It's a matter of time.
By the way, the good ones with algorithms were the Russians. They counteracted their lack of advance in semiconductors with maths.
A leak could save a potential competitor decades of effort, or allow them to exploit vulnerabilites that they otherwise couldn't.
With all the respect, I don't think a plane that last for decades is a good deal for America Defence Inc. Start to develop the F-40!
My opinion is that it is just a problem of timing. The Britons want it now, and the Americans don't want to see a so modern software passing from hand to hand outside their borders, without a direct control over it, before the airplane is in production.
Joe Katzman: All parties will get the "fully" stealthed version.
If you look at Defence select committee oral evidence, particularly questions Q215 and Q216, it seems that the UK government either doesn't know or won't say whether they are getting the same level of stealth.
If it was their position that they knew they were, presuambly they would say so.
Phil, it's a "wouldn't say." Glad someone was serious enough to read the links, though!
Q215 talked about same performance.
Every nation will customize the JSF slightly in terms of some electronics, etc., happens with all fighter aircraft. The GR7 Harrier II isn't quite the same as the AV-8B, for example, and sometimes that can impact performance.
Short answer: performance matches what the RN wants, so if they've made any changes it's because they wanted the tradeoffs.
Q216 was directly about stealth.
Answer: "I am not in a position to speculate on sensitive aspects of technology in the public place, other than to say on the basis of our contractual arrangements with the United States we know that our requirements are being designed for this programme. We are not aware of any different requirements that the United States might have, and as we are working from the same joint operational requirement document I think the speculation is groundless."
That's pretty clear to me.
#42 from J Aguilar
Still are / still do. There's a famous joke about the Russki lab procurement budgets being for pencils and good paper...
...
Remotely piloted attack vehicles are going to matter a lot. Then the issue is, can the vehicle avionics/autonomy gear reliably take the cyanide capsule (as it were) before being captured by hostile parties?
Anyway, my point is that RPVs ought to have shorter design cycles, simpler logistics, better teeth-to-tail ratio, and so on. In contrast to, say, the B-52, CH-47 and the JSF/F-35. But a downed RPV still has the potential for technology transfer to adversaries.
I'm probably stating the obvious. Slightly OT, I know.
Joe, could you make the part that had been updated a little more clear. It is not completely clear to me which part has been updated (i assume the last bit as i can't remember reading it)
Clarified. It's James C. Bennett's bit at the end.
Thought of bringing in some notes from my comments in #34 and #39 in particular, but don't have the time right now. Later.
The update seems to be James C. Bennett's bit at the bottom.
Thank you for it.
Check out eureferendum.blogspot.com for the view from Great Britain on the Joint Strike Fighter and other EU goings on. It's an excellent EU info site.
This is all about "a regulated weeks-long approval process"? A wait measured in weeks trivial. If it takes a mere few weeks to eliminate leaks such as Britain inflicted on us during the Manhattan Project, then it's time well spent.
Culturally, Britain is a European country, and it is also an English-speaking country. It doesn't have to choose between the two, and most British people would regard the suggestion that it has to as ridiculous.
Probably from an intellectual standpoint. The elites in Britain are certainly similar to the Continental elites, but I don't think the Brits have much in common with the French or the Germans, culturally speaking. Thats changing, see the Brits growing anti-gun mentality (over the last 60 years), rabid multiculturalism, Keynesian economics, Federalism, etc.
But Americans are probably more English, historically-culturally speaking, than the English are. When I think of English culture I think of Burke, Smith, Ricardo, Locke, Tolkien, Lewis, etc. Americans have retained a lot of this influence, while the Brits have unfortunately not. The Brits have become more European, and there were certainly cultural choices that have been made between the two worldviews.
I resent the Suez Canal backstabbing meme though. We have backed the Brits up and have risked the blood of our own over many a British problem, not even counting WWI and WWII.
I say let the Brits handle their own business, and let us handle ours. If they don't want to play ball, then thats their choice. This whole, "the sky is falling" mentality over the Brits is old world thinking. If they really needed the planes, they wouldn't be bickering over their right to sell the technology to France or any other questionable Euro "ally".
The Brits better hope the French alternative doesn't turn out like that heap of scrap metal they call a carrier, Charles de Gaulle.
We are mad to be picking this fight right now. Is there anything in the JSF technology that (worst case scenario- everything leaks directly to all our enemies and they manage to make heads or tails of it- plus the Chinese start up a factory and sell exact duplicates at a cut rate) is worth botching up our relations with Britain (not to mention the rest of NATO) and screwing up our own procurement by driving the price throught the roof? Whats the point of keeping the tech in house if they become to expensive to build?
I really can't believe someone would say something as boneheaded like this. We invest in these technologies to enable us to keep our defense obligations, many of which are centered in the Pacific theater. Do we simply transfer this technology to others without guarantees that this technology won't be transferred to those whom we might end up in conflict with, knowing full well that those who we are transferring technology to are likely not going to assist us.
Isn't this really a moot point? Given that Israel is involved, they will likely turn over a F-35 to China the first chance they get. They did it with the Lavi, and they did with drones. And if not them, either the Canadians or Turks. Canadians largely helped design one of the Migs, ya know. Not deliberately (exactly), but their poor security let the Soviets steal all the technology. And the Turks just plain hate us these days...
And US security isn't that great, either. As the previous president showed us.
Britain's MOD decided 5 years ago - w/o Parliamet's approval - which side they're on and it wasn't US.
EU Referendum's archives are chockful of bloggy goodness.
They're not even going to make their bullets anymore, they're going to rely on their partners, IIRC.
..."
In recent months the integration of the EU's armed forces has also been charging ahead, co-ordinated by a Brussels-based body known as the European Defence Agency, set up last January under a former senior civil servant from Britain's Ministry of Defence.
Again, the authorisation for this was to be Article 41 of the constitution, which is not yet law. Legally therefore, the European Defence Agency should not exist. Yet already, in support of the integration the agency represents, the MoD has been pouring billions of pounds of UK taxpayers’ money into a series of massive defence contracts, for everything from missiles and trucks to aircraft and ships. These are going to European rather than British or US defence firms, often for equipment which is inferior and much more expensive...."
---
Mother's senile and chosen the weasel gigolo who's going to sell, lease or give it to the Chicoms. Because we are and have always been the gigolo's greatest threat.
It's a new world, new ties, we must get used to it. The only thing that'll help US is the Chicoms have feet of clay and the clay's beginning to crack.
It'll have to be Mother's offspring who'll do the heavy lifting. Time to send her off to the old folks' home w/the rest of them.
Mother's senile and chosen the weasel gigolo who's going to sell, lease or give it to the Chicoms. Because we are and have always been the gigolo's greatest threat.
It's a new world, new ties, we must get used to it. The only thing that'll help US is the Chicoms have feet of clay and the clay's beginning to crack.
It'll have to be Mother's offspring who'll do the heavy lifting. Time to send her off to the old folks' home w/the rest of them.
Did anyone else understand this?
#56: Did anyone else understand this?
Decoder: Mother := Britain; weasel gigolo := Europe; feet of clay := legitimacy, popular support and stability of the chinese communist government; Mother's offspring := United States.
