Patriot Delivery?

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The US was not in any way involved.

The shipment was actually a sale of older surplus Patriots from Bundeswehr stocks by the German Federal Procurement Office to South Korea. The missiles were not produced by Raytheon either, but by German company BGT Diehl Defence. The deal under which this shipment was handled was signed between Germany and South Korea in 2007.

And sending such stuff by commercial shipping is perfectly normal.
 

gazzzwp

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
The US was not in any way involved.

The shipment was actually a sale of older surplus Patriots from Bundeswehr stocks by the German Federal Procurement Office to South Korea. The missiles were not produced by Raytheon either, but by German company BGT Diehl Defence. The deal under which this shipment was handled was signed between Germany and South Korea in 2007.

And sending such stuff by commercial shipping is perfectly normal.
Thanks for the response. So Patriots can be made under license at any other approved (NATO) location? Makes perfect sense I suppose.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Small correction:

Patriots are produced in Germany by COMLOG GmbH, a joint venture of Raytheon and LFK Lenkflugkörper GmbH, the latter being a subsidiary of EADS. COMLOG provides Patriot missiles, logistics and support for four European customers (GE,GR,ES,NL) and the US itself, as well as the same for the Stinger system.

Diehl is "only" involved in any other Raytheon weapon system produced in Germany (Sidewinder, AMRAAM and Enhanced Paveway) through Diehl-Raytheon Missile Systeme GmbH.

The missiles delivered were not new though. They were, as said, surplus stock from Bundeswehr depots which are currently reducing their stocks. According to the German government all necessary export licenses were provided for the systems.
 

colay

New Member
Small correction:

Patriots are produced in Germany by COMLOG GmbH, a joint venture of Raytheon and LFK Lenkflugkörper GmbH, the latter being a subsidiary of EADS. COMLOG provides Patriot missiles, logistics and support for four European customers (GE,GR,ES,NL) and the US itself, as well as the same for the Stinger system.

Diehl is "only" involved in any other Raytheon weapon system produced in Germany (Sidewinder, AMRAAM and Enhanced Paveway) through Diehl-Raytheon Missile Systeme GmbH.

The missiles delivered were not new though. They were, as said, surplus stock from Bundeswehr depots which are currently reducing their stocks. According to the German government all necessary export licenses were provided for the systems.
Am I correct in assuming the US must sign off on such sales?
 

Beatmaster

New Member
Am I correct in assuming the US must sign off on such sales?
As far as i know the German government can distribute (Sell,trade, give away) all licensed weapons including technical support and support hardware.
Obviously weapons trade and and foreign orders are subject to a serious check to see if a trade or sell is legit.
If i am not mistaking Germany has a license to produce certain weapons which they may sell or use them selfs.
I believe that in international treaties and agreements is written that a nation can freely sell, buy and trade weapons (Not sure if there is a quota).
And for US regulated weapons i am sure that there is a fitting protocol for it, however i assume that virtually every nation is allowed to do what ever they want (Within reasonable limits) in regards to selling and trading.
For example if the dutch gets a international order to build a few LCF frigates then i do not see the US sign a approval contract that would be kinda strange as this would enable the US to kinda control the market and as far as i know (correct me if wrong) the US has alot to say in weapons land but a nation can pretty much do whatever they want and the US has no legal ground to approve or deny anything (Unless different agreed in a international agreement)
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
however i assume that virtually every nation is allowed to do what ever they want (Within reasonable limits) in regards to selling and trading.
Ermm, no. Not at all.

Same thing as when Germany prevents the US from selling certain technology to some of its "trade partners". Which has happened before and will happen again.
 

Beatmaster

New Member
Ermm, no. Not at all.

Same thing as when Germany prevents the US from selling certain technology to some of its "trade partners". Which has happened before and will happen again.
Alright so you are telling me that if the US wants to sell lets say a F-22 (Just saying something here)
And miss merkel does not like this for whatever reason then a simple NO will force the US to stop it?

