Read the whole thing (personally I'm envious of the approach being taken in the UK, they're acting like adults...there is a problem and they're working to solve it) but the F-35 and other necessary defense programs appear safe...at least for now.In last month's budget Osborne said cuts would not average more than 25%
The treasury has demanded the "illustrative plans" for cuts of 25% and 40% must be submitted by Cabinet Ministers by the end of the month.
It is the latest step in preparing for what is set to be the toughest spending review since the Second World War.
However, as outlined in the Chancellor's emergency budget last month, health and international aid will continue to receive small increases in their budgets.
Mr Osborne also said education and defence budgets would be "protected".But the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that this could leave other departments facing cuts of 33%.
Officials stressed what was being prepared was "initial planning assumptions" and that the cuts on that scale would not actually be implemented in the final settlements in the autumn.
Update:
Jed is calling bogus my claims that the MoD was never offered the source code to the F-35 at the beginning of the program and that when they asked for it years later, it was a change to the agreement.
Anyone know where I can get a syllabus to the F-35 development?
We'll just have to wait it out, I guess. The Royal Navy want its carriers which really needs the F-35B, though the RAF could settle for more Typhoons instead of its planned STOVL-Bs.
ReplyDeleteThere are persistent rumors that the UK may cancel/sell off the carriers eventually, but I doubt that, what with the British jobs involved.
As I've said before, the Brits are big believers in not spending money they don't have. Unlike some I could name.
ReplyDeleteHappy Independence Day!
uh do you mean like Israel?
ReplyDeleteDefence spending is protected in this fiscal year but not in the next four so we in the UK are expecting some defence cuts. Perhaps in the order of 10-15%. Personally, I don't think this is a bad thing. What we need is better procurement and better value for money. Rumours of cancelling/selling of carriers have been about forever. I expect that the carriers and F35B is safe but no doubt rumours will continue (mostly spread by the RAF).
ReplyDeleteUh, no Solomon, not in Israel, we stay within our budget and don't run up huge deficits. The fact that we get military aid from the US is not relevant. We are grateful for the help, but it's a relatively small part of our budget and we don't spend monies we don't have, unlike some I could name. We can't get China to buy our debt (and control our future) so we have to maintain a good credit rating in order to borrow from banks. In case you're curious, we pay very high taxes in this country to have such a large and effective military and - like the Brits - when we fall into economic difficulties, we cut our budgets, including the defense budget. By the way, the military aid we receive from the US is not cash but in the form of American-made equipment, which I think is fair, even though it means I had to use a terrible rifle when I served.
ReplyDeleteWhat's that then Jonathan, the Galil ??
ReplyDelete:)
M16 :()
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Galil also sucked, I'll admit.
But the F35 should not be safe in the UK, for financial and one other major reason - the U.S. has completely backed out of its earlier promises ref sovereignty of intellectual property - to have to fly your aircraft to a U.S. air base to have a software upgrade loaded is ridiculous. We should have binned the program as soon as that was reneged on. If we are going to keep the carriers give them cats and traps and buy Rafales, if we are really going to sell off the carriers as soon politically expedient, then it doesn't matter. The RAF can make do with Typhoon Tranche 3 (hopefully with AESA, conformal tanks and asymmetric thrust vectoring - but don't hold your breath !).
ReplyDeleteAnd knowing your an F35 fanboy Solomon, before you lambast me, this has nothing to do with any criticism of the potential of the aircraft, but on cost versus benefits, for the amount we are planned to buy, it just does not make sense.
Happy 4th of July from Canada :-)
but what you're saying is factually incorrect. depots are to be established in italy and denmark or was it the netherlands??? anyone, forgetting my pathetic geography, the point remains...europe was to have a solid repair base to operate from separate from the US.
ReplyDeleteadditionally the partners were fully aware of sensitive materials involved in the program when they signed on and still agreed.
no fanboy here just not a gloom and doomer like many APA-fanboys.
Maintenance depots Solomon, for third line maintenance of physical aspects of the aircraft. As far as I have read, and obviously this has had a lot of press in the UK, and is factually correct, the aircraft has to be flown to the US to have the software upgraded, even with the UK's advanced partner status and all the money invested, the DoD (?) has reneged on earlier agreements ref the intellectual property of the operating software. So you are correct ref physical maintenance, but I assure you I am correct ref updates and upgrades to the software. I am no APA fanboy either - but Typhoon maybe... :-)
ReplyDeleteApologies for multiple comments, just some back up for the above:
ReplyDeleteFrom wikipedia: "On 12 December 2006, Lord Drayson signed an agreement which met the UK's demands for further participation, i.e., access to software source code and operational sovereignty. The agreement allows "an unbroken British chain of command" for operation of the aircraft. Drayson said Britain would "not be required to have a US citizen in our own operational chain of command" - OK that was the good news 4 years ago, which was unfortunately over ruled by:
"On 24 November 2009, Jon Schreiber said that the United States will not share the software code for the F-35 with its allies." That alone, never mind cost, is the reason the UK should withdraw from the progam ! See the ThinkDefence article and comments at:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/11/us-to-keep-jca-source-code/
Jed,
ReplyDeleteyou're bringing up an interesting document. the operative statement is....
