Anglo-US defence deals in jeopardy (Britain May Consider buying French Fighters)

[adsH]

Well only 7 yrs to go, but thats considered as the "Beginning of the end of the decade"


To me the whole Rafale thing is just a political signal towards USA by UK. Otherwise UK can lease F-18E/F from US till the JSF is ready to be inducted. By showing interest in French aircraft, UK is probably convaying message to US that it can completely move away from American market if the slow pace continues & no complete ToT takes place.

There's another reason, the French are using our CVF design to build there Second Carrier, the Integration cost would considerably be lower. We would get an instant capability rather then the longer wait and the higher JSF integration costs.

Traditionally the French are good partners, we work with them very closely so you see my point!

 

[Big-E]

How many decades are until 2013?:laugh

Both ships will not be finished by 2013 even if they stay on schedule. Any consortium b/w France and Britain is just asking for trouble and especially delays in project design. She will bail out of the program like she always does holdingup the process yet again. After the negative opinion of the war in Iraq you might just see these funds dry up.

 

[contedicavour]

Both ships will not be finished by 2013 even if they stay on schedule. Any consortium b/w France and Britain is just asking for trouble and especially delays in project design. She will bail out of the program like she always does holdingup the process yet again. After the negative opinion of the war in Iraq you might just see these funds dry up.

Well, on one side the French govt just said yesterday that the final decision on CVF contracts will only be taken next year. So 2013 becomes impossiblly short, even for the 1st ship.
On the other side, the French (whether they are right-wing or left-wing) are very nationalist and attach huge importance to the main programmes of their armed forces. So the UK can rely on them keeping their word on joint projects, once they are signed.
I believe the talk about Rafale is just a way of screaming at the US and that nothing will come of it. Still, it would remain option number 1 if something went wrong with the JSF programme's industrial partnership with the UK and the other European partners.
Again, I hope it won't, otherwise we'll be in big trouble with our Garibaldi and Cavour carriers, which need STOVL jets.

cheers

 

[Big-E]

I would think they would put their own EFs on it before they would get Rafales.

 

[adsH]

Both ships will not be finished by 2013 even if they stay on schedule. Any consortium b/w France and Britain is just asking for trouble and especially delays in project design. She will bail out of the program like she always does holdingup the process yet again. After the negative opinion of the war in Iraq you might just see these funds dry up.

I think its a done deal, The French have chosen CVF as there next Carrier and would be using BAE/Thales as the main builders.

 

[Big-E]

I think its a done deal, The French have chosen CVF as there next Carrier and would be using BAE/Thales as the main builders.

Definetly the French are a done deal but the political climate in London does not look positive for the defense sector.

 

[Izzy1]

So the UK can rely on them keeping their word on joint projects(...)

I'm sorry, but we went into the CVF consortia kicking and screeming at the prospect of working with Thales. The UK defence industry has had its fingers burnt too many times when working with their French counterparts. EFA, Jaguar, Horizon, intellectual property rights over at MBDA - the examples are numerous. I can not recall a single Anglo-French collaboration which hasn't been problematic.

Everytime BAE gets involved with the continent nowadays, its a tug of war and thus the company now considers Europe a secondary market. We have sold off or modified several European divisions (Heckler & Koch, Atlas Elektronik sold off to EADS, Selex set up in partnership with Finnmecanica) and the clearest example of company intentions is the sale of Airbus to fund further US expansion.

 

[v_isorce]

french opinion

Just to give the french part of the discussion, I guess that 'Be careful, we are going to buy some other fighters, like the Rafale, if you don't share and if you don't respect our initial agreements' is an obvious political attitude without any real intention. That's not a critic though!
Quite understandable when you're as pragmatic as UK people are....
About the FR/UK partnerships which have been done in the past: with the new european defense politic, it's time to forget the old attitudes and try to work together for the benefit of everybody. And it has already worked for many projects... it will cost less and should become less sacrificial for each party since the political aim is about the same.
About the Rafale, I think we are limited by our failure to export it. But it is a really efficient fighter and the succesive upgrades (F2 and F3) will bring us all the capability we need. For the navy version, it is a real fighter of the sea, weell fitted for this environment.

 

[contedicavour]

I would think they would put their own EFs on it before they would get Rafales.

I'm not sure it would be so easy to fit the Typhoon on a carrier... this is a heavy two-engine fighter, larger than the Hornet... I'm not saying it cannot be done, but it would certainly cost a lot to lighten up the jet for naval service on an aircraft carrier shorter than a Nimitz

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

I'm sorry, but we went into the CVF consortia kicking and screeming at the prospect of working with Thales. The UK defence industry has had its fingers burnt too many times when working with their French counterparts. EFA, Jaguar, Horizon, intellectual property rights over at MBDA - the examples are numerous. I can not recall a single Anglo-French collaboration which hasn't been problematic.

Everytime BAE gets involved with the continent nowadays, its a tug of war and thus the company now considers Europe a secondary market. We have sold off or modified several European divisions (Heckler & Koch, Atlas Elektronik sold off to EADS, Selex set up in partnership with Finnmecanica) and the clearest example of company intentions is the sale of Airbus to fund further US expansion.

