This from DoDBuzz....
“It’s been three years [since the arms export treaty with Britain was proposed]. At this point we are losing patience,” she says he told her. Pass the treaty, “if you want our soldiers to stand with yours and have the right technology.” Blakey spoke with Fox Sunday night at a dinner for senior U.S. government and industry officials.Read the whole thing but I am struck by the sense of entitlement. Yes you are an ally. Yes you are important. Yes we want your assistance and value our alliance..but WHAT THE FUCK!
If you're losing patience then carry your behind down the road. You're trying to have two lovers...the US and European Defense Industries and Britain is ignoring the fact that theft of intellectual property is a real threat. They wonder why we won't allow access to the source code on the F-35 and then talk about having a joint aircraft carrier with the French...the same French that are famous for industrial espionage and the same French that are selling high tech arms to Russia.
The UK needs an enema...they're seriously losing it.
Grrrrr, its not a sense of entitlement, its a sense of aggrievement, the UK had a signed governement to government Memorandum of Understanding, which the US Govt then backed out of. Why should the UK not be pissed off ?
ReplyDeleteHey, you know what my answer is, just dont buy the F35, but your right about that, just shut up and put up.
But the US is not so hot at securing its own IP without pointing fingers at allies (major aerospace companies hacked, Russian spy rings, ChiCom infiltration of nuke sub design and construction etc) and please explain how the UK 'sharing" a carrier with the French as anything at all to do with giving them access to the source code of the aircrafts avionics ? You don't have source code floating around for unit (or even depot) level maintenance. The two things are simply not connected !
The issue of intellectual property has been an issue for decades and is definitely a two way street, have a read about the history of the moving tailplane in supersonic flight for an illustration of what I mean by it being a two way street.
ReplyDeleteThe UK and France have shared certain design elements of the CVF but the systems will not be the same
There is significant UK intellectual property in the F35 and the two sovereign nations signed an agreement in good faith, as partners, which the US has failed to ratify.
Sorry Solomon, it might be uncomfortable but it is what it is.
failed to ratify. if the UK doesn't like the deal. if the UK doesn't like the program then the UK should pull out.
ReplyDeletesorry ThinkDefence, it might be uncomfortable but it is what it is.
The ITAR deal was not just about the F35
ReplyDeleteThe UK and US share a great deal of technology and in a globalised economy this suits both nations
What is needed is maturity and a long term view because as you say, protectionism is on the rise and as history has shown, is never ever a good thing
The ITAR agreement was and is designed to inject a long term maturity that reflects the reality of technology competition from China and India
When you do a deal, you are supposed to honour it, not renege, shrug your shoulders and say take it or leave it.
Its not about entitlement its about sensible relations between two sovereign nations
i'm quite comfortable with the US relying solely on US defense companies for our gear.
ReplyDeleteare you comfortable with the same in the UK? oh and the term maturity is a misnomer. globalization was a fools errand. in order to prime the pumps of that failed idea, the housing markets in the US, the Netherlands, the UK, Greece, Spain and a few other nations were pumped up to create a false sense of wealth.
what we're seeing now is the unwinding of globalization and no one wants to admit it. the only real global products are oil, food and other commodities. everything else is a false economy.
China is no threat. We fuel their economy. The minute they stop financing debt, not only in the US but all over the world then the world economy, including their own slows down.
sorry cowboy but ITAR is a dead duck. it won't pass before the next Congress in the US takes over and it won't happen then.
it goes back to this.
Either play by our rules on the F-35 or pull out. I like the British but the protests against our service members in the war is a step too far.
the desire by many Europeans to see us adopt your cultural ideas regarding Gays in the military is a step too far.
the desire by your country to gain our tech with little in return is a step too far. BAE wants into our defense sector because the Europeans won't pay for their own.
many on your side of the Atlantic want us out of world affairs well guess what... many of my fellow countrymen want out too. i hope you like the world you get when that happens.
What protests were these?
ReplyDeleteI wonder what British service personnel in Afghanistan thought about news images of people in the US burning the British flag over the Gulf spill.
I think we both have our fair share of idiots that embarrass our nations but thankfully we generally rise above it.