Or how do i have to see this because what you are telling me now is kinda new.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
He is talking about weapons of foreign origin. A country can, within the limits of several international treaties it signed (like the ones about mines, cluster ammo, long range missiles,...) sell whatever it's own laws allow it to sell.

But as soon as these weapona are originally sourced from another country or build in licence the country of origin usually has the last word when it comes to new exports.

So Germany can't sell Patriot missiles without the US approving it just like the US can't sell their German stuff (much of which runs under tue radar of the wide public like for example bomb fuzes for bunker busters) without approval.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
He is talking about weapons of foreign origin. A country can, within the limits of several international treaties it signed (like the ones about mines, cluster ammo, long range missiles,...) sell whatever it's own laws allow it to sell.

But as soon as these weapona are originally sourced from another country or build in licence the country of origin usually has the last word when it comes to new exports.

So Germany can't sell Patriot missiles without the US approving it just like the US can't sell their German stuff (much of which runs under tue radar of the wide public like for example bomb fuzes for bunker busters) without approval.
To put it another way, if the product including subcomponents, being sold is the Intellectual Property (IP) of the nation originating the sale, then other nations cannot legally block the sale unless of course the sale violates international agreements and/or sanctions.

Depending on how some of the contracts were negotiated however, then the IP and/or export rights may have also transferred. The Spanish F-100 FFH comes to mind, where there was involvement from Gibss & Cox (designers of the USN's Arleigh Burke-class DDG). Given that the Spanish have exported vessels which are variants of the F-100 to Australia and Norway, it does appear Spain had 'control' of the IP. As an offshoot of that, the IP for the hull of the Hobart-class AWD which is the Australianized F-100 DDG seems to have been transferred as part of the AWD programme to Australia, which entitles Australia to further develope the hull and build additional examples of the AWD and/or use the hull for a frigate replacement programme.

In point of fact, many of the US FMS (Foreign Military Sales) have very strict rules about who/what the purchasing country can do with US sourced military equipment and/or technology. The US blocked a Spanish export of transport aircraft to Venezuela because the aircraft had US sourced equipment (IIRC it was either engines, avionics, or both). Additionally when NZ retired their M113 APC's, an Australian buyer wished to purchase them but the US blocked that.

I would be interested to hear of a US export which was blocked by Germany, as I am unaware of any. Incidentally, the main gun of the US M1 Abrams MBT is a US production version of a Rheinmetal 120 mm tank cannon, does anyone know who owns/controls the IP for the gun?

-Cheers
 

Beatmaster

New Member
To put it another way, if the product including subcomponents, being sold is the Intellectual Property (IP) of the nation originating the sale, then other nations cannot legally block the sale unless of course the sale violates international agreements and/or sanctions.

Depending on how some of the contracts were negotiated however, then the IP and/or export rights may have also transferred. The Spanish F-100 FFH comes to mind, where there was involvement from Gibss & Cox (designers of the USN's Arleigh Burke-class DDG). Given that the Spanish have exported vessels which are variants of the F-100 to Australia and Norway, it does appear Spain had 'control' of the IP. As an offshoot of that, the IP for the hull of the Hobart-class AWD which is the Australianized F-100 DDG seems to have been transferred as part of the AWD programme to Australia, which entitles Australia to further develope the hull and build additional examples of the AWD and/or use the hull for a frigate replacement programme.

In point of fact, many of the US FMS (Foreign Military Sales) have very strict rules about who/what the purchasing country can do with US sourced military equipment and/or technology. The US blocked a Spanish export of transport aircraft to Venezuela because the aircraft had US sourced equipment (IIRC it was either engines, avionics, or both). Additionally when NZ retired their M113 APC's, an Australian buyer wished to purchase them but the US blocked that.

I would be interested to hear of a US export which was blocked by Germany, as I am unaware of any. Incidentally, the main gun of the US M1 Abrams MBT is a US production version of a Rheinmetal 120 mm tank cannon, does anyone know who owns/controls the IP for the gun?

