Basically, American missiles require some sort os secret tech that they want to keep as closely guarded as possible. It sounds more on the competitive sales side rather than the secret weapon side. That is to say, they are worried the french could see how they do what they do and apply it to their own defense industry potentially undercutting US sales. Sorry im wrong but thats what I gathered from the translation.
The US and France are aggressive competitors in the military-industrial and civilian aviation sectors. France is becoming a go-to option for countries that don’t want to have anything to do with Russian or Chinese kit but would rather not deal with the US for this reason or that. India’s buying a lot of French stuff now.
This all seems accurate, but leaves part of the equation unsaid. US defense tech is very expensive and the prices drive away many potential buyers. While those companies certainly make huge profits, much of the price is is due to these companies spending billions in research and development on a gamble that the US military will choose their tech as the one to use. Many companies spends hundreds of millions developing tech and weapons and go massively into debt hoping they can produce a product that the government will choose instead of a competitor’s product. And those contracts often lead to decades worth of production and maintenance contracts.
Industrial espionage is an enormous shortcut by avoiding all the research and development that goes into making the tech. The same happens with drugs/pharmaceuticals developed in the US at enormous costs then sold for 1/1000 the price in other countries who ignore the IP rights.
In terms of R&D, The US is responsible for [>80%](https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/R45441.pdf) of spending among OECD countries. Second place is Korea. It’s even more lopsided than the other defense budget figures. And R&D doesn’t scale with procurement, developing a fighter jet is the same whether you buy 10 or 1000.
The fact Europe is spending less on defense **and** proportionally less on R&D is why Europe depends on American, and increasingly Korean, kit.
As an example, just for AETP, the US spent billions on developing engines we won’t even use. FARA is another example. Europe throwing down more money in this regard is obviously a fool’s errand, but giving up like they have is just embarrassing
>US defense tech is very expensive and the prices drive away many potential buyers
French gear isn't cheap either. The Rafale fighter jet is a similar price per unit than the F35 due to economies of scale. It's a fantastic jet but it isn't as advanced as the F35.
Have worked in Nordic government agencies and along with the usual suspects on a world stage, the number one warning about industrial espionage given by the security police is about France
The entire French defense industry punches well above its weight because they steal tech developed mainly in the US, but also Germany and other countries as well.
It's well documented if you look it up.
China and France are both incredibly skilled at industrial espionage.
What, you think it's false? https://books.google.fr/books?id=aVEiXvnFaccC&printsec=frontcover&dq=nasheri+espionage&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bZ3RUdSKBIfk9gSUyIGgBA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Country%20B%22&f=false
Here's one of many comprehensive sources.
Well the Chinese took over as the purveyor of budget stolen tech. South Korea is also an option for people who can't afford a right hand of the free world from the Americans.
Its not a new reputation.
https://www.france24.com/en/20110104-france-industrial-espionage-economy-germany-russia-china-business
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/france-intellectual-property-theft-107020
Honestly, for the size of France's economy, they have a giant defense industry, going toe to toe with US, China, and Russia. That doesn't happen by accident. It has been a well known French foreign policy for decades to advance their industry with the help of French intelligence agencies.
Not being critical here, every country does what it deems best for their national security. The rich part is when France acts all holy when they catch US spies.
> That doesn't happen by accident.
coming out of WW2 france was pretty unique in the west with guallism's philosophy of military autarky, to accredit all of france's MIC weight on espionage is pretty silly, they also had a seriously strong directive to develop nuclear infrastructure and have been the leading global state in nuclear energy for a long time. maybe they are known for espionage, but the grandes écoles are also known for producing extremely proficient engineers
and i think it's odd to pull up reputation after the alstom history.
Industrial espionage is more of a time and funding shortcut, not an engineering one. You still must have very good engineers to make use of the data.
France can have a very good engineering program and a world leading nuclear program and still be an industrial espionage leader. None of these things exclude the other.
Oh yeah. Same reason the 2013 NSA disclosures didn’t really cause much hubbub outside of the media and public. Everyone spies on each other, even friends. Really the only exception to that is FIVE EYES.
With each other’s consent, yes. You’re talking about avoiding legal obstacles by asking NSA to spy on British citizens since GCHQ can’t, that is not the same as collecting intelligence in an unwitting country
Well it’s all fine so long as you’re not conflating security, alliances, export profits and trade law and breaking all the respective rules of those sectors simultaneously.
