P8 MMA/MPA thread.

[fantassin]

Sorry, but that's daft!

Not from the USA's perspective

 

[History_Man]

Not from the USA's perspective

The US doesn't have a monopoly on arms production and sales in NATO.

 

[Himmler74]

And yet F-35, for example, has been sold to Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, the UK, Italy and Poland. The US has authorised as a FMS to Finland and Switzerland too, although it seems more likely that they will buy the F-18E/F.

A degree of commonality is good in a military alliance...

Indeed if it ever kicked off, plenty of spares, plenty of ground techs, again remind me mate how many Europeans operate Rafelle

 

[History_Man]

Indeed if it ever kicked off, plenty of spares, plenty of ground techs, again remind me mate how many Europeans operate Rafelle

I know that France was hoping that Belgium would buy the Rafale, but they went with the F-35 instead. Greece will operate the Rafale.

 

[Himmler74]

I know that France was hoping that Belgium would buy the Rafale, but they went with the F-35 instead. Greece will operate the Rafale.

Only due to it being “gifted”. They wanted the F35

 

[fantassin]

The US doesn't have a monopoly on arms production and sales in NATO.

Name one NATO nation capable of autonomous combat aircraft production outside the USA. And I mean autonomous, not a multinational conglomerate or a partially US solution.

 

[History_Man]

Name one NATO nation capable of autonomous combat aircraft production outside the USA. And I mean autonomous, not a multinational conglomerate or a partially US solution.

None of them apart from France. The UK, for example, was quite happy to collaborate with France on the Jaguar, Gazelle, Lynx and Puma. Also, the UK was quite happy to collaborate with Germany and Italy on the Tornado and Typhoon. All are European weapon systems.

 

[Lindermyer]

None of them apart from France. The UK, for example, was quite happy to collaborate with France on the Jaguar, Gazelle, Lynx and Puma. Also, the UK was quite happy to collaborate with Germany and Italy on the Tornado and Typhoon. All are European weapon systems.

I dissagree
The UK could - it has the required expertise in the requisite areas
Sweden could - with the proviso we allow licenced production of Engines

Neither does because its financially more viable to work with others

Arguably Germany and Italy could -

 

[fantassin]

None of them apart from France. The UK, for example, was quite happy to collaborate with France on the Jaguar, Gazelle, Lynx and Puma. Also, the UK was quite happy to collaborate with Germany and Italy on the Tornado and Typhoon. All are European weapon systems.

Exactly. And that's why France does not want to lose this autonomous capacity and the R&D and industrial base that go with it and which also allow a nation of only 65 millions to develop and build its own CVN, SSBNs, MBTs, MPAs etc. in favor of an hypothetical commonality which is often nothing else than a norm imposed from the USA IOT force "partners" to become clients.

The Atlantique 2 uses Rolls Royce Tyne turboprops; like in many other French programs, other European nations are included, and the money is spent in Europe rather than in the USA which is good.

 

[History_Man]

I dissagree
Arguably Germany and Italy could -

And yet choose not to...

 

[fantassin]

I dissagree
The UK could - it has the required expertise in the requisite areas
Sweden could - with the proviso we allow licenced production of Engines

Neither does because its financially more viable to work with others

Arguably Germany and Italy could -

Yes they could but they don't, not just because it is financially more viable but also because the industrial base is mostly gone, as well as many of the skilled workers.

 

[History_Man]

Exactly. And that's why France does not want to lose this autonomous capacity and the R&D and industrial base that go with it and which also allow a nation of only 65 millions to develop and build its own CVN, SSBNs, MBTs, MPAs etc. in favor of an hypothetical commonality which is often nothing else than a norm imposed from the USA IOT force "partners" to become clients.

The Atlantique 2 uses Rolls Royce Tyne turboprops; like in many other French programs, other European nations are included, and the money is spent in Europe rather than in the USA which is good.

