US arms contractors worried about the EU?

[Juubi Karakuchi]

There is a particular online article I have been trying to track down for some time (I think it was from the New York Times). In this article, US arms contractors criticized European weapons projects, claiming that American weapons (ie, their own products) were cheaper and superior, and that European countries would be better off buying these. In the same article, however, the Pentagon scoffed at this claim, insisting that the contractors were merely unaccustomed to competition. Does anyone else know this article?

Actually, looking up on some European arms projects, I wouldn't be surprised if US contractors were concerned. Some of the items under development are superior to their present US equivalents in some respects. For example, the Iris-T missile is supposedly faster (Mach 3) and longer-ranged (25km approx) than the Sidewinder while fulfilling the same role (mach 2.5 and 18 km respectively). I was surprised to read about the PARS 3 LR anti-tank missile, with a 6km range (extendable to 8km). I was even more surprised to see how many of these new weapons were coming out of nice, peace-loving Germany (strictly-speaking MBDA).

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/r ... age_id=281

http://www.diehl-bgt.de/index.php?id=561&L=1
(hope these links work)

It's no great surprise that these weapons would be superior, since these are recent developments being compared to American weapons that have been around for some time. Still, this could cost the US contractors customers, and has already done so if the Airbus controversy is anything to go by.

I would be greatful if someone knew the article I mentioned, since this case is largely predicated on it. I would be interested to hear any of your thoughts.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Apologies, just checked diehl bgt link. It contains no useful quantifications. MBDA does though.

[Kanastrous]

Just came across an anecdote regarding a pair of F-22s that found themselves locked-up at distressingly long range by a Eurofighter while doing range work, here in the US. I'll see if I can find it.

[MKSheppard]

Just came across an anecdote regarding a pair of F-22s that found themselves locked-up at distressingly long range by a Eurofighter while doing range work, here in the US. I'll see if I can find it.

You mean like the F-22 "gun kill" by a F-18 which was pulling impossibly hard gees; so hard that it was impossible to fire the gun?

[Sea Skimmer]

There is a particular online article I have been trying to track down for some time (I think it was from the New York Times). In this article, US arms contractors criticized European weapons projects, claiming that American weapons (ie, their own products) were cheaper and superior, and that European countries would be better off buying these. n the same article, however, the Pentagon scoffed at this claim, insisting that the contractors were merely unaccustomed to competition. Does anyone else know this article?

No, but its perfectly true that European companies can make very good weapons, while US weapon do tend to be cheaper because the US militaries buys them first, and in bulk so all development costs and production startup costs are paid off by the time someone buys them for export. However it cannot be doubted that the US is head and shoulders above everyone else in designing top end weapons. Just look no further then the radar on the Typhoon, which so outdated it still has to use mechanical scanning, while the set on F-22 can do things no radar could do before, like act as a datalink and a jammer.

Actually, looking up on some European arms projects, I wouldn't be surprised if US contractors were concerned. Some of the items under development are superior to their present US equivalents in some respects. For example, the Iris-T missile is supposedly faster (Mach 3) and longer-ranged (25km approx) than the Sidewinder while fulfilling the same role (mach 2.5 and 18 km respectively).

Iris-T is a nice missile because its all brand new. AIM-9X reused the body, warhead and rocket motor of the older AIM-9M and dropped in a new guidance and control system, saving a great deal of money. The real future in any case, is a missile controlled completely via thrust vectoring (we actually tried to developed one all the way back in the 70s) so that you can pack a bunch of them into the internal weapons bays of the F-22 and F-35.

I was surprised to read about the PARS 3 LR anti-tank missile, with a 6km range (extendable to 8km). I was even more surprised to see how many of these new weapons were coming out of nice, peace-loving Germany (strictly-speaking MBDA).