-Cheers
Ill assume that the Rheinmetal gun design in patented by Rheinmetal AG so i believe that it can be blocked by Germany like the Smootbore gun design is US made right?
Anyway as i said before all this is new so i could be horrible wrong.
But then again how about international production licenses?
Like for example the F-16 program where various EU based nations where allowed to produce them both for their own supply as well for foreign trade?
I believe that the F-16 design and equipment all are pretty much US patented and owned correct?
And what about the Kareldoorman class frigates and the zeven prof class frigates that the Netherlands build, owned and sold (At least they sold most of the doorman class frigates) and like the ZP Class LCF frigates and the M-Frigates they are all mixed build with US, UK, German, Dutch, Spanish and Danish parts in it, and they sold like cupcakes...

My point here is there are increasingly less weapons, systems or assets both in military hardware and software that are not build with help of some partnership agreement.
For example buy a state of the art navy vessel and you can be pretty sure that at least 5 nations have their "patented" techs and systems on board, so to conclude my question does it mean that if i buy a frigate or a type missile that if it contains for example a guiding chip "made in china" ;) that i cannot sell it because it may give away the design of the chip? so to say china would block it?
Just asking to get my bearings here as it is kinda confusing.
IMO if i buy 100 tanks (Pick any type its just a example) and i want to sell them because suddenly i do not need them anymore then i should be able to sell them.
Imagine you buy a ford car and you want to get rid of it by selling it that ford knocks at ur door like sorry sir no can do...lol
 

NICO

New Member
Ill assume that the Rheinmetal gun design in patented by Rheinmetal AG so i believe that it can be blocked by Germany like the Smootbore gun design is US made right?
Anyway as i said before all this is new so i could be horrible wrong.
But then again how about international production licenses?
Like for example the F-16 program where various EU based nations where allowed to produce them both for their own supply as well for foreign trade?
I believe that the F-16 design and equipment all are pretty much US patented and owned correct?
And what about the Kareldoorman class frigates and the zeven prof class frigates that the Netherlands build, owned and sold (At least they sold most of the doorman class frigates) and like the ZP Class LCF frigates and the M-Frigates they are all mixed build with US, UK, German, Dutch, Spanish and Danish parts in it, and they sold like cupcakes...

My point here is there are increasingly less weapons, systems or assets both in military hardware and software that are not build with help of some partnership agreement.
For example buy a state of the art navy vessel and you can be pretty sure that at least 5 nations have their "patented" techs and systems on board, so to conclude my question does it mean that if i buy a frigate or a type missile that if it contains for example a guiding chip "made in china" ;) that i cannot sell it because it may give away the design of the chip? so to say china would block it?
Just asking to get my bearings here as it is kinda confusing.
IMO if i buy 100 tanks (Pick any type its just a example) and i want to sell them because suddenly i do not need them anymore then i should be able to sell them.
Imagine you buy a ford car and you want to get rid of it by selling it that ford knocks at ur door like sorry sir no can do...lol

I am no legal expert but from what I have learned over the years is that the country of origin pretty much keeps "control" of the weapon system. Obviously it varies with each country. It is very encompassing subject with lots of variations....

The US has a bunch of laws like ITAR, United States Munitions List (USML), Congress, state department and DOD rules, Arms Export Control Act, I think even FBI or ICE can get involved with this stuff....No joke, looking for this info, saw that some professors have been prosecuted under AECA for sharing/teaching classes and giving away IP info.....I would say that the USA keeps the right to block the resale of equipment to another country, in this example of Patriot missiles going from Germany to SKorea, I am pretty sure someone from Germany told the US that they would be transferring these missiles, even if Germany has the license, they probably would have to tell, I am guessing but generally that's how it works...maybe this was part of a previous order or Germany was authorized before to sell/transfer these missiles...maybe Germany has an authorized list from the USA of countries that they can do this with...

