Hadn't thought of that at all, some very interesting and significant implications there... and here I was thinking about platform costs.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
the white noise being generated on the UK continuing to get the same quality of tech and intel feeds is somewhat rowdyHadn't thought of that at all, some very interesting and significant implications there... and here I was thinking about platform costs.
the quality of 4I's feeds will change either way.
they're up for some hurt.
this impacts on more than just platforms
That's what I mean, I was thinking about costs in a monetary/physical sense and hadn't considered the impacts of the nature you're describing. From what you've said in the past of the States' feelings on tech/info access for the French, I can't imagine they'd be too happy with any talk of the UK getting closer to them defence-wise.
The US is quite pragmatic when it comes to these things. But, as an example, they provided assistance in rectifying some of the problems that came up with the Astutes, I seriously doubt that the same level of assistance would now be forthcoming on anything UDT that may involve UK sharing with France.
The US isn't hostile to France, but vice versa, they embargo what can be shown to the French whereas the same restrictions don't apply to Uk, Aust.
what will very very interesting is that the US just changed their tech sharing rules for UK and Australia so that we are both less impeded by the usual FMS/ITARs provisions. I would imagine that there is some serious re-assessing of that agreement with the UK - and they'll be expecting the UK to provide some assurances.
there are some serious ramifications that will fall out from all of this, I'd question whether there was much UK military engagement in the decision making process otherwise some of these concerns would have been loudly promoted behind closed doors.
eg, this will affect everyone else in 5I's who has US "special" gear and info in play, I suspect that it will be very similar to what happened with NZ when she pulled USN visiting rights over nuke weapons carriage declarations. The tap turned off overnight and UK and Australia were severely restricted in what we could share. This will be much more significant due to the amount of "stuff" that the UK has been seeing up until now..
The UK is not NZ and any serious issues will drive the UK in the Euro camp. Equally you have to remember who is fighting who's wars at the moment and the hostile attention that it is bring on those countries engaged. I am sure the US will make the right call, but no doubt service chiefs will be trying to use this to frighten the politicans.
Well further to this Liam Fox has told several news outlets that the US has been fully consulted on this agreement, so whilst I understand gf0012-aust concerns, is this possibly being made to look bigger than it really is? Would the UK really sign such a pact if the US answers to this consultation had been negative?? Especially bearing in mind our recent SDSR which talked of buying more SF equipment and River Joint from the US........
The issue for the US is not whether it still holds the UK as a valuable and esteemed partner - its about the constraints that will and must be applied with respect to how the UK handles some material which cannot and is currently not shared with France.
This is certainly not a hyped up issue and has received some serious attention from not only the US but the remaining 5I partners.
You seem to not appreciate the magnitude of what has been raised here - this is way beyond the issue of chest thumping about what nation might be more important in the relationship - its about the mechanics of how its dealt with - not about any nationalism and emotional hurt that could get generated in debate.
The UK is certainly not NZ, and thats why the importance of the solution and the mechanics of what must (and it is a huge "must") be done.
There are already trade restrictions in place that apply to France and not the UK when it comes to military technologies and information sharing. Now that there is a formal military arrangement in place then there will be (and has to be) a review of whether that rate and volume of material and info continues and if so how the UK will manage it without damaging both its old (and there are multiple "old") and "new" partnerships.
even the dutch will be revisiting what they will exchange with UK if its going to be auto transferred to france.
this is not a trivial issue, and raising the threat of nationalistic chest beating won't fix the fundamentals. they aren't going away and they are front and centre for a few UK allies now.
It's a very valid point - and unfortunately judging how relevant it is is a "TBA" question - combining facilities and efforts to perform warhead validation and testing makes sense - you need some really big super computers and so forth, but you don't need them all the time - sharing those facilities but perhaps not information can be useful. Submarine design, mmm..tricky - we got some solid help on the Astutes and I don't think we'd have had such a good offer from the French.
On the flip side, combining submarine design with the French will help keep an independent European capability alive - so what best to do?