Why are you surprised about that missile? Its impressive in zero ways. Hellfire can and does reach 8km and it entered production in 1982! What’s more its now been developed to have multiple warheads and guidance systems with thousands of rounds expended in combat successfully. Both projects you have mentioned BTW, are not purely German products, they got funded and developed by several NATO members in concert. That means they all have to agree on any and all export sales. The US senate can be damn annoying in approving export sales, but at least that’s only one legislative body to deal with.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/r ... age_id=281

So your impressed by a corporate propaganda page? Its such utter nonsense, they claim a fire and forgot missile is ‘trailblazing’ when the missile is not even in service (slated for 2010) while meanwhile the US had a fire and forgot Hellfire version using all weather radar guidance in service in 1998! The man portable fire and forget Javelin ATGM with infrared guidance like PARS 3 entered service in 1997. So its taking Europe over an extra decade to sort of match US anti tank capabilities. Meanwhile the Tiger attack helicopter that will carry the things is a piece of carbon fiber crap, and only marginally cheaper then the Apache which has twice the armament.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Of course its propaganda, but I have f**k-all else to work with. The biggest single problem I have in making an analysis is in trying to figure out who is telling the truth (provisional answer, none of them).

I did not for one moment intend to claim that European arms are outstripping the US or anyone else. At best they are catching up (and whether they ever will is subject to debate).

I was surprised about the PARS because I didn't know it existed. These projects are not all that well publicized. I also thought the comment about Germany might amuse, but so it goes.

[Kanastrous]

Just came across an anecdote regarding a pair of F-22s that found themselves locked-up at distressingly long range by a Eurofighter while doing range work, here in the US. I'll see if I can find it.

You mean like the F-22 "gun kill" by a F-18 which was pulling impossibly hard gees; so hard that it was impossible to fire the gun?

Haven't heard about that particular claim, but here's Jon Lake's text from International Air Power Review, Vol. 20 p 45...

"Though still a relatively immature platform, Typhoon has already proved to be a hard opponent to beat, so that when a two-seat trainer was bounced by two F-15s during an operational conversion sortee, the Typhoon pilot was easily able to outmaneuver his assailants and position himself for a simulated "kill" against both. More recently, there have been repeated reports that two RAF Typhoons deployed to the USA for OEU trials work have been flying against the F-22 at NAS China Lake, and have performed better than was expected. There was little surprise that Typhoon, with its world-class agility and high off-boresight missile capability was able to dominate the "Within Visual Range" fight, but the aircraft did cause a surprise by getting a radar lock on the F-22 at a surprisingly long range. The F-22s reportedly cried off, claiming that they were 'unstealthed' anyway, although the next day's scheduled two versus two BVR engagement was cancelled, and 'the USAF decided they didn't want to play any more.' When this incident was reported on a website frequented by front-line RAF aircrew a senior RAF officer urged an end to the conversation on security grounds."


Salt to taste.

[The Guid]

Sometimes European competitors can make better stuff by merit of having fewer resources. For example when the US and UK collaberated on nucular weapons, the fact that the UK had less budget to play with had meant that their detonation systems were more precise and so there was something to say for theirs not being totally inferior.

I imagine this is something similar with US companies refusing to admit that there could be anything inferior with theirs, when for the most part they are right but there may be some exceptions

[Juubi Karakuchi]

It was the Airbus controversy that really caught my attention. In "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic", Chalmers Johnson makes claims of an 'Iron triangle' consisting of the Pentagon, the contractors, and the US government. It seems like an old chestnut, as old as the 'military-industrial complex', but the Airbus issue gave the impression that the Pentagon and the contractors don't get on all that well any more (even though EADS is actually only subcontracting to Northrop-Grumman).

Finding good info is tough. Might a Jane's subscription be worthwhile?

[Starglider]

Just look no further then the radar on the Typhoon, which so outdated it still has to use mechanical scanning, while the set on F-22 can do things no radar could do before, like act as a datalink and a jammer.

Like just about everything to do with the Typhoon, that's not so much absent as horribly, horribly late. I recall reading an article claiming that the existing radar was a stopgap and that a proper phased array one would be installed in the 'tranche 3' planes (i.e. in 2010), but I don't know if that's still on schedule or how its capability compares to the F-22's radar.

[Wanderer]

It was the Airbus controversy that really caught my attention. In "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic", Chalmers Johnson makes claims of an 'Iron triangle' consisting of the Pentagon, the contractors, and the US government. It seems like an old chestnut, as old as the 'military-industrial complex', but the Airbus issue gave the impression that the Pentagon and the contractors don't get on all that well any more (even though EADS is actually only subcontracting to Northrop-Grumman).

Finding good info is tough. Might a Jane's subscription be worthwhile?

