Posted on 12/10/2006 10:43:40 PM PST by DTAD
Britain should cancel a deal with the United States to purchase Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) jets if America does not share sensitive technology by the end of the year, a report by the parliamentary defense committee will say, the Financial Times reported on Dec.8.
The yearly report on British weapons spending, which is due to be released Dec. 8, says “it is still uncertain whether the U.S. is prepared to provide the required information”, despite Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush agreeing in May that Britain would get the technology it needed.
(Excerpt) Read more at defencetalk.com ...
However there is talk of the Rafale-M being chosen as a substitute fighter should the JSF program fall apart (which it will not, at least not for political reasons. The Brits are only using the Rafale-M as a bargaining tool, but they WILL get the JSF .....the only way they wouldn't get the F-35 would be due to the program falling apart due to other constraints, and the STOV/L version that the Brits/US MArines are getting is facing SIGNIFICANT weight issues). However, even though the Rafale-M is a bargaining chip, it is still technically possible to make it into a Brit carrier fighter at a cost that is significantly lower than that for a 'navalized' Eurofighter Typhoon. It is a viable solution. And while the Rafale-M may not be as effective as what the JSF promises to be, it would still be far more effective than ANYTHING the Brits would find themselves steaming after (and for the truly potent adversaries you can be certain that the Brits will have the backing of Uncle Sam ....for instance there is virtually no chance of the Brits sending their carriers off the coast of China solo). Hence the Rafale-M would be a very capable fighter for them (and the Rafale is a very very good plane even though it usually garners guffaws and the like since it is built by the French ....who by the way are quite good at building things. What they lack is the will to fight not the brains for invention).
Anyways, the Brits will get the JSF, the US will give them the codes (and of all our allies Britain and Australia are the ones who can be trusted the most with those codes .....allies like Israel are the ones who should be at the bottom of the list since that nation tends to 'lose' our tech to China with abundant ease. I love Israel, but they apparently love selling stuff to China just as much).
Thus, the Brits get the codes (and the JSF), we give it to them (goodness, they are the only country we share our Trident SLBMs nukes with), and everyone is happy. Talk of the Rafale-M is rapidly forgotten and the next 'crisis' soon emerges.
The only way they are not getting the F-35 JSF is if the problems affecting the STOV/L version continue. However political reasons will not kill the Brit JSF unless some REALLY STUPUID political mumbo-jumbo occurs (which is, sadly, always possible).
However when it comes to allies our closest are the Brits and the Aussies (and add to that the Canadians, although they always grumble before actually helping ....but help they do once they finish complaining. They are like the teen who always makes noise about chores, but then after the tantrum picks up the sickle and heads out into the field). Every other ally is questionable.
Well said. I´m with you on this one.
So let Britain go buy their Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) jets somewhere else.
India's going to use MiG 29s. The French use Rafales. The Chinese are reportedly looking at Su variants.
So let Britain go buy their Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) jets somewhere else.
As has been cogently argued by both myself and Spetznaz, there are very few alternatives. The US JSF, the French Rafale-M, or the Russian one (SU-27? Cant remember off hand). Every other solution would just take too long to deploy and/or cost too much. Now. Do you want Britain to buy JSF or Rafale-M (I discount the Russians)? Or would you prefer no Royal Navy carrier capability at all? If its the latter, dont come complaining your ally Britain isn't helping you much.
Threatening the US with Rafale-M is a kind of bargaining chip, but its only a semi-bluff. If, for whatever reason, we dont get the codes for JSF, Britain WILL buy from the French.
Look, if we want their friendship we'll need to compromise and
pull our pants down to our ankles before we bend over.
It's the Liberal way. Were the superpower, we deserve nothing!
No ones asking for you to humiliate yourselves. Just a little consideration is all thats being asked for.
I'm getting tired of detractors claimning how simple a technical design is, once they have seen it.
If the design is that easy to reproduce you have to ask yourself why the Brits haven't been able to do it themselves ?
The time honored solution is to put the design in escrow. If the US goes under, then the Brits get access to the know how.
BUMP
You've got it ass-backwards.
As part of the purchase contracts with each nation regarding the JSF, there are strict security guidelines attached for the hiring of individuals who will be responsible for maintaining these aircraft once acquired.
Because of your lax immigration standards, your industries are loaded with potential security threats. Your government refuses to abide by the security plans laid out in the JSF contract, hence they will not be getting the software.
Blame your own people.
No, it'll be an excuse not to build the carriers.
The program has already fallen apart. Cowardly Republicans managed to keep it going through their control, but it is slated for the Democrat chopping block, and there will be little to no Republican complaining about it. This is all noise.
What are you talking about? How does lax immigration standards affect security? To work on any defence project requires separate security clearance.
First the U.S. screws Iceland by reniging on their defense pact after Iceland has been a firm ally in the WOT and in Iraq. Now the U.S. is going to screw Britain over the JSF. Does the U.S. even care if it has allies? Britain has been intrumental, not only in Iraq, but also in the WOT with help that has been critical to the U.S. On one hand, the U.S. wants and needs support from her allies, and then wonders why they face opposition on the international stage. It is stories like this that justify international anti-Americanism. The U.S. is earning it. And as Vanders9 has poonted out, it will mean fewer sales to defense contractors, which is a financial hit to the U.S. and an ally that is weaker and will require stronger U.S. help if they ever need it.
I agree with you and Michael81Dus . The British and the Australians are the truest allies we have. What's bad for them is bad for us and vise-versa.
There is a lot of venom around here lately. It resembles packs of dogs who spend time and enjoy insulting people that are supposed to be having friendly discussion. I don't think our US illegal immigration policy gives us any authority to knock anyone else. I am sure if any security issues are revealed we can thank the NYT and those like them. Most Americans appreciate our Brit friends and allies. I believe that the media has a lot to do with misinforming us about the nature of people in many countries.
I apologize for the attitudes of some in this thread. The Brits have been staunch allies for a long, long time and have shared technologies with us in the past (Chobham armor and many others) going back to WWII. I have no objections to sharing this technology with our good friends and allies.
F*-off then? We'll sell it to Israel, Japan, and Poland.
actually we only share the Tridents, not the warheads.
UK can roll its own nukes.
I wouldn't be against a swap of a JSF F35 OFP source release to the Brits in exchange for the recipe to that
Chobham armor (or armour, as you wish). I'm pretty confident
that its as safe from disclosure in their hands as it is in ours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.