I hate to raise this but the fact is, some of experiences with the French in partnership have been fairly negative - their early involvement in Eurofighter, plus Horizon (the well known study in how not to run a trinational project) - but then again, Jaguar, Concorde..
When it works, it's great. I wonder what we can sensibly combine here however?
Ian
I don't agree with gf0012-aust on much (see the RAN board for examples) but here I think he's pretty close to the mark. The redoing of TPTAs, even if the US agreed, would be an enormous effort and the US stuff is likely to be so integrated in a number of areas that it cannot be separated, and certainly not easily. Nobody likes the ITAR requirements, probably not even most of the US, but they are required to enforce it and they do. The UK (and Aust and the Canucks) have levels of access which complicate that more that it would for most of the rest of the world, which includes Western Europe; I doubt if the US has even worked through the implications yet at the DoS level even if the DoD has; and it is State that drives. Of course, it does sort of depend on exactly what the political agreement translates to in the implementation across the channel; and I would think it would certainly be on the agenda for the technical level discussions.
I would also be pretty sure GF that we will also be doing the same thing with regards to the French from an Australian point of view. You are right, this UK/FRANCE agreement does have much further reaching ramifications than meets the eye. Would the UK have looked at this side of things ? of course they did, but politically the UK and many European countries are under major pressure within their respective countries for major reform. Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and take a hit, the UK has obviously decided to take a hit.
What implications do you see for Australia on this ? Could it potentially restrict flow to us ? or will it potentially have the reverse effect with our relationship with the US and strengthen our ties and increase our access ?
The UK's relationship with the US will not be impacted. The recent preferential trade agreement between the US, UK & Aus has not been downgraded, no one in Congress is up in arms.
The Anglo-French cooperative projects listed are very specific and build on what is already being done (A400, Carrier Alliance, CAMM, A330 tanker fleet etc.). See official Gov summary:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/sta...on-on-defence-and-security-co-operation-56519
The nuclear deterrent partnership concerns warhead testing / simulations, both France and the UK build their own anyway. UK submarine design is largely homegrown and they already incorporate systems pioneered by French companies such as Thales. Recent US intervention was focused on the cad-cam system and new build methods (vertical, not horizontal). Any Anglo-French activity is not going to stop the Yanks selling Harpoon or Tac-Toms to the UK.
BAE is pushing hard behind the scenes to ensure its UCAV/UAV programmes remain viable, so is Dussault, hence they are as happy as Larry about the recent announcements. There is no way in hell BAE would compromise its huge market share in the US for the sake of working with the French unless such activity was given the nod by the US Government. That would be like exchanging a brand new Rolls Royce for a Fiat Pinto.
Any extremely sensitive US/UK proprietary programmes will be silo'd, the same way echelon/NSA/GCHQ intelligence is currently silo'd (to which the French are still not privi).
The US has complained about Europe not pulling its weight, the new UK/French expeditionary force brings added clout and supports an interventionist stance, something the US should be over the moon with.
The F35 issue has always been contentious even before the announcement. For one has the source-code issue been finally sorted, or does LM still plan to retain all sensitive proprietary information?
The UK is not NZ, it remains the US's number one partner and supporter, no other NATO member has shed the same amount of blood and treasure (GWI, II & A-Stan). The French tie-up would have been dead in the water if the US behind the scenes had announced a down grading of the relationship (intelligence cooperation, weapons sales etc.). France has come along way since Chirac, they are now back in NATO hand in glove.
On the flip-side though there is another driving factor for the sudden strengthening of ties, many in the UK Foreign Office consider the current Obama administration as being weak, particularly on foreign policy, plus the US economy remains in deep, deep trouble. Some believe this marks the beginning of a period long-term decline and the days of it being the only hyperpower are numbered. If the US, through financial pressures or a new isolationist stance retreats back into its shell, then the UK, France and others will have no choice but to jointly strengthen interoperability in the face of a rapidly expanding and greedy PRC.