Hmm some of the events you are writing about are not exactly France's fault The UK's decision to leave the Horizon project, only to use Aster missiles anyway, is more a proof that the UK are not reliable...
I do agree with you however that France's choice to develop the Rafale instead of sticking to the EFA consortium was a bad decision at least from a cost-efficiency perspective (and the French Navy could have bought some F-18E/F if the EFA was too big for the De Gaulle).
On your last point, the decision to leave Airbus and focus on the US market, I think the choice was more due to the size and growth potential of the US market relative to continental Europe's, than to any bad experience with multi-national projects.

cheers

 

[sharjeel]

yes, the important version, ie the vertical take off one is overwieght...


britain wants to maintain its vertical take off fleet for some reason.

the reason the british developed the Harrier was because they realised in the cold war that any attack by the soviet union will first of all concentrate on destroying run ways as a prime priority.

thus they developed fighters which where robhust (the vampire for example could run on petrol, gas, any thing lol). and they developed harriers which coul take off from anywhere...thus making it imposible to ground the british fleet if the USSR tried to.

but now there is no USSR.

but then again the british are a very pragmatic military. they probably know in the future where ever so the threat may arise the prime target of the enemy will be the same.

thus i do not see them backing out of the JSF. also the french Raffael is not comparable to the JSF. it is more comparable to F22 in role. the raffale is basicly same role as the typhoon but has the ability to land and take off from carriers.

 

[Big-E]

I'm not sure it would be so easy to fit the Typhoon on a carrier... this is a heavy two-engine fighter, larger than the Hornet... I'm not saying it cannot be done, but it would certainly cost a lot to lighten up the jet for naval service on an aircraft carrier shorter than a Nimitz

cheers

Ah yes, EF2000 is heavier than the SH but not even close to the F-14.
EF2000 loaded weight-34,280lbs
F-14 loaded weight---61,000lbs

She will have to ditch the ski jump idea and go with catapults but would be no problem with US cooperation. I have heard good things about the structural integrity of the aircraft and that she can withstand the poundings of carriers landings. Her thrust vectored engines makes her perfect for arrested carrier landings. This bird was born to go on a carrier.

 

[contedicavour]

Just to give the french part of the discussion, I guess that 'Be careful, we are going to buy some other fighters, like the Rafale, if you don't share and if you don't respect our initial agreements' is an obvious political attitude without any real intention. That's not a critic though!
Quite understandable when you're as pragmatic as UK people are....
About the FR/UK partnerships which have been done in the past: with the new european defense politic, it's time to forget the old attitudes and try to work together for the benefit of everybody. And it has already worked for many projects... it will cost less and should become less sacrificial for each party since the political aim is about the same.
About the Rafale, I think we are limited by our failure to export it. But it is a really efficient fighter and the succesive upgrades (F2 and F3) will bring us all the capability we need. For the navy version, it is a real fighter of the sea, weell fitted for this environment.

There were rumours that Rafale had been sold to Algeria. Source : defence monthly papers published in April 2006. Do you have any details on this ?
Bienvenu dans ce forum , je me demandais bien pourquoi il n'y avait pas de français !!

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

Ah yes, EF2000 is heavier than the SH but not even close to the F-14.
EF2000 loaded weight-34,280lbs
F-14 loaded weight---61,000lbs

She will have to ditch the ski jump idea and go with catapults but would be no problem with US cooperation. I have heard good things about the structural integrity of the aircraft and that she can withstand the poundings of carriers landings. Her thrust vectored engines makes her perfect for arrested carrier landings. This bird was born to go on a carrier.

I hope you are right then
According to you, what length the carrier needs to get a 18 ton bird airborne ? Supposing the carrier has the same catapults as your Nimitz ?
thks
cheers

 

[Big-E]

Bienvenu dans ce forum , je me demandais bien pourquoi il n'y avait pas de français !!

J'ai pensé que le français a été interdit ici.

 

[contedicavour]

J'ai pensé que le français a été interdit ici.

Ah-ha, a US Navy officer who is fluent in French, good news !
Despite all the recent disagreements on Iraq, future threats require excellent collaboration on both sides of the Atlantic .

cheers

 

[410Cougar]

Bring back Avro, I say.

Yes, Canada should bring AVRO back and build a plane that'd lead the industry once again like it did many years back.

The defence of Britain is on the shoulders of their Navy and I think that they'd want to keep the carriers that they have now because they couldn't afford any new ones. With the future of Naval air power being the JSF and its STOVL capabilities I think it would be a great match for the carrier fleet the UK now has as and they wouldn't have to decrease the number of aircraft on board since the Harrier/JSF are pretty much the same size.

I can just imagine them now with a fleet defence force of JSF and EF2000 - that'd be remarkable and scary at the same time.

How much are new carriers anyways and when was the last one made?

 

[SABRE]

Following is the same news & although shorter it is much interesting to read.
Sheds small light from the officials' point of view.