Also I might depend if it is an FMS sale or direct buy from OEM, maybe that might change things...If it is a licensed production, maybe it is for a set quantity with no possibility of sales/exports, maybe you only have an authorized list from USA, a regional license or worldwide license, so there are quite a few things that are allowed or not...

USA is pretty strict with this stuff, yes, Spain wanted to sell transport planes to Venezuela but US didn't authorize it. Same goes for Iran, good luck getting new Boeing's or Airbuses...European nations have gotten pretty good at removing US items from their weapon systems or other equipment like satellites parts....to avoid being constrained by ITAR...Another example is SAAB with Gripen fighter jet, USA has a say where Sweden can export that fighter because of the engine F404...

I am going on a limb here but I think UAE has a block on the AN/APG-80 AESA radar for the F16 Block 60... or maybe they own the rights to something on the Block 60, they paid for the R&D so they have the IP, not really sure what....so does that mean UAE could stop the sale of a Block60? Yes, but I am guessing here, maybe someone could clarify that one....:confused: The latest Block 50/52 is pretty close to a Block 60 but I am not sure LMT could sell a Block 60...

Actually, the example you use with you wanting to resale your Ford and having to ask permission from Ford is quite close to what happens out there,IMHO.

Would love to here more about this stuff, with luck someone could shed some light on this subject...
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I am no legal expert but from what I have learned over the years is that the country of origin pretty much keeps "control" of the weapon system. Obviously it varies with each country. It is very encompassing subject with lots of variations....

The US has a bunch of laws like ITAR, United States Munitions List (USML), Congress, state department and DOD rules, Arms Export Control Act, I think even FBI or ICE can get involved with this stuff....No joke, looking for this info, saw that some professors have been prosecuted under AECA for sharing/teaching classes and giving away IP info.....I would say that the USA keeps the right to block the resale of equipment to another country, in this example of Patriot missiles going from Germany to SKorea, I am pretty sure someone from Germany told the US that they would be transferring these missiles, even if Germany has the license, they probably would have to tell, I am guessing but generally that's how it works...maybe this was part of a previous order or Germany was authorized before to sell/transfer these missiles...maybe Germany has an authorized list from the USA of countries that they can do this with...

Also I might depend if it is an FMS sale or direct buy from OEM, maybe that might change things...If it is a licensed production, maybe it is for a set quantity with no possibility of sales/exports, maybe you only have an authorized list from USA, a regional license or worldwide license, so there are quite a few things that are allowed or not...

USA is pretty strict with this stuff, yes, Spain wanted to sell transport planes to Venezuela but US didn't authorize it. Same goes for Iran, good luck getting new Boeing's or Airbuses...European nations have gotten pretty good at removing US items from their weapon systems or other equipment like satellites parts....to avoid being constrained by ITAR...Another example is SAAB with Gripen fighter jet, USA has a say where Sweden can export that fighter because of the engine F404...

I am going on a limb here but I think UAE has a block on the AN/APG-80 AESA radar for the F16 Block 60... or maybe they own the rights to something on the Block 60, they paid for the R&D so they have the IP, not really sure what....so does that mean UAE could stop the sale of a Block60? Yes, but I am guessing here, maybe someone could clarify that one....:confused: The latest Block 50/52 is pretty close to a Block 60 but I am not sure LMT could sell a Block 60...

Actually, the example you use with you wanting to resale your Ford and having to ask permission from Ford is quite close to what happens out there,IMHO.

Would love to here more about this stuff, with luck someone could shed some light on this subject...
The rules vary somewhat from country to country, but the US in particular is quite strict with regards to purchasing, selling and the re-selling of military equipment. Other countries may very well not care who re-sells what, as long as such sales do not threaten their immediate security and/or interfere with their national weapons export market.

Now going back to the example I mentioned of the US blocking a Spanish airlift export to Venezuela, IIRC the sale was ultimately completed, but only after the Spanish aircraft was modified to no longer include US sourced subcomponents.