Hope this helps.
Why is the narrative that the US is causing the problem?
In following the EU's ever closer integration of the defence establishment, it seems more to me that it has been Britain's moves to accept new laws as part of the EU that is the cause of this problem now.
Why is Britain antagonizing the relationship with the US at this point. They must be crazy to do so.
lurker:
The new German government does not support the lifting of the embargo at all:
Former Cancellor Schröder also had been isolated within his own government on this matter:
It was Gerhard's one-man show, not a German gig.
Have the Representatives involved articulated an excuse for their obstinacy?
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
Whatever the relationship is now, I am sure everything will change once Iran aims their nukes directly at the Euro Heads of Stupidity.
As an actual programmer in the UK I think some of the comments are rather naive.
The simple thing to do would be to let the UK write it's own "sensitive" bits of source from US Stubs.
This is simple to do and solves all the problems (the US keeps their "secret advanced code" and the UK gets the functionality. (I'm laughing at the idea of "advanced" code.) The UK has a bigger than you know about slice of the computer games market, and that frankly is the toughest code to create. Writing for these systems should be no-more tricky than writing a game for a console.
What's wrong with UK and Europe developing their own military weapons? Sure there's danger in it. But Europe must get over some of it's self deception. It must take responsibility for its own survival.
China is more a threat to Europe than to the US. India is more a threat to Europe than to the US. Russia is more a threat to Europe than to the US. Iran is more a threat to Europe that to the US.
Even N. Korea is more of a threat to Europe.
US global power is threatened but not the fundamental US way of life. Right now Europe is playing the same games that started WWI.
Ralf,
Thanks for the clarifications.
Rob,
Did it occur to you that it's also the architectures (hardware, software, & VHDL) that are secret? Just providing stubs for redacted subroutines would be little protection.
WRT to gaming software vs. avionics software they're two different domains having different requirements. The biggest difference is reliability (reboots are bad in fighters!), followed closely by the architectures and algorithms used. Much avionics today consists of digital hardware that is reconfigured on the fly to make specialized processing units on demand. There's nothing like this today in the gaming world. The difference in complexity approaches a couple of orders of magnitude.
All exports of US military equipment are covered by ITAR (International Trafficing in Arms Regulations) and must be covered by export waivers granted by the State Department. This includes transfers from US soil to a foreign entity and from a Foreign entity to another foreign entity. The lack of regulations in Britain should not deter the transfer of material since any further transfers are ccovered under US regulations.
Why the export of this technology is any different from the millions of ITAR related transfers we make is beyond me. We have military sales occcuring in the middle east but getting the British a jet is somehow a problem?
ITAR regulations have nothing to do with the classification of military secrets. One is a State Dept./Commerce matter and the other is DOD.
Joe,
I suggest you go read Dan Darling's post on the British sector in Iraq and reconsider that statement.
ITAR is a kafkaesque beast created in the Clinton era in light of the Republican Congress' inability to trust the Bill Clinton or high tech American companies contributing to him from selling American high tech military secrets to China.
That does not mean that its application in this case to the F-35 is wrong.
Beyond Iraq, take a look at Britain flirting with direct arms sales to China and sharing military technology with France after Oil-for-Food. Especially after our catching the French red handed selling arms to Saddam, including a 2002 vintage Roland missile sale responsible for the shoot down of an American A-10 over Baghdad in 2003.
Rep. Henry Hyde does not trust the British Labour government and the British Labour government has not given the Bush Administration or the DoD enough political cover to over rule him.
America is going to build the F-35 in any case. All the British pull out will do is decide what mix of manned F-35's and unmanned UCAVs America will be built.
The real issue here is that the price of the close alliance with Britain is growing too high for America to maintain. That is the British government's problem, and not America's, and on more than just the military procurement front.
Tren Telenko: Britain flirting with direct arms sales to China and sharing military technology with France
You are aware, I take it, that the USA sells more arms to China than Europe does.
Furthermore, why shouldn't one NATO country share military technology with another? After all, aren't all NATO countries suppoesed to be allies, and naturally they'd want their allies to have the latest technology because it makes the alliance stronger and therefore all alliance members more secure.
If the USA has objections to technology sharing within NATO, perhaps it needs to reconsider its membership of that organisation.
#61 A rocket that can reach Paris from Iran only needs a tiny upgrade to reach Washington. The Iranians probably don't even need help with that
Alan: Why is Britain antagonizing the relationship with the US at this point. They must be crazy to do so.
What Britain is endeavouring to do is make sure it can use its missiles, such as Meteor or Storm Shadow, on aircraft that it is considering buying.
Since the main job of strike fighter aircraft like the F-35 is to fire missiles, this does not strike me as crazy, indeed I think they would be crazy if they bought an aircaft that couldn't work with their missiles.
Stripping away the politics for a moment, the F-35 STOVL variant was designed with the requirements of the UK Royal Navy in mind. Its new carriers were designed with the requirement that they will carry F-35s and related systems. UK industry, and BAE Systems in particular, are already heavily invested in manufacturing the F-35. BAE Systems is a major partner in the JSF program. BAE Systems begin production of the aircraft's aft-fuselage in Samlesbury in 2004. BAE Systems North America is doing a lot of the avionics and particularly the integrated electronic warfare system. For all intents and purposes, the F-35 is partially a UK aircraft. Remember that BAE Systems has a stake in export sales of F-35 (along with prime Lockheed Martin and partner Northrop Grumman).
You don't just drop a program like this.
The idea of a CV version of the Eurofighter Typhoon is fantasy. The Tranche 3 aircraft are set to be heavier than its predescessors in order to carry ordnance for the strike role. They will not be lighter. There is no money for turning the Eurofighter into a carrier aircraft. It has no export potential. The UK does not need many aircraft. The per-unit cost will be astronomical. Morover, in 2004 Lockheed Martin had to address the UK Royal Navy's concerns that the F-35C (STOVL) was becoming too heavy for its planned carriers. The lightest Typhoon is significantly heavier than the heaviest F-35. It's almost twice as heavy. Forget about this option.
There idea of purchasing Rafale is interesting. Pound-for-pound, Rafale is an excellent all around aircraft. It is a proven carrier aircraft. It is an advanced aircraft. It has intrinsic strike capability. It might not even be a bad idea.
But the UK is too heavily invested in F-35. Much of the MoD's strategic planning and budgets in the last ten years have been driven by the expectation of F-35. Plus, if the UK plunks down for Rafale then BAE Systems, their biggest defense contractor, will have to go on the block or become a second-tier supplier.
There will be UK roundels on F-35s. Count on it.
The politics of technology transfer is another matter. Count on this being worked out, too. In the end, the F-35 "controversy" will be -- how did the Englishman put it? -- much ado about nothing.
Flag: The STOVL version is the F-35B. Sorry.
The biggest threat to British/American relations is the media. To get any real information (i.e not Anti-American, Pro-EU), you have to read blogs, like the excellent Dr.Richard North's blog (eureferendum.com).