The Anglo-French cooperative projects listed are very specific and build on what is already being done (A400, Carrier Alliance, CAMM, A330 tanker fleet etc.). See official Gov summary:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/sta...on-on-defence-and-security-co-operation-56519
The nuclear deterrent partnership concerns warhead testing / simulations, both France and the UK build their own anyway. UK submarine design is largely homegrown and they already incorporate systems pioneered by French companies such as Thales. Recent US intervention was focused on the cad-cam system and new build methods (vertical, not horizontal). Any Anglo-French activity is not going to stop the Yanks selling Harpoon or Tac-Toms to the UK.
BAE is pushing hard behind the scenes to ensure its UCAV/UAV programmes remain viable, so is Dussault, hence they are as happy as Larry about the recent announcements. There is no way in hell BAE would compromise its huge market share in the US for the sake of working with the French unless such activity was given the nod by the US Government. That would be like exchanging a brand new Rolls Royce for a Fiat Pinto.
Any extremely sensitive US/UK proprietary programmes will be silo'd, the same way echelon/NSA/GCHQ intelligence is currently silo'd (to which the French are still not privi).
The US has complained about Europe not pulling its weight, the new UK/French expeditionary force brings added clout and supports an interventionist stance, something the US should be over the moon with.
The F35 issue has always been contentious even before the announcement. For one has the source-code issue been finally sorted, or does LM still plan to retain all sensitive proprietary information?
The UK is not NZ, it remains the US's number one partner and supporter, no other NATO member has shed the same amount of blood and treasure (GWI, II & A-Stan). The French tie-up would have been dead in the water if the US behind the scenes had announced a down grading of the relationship (intelligence cooperation, weapons sales etc.). France has come along way since Chirac, they are now back in NATO hand in glove.
On the flip-side though there is another driving factor for the sudden strengthening of ties, many in the UK Foreign Office consider the current Obama administration as being weak, particularly on foreign policy, plus the US economy remains in deep, deep trouble. Some believe this marks the beginning of a period long-term decline and the days of it being the only hyperpower are numbered. If the US, through financial pressures or a new isolationist stance retreats back into its shell, then the UK, France and others will have no choice but to jointly strengthen interoperability in the face of a rapidly expanding and greedy PRC.
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
The focus seems very much on US tot, I'm sure the French are just as concerned over French tech/IP going beyond UK. If the French can manage it, I'm sure the British can.
Separately, Aviationweek citing the possibility that JSF may be cut due to UCAVs.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
The focus seems very much on US tot, I'm sure the French are just as concerned over French tech/IP going beyond UK. If the French can manage it, I'm sure the British can.
Separately, Aviationweek citing the possibility that JSF may be cut due to UCAVs.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Quote from article:
"Speaking at a forum Monday organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Gen Sir Nicholas Houghton said that he was "not in a position to give figures" on the UK's JSF buy, but indicated that the aircraft will be acquired in two tranches (batches), one to equip the carrier and the second to replace Tornado in land-based operations. "We know the numbers that we need for carrier operations but we have not fully identified the number we need for ground-based capabilities."
Reading between the lines does this mean 50 F35C batch one for FAA, and a possible 50 batch two F35A for RAF + son of Taranis?
If I was the UK Gov I would bite the bullet and buy 50 Rafi based on the condition that the French purchase PW and convert to PA2. This will result in two near identical vessels flying the same machine. The Rafi sqn's would become dedicated FAA assets, which could leverage of a joint Anglo-French maintenance/training contract similar to what is planned for A400. I would then buy 50 F35A for the civvies in uniform (AKA RAF) and continue with son of Taranis. UK fixed wing would be reduced to 3-4 x platforms: Typhoon - UK & Falklands CAP, Rafi - multirole maritme CAP/CAS and F35A / Taranis deep strike / recon replacement.
The reduced cost of Rafi and immediate availability could allow QE in-service date tobe brought forward. Joint maintenance/training would save a huge amount on TLC's. Plus you spread the risk between UK, French and US suppliers.
and I can unequivocably state that the above is just plain unmitigated rubbish.
it may be the line that everyone is trotting out for the public domain, but its certainly causing ructions down the line.