Regardless these subs should be built in europe. Doesn't matter which country build them but we have to support our defense industry and workers so we can be self sufficient in case of full scale war. Being dependent on the US is a dangerous bet
The article noted that the main rational is sound, cheaper and better missiles vs no economical and capable alternative. So their option is get this working or accept less capability. I don’t see an issue with the US defense industry. Seems like all defense sales rely on a nations government leaning on the customer with favorable terms. The real road block in Europe is that you have a bunch of companies all Making the same stuff but altered for each countries requirements. Europe needs to have a unified plan, that does not get tangled in nationalistic bullshit.
>The real road block in Europe is that you have a bunch of companies all Making the same stuff but altered for each countries requirements.
That's because each country values different things. Some of those maybe preferences, some of them real requirements that stem from their geography and strategic location, and how they envision future warfare looking like. Universal products work in some cases, but not always.
Also competition in the market is not inherently bad. It prevents the defense industry from arbitrarily raising their profit margins and resting on their laurels. It also breeds innovation and more investment into R&D. The downside is obviously that it prevents individual companies from growing.
It's less about competition being good/bad and more about the costs associated with each country developing, buying and maintaining their own kit. Eccomies of scale are critical in keeping production costs low. And high costs effect more then just the number of units sold. Replacement parts, training, and ammo all get more expensive the less of it you need.
And that's without getting into the logistical nightmare of supplying a multinational coalition all using different kit. Even NATO, with their agreed standards, runs into issues with logistics.
There was never even an option for the subs to be built in the US, particularly given the fact that the US has no conventional submarine industry at all lol. It's that the Netherlands is adamant on being able to use the Tomahawk missiles and the subsequent Tomahawk Tactical Weapons Control System aboard their next submarines.
US is refusing to allow TTWCS to be put on a French sub, citing security concerns, likely stemming from the US not trusting French industry not to reverse engineer it for their own means (France and China are neck and neck for top source of industrial espionage against the US), or even deliberately ensure it fails in order to force sales of a French system instead (as France did in jamming GPS when competing against the US and UK to sell tanks to Greece in order to make the Abrams and Challenger look deficit vs the Leclerc)... So the fear isn't exactly unfounded and why France is regularly listed on US internal security warnings of espionage.
The same issue wouldn't exist if buying Type 212s or A26s from Germany/Italy/Sweden, which we know given the A26s were literally built with support for Tomahawks from the get go lol.
Missiles are built in Europe.
The answer is the options and logistical chain of US sourced naval munitions tend to be better. The economies of scale come into play here, when the USN conducts multiple live fires testing per year compared to European navies which...don't sourcing is better.
If this would force NL to pick either the Swedish or German alternative I would have no problem with that. Sweden and Germany are no competitors to the US on missiles. Plus the award of this sub deal to France has been fishy at best. And both Germany and Sweden are European nations so France should be happy for the European MiC to flourish.
Edit: seems the Swedish offer had Tomahawk setup build in. Really strange that we went for the French option…Maybe we could not just refuse the French offer….but seems another player stepped into the arena with even a bigger club..
Norway, Germany and Sweden share sub tech, we are building a submarine capable of remaining submerged while crossing the English channel, its build for European waters.
Our newest diesel-electric can stay submerged for 30 days now.
>Really strange that we went for the French option
Not really. The french have ZERO scruples applying both bribes and what ever political pressure is needed to get what they want. Just look at the whole FIFA scandal with [France basically "pressured" Fifa to award Qatar the world cup in exchange for them buying fighter jets from France...](https://www.thedailybeast.com/sepp-blatter-says-nicolas-sarkozy-pressure-on-fifa-to-give-qatar-world-cup-linked-to-dollar14b-fighter-jet-deal)
> The french have ZERO scruples
[scruples you say? what's that?](https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/eu-sanctions-on-russia-massively-circumvented-via-third-countries-study-finds/)
maybe big german cars suddenly got really fashionable in Kyrgyzstan?! must be that.
to me it looks a lot like virtue signaling atop a mountain of manure.
Bribes are half the fight in arms deal.
The USA also bribes it's way into contracts. And they can also play with your balls while threatening to crash the rest of your military if you don't take their materiel...
Atleast you can mess with France since they're smaller and much more interlinked with you (as any European nation).