I hate to say it, but I agree with some of the skeptics, in handing extremely sensitive information over to a Labour controlled government, as they are absolutely untrustable. The Labour party is a left wing party, far worse than your Democrats, and are complete EU luvvie's.
Slowly but surely they are trying to integrate us into a EU defence force, this needs to stop, and it needs to stop NOW.
Tony Blair to his credit, is pro-American, and about as Conservative as a Labour politician can possibly be, but his days are numbered, already the knives are out for him.
The majority of the British people, if given the opportunity would withdraw from the EU, that is why we will not have a referendum, because our 'oh so democratic' political establishment would lose out on their dreams of making a fortune from the EU 'gravy train' for themselves.
The British are absolutely hated in continental Europe, mostly because our support of US policy (we are US poodles of course), and it would be an absolute DISASTER for us if we were to intergrate with a European defence force.
During 'Gulf War II' the Belgians refused to sell us ammunition (yeah, yeah no big deal there, but its the point) for our support of invading (liberating) Iraq. It is a very chilling concept that so called 'Allies' would refuse to sell us weapons when we are in a state of war.....
I think America has EVERY right to withold technology if there are no guarantees that it cannot be kept secure, especially in the current political climate.
That said, Britain is very much an ally of, and strongly supports the US, despite what some of the nay-sayers will have you believe (and the very vocal minority of anti-war, anti-bush, anti-democracy, anti-white, anti-hetrosexual, anti-male, anti-freedom lefties).
There are a large portion of the British that are still fiercely loyal to America, do not abandon us!!!!
Instead of bombing Al Jazeera, we would all gain a hell of a lot more by bombing the BBC. George, wanna help an old friend out? (hypothetically speaking... of course :-P)
p.s. I'll take the "French maid"!
"As I recall, when we trusted the British with top-secret American military techonology, they quickly passed it to Stalin and helped to give him the A-Bomb. "
As I understand it, we didnt need the British's help passing nuclear secrets to the Soviets. Traitors in America managed that quite well on their own.
In 1945 the Russians were trying desperately to build their first jet fighters. And they were failing. Their engines, both in design and in manufacturing quality control, were years behind their airframe design.
While the Soviets were having their developmental problems, the British on the other hand seemed to be years ahead of everyone. The Jumo and BMW engines the Russians had captured in Germany were rather primitive when compared to England's Rolls-Royce jet engines in the late part of 1945. And just as it appeared the rest of the world was about to leave the Soviets far behind in the race for a more practical jet engine, fortune truly smiled on the Reds.
Clement R. Attlee of the socialist Labor Party was elected Prime Minister in 1945. Attlee, being somewhat naive about the Russian brand of socialism, immediately set about improving relations between Britain and Russia. At the invitation of Attlee, Joseph Stalin sent a team of scientists and engineers to the Rolls-Royce factory to study the design of the superb "Nene" jet engine. Arrangements were made for the Soviets to manufacture the engine in Russia under license from Rolls-Royce. They also took several Nenes with them when they returned to Russia. The Russians wasted little time in copying every detail of the engine and appropriating the design as their own, calling it the "Klimov RD-45" with no regard at all being given to the licensing agreement with Rolls-Royce. However, due to the quality of the Russian materials used in construction of the RD-45, performance of the engine left much to be desired. Turbine blade failures were common, and average time between overhauls was on the order of a very few hours. Fuel consumption bordered on the intolerable. The dogmatic approach of the Soviet aircraft industry solved these problems one-by-one and eventually produced an engine of nearly equal quality to the original Nene. It was called the Klimov VK-1 - still almost an exact copy of the Nene.
That engine was installed in what became the MiG 15 - probably the best fighter in the world, at that time. It extended the war in Korea by at least a year, costing thousands of American lives.
Since it is not illegal, in England, to transfer American technology to a third party, can we have any assurance that the source code for the F-35 won't be given to the Chineese, the Indians, the Islamics, or any other group that some future Government wants to appease?
I think the answer is no.
I would argue that the notion of a "model," as you call it, which is ubound from "ethnicity, geography, or past historical status" has NOT proven its sustainability. Not at all. Quite the contrary, in fact. That you have become convinced of its viability is not the same as its having proven itself viable.
What you're describing--that is, civilizational loyalty without any clear idea to which civilization one belongs--is a very recent idea. It has become ascendent only in the last half-century, and recent events in Australia and France ought to give its advocates some pause. The idea that a civilization can be thought to be utterly independent of ethnic, religious, geographic, and, yes, civic particularities seems vacuous. English civic society and British notions concerning the rule of law are only components of Western civilization, and they owe their existence in part to exactly those things from which you seem determined to divorce them.
This laugably shallow conception of what constitutes the West will not protect us--it is very much a part of the problem. Or does Europe's religious and demographic implosion no longer concern us?
Folks, I have tried to explain the core of the problem in the "What's Going On Here?" section, and note why allies who do a lot of joint weapons development projects with the USA find the ITAR waiver process problematic. For deeper background, this DID article explains. It also covers the rationale of Rep. Hyde fairly. Duncan Hunter [R-CA], Chair of the House Armed Services Cmte. who pulled that "Buy American caluse" stunt as part of the FY 2006 defense appropriations bill, is another matter.
I'll add that this is something that has been promised by 2 successive US administrations, over 5 years going on 6, and has been the subject of increasing friction that has been comunicated by Defence Minister Hoon, Tony Blair, and Britain's Parliamentary Defence Committee.
Sandy P (#55) I've caught Richard offering flawed analysis more than once. He isn't always wrong - but be aware that he isn't always right, either, and has a tendency to overreach in his criticisms.
Huggy (#63) is correct that Europe should have its own defense industry. And Britain should remain a close ally of the USA, able to cooperate with it on defense projects and interoperate with it in the field. James C. Bennett's diagnosis, at the end of the post, nails the situation.
Phil (#67), NATO is not a ticket to automatic technology sharing, not for Britain and not for the USA. The attempt to shift the debate to that basis is dishonest. Try to keep the passive-aggressive hostility under wraps, it's not productive to this debate.
Trent (#66), I read Dan's piece. It changes nothing. Kindly confine your arguments to the subject at hand, which is the transfer of sensitive US military technologies.
I trust you are also aware that Britain turned out to be one of the main reasons the EU chose to maintain its weapons embargo on China, leading a no group that also included the Scandanavian countries. In addition to the anti-secession law, one of the motivators for Britain was the ties its defense industry has with the USA. In light of which, adopting a "cut Britain loose" philosophy doesn't strike me as a smart way to achieve your long term goals.
And if the administration could have overruled Hyde, Trent, they would have done so. It isn't a matter of political cover, it's a matter of how the system works.
Finally, Trent notes:
No, it's the American government's problem, unless (a) you believe America doesn't need allies; or (b) you see the US force structure scenario I described in comment #34 as a good idea.
"Mr. Manhattan" - yes, there was. There have also been several Americans arrested for the same thing. Google "Aldrich Ames." In other major news flashes, people who drive race cars occasionally end up in hospital, and people who trade derivatives sometimes lose a lot of money. It's called "risks of the game." What's your point?