With respect to some of the multi-national consortium defence programmes (Tornado, Typhoon, Jaguar, Alpha Jet, A400M, F-35, FREMM, ESSM etc.) I suspect that the export controls for the products of such programmes are specified within the participation agreements that member nations sign before joining the programme. As such, I would expect who is able to block what will vary between different programmes.

Also (again it depends on the country and agreement) a country can have a measure of control by funding R&D that another country engages in. In the case of the F-16 Block 60 with the APG-80 AESA development of that was at least partially funded by the UAE. While the funding agreement might not allow the UAE to block the US from selling F-16 Block 60's to another country (or it might for all I know...) the UAE would AFAIK get royalties paid because they own the rights to at least some of the IP.

The entire topic, while to a degree fascinating, can be quite heavy on the legalese. The best way I have to sum up the situation is that in order for war material exports to be done 'legally' then the items in question need to abide by international agreements and the countries involved need to not be subject to international sanctions. Additionally if there is any content which is of US origin or was developed with aid from the US, then US permission is required for the sale to proceed. Sales not involving any of the above might still encounter issues depending on the nations and items involved.

-Cheers
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I would be interested to hear of a US export which was blocked by Germany, as I am unaware of any.
The decisions of the Federal Security Council are classified.

One relatively recent decision that went public that effected a US re-export was the possible sale of Dingo 2 MRAPs to Israel in 2005. In order to finance the deal using US FMS the vehicles were to have been shipped to the USA as kits and assembled by Textron before selling them to Israel. The Federal Security Council blocked the deal by simply not deciding whether to approve it (mostly for industry-political reasons though).

Another well-known decision is a 1993 one in a similar US FMS re-export to Taiwan. Type 209 submarines, were to have been assembled in the USA. The council vetoed that deal. That one went further even, with US trusts attempting to buy up German shipyards to covertly export technology the next couple years. Was prevented by changing and enforcing protectionism regarding company structure of "critical" industries.
 

Beatmaster

New Member
The decisions of the Federal Security Council are classified.

One relatively recent decision that went public that effected a US re-export was the possible sale of Dingo 2 MRAPs to Israel in 2005. In order to finance the deal using US FMS the vehicles were to have been shipped to the USA as kits and assembled by Textron before selling them to Israel. The Federal Security Council blocked the deal by simply not deciding whether to approve it (mostly for industry-political reasons though).

Another well-known decision is a 1993 one in a similar US FMS re-export to Taiwan. Type 209 submarines, were to have been assembled in the USA. The council vetoed that deal. That one went further even, with US trusts attempting to buy up German shipyards to covertly export technology the next couple years. Was prevented by changing and enforcing protectionism regarding company structure of "critical" industries.
Yeah i did see this on some news channel it was kinda a big thing.
Needless to say the US is one of the biggest exporters, but there are much smaller nations who are selling and trading in comparison to the US some pretty big deals, here a brief top 20 :
1. USA
2. Russia
3. Germany
4. France
5. United Kingdom
6. Netherlands
7. China
8. Spain
9. Italy
10. Sweden
11. Israel
12. Ukraine
13. Switzerland
14. Canada
15. South Africa
16. South Korea
17. Poland
18. Belgium
19. Norway
20. Brazil

Source: sipri.org

And what comes to my attention here is that specially the EU is selling alot based up the fact that several EU nations are ranked in the top 20.
Now the thing is alot of the hardware that the EU uses, produces and design are for the biggest part a co-op with some other nations and to a large degree connected to the US military hardware industry right?
Now as i said and some others i am no expert but could it be that lets say for example the Netherlands or Germany uses the patriot system (Which they do atm) and they would like to design a new system called super patriot (More accurate, more payload and bla bla just a example) based upon the old patriot system, would that mean that they have to payoff the IP rights? or pay royalties? in order to gain full ownership of it?

