German defence woes (latest from The Times)

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
It may have been a rule imposed on them in the 1940's?
Self-imposed in 1967, although it was lifted in 2014.

It wasn't a total ban, but a ban on selling to countries who might use it in international wars and those who had upset NATO.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
Self-imposed in 1967, although it was lifted in 2014.

It wasn't a total ban, but a ban on selling to countries who might use it in international wars and those who had upset NATO.
Fair one, it would have been a logical US act post 45
 
It may have been a rule imposed on them in the 1940's?
Self-imposed in 1967, although it was lifted in 2014.

It wasn't a total ban, but a ban on selling to countries who might use it in international wars and those who had upset NATO.
An example:

The camera technology on the U-2 was a restricted item for the Americans. The camera technology on the PR.9 was essentially the same but the focal length was altered slightly so that the U-2's technology remained 'unexported'.

In the same way, I'm sure the Japanese could have found a way to share what they had come up with. The point is that they didn't really want to, so hid behind statute.

Fair one, it would have been a logical US act post 45
And had that been the case, I doubt the the US, as the imposer, would have objected to the odd 'slip'.
 
Tempest would undoubtedly need cooperation. Sweden, aye, but don't dismiss what Japan can bring to the table.

There's this:

Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin - Wikipedia

...and there's this (also from Wikipedia):


Unsurprisingly, Japan is no slouch on the avionics front, either. When it bought the F-15, it added some upgrades which made its performance better. The Americans asked for access - only to be told that Japan doesn't export military technology (which was true at the time)!

And as has been noted elsewhere, Japan and the UK have analogous defence needs. There's also an ambition on both parts to maintain some form of sovereign independence from the US.
One of the reasons why I was a bit dissapointed when the Kawasaki P1 didn't make the cut. I know Boeing has clout here and probably does make sense in the longer term with upgrades and scalability but they seemed to have a genuinely tailored made plane for the purpose. And I just like rooting for underdogs in general. Yes, I am American and I support American industries but I also like good products from wherever they are.
 
One of the reasons why I was a bit dissapointed when the Kawasaki P1 didn't make the cut. I know Boeing has clout here and probably does make sense in the longer term with upgrades and scalability but they seemed to have a genuinely tailored made plane for the purpose. And I just like rooting for underdogs in general. Yes, I am American and I support American industries but I also like good products from wherever they are.
Same. The P-8 made best sense on so many levels but...
 
An Interesting decision not influenced by the EU apparatchiks or Air Bus industries putting policy before requirements. Het, I mean nein, no, no suree bob.
Why benefit the US when its prez is spouting off? The deal was always "Buy our kit and we'll look after you with the large forces we already have and need"

Anyhoo... a bit rabidly anti EU is Gabriele but he's right more often than wrong.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top