Via Alert 5 from Business Week.
A representative of France’s arms purchasing agency, the Direction Generale de l’Armement, will travel to the U.S. this afternoon to talk with government authorities there about purchase conditions, including possible technology transfers, Morin told journalists at a briefing today at the Eurosatory arms trade fair outside of Paris.These are the same officials that are trying to dump A330's on the USAF after subsidizing the price. The same French officials that are ignoring NATO wishes and are going to sell Russia Mistral BPC's with tech transfer! The same French officials that have been engaged in industrial espionage against our defense sector.
The Hubris is stunning.
The Arrogance breathtaking.
The end result. Predictable. President Obama will approve it in the name of fostering alliances.
Pathetic.
Australia, UK, Germany and Italy also purchased MQ-9 Reaper UAV. Haven't heard you whine about it.
ReplyDeleteObviously, you know little if at all along the line of diplomacy, FMS and military alliance. The ignorance is breathtaking.
Yeah, in your own word: pathetic.
kiss my ass. Australia, UK, Germany and Italy isn't trying to sell arms to Russia.
ReplyDeleteyour liberalism offends me, your ignorance astounds and your grasp of relevant facts is telling.
find another home on the internet, i don't need you here.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteYou obviously don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. Neither Australia nor Germany have bought MQ-9 Reapers.
In your words: pathetic.
As you said Solomon, the end to this affair is predictable although I remember a couple of years ago (can't remember in detail though) that the US Congress refused the French for another transfer of technology. This is complicated, this is politics so why not sell US weapons to Russia? :-))
ReplyDeleteThese are the same officials that are trying to dump A330's on the USAF after subsidizing the price.
ReplyDeleteNo, Airbus is trying to sell the A330. And yes, just like Boeing Airbus gets subsidized.
The same French officials that are ignoring NATO wishes and are going to sell Russia Mistral BPC's with tech transfer!
Also, NATO did not voice any concerns, the Baltic states did, the same states, that are protected by French fighter jets and can rely on the dozens of NATO/EU submarines, corvettes and fast attack craft in the Baltic Sea.
The same French officials that have been engaged in industrial espionage against our defense sector.
Well, even though we're all allies, such things continue and the US intelligence community is also involved in this (e.g. the NSA has been eavesdropping German companies for years).
Bogus arguments.
ReplyDeleteThe WTO has stated that the EU is subsidizing Airbus illegally. As a matter of fact Airbus just asked for a cash infusion so that they could complete development of the A350 so that they could keep pace with the 787.
What German company do we need to eavesdrop on? With the huge exception of armor, US industry is so far ahead of its European competition that it isn't funny. The main reason is that the US military simply buys more gear and since we've been in almost constant warfare for the last 20 years our innovative edge is sharper.
Why should any nation have to rely on the French to protect them? They're as fickle an ally as the US is. Unless it meets our needs we'll hang someone out to dry and the French are no different. Lets not even talk about the EU...or NATO. Individual countries are the power and the French just gave or rather will be selling the Russians a game changer...along with tech transfers.
Let's wait for the WTO report on Boeing.
ReplyDeleteThe US intelligence community has been eavesdropping on German companies (not just in the defence industry), e.g. Enercon in the 90s. Also, the US defence industry is not "so far ahead". Europe has simply emphasized on different technologies.
Why should any nation have to rely on the French to protect them? They're as fickle an ally as the US is. Unless it meets our needs we'll hang someone out to dry and the French are no different. Lets not even talk about the EU...or NATO. Individual countries are the power and the French just gave or rather will be selling the Russians a game changer...along with tech transfers.
Because the Baltic states are not able defend themselves against the Russians? Because we in Europe have been living with the threat of fighting on our own soil and cannot rely on two oceans protecting us from any land invasion. Why do you think Germany has been pushing for NATO enlargement in the 90s? And the Mistral is not a game changer, at least not in the Baltics. It's mincemeat.
yeah i'll wait for the report on Boeing but isn't it funny how the EU has been pushing HARD for the WTO to state that they're being subsidized?
ReplyDeleteI noticed no comment about the A350? Why? Don't want to let facts get in the way of your talking points?
Germany hasn't been pushing for enlargement of NATO...all of NATO, the US included has been pushing for enlargement.
But its still a Ponzei Scheme. If it wasn't then Georgia would have received more support than a few shouts from diplomats when they were invaded. A shouting diplomat is not support.
Mistral is a game changer. You can have 900 Marines off the coast of a country with built in support with the added bonus of the French selling communications and other high tech gear to the Russians.
Sorry Franks but you're coming up short again.
Yeah, just like Boeing and the US government. Airbus and Boeing are the largest aircraft manufacturers, the competition is very intense and we'll see new players entering the market in the next years, also both companies have a lot of political clout, because they provide a lot of jobs and their tax payments (and probably bribes) are also not too small. It's only natural that these companies get subsidized.
ReplyDeleteI did not comment on the A350, because I was too lazy to look into the newspaper. The WTO has ruled that the launch aid for the A350 is perfectly legal.
I said Germany was pushing for NATO expansion in the 90s: Central and Southeastern Europe (with the former Yugoslavian states slowly entering the alliances once they've stabilized). Back then others were rather cautious about inviting other nations to join the alliance. The Ukraine and the Caucasus countries were never considered potential members, because they were too unstable and rather neutral.
The Mistral isn't a game changer in the Baltics or in a conventional war. The ship is built AFAIK to commercial standards and would require a lot of protection, protection the Russians don't have in the Baltics. The Baltic Sea is infested with anti-shipping batteries, almost twenty NATO/EU submarines and dozens of corvettes and fast attack craft. Also, they would have to avoid any anti-ship-missile equipped aircraft. Also, Russia doesn't need any LHDs to attack these countries because they could a.) just cross the border and b.) use smaller but cheaper vessels to transport their troops.
Also, the French have been selling communication and other high-teach equipment to the Russians for years and nobody seemed to worry.
Finally, I have to say, that I'd be much more worried about Russian AIP submarines or corvettes in the Baltics than a Mistral class vessel.
One small correction: the Ukraine and the Caucasus countries are still unstable.
ReplyDeleteThe French have never shown any scruples to double dealing in the past and anyone who is surprised by these actions now is not really paying attention. Look at the behavior of French companies dealing with their "allies" in the recent past, the way they screwed the UK on the Type 45 weapon systems, the debacle with the Tigers in Germany, the heavy handed blackmail orchestrated by Dassault towards both Israel and India in the past, the double dealing of submarines in South Asia. Its part of a pattern that goes on because no one stands up and puts a stop to it because they are afraid of offending fickle French sensibilities. Solomon is right in saying that they are fickle allies, look at their record with NATO and the EU and a pattern emerges.
ReplyDelete