Joint Strike Fighter
NOTE: This is not a "breaking news" post. It's more a place where I can dump some links I gather and record some notes about an important transatlantic military project: the Joint Strike Fighter.
Basically, the JSF is the name of a military plane being developed primarily by the US and the UK, but on a lower level are Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, and Canada. On an even lower level are Israel and Singapore. The fighter is expected to replace most of the US and UK fighters by 2013.
It's been in the news recently because the Americans apparently aren't planning on releasing the source code for the plane to any of the partners - even our old buds, the Brits, who are putting more than $2 billion into the project. It's worth noting, though, that the project is expected to cose $256 billion (that is not a typo), so the British are contributing relatively little compared to the Americans. Regardless, the UK plans a $12 billion jet order once they're ready, so they'd also like access to the information that will let them maintain it. And so, the British are threatening to leave the project. Australia expresses similar concerns.
EU Referendum, your one-stop shop for UK-based Euroskeptic news, has been all over this topic, both recently and more generally, such as last August when the blog explored European military cooperation since the 1998 St. Malo summit.
Americans are being optimistic, of course, that the issues will be worked out soon. By June, anyway.
For the most part, this deal has been off the radar (if you will) of the American media. The Christian Science Monitor tries to get Americans interested in the subject with the provocative headline: "Joint Strike Fighter: next Dubai ports deal?" That's just what we need.
The unusually international way in which this piece of equipment is being funded, and then sold, is not the only source of controversy. Other issues include safety concerns, the usual complaints about inefficient military spending (cost of each aircraft has already climbed 28 percent), and delays in the timeline. (Note added April 1: The Eurofighter was recently released, 6 billion British pounds over budget and about 15 years after the end of the Cold War - the fight it was built to fight. No foolin'. ) The DOD might be glad at least to have critics upset about any plane other than the V-22 Osprey, which experienced four fatal crashes in a decade, notably killing 23 Marines in 2000. The plane justifiably garnered some critics, from Marine officers to the Cato Institute. In 2005, after 20 years of trying, the Marines re-released the Osprey and it seems to be doing OK.
Oh, a bit more of a tangent on the Osprey: This retired Air Force colonel suggests that the Osprey had simply replaced the Harrier as the Marines' "widow maker" (One third of the US military's Harriers were lost in peacetime crashes, killing 45 pilots.) Hopefully the JSF will be designed well enough that it never receives such a title.
Basically, the JSF is the name of a military plane being developed primarily by the US and the UK, but on a lower level are Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, and Canada. On an even lower level are Israel and Singapore. The fighter is expected to replace most of the US and UK fighters by 2013.
It's been in the news recently because the Americans apparently aren't planning on releasing the source code for the plane to any of the partners - even our old buds, the Brits, who are putting more than $2 billion into the project. It's worth noting, though, that the project is expected to cose $256 billion (that is not a typo), so the British are contributing relatively little compared to the Americans. Regardless, the UK plans a $12 billion jet order once they're ready, so they'd also like access to the information that will let them maintain it. And so, the British are threatening to leave the project. Australia expresses similar concerns.
EU Referendum, your one-stop shop for UK-based Euroskeptic news, has been all over this topic, both recently and more generally, such as last August when the blog explored European military cooperation since the 1998 St. Malo summit.
Americans are being optimistic, of course, that the issues will be worked out soon. By June, anyway.
For the most part, this deal has been off the radar (if you will) of the American media. The Christian Science Monitor tries to get Americans interested in the subject with the provocative headline: "Joint Strike Fighter: next Dubai ports deal?" That's just what we need.
The unusually international way in which this piece of equipment is being funded, and then sold, is not the only source of controversy. Other issues include safety concerns, the usual complaints about inefficient military spending (cost of each aircraft has already climbed 28 percent), and delays in the timeline. (Note added April 1: The Eurofighter was recently released, 6 billion British pounds over budget and about 15 years after the end of the Cold War - the fight it was built to fight. No foolin'. ) The DOD might be glad at least to have critics upset about any plane other than the V-22 Osprey, which experienced four fatal crashes in a decade, notably killing 23 Marines in 2000. The plane justifiably garnered some critics, from Marine officers to the Cato Institute. In 2005, after 20 years of trying, the Marines re-released the Osprey and it seems to be doing OK.
Oh, a bit more of a tangent on the Osprey: This retired Air Force colonel suggests that the Osprey had simply replaced the Harrier as the Marines' "widow maker" (One third of the US military's Harriers were lost in peacetime crashes, killing 45 pilots.) Hopefully the JSF will be designed well enough that it never receives such a title.
posted by bp at
7:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home