MickWhether it’s a good or bad thing for the American economy, it only reflects the changing nature of major defence contracts. Foreign-based companies are slowly moving to the States because the contracts are far bigger than what they are getting from their own domestic governments. BAE Systems, Eurocopter, EADS, Rolls-Royce all do fairly good business with the US Dept of Defence nowadays, much better than they do at home. BAE Systems continues to snap-up American defence companies, is already supplying the US Marine Corps with mine-protected vehicles, upgrading the US Army’s Bradley AIFVs, providing engineering support to the US Navy, etc. That’s why the US Dept of Justice has the jurisdiction to investigate BAE Systems and its dealings with Saudi Arabia.
The US market is now like the Holy Grail for European aerospace and defence companies. There’s even been rumours of some companies wanting to move their headquarters over to the States. We in Europe haven’t really generally cared much about American companies coming over here. I mean us Brits are about expected to hand a major order for several thousand armoured vehicles to an American firm (General Dynamics) based in the UK that will still be assembled in Britain (even though it will be based on a Swiss-designed vehicle and it depends on a last chance gasp from a French vehicle). Things are changing, perhaps a little more quickly than many expected. Perhaps even the US Dept of Defence realises this as well as choosing a plane that more closely suits the USAF’s requirements.
MickAnd the Belgians, the Dutch, the Finns, the Romanians, the Australians. Even the Japanese might be in there somewhere.
MickWould make you further tremble at the thought. I don’t know about the KC-45A (KC-30), but a few parts of the standard A330 are made in China. Seriously. But so are parts of Boeing aircraft.
MickI think alot of people will be shocked, including Boeing. Expect protests no doubt. The Pentagon briefing says that it will explain Boeing close to 12 March as to why they failed to get the contract. They also referred that the Northrop Grumman KC-30 will actually be called the KC-45A in USAF service.
MickYep, the Pentagon briefing just confirmed it’s the KC-30! Looks like the Malaysian Sun got a scoop there.
MickThis mades an interesting read, just coming in from Reuters, although it still doesn’t make it anymore clearer other than a change in the tanker criteria would weigh heavily in favour for Boeing:
http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSN2861183920080228
MickThe A400M is due to fly in July this year, although there are some suggestions that it will be as late as October.
As for saying that the most of the parts of the KC-30 would come from the EU. I said it once, and I say it again. Yes, some from the likes of EADS, Airbus and so forth. But apart from the 60% that Northrop Grumman claims will be sourced in America specifically for the KC-30, many more parts coming in from the EU region will actually be from American-owned companies – GE Aviation, Goodrich, Vought Aircraft Industries, Rockwell Collins, Honeywell. Not particularly European sounding names, supplying stuff like avionics, sensors, engine components — same with the standard A330 MRTT. Even the composite materials and panels used in the fuselage are partly American sourced. And what engines would power the KC-30? American again. If it is indeed Boeing that wins, it’ll be because it’s an American “brand” and it would be chosen to prevent people thinking that the other option would risk American jobs and industrial skills. Many EU-based (other than EADS) and American aerospace companies (other than Northrop Grumman or Boeing) will still be pretty happy whatever decision is made because they will be guaranteed some major work either way it goes.
MickPersonally, I’d scrap the Puma updates and the Future Lynx for the Army (not the FAA mind you) and go for the NH-90 (also for the commando Sea Kings). Main problem would be availability once an order is placed, given the delays to NH-90. Nevertheless, assembly of the British models could be switched from AgustaWestland’s plant in Italy to Yeovil if necessary. Offsets for British companies would be pretty simple as well, given that there are already many companies working on the programme that have business based here in the UK (Thales, Goodrich, GE Aviation for example, and many of these are involved in Future Lynx anyway). The AW149 would provide an excellent option for an Army helicopter alone that would be a better transporter than Future Lynx, but wouldn’t be my choice for a Puma replacement.
It does amaze me that Puma upgrades are being considered given that most of its operators are shifting to the NH-90. Helicopter procurement should be a serious issue for the UK armed forces with no restrictions from budget cuts, especially with what is going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. A sizeable order of NH-90s or similar helicopters for the future should be a bigger priority than any other equipment buys (other than fixed-wing airlift).