As for the A-Bomb, the most important spies were indeed American. Google "Rosenbergs bomb Stalin".
Richard (#75) - If you look into that era a bit more deeply, you'll find that all sorts of technologies and equipment were transferred by Britain AND America to the Soviet Union.
Those transfers stopped only once the "Iron Curtain" went up a few years after the war. Substantial constituencies in the Western allied countries weren't happy with that, either - read a bit of American history (1948 election).
Alas, all this was too late for the Nene engine, which powered the MiG-15. (Fortunately, the USA came up with the F-86. It was a parity fighter or slightly below on paper, but its edge on the intangibles like stability as a firing platform and ability to shift energy state more rapidly made it a far superior fighter in the air.)
The Russians would sometimes copy American or allied designs after that (and sometimes steal them outright via the KGB/GRU), but the free ride was over and all NATO members took steps to control military technology transfers.
Regarding British military technology leaks to the baddies, let's also recall the Soviets getting the Rolls Royce Nene engine for the MiG-15 in the late 1940's.
... software. Britain needs the source code firstly so it can integrate its own weapons
You don't need access to everything do that. Just selected parts.
...It would also make sense for Britain to jointly negotiate a common negotiating position on the F-35 with other European countries considering buying it, since the same issues will also arise for those countries
Yes, if the UK gets full access, other NATO countries would feel entitled to the same. That's part of the problem.
... and if European countries negotiate jointly with the USA they will have a better negotiating position.
But the Italians, who are not demanding everything, are competing with the UK to have a European final assembly plant for F-35's. There goes your solid EU bloc.
... If Europeans do make a common negotiating position, then given that a large proportion of the F-35's potential exports are likely to go to Europe, it would probably make sense for the USA to agree to what Europe asks for.
It sure would feel good to tell all the BBC-brainwashed Labourites and EUrabians to go to Hell.
You Brits have a very weak negotiating position. The only alternative to American warplanes is that
little French airplane which apparently has trouble landing on the CdG in bad weather.
Typhoon-N is an near impossibility.
Isn't this really a moot point? Given that Israel is involved, they will likely turn over a F-35 to China the first chance they get.
Yes, and if Britain gets unrestricted access to F-35 technology, the Israelis will feel entitled to the same. That is another reason for not relxing the ITAR law.
Interested folks should go read Bennett's whole post. It is a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. The comments there are interesting too.
Another thing: The MoD is planing to buy a maximum of 150 F-35's. That is not enough airplanes to sink the project if the UK pulls out.
...
To expand this disucussion a somewhat, isn't this F-35 fuss related to EU demands that the US share control of the Internet, share control of GPS bandwidth, and so on?
"Another thing: The MoD is planing to buy a maximum of 150 F-35's. That is not enough airplanes to sink the project if the UK pulls out."
The problem is losing those planes will increase production costs for everyone else, especially for the VTOL version. Each time the per plane price shoots up, more allies wont be able to afford them, so its a domino effect. If we're not careful we could end up in the 100 million dollar a plane catagory, which we could afford, but honestly the F-35 isnt worth that. We could almost build all F-22s for that price at the quantities we are talking, and thats a superior platform by all accounts.
David, short answer to your question: no.
This discussion is degenerating quickly, and a lot of it is simply uninformed.
Read the DID article, which clearly states that Britain is the only "Tier One partner" in the JSF program. That gives them a status the other members lack, and firms the basis of their requests for full control over their fighters. The idea that "what Britain gets, NATO must get" is simply ridiculous.
There is no "common European negotiating position" on the JSF. There are countries who have bought into the program at various levels, and expect to receive industrial benefits et. al. commensurate with that. A common negotiating position doesn't even make theoretical sense from the POV of the European countries, as it would imperil the targeted national spinoffs.
I didn't dignify the Israel comment with a response since it was too stupid. I will note that Israel is part of the JSF program, and expects to operate the fighters as a successor to its F-16s. They will not feel entitled to the same access as the British, however, as they are not a "Tier One" partner and haven't put $2 billion into the program. What they will want to ensure compatibility with their own weapons and avionics, because like their F-16s a lot of American stuff will be taken out and replaced with Israeli items. Some of that will be easy, because all F-35s will contain some Israeli equipment. But they'll want the rest to be compatible, too.
Small sidebar, the V-22 Osprey seems to have failed its second OPEVAL. Oddly the report was held up until the production was approved. If we need to save a few bucks, killing this deathtrap is a good start. Helicopters are superior in most every way.
-- Mother's offspring := United States.--
And Ozland and India. And possibly our offspring, Japan.
weasel/gigolo - frogistan. We have always been the enemy. They will join w/every thug, murderer, klepto they can to hinder/stop the anglo-saxons. They've been stuck on stupid since 1789.
---
Joe - yes, we need allies, but why specifically Britain? They've made their choice. It's been 60 years since WWII, the ties that bind are loosening. But it still doesn't prevent their citizens from buying up parts of Florida. Mebbe they don't like what they see and are hedging their bets.
Again, EU Referendum's site is chockful of bloggy goodness.
If Alberta secedes, I'd like to add them as offspring, but at this point, I'm not holding my breath our northern neighbor will be included.
Phil Hunt in #67 hit the nail on the head:
"Furthermore, why shouldn't one NATO country share military technology with another? After all, aren't all NATO countries suppoesed to be allies, and naturally they'd want their allies to have the latest technology because it makes the alliance stronger and therefore all alliance members more secure.
"If the USA has objections to technology sharing within NATO, perhaps it needs to reconsider its membership of that organisation."
The United States does not trust France, Germany, Spain and Belgium. If NATO were to be reconstituted today, those countries would not be part of the alliance. As Britain is pulled inexorably towards EU integration, the US has the right to be concerned. At the end of the day, Britain is a good friend and parnter now, but will it be so in the future? A Europe that is slowly islamizing and ageing (along with leftist/socialist tendencies coupled with pacifism), is most likely not a long term partner. In matters of war and security, I have NO confidence in Old Europe.
Technology transfers to China are one thing, but such transfers to Arab regimes is quite another. Remember, those rioters in France could have easily been in the French armed serices. The US has no friends amongst these people. Europe looks more and more unreliable on so many fronts.
This topic of interest boils down to the strategm of how do EU based Defense Contractors maintain their technological prowess on the cheap?
If you read the EUReferendum blog, you will see that Britain has piddled away 2 billion pounds on EU defense assets that have no intrinsic value. I suspect the F-35 program is "crunchtime" for British and EU Defense contractors as it is not clear that the F-35 is truly needed. I suspect events have unfolded that show that other technologies/approaches would provide better bang for the buck. Without the F-35, there is no cutting edge defense program in Europe. Possibly they can provide some cutting edge component work to someone at some future date.
For the life of me I don't understand why Britain and France need aircraft carriers. You need to make decisions (political and logistical) in order to use them. (I suspect the use of aircraft carriers in tsunami relief got the EU juices going.) Britain and France have no meaningful infrastructure to support the deployment of aircraft carrier(s).
It simply makes no sense to integrate the EU into meaningful defense procurement dialogue. Let them go their own way. They deserve it.