Maybe a weard example here but i am in the music industry myself, if a artist creates a song and this song is licensed then by paying royalties and fees (For editing, reproduction and so on) a third person could "buy" the full right about that particular song without harming the intellect property of the "soul" creator.
So this new person could do literally everything with the song he wants while the soul creator remains full owner (however he gave away the right to do what ever the "third" person wants to do with the song as long the "third" person pays the royalties,fees and a percentage of the exploitation rights)

Now having that said most EU hardware is as i said based upon US or shared US/EU tech but could it be that the US has "sold" the rights to some nations?
Because honestly i cannot see that for example the Netherlands rank 6 on the export list....i mean except for sub hardware/software we do not have much to sell lol.
So my guess is that some nations like the Netherlands, Belguim and several others have been given the right to produce and trade hardware freely as long as they pay a fee and such to the IP holder or to the company/government.

Because as others said about the Gripen, EF, Rafale they all contain some US parts.
So either the US has handed out full ownership licenses to some techs or they handed out lease licenses, because for example we all know that the JSF is a direct rival to the Gripen, EF and Rafale so practically the US would be able to sell their JSF at will and block every EF, and Gripen order out there.
Thats called monopoly wich is NOT allowed, and outlawed in international regulations (Made by the US themselfs lol) Not sure if i say it the right way here but ill bet you guys understand what i say.

So my guess is that yes the IP registered nation remains the patent holder and so on, however in light of the greater good and to fullfill all international treaties its reasonable to assume that some sort of licenses will be handed out like they did with the F-16 in the past.
Otherwise WHY would the US allow Germany to sell stock patriots IF the US could sell them them selfs directly keep in mind we are talking about a lot of money here and this is not just one deal, but the top 20 specially the EU listed ones take a huge chunk of the worlds exports and ill bet that the US could use that money themselfs.
So its logical for me to assume that this all is possible by selling rights and licenses otherwise it would not make sense.
Cheers
 

NICO

New Member
Yeah i did see this on some news channel it was kinda a big thing.
Needless to say the US is one of the biggest exporters, but there are much smaller nations who are selling and trading in comparison to the US some pretty big deals, here a brief top 20 :
1. USA
2. Russia
3. Germany
4. France
5. United Kingdom
6. Netherlands
7. China
8. Spain
9. Italy
10. Sweden
11. Israel
12. Ukraine
13. Switzerland
14. Canada
15. South Africa
16. South Korea
17. Poland
18. Belgium
19. Norway
20. Brazil

Source: sipri.org

And what comes to my attention here is that specially the EU is selling alot based up the fact that several EU nations are ranked in the top 20.
Now the thing is alot of the hardware that the EU uses, produces and design are for the biggest part a co-op with some other nations and to a large degree connected to the US military hardware industry right?
Now as i said and some others i am no expert but could it be that lets say for example the Netherlands or Germany uses the patriot system (Which they do atm) and they would like to design a new system called super patriot (More accurate, more payload and bla bla just a example) based upon the old patriot system, would that mean that they have to payoff the IP rights? or pay royalties? in order to gain full ownership of it?

Maybe a weard example here but i am in the music industry myself, if a artist creates a song and this song is licensed then by paying royalties and fees (For editing, reproduction and so on) a third person could "buy" the full right about that particular song without harming the intellect property of the "soul" creator.
So this new person could do literally everything with the song he wants while the soul creator remains full owner (however he gave away the right to do what ever the "third" person wants to do with the song as long the "third" person pays the royalties,fees and a percentage of the exploitation rights)

Now having that said most EU hardware is as i said based upon US or shared US/EU tech but could it be that the US has "sold" the rights to some nations?
Because honestly i cannot see that for example the Netherlands rank 6 on the export list....i mean except for sub hardware/software we do not have much to sell lol.
So my guess is that some nations like the Netherlands, Belguim and several others have been given the right to produce and trade hardware freely as long as they pay a fee and such to the IP holder or to the company/government.