I'm already seeing it.
lets not confuse media massaging as proof of life.
anyone who doesn;t think that the relationship will not be impacted upon is patently unfmailiar with what the concerns are and whats at stake.
blind freddy, or anyone who is involved will tell you that the existing constraints that we have on tech sharing with france and the US have just become worse.
the US, UK and France will all carry on as though its business as usual. It's not - not by a long margin.
we have differing views on the competency of the williamtown yard and the opportunity to deal with bin and ben properly.. Although I would add that my problems with BAE don't necessarily lie with BAE, they are more about my dealings with the company that they absorbed and the abysmal culture that I came across at the executive level - that was both here and overseas, and as a contractor on other projects as well as the other jobs. I'm tainted by personal experience.
overall though, that's only 2 issues.
Britain has a track record of working with the French on a number of military projects, Jaguar fighter/bomber, A400, Milan etc. etc., all without compromising proprietary US technology supplied to the UK in the past. The joint Anglo-French agreement makes absolutely no reference to the UK's ongoing F series programme or other US/UK joint 'skunk' work activities. You have somehow jumped to the conclusion that this deal will let the French in via the back door providing access to US proprietary technology.
If and when the following (recently ratified) is cancelled or rewritten, then and only then will I accept your argument and bow down to your superior knowledge.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snia-04381.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
well, you can pretend as much as you like that this is having zero impact, but in the real world outside of the internet it is an issue.
you quote all these special programs that the UK is involved with and where France will not be an impact, but ignore the reality that the french have been excluded from various 5I and definitely 4I discussions and tech arrangements over the last 10 years.
if you don't understand that this has already occurred and has been an issue in the past then I suggest that you at least speak to someone in your own MOD who is going to have a clue.
I guess you're unaware of the restrictions already in place on tech management re France? I guess not.
and if you want to play the smart arse card reconsider your approach. people have cut you some slack over your intemperate behaviour recently, but it won't go on.
I strongly suggest that you go back and read my prev posts properly before responding to what you think I said - its clear that you are not reading between the lines - and some not so subtle lines.
Feel free to send me an email via a govt email address and I will quite happily spell out some of the salient features of whats already in play.
I'm not in the habit of making statements just to have some score supremacy on the internet, I say things because I and./.or various others do actually have an operational clue as to whats going on.
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Seriously gf, lighten up. I don't think anyone here believes there won't be operational issues/constraints behind the UK-French co-operation and no one here is arguing otherwise on a operational level nor really contradicting what you have said.
I believe where rik is coming from is that that co-operation will not result in a massive breakdown in defence relations between the UK and US esp arising from ToT issues. I don't think anyone here believes it would happen either nor result in any scaling down of the "special" relationship.
I agree with Rik's assessment that the cooperation is unlikely to be used as a back-door to French/US tech or IP esp in the light of already heavy joint cooperation between UK and the rest of Europe.
The UK-US relationship is vitally important to both countries and that will be a consideration when dealing with the operational constraints.
Seriously gf, lighten up. I don't think anyone here believes there won't be operational issues/constraints behind the UK-French co-operation and no one here is arguing otherwise on a operational level nor really contradicting what you have said.
I believe where rik is coming from is that that co-operation will not result in a massive breakdown in defence relations between the UK and US esp arising from ToT issues. I don't think anyone here believes it would happen either nor result in any scaling down of the "special" relationship.
I agree with Rik's assessment that the cooperation is unlikely to be used as a back-door to French/US tech or IP esp in the light of already heavy joint cooperation between UK and the rest of Europe.
The UK-US relationship is vitally important to both countries and that will be a consideration when dealing with the operational constraints.
I don't think you're going to save any money by buying Rafale - and I definitely don't think you'll save any money by buying Rafale and F35A in two small lots - you'll need two sets of spares, supply chains, pilot support and you'll have to do weapons integration twice for almost everything important.
Add to that that the Rafale isn't as capable as the F35C, and that the delay on the carriers is fitting them with Cats and traps and it looks less like a good idea.
Ian