By the way, when specifically did the British stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans? The Americans came to the aid of the British in WW1 and WW2. The Suez Canal business was a stupid 19th century British/French diplomatic/militaristic move. At no time can I see the British doing anything other than acting out of self-interest.
Sandy P (#86)...
EURreferendum's site is full of a lot of overstatement, flawed analysis, and a few outright errors. Along with good points interspersed.
i'm not interested in bloggy goodness, I'm interested in solid analysis and useful information I can rely on. If that's your primary source of information, I'd urge you to look farther afield.
ClydeLane (#88)...
The USA almost certainly plans to sell F-35s to Arab regimes at some point.
Oman now flies the F-16 Block 60, the Saudis got the F-15 pretty quickly, etc. I expect the F-35 will be in service with several Gulf States around the 2020 mark, and depending on how things go, Iraq is also a possibility. So are Egypt and even Libya, as well as Morocco. Though I'd worry about Egypt.
The business case for the F-35 is that its affordability could make it "the next F-16," with a total global buy over its lifetime of around 3,000 aircraft. EXPORTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL to its calculations (in this, it differs from the much more capable F-22). And so is its ability to maintain a production price in the $40-60 million range - otherwise, exports will dry up.
I'll add that the idea of NATO as some kind of automatic technology-sharing club has been debunked here before. That has never been true. Not for the USA. Not for the British. Not for the French. Etc.
The point about Europe's long term future is more solid, but that leads to the question of what one does about it. The answer of "wave goodbye to America's #1 global ally and most powerful military contemporary and accept the inevitable" is a stupid answer - vid. James C. Bennett's point in the post.
Further re: F-35 needing exports...
In the modern world, with weapon R&D costs being what they are, very few countries can develop major weapons systems alone. That's just reality. The USA is one of the few that can - but even the USA will want and even need to cooperate on multinational projects at times.
Cutting that off and branding oneself as a unreliable partner in such projects will have far-reaching consequences, just as damaging the alliance with Britain will have far reaching consequences.
Both of those consequences will significantly undercut US power and influence, and hurt its own defense readiness posture by driving up the costs.
Folks who are comfortable with that.... well, with "friends" like that, who needs the Eurosocialists to undermine you?
To me, that's just another version of a "Retreat and Defeat" approach for the USA, which crumbles and throws up its hands when difficulties get in the way of worthwhile and important long-term ends. I don't like it any better than I like the left-wing version for Iraq.
Little of this is new. We had trouble with Europe throughout the Cold War as well. It is critical not just to our obvious interests, but to the security of the world that we stay as close to Britain as possible. Plus we owe it too each other. Look at it this way, Britain went against her better judgement to back our play in Iraq. I dont think there is much doubt about that. We owe the same allegiance in return.
Joe's argument in #90 is flawed as although it is evident that the US sells advanced weapons to Arab regimes, I don't know of any example of where source code has been sold (unless, of course, it is already out of date). If the Saudis demanded the source code for the F-15 avionics, I would count on that request not being honored. The 'back-doors' in the code described earlier would be a very good idea for those nations. Britain is asking for something entirely different. Perhaps we are wrong to assume that US technology is always superior. However, if we do believe that, we should dow what we can to protect it. Also, although it is happening more and more (Singapore and South Korea), the US rarely sells the most advanced radars and avionic packages to Arab customers. If someone finds an exception to this rule, that does not invalidate it.
The ITAR problems with Britain are not really surprising given the geo-strategic concerns that we have with Europe. Australia, on the other hand, is another matter.
Canucklehead,
Well named, I'm afraid. I'll try to hold up Canada's end a bit better here.
"For the life of me I don't understand why Britain and France need aircraft carriers."
Well, Britain and France disagree.
"Britain and France have no meaningful infrastructure to support the deployment of aircraft carrier(s)."
That's just dumb. France has had at least 2 aircraft carriers throughout the cold War, and has facilities that can build a CVF size ship in one piece. They also have drydocks that would fit even a Nimitz Class. So you're simply 100% wrong.
The British Navy, which has also operated carriers since before World War 2 and has found them directly useful in more than few modern conflicts, will also do just fine. The US Navy is, I might add, quite enthused about the British having full-size carriers again with common fighters aboard.
Re, EUReferendum...
See this DID article re: Britain's "wasted" programs. There's more logic to them than you think. I'll also note that:
[1] JASSM has had some performance problems and is under cancellation threat in the USA, so his most compelling financial case just got a bit wobbly. Not to mention the fact that less stealth in Britain's aircraft platforms means that more stealth on a longer-range cruise missile itself may be a valid military compensation approach. And it's the missile stealth coatings et. al. (which JASSM doesn't have) that drive up Storm Shadow's price.
Britain could also have gone with the European Taurus 350 to save money on this front, so any waste here couldn't have been wholly a Euro vs. US issue. Maybe the fact that local firm BAE has stakes in the Storm Shadow's manufacturer (MBDA) had something to do with it...
[2] The Type 45 will be less capable than the USA's DDG-51 Arleigh Burke, or Australia's SEA 4000 project Air AWarfare Destroyers - both AEGIS-equipped ships, as are Spain's F100s, Norway's Nansens, Japan's Kongo's, and Korea's KDX-IIIs. The decision to go with PAAMS may or may not have been foolish - but the stake BAE Systems has in MBDA certainly influenced the decision. In other words, if you want to blame political factors, they're probably more domestic than international. And the Type 45's lack of Tomahawk's stems from a British decision that Tomahawks would be deployed only from its submarines. This lowers the number of (expensive) TLAMs that Britain has to buy.
This, by the way, is the kind of sloppy analysis I referred to above when I discussed EUReferendum. It sounds plausible, and isn't wholly without merit, but if you really know this stuff holes start appearing and you notice important things that weren't mentioned.
I didn't dignify the Israel comment with a response since it was too stupid.
But you are replying.
I will note that Israel is part of the JSF program,
What part, aside from the helmet mounted sight?
... and expects to operate the fighters as a successor to its F-16s.
Why does the US need Israel any more, since we've got Iraq?
They will not feel entitled to the same access as the British, however, as they are not a "Tier One" partner and haven't put $2 billion into the program.
Very true. And why should the US taxpayer continue to pay for the IDF's American aircraft?
What they will want to ensure compatibility with their own weapons and avionics, because like their F-16s a lot of American stuff will be taken out and replaced with Israeli items.
You mean stuff like the Python missile, a reverse
engineered AIM-9 that you wonderful people have sold to the Chinese.
... some of that will be easy, because all F-35s will contain some Israeli equipment.
No, that is not factually correct, aside from the helmet mounted sight.
But they'll want the rest to be compatible, too.
Israel wants a lot of things. If the UK gets unrestricted access to all F-35-related technology, Israel will want the same. I suspect that Henry Hyde has this in mind. The Israeli angle on the F-35 deal is the kind of thing a respectable politician can't explain out loud to the American public.
ClydeLane (#93),
You expressed a concern that was dumb, because the F-35 was envisioned to be sold to Arab regimes from the get-go. I called you on it.