UK demands for further participation.
the agreement was set before hand and then they wanted to alter it in order to get the source codes.
that was never part of the bargain and they (and other allies most notably Israel) thought that they could bully the US into giving them...its more about industrial stress than it is about UK's security.
i'm to the point now where i really don't care if a few countries drop out. Israel will buy over 100...so if the UK stalls..oh well...Singapore will come on board and will probably buy several dozen if not over 100 too. so if Denmark drops out....then cool.
but back to the issue at hand. the UK tried to change the game and got called on it. they need to man up or go home. either way i'm good with it.
Interesting:
ReplyDelete"but back to the issue at hand. the UK tried to change the game and got called on it. they need to man up or go home. either way i'm good with it." WTF ?
You seem to have re-written history the other way round from every article I have ever read on the subject. UK was onboard as biggest partner from the get go, mainly for industrial participation reasons, plus also to replace all our Harriers, after the US we have invested way more cash in the program than anyone else !
The "demands for further participation" were not as far as I am aware, anything to do with software, no one has ever demanded British companies write any of the core software, but what our MOU with the DOD offered us the access required - qouting Lord Dyson:
"I have always been clear that the UK would only sign if we were satisfied that we would have operational sovereignty over our aircraft. I have today received the necessary assurances from the US on technology transfer to allow me to sign the MoU.”
So the US promised, we signed, and 4 years later as our thanks for at least trying our best in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US changes its mind and decides we can't have it. Gee, thanks DoD and Mr President.
So I really don't understand how you come to this conclusion: "the agreement was set before hand and then they wanted to alter it in order to get the source codes." thats not how it happened, and I don't understand how you come to your understanding of the facts ???
apples and oranges Jed.
ReplyDeleteIraq and Afghanistan was a NATO responsibility. if the UK didn't want to participate then we could have done it ourselves.
second, we're giving you stealth on a plate and you want our source codes too? at the same time that the UK is moving closer to the EU and France which are known for stealing proprietary military technology?
amazing.
oh and as far as going to war to save nations.....we don't stuff the Falklands in your face when the US had to supply UK weapons stores...or even provide refueling support to your aircraft.
ReplyDeletewe don't talk about WW2 when your leader conspired to get us into that conflict....
we just man up and do what needs to be done. maybe Obama will give you an apology but I won't.
we're all adults. besides.
like i said...if the UK pulls out..cool...
Israel...100 plus airplanes....
Singapore....100 plus airplanes....
Turkey ...100 plus airplanes ... (wouldn't that be a trip...a Muslim nation on the edge of Europe about to field the most advanced airplane on the continent and the Europeans won't have one to match it...the irony is delicious)....
in other words we have enough participation to cover any loss suffered by a UK withdrawal. just let us know what you're going to do...either way i'm good with it and i won't be one of those Americans begging for Europe to be our friend.
Great if you are but if you aren't then life goes on.
Solomon I dont want to turn this into some kind of flame war, but NATO does not, and never has had anything to do with Iraq - many NATO nations have condemned the invasion, but we stood buy you and our PM in the end lost his job because he was such a staunch supporter of Pres. Bush !!!
ReplyDeleteNATO stepped up for Afghanistan because of the scope of the loss of life on 9/11, an attack on one member being an attack on all (article 5 ? of the NATO treaty) not to mention there were plenty of citizens of other NATO countries who were victims on that terrible day.
But NATO has nothing at all to do with Iraq, but now I will stop being pedantic......
However, are you actually accusing Churchill of conspiring with the Japanese emporer ? Because I thought the attack on Pearl Harbor was what brought the USA into WWII - 4 days after that attack Hitler declared war on the USA, not the other way round I believe.
Afghanistan is all about NATO. That's why you're trying to narrow the focus to IRAQ....
ReplyDeleteyou already know that your argument has no merit that's why you're trying to tailor it to meet your own needs.
you just gave up your section of Helmand....see ya...the US Marines can handle Sangin Province.