Globalisation is here to stay, you mention China and its US debt holdings, this is exactly what I mean. BAe have more US employees than UK ones, the UK has just awarded FRES SV to Lock Mart, all very interlinked
As for buying from just US or UK companies, do they exist?
I think we can both take the view that buying US or buying UK only has resulted in an equal mix of gems and lemons but thats the price of having a defence industry I suppose
How can you say that we want your valuable technology for nothing in return, seriously Solomon, you need to read some history and I would say that as a Tier 1 investment partner in F35, the word nothing is rather a stretch.
You are perhaps right about the end of globalisation, who knows, but not sure if it is a good thing or bad.
Looking into crystal balls is an unrewarding pastime at best.
just re read your post, substitute nothing for little
ReplyDeleteI still dont think it is 'little' though
The whole point about playing by the rules is agreeing the rules, we did, you changed them after deals were done
Pretty shabby behaviour whichever way you cut it, nothing wrong with self interest of course but that has consequences
i live near the Gulf and no one burned British flags. the only protests that occurred was a small unorganized boycott of BP service stations.
ReplyDeleteGlobalization is a fairy tail but no need to talk further, we agree to disagree.
as far as company holdings, I foresee BAE US becoming totally separate from the legacy company. it won't win many contracts unless it does.
as far as FRES and General Dynamics...well guess what...that GD Europe. not exactly US but the thing is this.
BUSH pushed the consolidation of the defense industry. that can be reversed and i see it happening. BAE has attempted to buy up companies on every continent on the planet but in the end it will just be the second break up of the British Empire.
but back to the F-35. i must repeat. IF THE UK DOESN'T LIKE IT THEN PULL OUT OF THE PROGRAM, AND DEMAND YOUR MONEY BACK!
but stop the whining.
oh and treaties need to be ratified by our Senate. this won't happen and neither will the free trade treaties pending. the time for American foolishness has passed.
We changed nothing after the deal was done. Your Gov't either didn't do it's homework or was snowed by the administration that was in power when you signed this agreement (Bush, I think). If the President at the time didn't come to the table with the Senate already saying "OK" to the treaty, you should have just used the paper for ass wipe and not wasted everyone's time (you being our Pres and whoever signed on your side).
ReplyDeleteTreaties become law in the US, and the Executive branch does not pass laws, the Legislative branch does. In this case the Senate.
On top of that, the Senate can say whatever it wants and change it's mind when it comes to a vote and having to go on record. The Senate can also choose to never vote on the treaty and no President has any recourse against it. Treaties languish in the Senate for years, sometimes decades.
The inner workings of your government befuddle us too, at times
well said Sgt. C.
ReplyDeletethis mess will be corrected in November though. trust me.
The workings of my government confuse me as well, let alone trying to understand another!
ReplyDeleteThis applies both to the UK and Australia, the Clinton and Bush governments made undertakings on behalf of their country that we would have sovereign control over all aspects of the JCA/F35/JSF
There is no doubt that the admin overhead of dealing with ITAR meant that in many cases it was easier to develop our own solutions and US industry had recognised this, the biggest drivers for the ITAR treaty are US manufacturers not greedy and lazy UK companies.
On the F35 specifically, the main reason for delay is nothing at all to do with selling secrets but everything to do with LM wanting complete monopoly over the world fighter market, again nothing wrong with that but lets not dress it up as something it isnt. Also remember, the treaty is two way, we might have concerns about UK technology being incorporated into US systems which are sold to Columbia and then find their way Argentina.
All this is wrapped up in lots of politics as well of course.
You can take Solomons view of take it or leave it, which as I said, is fair enough. Or, you might consider that this bullish stance is not in the long term best interests of both nations when taken in the round.
I tend to think that all things considered, I would rather have good industrial and political relations with the US than bad.
ok, then lets get down to brass tacks then.
ReplyDeletefirst, exactly what technology would we want from the UK that we couldn't produce here? lets expand that to Europe. what are you all making that we aren't here?
second, if both our nations were to prohibit foreign corporations from operating in our countries where would you see these defense companies flocking to?
it damn sure wouldn't be Europe or the UK.
if my stance offends then understand that to be brutally honest, i currently see Australia, and Canada to be more reliable allies than the UK presently.
Australia is a bullwark in the Pacific and has picked up many missions that would ordinarily have required US participation and they've done it solo.