I'd also encourage you to look into the recent Omani F-16 Block 60 buy, and note which radar it carries. Kuwait's F/A-18s got the same radars their US Navy counterparts had at the time. But of course, having proposed a rule, you then weasel by saying that finding cases where the rule obviously didn't apply doesn't invalidate your rule.
Dude, hermetic insulation from reality is no substitute for fact-based argument.
Then ClydeLane tries to shift the discussion, and uses another dumb argument given the obvious structure of the JSF program, which was explained in this very post. The Saudis were not Tier One partners who had invested $2 billion in a joint R&D program for the F-15, in which they were billed as equal partners with the USA. Britain is exactly that for the F-35B. Under such circumstances, Britain would reasonably expect NOT to be treated as just another export customer.
Nor, as has been pointed out before, is source code an ITAR issue. To quote my my blog post itself:
A complaint based on broken promises, maintainability concerns for a major long-term aircraft buy, and questions of trust on both sides.
We can discuss the validity of that complaint, and options in terms of dealing with it in ways that will be beneficial to America and Britain's long-term security and relationship. But red herrings and silly arguments don't get anyone anywhere.
Joe--you can insult people all you want, but that only makes you an asshole. I don't believe your arguments about the case for Britain. You can point to the Omani and Kuwaiti sales, but again, they are exceptions to the rule. Take your ego out of your rectum and debate like an adult. In these weapons programs, $2billion is just not a lot of money. Perhaps we should give it back to Britain and await the collapse of our industrial/military complex and rue the day that we didn't accept the wisdom from the Great Military Analyst that is Joe Katzman.
Debate like an adult is exactly what we do here at Winds - which means you had better bring your game, and speak from an informed base. Otherwise, the folks here will call you on it. Quickly.
Your argument was dishonest in its intrinsic structure, and false on the facts. You got caught. You then proceded to use an analogy that was ridiculously inappropriate. You got caught again.
Now, you're pouting, and asking your opponent to:
"Take your ego out of your rectum and debate like an adult".
All in one sentence, mind - and without a trace of awareness of the irony contained therein.
Rule: That which agrees with my premise.
Exception: That which contradicts my premise.
Irony ... that was a polite term, Joe.
David Davenport,
I replied to you, not to the original commenter who stated that Israel would immediately give the F-35 to China. I had thought you were wasting your time replying - didn't realize you were part of the same Jewish/Israeli conspiracy mentality.
Re: the Python and China. You must be referring to this earlier-generation Israeli weapon here. Note the quote:
"China and Israel agreed on the deal of Python 3 technology and its licensed production in 1982, and the transfer began in September 1983. The first batch of the PL-8 rolled out between March 1988 and April 1989."
If you think back to the early 1980s, you might recall that the USA was not only encouraging Israel's arms trade with China, but selling China some things itself. For military buffs, I'll add that Israel is up to the Python 4 in general deployment (AIM-9X equal, different design philosophy based on Russian AA-11 lessons), and Python 5 entering service (arguably better than AIM-9X).
I guess that kind of actual analysis is less satisfying to some than dark conspiracy theories that Rep. Hyde is the pawn of Jewish/Israeli interests which Congresspeople are afraid to explain to the public, and which covertly drive major decisions on important defense programs.
The Pat Buchanan songbook doesn't play very well here, David.
With Europe's integration, we really don't know whether Britain will remain America's #1 global ally and most powerful military contemporary. Heck, they might not even remain "Britain." As to England.....
France is doing to them economically and legally what centuries of war couldn't. That project will not end well for any of us. They're giving up what they are for what? Because maybe on some subconscious level we took their birthright away?
We can work w/them when we can, maybe we can't on this project this specific way and just keep reminding them we're here when they need us. The problem w/that is you know the ties that bound us are loosening. We're looking south and west and they're looking to the continent. And some Americans who don't have those historic ties or fondness might not be so inclined to help.
Joe, Canada is bigger than you are. I need to see your pedigree to determine that you are as smart as you present yourself to be.
Your comments show you to be strongly promoting a weak position. I think you doth protest too much.
Now, back to the issue at hand. What does the EU and Britain bring to the F-35 equation? Why do Britain and France need aircraft carriers? What are they going to do with them... police the North Sea fishing fleet? They won't use them in a viable geo-political sense as they don't have the infrastructure to put them in any theatre independent of US force projection.
The operation of these aircraft carriers is of no tactical value to the US as they can be counted upon to conduct their military business in the manner to hobble the US military/political plans. The first time a UK or French plane gets hit by a bird there will be diplomatic protests to the President of the United States. Who needs friends like that? (Remember that the Aussies would not bomb when asked to?) By not conducting business from a coordinated plan, you are risking other lives and assets. That risk does not need to be taken and can be mitigated by not relying on the British and French.
Getting back to the business at hand... When did the British stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans? The Americans have always been there for the British. When were the British there for the Americans?
Sandy P, you have stated the nub of it - correctly, in my view.
The question is what to do about it. What future does America WANT? What options might help it get there?
You know, the other night I read my sweetie the story of the trial of William Penn (the reason you have 'Pennsylvania,' and a founder of Philadelphia). It's the story of his defiance in court of a trumped up charge delivered by unjust magistrates, claiming against all chastisement the rights of Englishmen. Of the jury's refusal to convict, despite judicial pressure, imprisonment (yes, of the jury) and fines. The jury held all the firmer thereafter, and acquitted Penn - for the rights of Englishmen were their birthright too, and neither hunger, nor thirst, nor imprisonment could make them yield it. The Recorder's infamous comments upon that acquittal would ring throughout England, much to his detriment. And the jury? They went on to bring suit against the judges - and win. Critical elements in Anglosphere jury trials stem from that episode, and it's a sharp difference from the Continental model.
It's a great, great story. It's part of our story, Albion's seedlings, and that story stretches forward to shared values and sacrifice in the present day. It can become the story of any who aspire to join it, as indeed India has in part, and may yet join in full. At the moment, in many ways it is America who stands as the prime carrier of that story.
It is unlikely to endure if she carries it alone.
What future should all of us who value and love the creed and civilization of the Anglosphere want? What policies should we support, to help us all get there? To help create a future in which these precious values not only endure, but spread?
The F-35 project, and the controversies surrounding it, may well be a pivot point of sorts. It is not an occasion for casual choices.
Things worth having, are worth fighting for. Are worth sacrificing for. To just throw up our hands.... "retreat and defeat" doesn't sit well with me.
Britain is not lost yet. For that matter (though I am more pessimistic on this score), neither is Europe. America did not become great by being a passive nation - for that matter, neither did Britain. As Richard Bennett put it:
Rep. Hyde's position is one of destiny by default. Destiny by default is a game for declining powers, or those soon to decline.
That is not what I wish for America. Or the Anglosphere.
Canucklehead (#103),
In recent years, you might look to Iraq. Most people consider that commitment to be a pretty significant one. The fact that you miss it says much.
Let's go to your other factual claims:
The Royal Navy that won back the Falklands unaided is unlikely to be impressed with your verdict that they cannot project force unaided. They certainly have the Type 23 frigates, oiler and supply ships, and soon Type 45 anti-air destroyers, plus submarines, to project power effectively and support carriers on their own should they so deire. It is obvious even to casual observation that the elements of a carrier battlegroup are there, but again, you have missed it.