MickHmmm…. As the comments say at the bottom, nothing has officially been announced as yet. Never heard of the Malaysian Sun until now and would wonder how such they would be able to break such a story compared to CNN or other mainstream news sources who have closer contact with the Pentagon or USAF than some free Malaysian rag.
MickWell it looks like that there will be no announcement as yet. According to early news reports, the US Defence Acquisition Board spent two hours discussing it, but made no public announcement. So the wait goes on.
MickI take it you mean ZA469’s tail paint scheme. There’s quite alot of photos on sites like JetPhotos.Net and Aviation Photos with contact e-mail addresses of the photographers:
http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?regsearch=ZA469&view=true
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=ZA469&distinct_entry=true
There’s also air-to-air pics in the possession of RAF Marham:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafmarham/newsweather/raftornado25years.cfm
Mickyou guys are thinking in the tactical sense….if a strategic coup can be achieved by satisfying the puppet master than all else is possible. NATO, EU, nor the US will not sign with Kosovo any form of mutual defense pacts due to its high risk of confrontation with Russia, so if you want things done regarding UN you must satisfy Serbia’s masters. Any fledging country that wanted long term peace must have UN support one way or the other, currently Kosovo doesn’t. Any weapon is actually useless because it can’t keep quiet the threat within. Hence, buy Russian. Nobody is saying they buy anything with real effective defense value (6 Su27s, 20 T-90s, etc…)…this is not Iraq nor Afghanistan where Russia and China are at least overtly indifferent.
Ignoring the political fall-out from Kosovo’s independence, with I think everyones answers are based on the event that nothing else develops in regards to the current position of Serbia or Russia, Partnership for Peace is a completely different thing to any mutual defence pact and something that Serbia is already signed up to. It’s supposed to enhance co-operation between NATO and other coutries, which is already happening given that there are about 16,000 troops under NATO’s command already in Kosovo. It doesn’t mean NATO membership or guarantees of strategic support. The same if the EU signed an economic agreement with Kosovo, it doesn’t mean that Kosovo is about to become the 28th member of the EU.
Futhermore, the Western world, mostly the EU, is already financing Kosovo’s economic development and reconstruction and is likely to be the only body other than NATO that provide equipment and training for a Kosovan military force. As far as the UN goes, it’s mandate in Kosovo will end soon once the place gets independence. Once (or if every country can agree) the UN recognises Kosovo as an independent state, it’s role will be less important (unless there are major problems) with political control transferring to the Kosovans as well as a new EU civilian security mission that’s in the planning. That’ll leave two organisations in the newly-independent country, the EU and NATO. Buying military equipment directly from Russia to calm the situation down, if you like, is not going to be of much worth, other than a limited political gesture.
MickSu-27s, tanks and air defence systems. Impossible. As an independent state, Kosovo will be the poorest nation in Europe with an annual GDP of 2.5 billion euros, which won’t give them much of a defence budget. Current spending on the KPC amounts to 17 million euros annually. Peanuts for a military force. Anything procured will have to come from elsewhere as a free gift. I think the EU and NATO are already talking about arming (and no doubt training) the fledgling KSF once its formed, but it’s likely to be small arms, light artillery (mortars), APCs and of course, a few helicopters.
MickAccording to the website of the Protection Corps they already have a Air Unit consisting of light and medium helicopters. Does anyone have more information about equipment and state?
I think that’s more a statement of intent, with the structures in place ready for a proper helicopter/aviation unit. Notice also that there are two pics at the bottom showing para gliders rather than any helicopters.
Incidentally, under the terms of the Kosovo Status Settlement, which will be moreorless what will be introduced now that Kosovo has declared its independence, the KPC will disband (within a year) following the reformation of an army-type force, to be known as the “Kosovo Security Force”, composed of several thousand personnel. I would guess then that the “70th Helicopters Squadron” or the Skuadrila 70 e Helikopterëve might become more of a reality.
MickIs there any info out on how much Britain alone paid for their lease ?
Cheers for that info, makes a bit more sense what is going on up there in regards to Sweden’s future defence budget.
The lease for four C-17s for the RAF for a period of seven years from mid-2001 was put at about £785 million (US$1.5 billion current prices or about SEK9.7 billion).
Sign In