Canada has taken up our slack as far as posting professional troops to fulfill UN missions and I STILL HAVE YET TO SEE EUROPE DEAL WITH EUROPEAN PROBLEMS! REMEMBER KOSOVO!!!!! WHAT A CLUSTER FUCK THAT WAS!!!!
i don't care about good industrial or political relations...despite the opinion of the rest of the world, many here in the US believe that we take it in the shorts everytime we become involved in some type of coalition effort...
but back to the UK. the Netherlands with a much smaller armed force has provided a more positive contribution to the effort in Afghanistan.
the very reason why (in my opinion) that the results in southern Iraq went off the rails and why the effort in Afghanistan has suffered is because of the weak, feminine way that the British commanders choose to deal with Counter Insurgencies. Sadly your way of war has crept into the US Army and will doom us to a couple of years more warfare in a backyards primitive country.
Sorry ThinkDefence but i'm not impressed with British politics, British funding of its military or the equipment used by its forces.
Its confused, not well thought out and procured in a haphazard fashion that is more reminiscent of a Boy Scout operation and not a group of professionals.
but lastly back to the F-35.
TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. BUT STOP THE FUCKING WHINING. I DON'T CARE WHAT THOUGHT YOU WERE PROMISED. or even better...when you get the terrorist back from Libya, then you can have the codes.
Sol, can I suggest that you go and have a read of some history, especially about UK and French involvement in Kosovo
ReplyDeleteLike you, I am not impressed by a lot of UK defence issues, which is why I bother to run a blog.
I am also not impressed by a lot of US defence issues but I think I can maintain a balnced and mature outlook and discuss them without ranting
Let's agree to disagree
Morning Joe just reported that because of the BP oil fiasco, the best case scenario for Florida is the loss of 17000 jobs by the middle of next month.
ReplyDeleteLouisiana, Mississippi and Alabama will suffer similar losses.
Add to it the slap in the face with latest revelations regarding the terrorist that was freed by lobbying by BP/British/Scottish governments and our relations are anything but friendly.
If our leadership were a bit more robust than it is now, you'd see a totally different reaction. A reaction that mirrored the mood of the American public.
Agreeing to disagree might be the best we can get out of this...
But let me add that the US' founding fathers warned about foreign entanglements. We need to heed their warning.
I've been following this blog for a while, and while a lot of it is informative, now the message is that the USA is all-powerful, almighty and ever-righteous, doesn't need allies, and will treat anyone who disagrees on any front, raises objections or asks for a bit of consideration with the contempt they deserve. While the USA harboured IRA murderers for years refusing to extradite them, the United Kingdom stepped up fully in support after 9/11 and will now send anyone accused of anything in the US over even if it is absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. Our men and women have died alongside yours (and occassionally at your hands given the readiness of the US military to commit blue-on-blue). Now you post such drivel, off you go and do things your way. I have hitherto been thoroughly supportive of the United States and appreciate its strengths and achievements, I've argued vehemently with those who see the future in Europe or seek to denigrate the USA. But then I read this...
ReplyDeletewhat a wanker you are James D.
ReplyDeleteyou take my argument about weapons and turn it around huh.
you ignore BP, you ignore Lockerbie and you ignore the Euro-trash that has been throwing bombshells at the US for the past 8 years.
you don't like it fine.
but be real about it.
I don't ignore BP, I don't ignore Lockerbie and I have been equally idignant at the "Euro-trash" slagging you off. But you seem to completely ignore the flip side of the arguments - for example, Libya seems to have genuinely given up its old habits and if the price was the release of this bomber, then think perhaps of the US lives saved in the future. As for BP, one company, a load of mistakes, the company will pay, is paying, but you seem to connect the company with the notional parent country. But what about Union Carbide in Bhopal? What about BlackWater, now "Xe" and up for sale? You get shirty (that's with an R not two T's) because we get lost in the interminable political games played in the USA, the wrangling, the bureaucracy and the obstruction that even your allies encounter - maybe it's simpler to be your enemy or at least neutral because then we know what to expect, but being your ally seems to be a more pain for less gain (if we were your enemy you'd eventually bung us billions to make us your friend). As for me being a "wanker", I've been called far worse.
ReplyDelete