Government may buy French jets and cancel U.S. deal
​

26/02/2006 23:55


LONDON (Reuters) - The government may consider buying up to 150 French fighter jets worth 5 billion pounds ($8.7 billion) for two new-generation aircraft carriers, at the expense of existing U.S. contracts, The Mail on Sunday said.


The unexpected verbal offer to buy the Rafale Marine jets, built by French defence group Dassault Aviation , came on January 24 when Defence Secretary John Reid met his opposite number, Michele Alliot-Marie, in London, the paper said, citing unidentified defence sources in Paris.


If the government went ahead with the deal, it would mean cancelling existing U.S. contracts to supply aircraft for the carriers, scheduled to go into service with the Royal Navy in 2010, the paper said.


Lockheed Martin holds the existing contracts.


A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said the report was speculative. The report followed well publicised difficulties between Britain and the U.S. on the Joint Strike Fighter project, which has been dogged by a row over sharing technology.



LINK: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newsw...&template=/business/feeds/story_template.html

Think its kind of a serious when senior officials involved.


There carriers are scheduled to go into service in 2010 (or according to previous source 2013), mean while government in UK can (may) change hands. I was woundering what would be the reaction of Opposition (i.e Conservatives etc) towards no ToT by US, if they come to power? They have been pretty much criticizing US & Labour Party on Iraq.

 

[SABRE]

Interesting add ons;

Seems like UK isnt the only one not happy with the ToT issue.

Italian industry hits out at JSF technology transfe


DATED: 11th April, 2006

With negotiations on participation in production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) entering a critical phase, Italy's government has come under fire from its industry for taking too soft a position on US technology transfer restrictions.

Alenia Aeronautica president Giorgio Zappa has said, in a New York Times interview, that access to sensitive technology is a key issue in the negotiations, adding that his company is not satisfied with the answers so far received from the USA.

The final round of negotiations on the memorandum of understanding (MoU) for the JSF production, sustainment and follow-on development phase takes place this month in the USA. While Australia and the UK have threatened not to sign the MoU unless technology transfer issues are resolved, Italy has been more cautious.

Link: http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/1400
​

​

U.S., 8 countries meet to discuss fighter-jet project
​

DATED: 5th June, 2006
​

The U.S. and eight other countries will gather this week to negotiate a final road map for the Pentagon's biggest weapons program, a $276 billion fighter-jet project that has struggled to live up to its billing as a model of global cooperation.

The negotiations in Williamsburg, Va., on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or JSF, are crucial to producing an agreement by the end of the year, in which each country is expected to declare how many airplanes it will buy. The agreement also will determine how the fleet will be maintained and upgraded over the expected 40-year lifespan of the plane.

The talks have big implications for lead contractor Lockheed Martin Corp., which oversees the JSF's development and will play a lucrative, long-term role in maintaining the planes. The Bethesda, Md., contractor won't be at the table with government officials.

A final road map for the Joint Strike Fighter is the subject of talks among the U.S. and eight other countries this week.

Link: http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/1681/UK-closer-to-JSF-sovereignty-deal.html

Following is importent and related to the thread.

UK closer to JSF sovereignty deal

DATED: 5th June, 2006

The US and UK governments are still "working out the details" of resolving technology transfer issues on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), despite an agreement by President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair that the UK will have "operational sovereignty" over the aircraft.

In a joint statement issued after their meeting on 26 May, Bush and Blair said: “Both governments agree that the UK will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ and maintain the Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft.” The governments also agree “to protect sensitive technologies” in the JSF, and are “working out the details, while remaining committed to these principles”.

Link: http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/1681/UK-closer-to-JSF-sovereignty-deal.html
​

& another unsatisfied costomer, but not very innocent one either.

Tech-export deal holds up Israeli role in F-35 jet

DATED: 9th June, 2006

TEL AVIV, June 8 (Reuters) - Israel's full participation in a U.S.-led advanced warplane project has been held up as both sides hammer out a deal on limiting the transfer of sensitive military technology, a senior Israeli official said on Thursday.

The Jewish state's role in the multi-billion-dollar F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project was briefly curbed last year after the Pentagon came out against Israeli arms exports to China, which it argued could threaten U.S. ally Taiwan.

Israel defused the fracas by signing an agreement that its Defence Ministry described as "solving past problems which had seriously harmed relations ... in the area of technological security," and was readmitted to the F-35 project in November.

Link: http://www.air-attack.com/news/news...t-deal-holds-up-Israeli-role-in-F-35-jet.html
​

​

Solving UK issue doesnt seem to be the solution of the JSF ToT issue. Seems like every one participating wants vertually full access to the technology. US does seem to have a big issue on hands.


​

 

[Big-E]

Solving UK issue doesnt seem to be the solution of the JSF ToT issue. Seems like every one participating wants vertually full access to the technology. US does seem to have a big issue on hands.

If you want the best you have to play the game. JSF must not end up in PRCs hands. Isreal obviously has a hard time abiding by ToT agreements and should be punished accordingly. Why should she give up her rights to the aircraft? Considering she is paying for 90% of the program why shouldn't she get to say how things go down?