I'll add that the utility of having a CVF-level capability to support British forces worldwide is quite obvious to the British, whether you agree or not. Its utility is equally obvious to the US Navy, again, whether you agree or not.
Given that you're the dissenting opinion on this question against the professional and political judgement of two navies and Britain's Parliament, it's your position that needs to be supported by something more than airy claims.
Thus far, I've seen nothing, though I commend you for addressing the issue in a civilized way.
Likewise, France's ability to operate her own carriers for decades independently, and to continue doing so, contradicts your clear claim that they were incapable. Given the lemon they built in the FNS Charles de Gaulle (formidable on outside, a disaster on the inside... ironically appropriate, non?), it's actually kind of impressive.
As to their motivation, one is indeed tempted to offer a Gallic shrug and simply say "they're the French." What is indisputable, however, is that their decision to build and deploy carriers needs no justification beyond their own political system - nor approval, either.
Vive les carriers libre!
I think I've gotta go with Washington's advice on this one. Never place one country over another, never trust a country. A country only has interests, not allies.
I do believe that, ultimately, my best interests and humanity's interests are the same, just as I believe that my best interests and my country's best interests are the same. Thus we can trust governments that reflect that reality, government's whose interests are the interests of their citizens, democratic governments.
No truly representative democracy has ever made war on another. If we're going to create a special tier of favored countries, lets do it based on how much their governments reflect the interests of the people they govern, not their language or culture, and let us, so long as it does us no great detriment (ie attacking China), try and, as a long term goal, give every human power over their respective government.
I don't know what this crap is about England's good deeds as "anglosphere" leader. Obviously we didn't think so, seeing as we rebelled and fought our bloodiest per capita war in history against them (speaking of which, how then will this "anglosphere leader to be" come about then).
I don't think you would find much sympathy for the concept in the Middle East, whose screwy borders they drew, or the people of Africa, whom they murdered in the bushels for economic gain. Or the area where modern democratic government was conceived, France, and England joined the rest of Europe in returning the monarch to power.
Countries do not have allies. They have interests. If the country's government reflects the interests of its people, then those interests will come to coincide with our interests, forming the potential for high quality relationships. It is primarily due to England's increased democratization that it has become a better ally, not our shared cultural attributes.
The Pat Buchanan songbook doesn't play very well here, David.
Well, how about the patriotic American songbook, Mr. Spokesman for Israel?
...
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/17/china.plane.weapons/
Chinese F-8s carried Israeli missiles
china weapons
Videotape released by the Pentagon shows an Israeli missile attached to a Chinese F-8 fighter
April 17, 2001
Web posted at: 8:03 PM EDT (0003 GMT)
By CNN National Security Producer Chris Plante
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Chinese fighter jets sent to intercept recent U.S. reconnaissance flights near China have been carrying air-to-air missiles sold to China by Israel, much to the annoyance of some U.S. defense officials.
The Chinese F-8 fighters captured on videotapes released by the Pentagon are carrying Israeli made Python III air-to-air missiles capable of blasting a plane out of the sky with the squeeze of a finger, the Pentagon said Tuesday.
"Generally speaking, we are not in favor of such capable weapons systems being proliferated to a variety of nations around the world," Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. Craig Quigley told reporters Tuesday.
VIDEO
New video released by the Pentagon shows a Chinese pilot flying so close to a U.S. plane his hand gestures are visible
"That's a good missile, and its capabilities are considerable," Quigley said.
A senior defense official familiar with arms agreements between the United States and Israel said "there has not been any violation here," perhaps in part because the sale of the missiles was made in the late 1970s, he said.
The official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named, said "We don't particularly like going up against hardware made by Israel."
"Here we are bending over backward to give Israel a qualitative edge and they are selling hardware to our adversaries," the somewhat exasperated defense official said.
Referring to the April 1 incident involving a collision between a Chinese fighter jet and a U.S. Navy EP-3 surveillance plane, the Defense Department official said that the decades-old Israeli missiles "would have worked just fine" had the second Chinese fighter been given the order to shoot down the U.S. plane with its crew of 24.
Though the sale of the missiles was years ago, the United States was not made aware of Israel's plans to sell the missiles to China until after the sale was complete, according to the Pentagon.
Quigley said that "..the government of Israel informed the government of the United States that they had sold the Python missile to the Chinese after the sale had been done."
Israel had agreed last year to sell China a technologically advanced airborne early warning radar system similar to the U.S. AWACS aircraft, but the deal was scuttled after loud and angry objections from the United States.
Here's the only Israeli content in the F-35 that I know of. Elbit Systems Ltd.'s parent firm is Israeli.
Lookout Brits, maybe they've got a secret shutoff mechanism built into all these helmets that will block the pilots' view whenever the Elders of Zion command it so:
VSI delivers 1,000th Joint Helmet Mounted System
SAN JOSE, California (November 02, 2005) - Vision Systems International, LLC (VSI), a leading supplier of advanced Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) systems, has delivered the 1,000th Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) two years ahead of schedule.
"This accelerated delivery reflects the importance our customers place on expanded situational awareness provided by JHMCS," said Jim Wojtasek, president of VSI. "In fact, given today's advanced radar systems and electro-optical devices coupled with high off-boresight weapons, pilots with HMDs have a distinct advantage in the battlespace."
JHMCS provides pilots with a "first look, first shot" capability when employed with high off-boresight weapons under high-g conditions. The system allows pilots to lock-on and fire at enemy aircraft without having to maneuver their aircraft into position. The pilot needs only to point his head at the target and weapon systems are automatically cued to the target. JHMCS is also highly effective when used in air-to-ground target engagements and was used extensively in this manner in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes, targeting cues and aircraft parameters are displayed on the pilot's visor.
VSI is currently in full-rate production on the JHMCS and has delivered systems for the U.S military's F-15, F-16, and F-18 platforms, as well as a number of international platforms.
VSI, a joint venture between EFW Inc., an Elbit Systems of America company and a subsidiary of Elbit Systems Ltd. (NASDAQ: ESLT), and Rockwell Collins (NYSE: COL), was formed in 1996 to pursue fixed wing helmet mounted display (HMD) opportunities worldwide. In addition to production of JHMCS and DASH (Display and Sight Helmet) Generation IV HMDs, VSI is in development on the advanced helmet mounted display for the F-35 (JSF) under contract to Lockheed Martin.
VSI-NR-02
David,
While it is possible for bigots to be patriots as well, the latter hardly cancels the former. The designation of those who disagree with your analysis as "spokesperson for Israel" speaks loudly enough, especially when coupled with your comments at the end of #95.
Re: Israel's participation in the F-35 program - they could hardly be re-admitted to a program they had not joined, now could they? F-35 contracts continue to be awarded, so until it's all done we'll just have to wait and see. Interesting technology from the Dutch recently, by the way - I expect neat but smaller-scale stuff like this to pop up over the next couple of years.
Re: the Python 3.