I'm genuinely not sure whether you are in favour of French autonomy or European autonomy or both. France has chosen to go down the route of national autonomy but the UK has chosen to go down the route of European collaboration. Both countries also buy US military equipment.

 

[Lindermyer]

And yet choose not to...

Yes they could but they don't, not just because it is financially more viable but also because the industrial base is mostly gone, as well as many of the skilled workers.

The question was Which could do it not which are doing it

I suggested those 4 could but choose not to

As for skilled base - that most definatly still exists in the UK

 

[fantassin]

I'm genuinely not sure whether you are in favour of French autonomy or European autonomy or both. France has chosen to go down the route of national autonomy but the UK has chosen to go down the route of European collaboration. Both countries also buy US military equipment.

France is in favor of French or European solution when a purely French one does not exist.

The past has shown that the USA could be a very difficult partner unless you toe the US line (think Suez 1956 or Iraq 2003). This has led French leaders since Charles de Gaulle to always favor national solutions even if a US solution could be seen as cheaper (at least initially) or immediately available.

The price of autonomy is never seen as too high and a national or EU solution will always be preferred to a US one except in the following situations:

niche systems (3 E-2, 4 E-3, 4 KC/C-130J) where developing a national system would make no financial sense
very old and being phased out (C-135s)
bought second-hand and no national solution at the time of purchase (14 C-130H)
no French or EU competitors (MQ-9s)
unique (steam catapults for CVN)
international standards (0,50 MG for example).

Unlike the 1970s and 1980s when almost all the equipment bare a few notable exceptions (F-8s, C-135s...) were French made, the French forces now operate dozens of EU made systems, France now focusing on high end, high value added weapon systems rather than other, less vital areas.

 

[Himmler74]

France is in favor of French or European solution when a purely French one does not exist.

The past has shown that the USA could be a very difficult partner unless you toe the US line (think Suez 1956 or Iraq 2003). This has led French leaders since Charles de Gaulle to always favor national solutions even if a US solution could be seen as cheaper (at least initially) or immediately available.

The price of autonomy is never seen as too high and a national or EU solution will always be preferred to a US one except in the following situations:

niche systems (3 E-2, 4 E-3, 4 KC/C-130J) where developing a national system would make no financial sense
very old and being phased out (C-135s)
bought second-hand and no national solution at the time of purchase (14 C-130H)
no French or EU competitors (MQ-9s)
unique (steam catapults for CVN)
international standards (0,50 MG for example).

Unlike the 1970s and 1980s when almost all the equipment bare a few notable exceptions (F-8s, C-135s...) were French made, the French forces now operate dozens of EU made systems, France now focusing on high end, high value added weapon systems rather than other, less vital areas.

So why are one of the few trusted (hahahahah) countries not to purchase the F35, makes sense as you still have aircraft nuclear capability.

 

[terminal]

The US doesn't have a monopoly on arms production and sales in NATO.

Which is due to some European countries such as France choosing to maintain an independent arms technology and production base.

 

[Himmler74]

Which is due to some European countries such as France choosing to maintain an independent arms technology and production base.

It’s not independent, it’s funded via a consortium, Airbus anyone?

 

[terminal]

It’s not independent, it’s funded via a consortium, Airbus anyone?

Independent of the US.

 

[History_Man]

Which is due to some European countries such as France choosing to maintain an independent arms technology and production base.

So has the UK in certain areas. Neither France nor the UK buy predominantly US military equipment, although the UK operates more US aircraft types. French exceptionalism doesn't seem that exceptional.

 

[fantassin]

Apart from the Boxer, most of the recent purchases of foreign equipment for the British forces of importance were placed in the USA.

F-35
AH-64E
JLTV
E-7
P-8
CH-47
Ridgeback
Husky
Buffalo
Oshkosh HET
Javelin
MTVR
L129 rifle

To name a few. If you compare with France, if it fields an equivalent system as the above list, it is either French or european, except for the E-7.

Their is no claim of exceptionalism, just the willingness to stay autonomous and to keep the money and jobs home rather than in the USA.