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.

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.

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.

he 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?).

And none of this explains the holdup re: Australia, which was also in line for an ITAR waiver.

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

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

There isn't. Does America remember the Suez Crisis? I'm sure the British and French governments do.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Germany was opposed to the Iraq War not because it is hostile towards the USA but because it doesn't like war in general.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

By the way, the good ones with algorithms were the Russians. They counteracted their lack of advance in semiconductors with maths.

Still are / still do. There's a famous joke about the Russki lab procurement budgets being for pencils and good paper...

...

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!

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?

Hmmm, I had a brief fugue there about POW AIs... Maybe that's why SkyNet goes independent: POW/MIA AIs that the carbon-based bosses left to rot.

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.

The Plan B supposedly being worked on is a version of the Eurofighter adapted for the navy. We are told that negotiations on the Tranche 3 Eurofighter contract, under which Britain will take the last 88 of the 232 orders, is looking at the issues needed to be addressed to make the aircraft fly from a carrier. We are also told that sources close to the Eurofighter programme say there are no major obstacles to the operation, although some elements of the carrier design would have to be changed.

This is, in fact, complete eyewash. The requirements for carrier operations would require a major and expensive redesign of the Eurofighter. For a start, to cope with the stresses of a catapult take-off and arrester-hook landing, major strengthening of the airframe would be needed. Then, as carrier aircraft perform what are known as no-flare landings (basically a controlled crash onto the deck), landing gear must be specially strengthened, with knock-on effects throughout the whole airframe.

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'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 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.

The new German government does not support the lifting of the embargo at all:

China regards the weapons ban as a "relict" of the Cold War and according to Li, "should have been thrown on the trash heap of history long ago."

Schröder appeared to agree, although his position runs counter to those of the US and Japan, and many of his EU counterparts. Critics of his position said he was more concerned with German firms cutting deals in China than perhaps igniting a new arms race in Asia.

Then opposition leader Angela Merkel came out against lifting the arms embargo, although her remarks that she places great importance on the relationship between China and Germany have some in both Berlin and Beijing wondering if her position could change.

However, Friedbert Pflüger, a Christian Democrat member of the German parliament and a central figure in mapping out the new government's foreign policy, told the Financial Times Deutschland newspaper on Monday that a lifting of the EU arms embargo will not be placed on the "list of administrative work" of the new German coalition cabinet.

Former Cancellor Schröder also had been isolated within his own government on this matter:

As EU foreign ministers meet Friday to discuss the possibility of lifting a 16-year-old arms embargo on China by June, Germany's Gerhard Schröder finds himself out on a limb in his staunch defense of the plan.

Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was largely isolated in the Bundestag Thursday, when he once again came out in favor of ending the EU embargo, arguing that Beijing has changed since the Tiananman crackdown and that the sales would help boost trade ties with China, the second-biggest EU trading partner.

"With our policy towards China, we should pursue a long-term relationship with China in all areas, including security policy," he argued. "Sanctions are designed to isolate and punish. The German government wants to develop cooperation, which can bring about change."

An unpopular view

But there was plenty of resistance to the Chancellor's proposal. Conservative opposition leader Angela Merkel said she doubted that ending the embargo would speed up democratization in China, while the SPD's junior coalition partner, the Greens, were equally reserved.

"At this point in time, (we) do not support lifting the weapons' embargo against China," said the Greens' foreign policy spokesman Fritz Kuhn said.

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.

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.