Try ACIG.org. Register on the Forum and prepare to be blown away with a wealth of knowledge concerning wars and equipment from around the world with no wanking of capabilities. Tom Cooper has no time for idiots or sensationalists, he allows only hard facts and official documents. He can also point you in the right direction with his many connections.

Also you'll get lots of nice pictures for desk top themes and banners

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Try ACIG.org. Register on the Forum and prepare to be blown away with a wealth of knowledge concerning wars and equipment from around the world with no wanking of capabilities. Tom Cooper has no time for idiots or sensationalists, he allows only hard facts and official documents. He can also point you in the right direction with his many connections.

Also you'll get lots of nice pictures for desk top themes and banners

You have my thanks, good Master. [/quote]

[Sea Skimmer]

Like just about everything to do with the Typhoon, that's not so much absent as horribly, horribly late. I recall reading an article claiming that the existing radar was a stopgap and that a proper phased array one would be installed in the 'tranche 3' planes (i.e. in 2010), but I don't know if that's still on schedule or how its capability compares to the F-22's radar.

It wasn’t meant to be a stopgap, it just became one thanks to the long delays of the program. The new AMSAR radar is expected to be ready in 2011 (a mere six years late), in time to be fitted to most tranche 3 aircraft. However it remains to be seen if tranche 3 will even happen in its full form, many features are still not funded, and if previous aircraft will be extensively upgraded or not.

[Sidewinder]

So your impressed by a corporate propaganda page? Its such utter nonsense, they claim a fire and forgot missile is ‘trailblazing’ when the missile is not even in service (slated for 2010) while meanwhile the US had a fire and forgot Hellfire version using all weather radar guidance in service in 1998! The man portable fire and forget Javelin ATGM with infrared guidance like PARS 3 entered service in 1997. So its taking Europe over an extra decade to sort of match US anti tank capabilities. Meanwhile the Tiger attack helicopter that will carry the things is a piece of carbon fiber crap, and only marginally cheaper then the Apache which has twice the armament.

I think a big problem the European arms manufacturers have is that the EU is NOT a "United States of Europe," and many of its member states spend money to develop their own systems, e.g., the French with the Leclerc tank, the Germans with the Leopard 2, the Brits with the Challenger 2, the Italians with the Ariete, etc. The US military, however, tries to standardize its systems (with varying levels of success, e.g., F-4 Phantom II versus F-111 Aardvark), so its R & D budget is spent in a more focused manner.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I think a big problem the European arms manufacturers have is that the EU is NOT a "United States of Europe," and many of its member states spend money to develop their own systems, e.g., the French with the Leclerc tank, the Germans with the Leopard 2, the Brits with the Challenger 2, the Italians with the Ariete, etc. The US military, however, tries to standardize its systems (with varying levels of success, e.g., F-4 Phantom II versus F-111 Aardvark), so its R & D budget is spent in a more focused manner.

Of course they tried to consolidate their own manufacturing. But with different countries, there's different interests, strategic problems, and also different lobbies to placate.

Of course America is one big country so of course it's easier to even standardise anything or achieve production efficiency.

[K. A. Pital]

You mean the US leads with cutting edge artillery systems too? I thought the PzH 2000 and the Msta are greatly superior to whatever the US wants... that F.C.S. something, or carboard boxes.

[Sidewinder]

You mean the US leads with cutting edge artillery systems too? I thought the PzH 2000 and the Msta are greatly superior to whatever the US wants... that F.C.S. something, or carboard boxes.

The US Army had a self-propelled howitzer more advanced than the PzH2000, i.e., the XM2001 Crusader. Rumsfeld canceled that project, so the Army is stuck with the long obsolete M109 series until the FCS Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon enters production (assuming it ever enters production).

[K. A. Pital]

The NLOS-C was extensively discussed in the HAB. It's specs make it look inadequate compared to modern artillery, especially the last-line ones (PzH 2000, Msta-S upgraded and the Coalition-SV) and somewhat comparable to ages old SPHs...

[Beowulf]

You mean the US leads with cutting edge artillery systems too? I thought the PzH 2000 and the Msta are greatly superior to whatever the US wants... that F.C.S. something, or carboard boxes.

Of course we do. It's called a F-16.