Because as others said about the Gripen, EF, Rafale they all contain some US parts.
So either the US has handed out full ownership licenses to some techs or they handed out lease licenses, because for example we all know that the JSF is a direct rival to the Gripen, EF and Rafale so practically the US would be able to sell their JSF at will and block every EF, and Gripen order out there.
Thats called monopoly wich is NOT allowed, and outlawed in international regulations (Made by the US themselfs lol) Not sure if i say it the right way here but ill bet you guys understand what i say.

So my guess is that yes the IP registered nation remains the patent holder and so on, however in light of the greater good and to fullfill all international treaties its reasonable to assume that some sort of licenses will be handed out like they did with the F-16 in the past.
Otherwise WHY would the US allow Germany to sell stock patriots IF the US could sell them them selfs directly keep in mind we are talking about a lot of money here and this is not just one deal, but the top 20 specially the EU listed ones take a huge chunk of the worlds exports and ill bet that the US could use that money themselfs.
So its logical for me to assume that this all is possible by selling rights and licenses otherwise it would not make sense.
Cheers
Again, I am not an expert so don't hold me to perfection...

I guess the closest example I could think of is the Hawker Beachcraft T6. It is a Pilatus PC9 so I remember reading that HB gives a royalty payment for every sale. But yes, Pilatus is now in effect competing against it's own product....I don't know how it works out because Switzerland is pretty touchy on the whole neutrality thing so if US sells to a country that don't like, do they have a veto? I don't think so, I think Pilatus still gets paid, when you think about it, it is a way for Switzerland to go around it's own severe laws on military equipment exports...:D

When it comes to using US parts, as far as I know, tough luck if US doesn't want you to sell to a "bad" country....Gripen uses GE F404 so US has a defacto right of refusal...but even if let's say SAAB were to install EJ200, well, does Eurofighter agree to have SAAB compete against them?:D You are back to square one, now the EF people can squeeze SAAB...I think SAAB has looked at different radars for Gripen to go around US or European pressure....

It really depends on the country and such, it is really important to look at the contracts (which we don't) and see what is allowed. I think the India MRCA jet fighter deal is really about tech transfer, India I think wanted pretty much "no strings attached"....so could India develop further EF or Rafale and compete against OEM/country of origin? I am guessing yes....

This doesn't just apply on parts, Euro-fighter doesn't have a lot of US parts as far as I know but you need that AMRAAM for BVR, if not, you are buying a very expensive "paperweight",LOL!, I think it is one of the reasons Europeans are developing METEOR with no US assistance so they can sell their own BVR missile with no strings attached....don't forget that not every one has the same AMRAAM, you might get an older or more recent model, depending on how close you are to the US....When it comes to Eurofighter consortium, as far as I know, the 4 countries had a delineated "territory" so you wouldn't have a duplication of effort or 2 sale teams competing against each other, this stuff is worked out at the beginning of these projects....also remember, these are European countries which most of them belong to NATO or have close/common interests, it is unlikely that a European country would just decide to sell to a "bad" country....

I don't know if I would call it a "monopoly", I think it is a different form of "diplomacy"...
 

Beatmaster

New Member
Alright that makes sense thx alot.

Btw offtopic, could someone explain me how a weapons trade/order is being done?
I mean lets say that the Netherlands would like to buy a load of patriots and would like the rights to produce them on their own, how would such a goal be achieved?
The reason i ask this there are lots of EU nations out there who produce various types of weapons and hardware but how did they get the rights and the productions designs of a particular hardware piece.
As to my understanding each nation has its patents and "unique" hardware designs and some of those designs are top secret or highly guarded to avoid that some of those designs come into wrong hands.
So my question is how would a nation like the Netherlands (Or any other nation pick one) that does not have the ability to build and produce patriot missiles get it?
What is the protocol to follow? and what are the general rules in regard to accept or deny such a request?
 

PCShogun

New Member
It is also not a simple matter of where it is made, or whose parts went into it.

A "License to manufacture" does not give the right to export that material in many cases. The intellectual property is still property, and subject to the same laws as defined for material exports. You've all seen them, I am sure; the little label that states "NOT FOR EXPORT OUTSIDE OF insert country name here"
 
Top