Those of us who actually remember history (perhaps because we read that rather than conspiracy theories) recall that the key date re: China was... Tienanmen Square in June 1989. The Python 3 license agreement of the early 1980s was complete and China had begin producing the missiles itself in... March 1989 (see quote #101).
A Pentagon spokesperson's discomfort at seeing early 1980s missile technology in 2001 is their own problem, and might be explicable by the stress of the EP-3 incident. The USA was itself working on projects with China in the 1980s that were at least as consequential (S-70 Blackhawks, and the Super-7 fighter, for instance - whose current FC-1/JF-17 version looks a lot like the F-20 bloated by Russian gear...), and had likewise encouraged Israel to strike up such relationships. They were things that were seen as useful in preparing what was at the time a very aged force with poor equipment against a mutually hostile Soviet Union.
The fact that this would later become inconvenient is no different than the fact that Stinger missiles given to the Afghan mujahideen became inconvenient later on due to other changes in the world. The Stingers, like the Pythons, were seen to serve a purpose at the time, and that purpose was deemed good and sufficient. I am unimpressed, to say the least, with crocodile tears 12 years later, under very different circumstances.
The USA had far more of a point re: the Phalcon AWACS radar purchase, and the refurbishment of the Harpy attack UAVs. And, properly, did something about those things. Israel's arms trade with China is now zero.
In the unlikely event that China's military capabilities interest you beyond their proof of Israel's eeevil, you might try this Winds post - and see in particular Richard D. Fisher, Jr.'s 2004 testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Fisher's testimony remains the best one-stop source I've found re: China's military modernization programs, how its management of those programs has changed, and the role of various foreign suppliers. It's pretty balanced and fair, highlighting justifiable areas of concern on several fronts and shedding a light on Russian, Israeli, and European technologies.
The one area where it's deficient (other than beginning its scan in the 1990s) is in its shallow coverage of the J-10. China got airframe plans from Israel (in - again - the early 1980s) - but not engines, avionics, et. al. due to subsequent arms restrictions. Which is sort of like me giving you a car chasis without electronics, wheels, or an engine. The Israelis are also reputed to have gven China controls technology for the planes - though if that's true you should thank them, because buggy fly-by-wire controls have led to crashes and serious program delays. The resulting airframe has been very heavily modified to work with Russian equipment over its 20-years-and-counting development cycle, and China's ongoing purchase of SU-30s is widely seen as a vote of less-than-confidence in the J-10. The J-10's main role seems to have been as a time and dollars sink that kept China from building more Sukhoi SU-27/30 Flankers, which would absolutely be my preferred planes if it was my air force. To the extent that the J-10 represents a technology transfer story, it's mostly Russian.
Excellent article Joe K. It adresses the problem of military technology transfer, so common in the European integration process.
BTW, France could not build a CV entirely, catapults came from America...
OK, first some credentials, as what I'm about to say demands some "street cred".
I'm Australian, a Defence Software and Systems Engineer, whose work is at sea with a dozen nations or more. Some very early work I did in my career may still be in service with the USN.
I've worked with UK, US, Dutch, German, Swiss, Australian and Israeli teams at times. (Parenthetically, the German-Australian-Israeli mixed team I led was the most, er, challenging)
I have to be completely general, there's many exceptions to what I'm saying, YMMV and "those who say don't know, those who know don't say".
OK, the meat:
Compared with European or even Australian Hi-Tech gear, US equipment is often primitive and poorly designed. It's laughable the way the US companies make a huge deal about how advanced some of their products are, when it's stuff we were doing a decade ago.
So why buy US?
1. Logistics. Buy European, and the log chain is often back to the factory, and a 2-year wait while they start it up again. Or you can buy US, and when in the field, just ask nicely your local USN REPship, and they'll send you over a dozen within the hour.
2. Testing. Buy Oz, and the gear is better, cheaper, lighter, but production runs are so small that you can expend one every alternate leap year in training. US stuff comes in lots of a thousand: it's overpriced, primitive crap, but it's reliable crap, all the bugs have been at least found out during hundreds of live-fire exercises.
3. Pressure. US political pressure can be overwhelming. "Buy our system X and we'll give you a special deal on help fixing system Y which we supplied you last time. Don't buy X, and you're on your own, buddy" Or you get frozen out of export markets, or suddenly have your import licences cancelled or "delayed".
But there are disadvantages too: some minor contractial dispute with a local machinist's union in some tiny shop in, say, Wichita, can delay your whole programme, and there's nothing you can do about it.
There are lots of exceptions, some really good US systems. I'll mention but one : the Mk 53 Decoy. It's funny how many systems suddenly become extremely high-tech and subject to export control to Australia when stamped "Made in the USA".
You just have to swallow your pride and accept it.
Joe, pieces of a puzzle do not make a work of art. Britain does not have the logistical ability nor the political will to project any carrier taskforce anywhere. India and Japan are the only countries that we need consider to develop these abilities because of the waters that surround them. Britain has no meaningful role out there. France should not be expected to carry any military burden as they cannot generate the economic strength to carry the ball, let alone the water.
I am very interested in Zoe Brain's point of view as it is clear he has been privy to the innermost sanctum of the US navy. I am curious what his security clearance is/was and the systems he worked on, or was associated with.
You guys are flogging a dead horse on this F-35 business. The VTOL version that Britain needs is a dead horse. They are lightening the skin panels on the plane for "jimny crickets" sake! Doesn't that tell you something about the airframe/engine combination? That Rolls Royce engine will not get'er done!
Do you really think the skin panels were made "extra thick" for no apparent reason? Do you think they may be stressed members of the airframe? How much extra weight was designed into the airframe and for what purpose? Would the F-35 VTOL handle a 3G turn more that twice?
The British should simply strap a merlin and propellor on the front of the F-35. That's how they launched planes with their last successful carrier.
Zoe, thanks for the informed input. Much appreciated.
Canucklehead, pieces of a puzzle may no make a work of art, but neither do repeated unsupported assertions make an argument. How unfortunate that the French and British seem disinclined to listen to your assertions (one cannot call them an argument), and go on stubbornly operating their carriers.
With respect to the F-35's engineering, let's just say that I'd put more credence in the failure prediction if it came from an engineer who actually had the project and expertise background required. It would also help if it came from someone who didn't look at stuff people were actually doing, and cry "impossible!"
Canucklehead wrote:
Um... that's "she" and "her". Has been for some time :) I'm no spring chicken, more an old broiler, alas.
The pictures of my baby, FedSat, and myself should be a dead giveaway
As for the requested details, no can do, for reasons that should be obvious. But I can point you to my CV in word format
arent we forgetting something? what does james bond think of all of this?
canucklehead wrote: "why do Britain and France need carriers?"
I can't speak for France but we (Britain) need the Carriers for firstly power projection towards potential agressors towards dependants eg the Falklands,as the Argies are never going to let that one drop!
Also 90% of our trade comes by sea so kind of important to have a Navy with air cover just in case. As a former member of the Royal Navy I'm kind of biase,next thing your be sayin is we dont need a navy, as a island nation kind of important to have a navy don't you think?