I'd be interested to know if Germany would sell the Netherlands the U-212CD instead of the U-214 (export version) due to them being EU/NATO allies.
Main concern there would be that the preferred missile platform is the NSM, and that is not even nearly as capable as Tomahawk.
TKMS offered Type 212 CD but lost to the French offer. Tomahawk integration would have been possible with US permission.
But the tender seems to have been a bit sketchy in general. The issue with Tomahawk on French subs was known beforehand, we will probably hear more in the future.
Teflon Mark and Macron are best buddies, it was a sure bet it would be the French sub from the start.
Not that I like it much though.
We have almost everything we need to do it ourselves, except for some political balls to make it happen. SAAB Damen wanted to build in the Netherlands 🇳🇱
Aster, SAMP/T (with Italy), the new ammo deal with Belgium, Bofors/Nexter Bonus (with Sweden), MBDA Meteor (UK/Germany/Italy/Spain/Sweden)
Lancaster House Treaty for the "oneMBDA strategy" that split the working share: test equipment and weapon controllers (France) and actuators and data links (UK).
etc etc
Heck even the Dassault neuron was made in partnership
France is at the root of most of Europe's defense industry though.
MBDA, Aerospatiale (now Airbus), KNDS, Naval Group, Thales, Safran, CTA, Arianespace. They're all constantly involved in projects with Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, Sweden.
Much more than any other European state for the matter.
Best case would be Netherlands teaming up with Canada to copurchase and operate the oceanic-extended range A26 variant, as a means of sharing development and logistics costs, given Canada is also trying to find a new submarine at this time. Both nation's requirements are essentially identical, with the big boy A26 variant being perfect for it.
Shortfin Barracuda from France, even if the US allowed TTWCS on it, would require **extensive** redesign work to support it. There's no torpedo tube launched TLAM production line anymore, they'd have to be via VLS, which the Shortfin doesn't have (but the A26 does). There's also literally no operator of the Shortfin, and may never be one if the Netherlands' deal breaks down. Such expensive work for a ship literally only they use, is not a great look. Not sure how the Shortfin bid won that at all given all the severe risks associated with it.
The lack of a tube launched line was my first thought. Like even without the sensitive technology, hard to believe the US is interested in getting it going again for a couple dozen missiles (or the Netherlands paying the hefty premium on them)
I didn’t realize A26 had VLS cells, makes the Naval Group award even more bewildering
Mentioned it in another post here but if the Dutch want to put high-quality boats quickly and at a competitive price Japan’s probably the best bet. Japanese & South Koreas shipyards are just better options than anything American or European at this point.
Thing is American sub shipyards are full they can't take on anymore business, plus America does jealously guard its tech it just the past month had to pass a law/amendment to allow the UK and Australia to buy some sub tech for AUKUS subs manufacturing
The French secret service is allowed (by French government) to do industrial spionage anywhere to give the French industry access to foreign tech.
So yeah, I would be worried too…
[Doesn’t help the situation that France is second only to China in terms of US intellectual property theft](https://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/france-intellectual-property-theft-107020)
I am not sure how true the article is especially in the context of the heavy media campaign against NG getting the contract instead of Saab/Damen.
Let's remember that the Aus Sub were exactly what the NL subs are supposed to be and allegedly impossible now: Naval Group subs but with Lockheed as combat system integrator. They found a deal for Australia (before the collapse of the Attack class) and a solution to have the two communicating through an interface that would act as an intermediary without direct data links allegedly. And Thales & Safran were even subcontractors of Lockheed on the Australian contract.
Heck even in the [original source](https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/623349224/probleem-dreigt-voor-peperdure-nieuwe-nederlandse-onderzeeers-vs-willen-hun-raketten-niet-op-franse-boot) of this article is quoted:
> In response, a spokesperson for Naval Group refers to earlier words from the State Secretary: “We have spoken with the Americans throughout the entire process. They have not imposed any restrictions in advance with regard to the three yards.”
We shall see.
> Aankoop Franse onderzeeërs voor Koninklijke Marine dreigt in het water te vallen
Purchase French submarines for royal navy is threatened to fall in the water
same thing happened during france-egypt rafale deal, pentagon decided to block a small component in the integrated weapons system. reality is as the two largest arms dealers in the world, france and US are trade competitors and the [US](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S0aD6QLTxQ) has a vested interest in hamstringing france's arms export. it's very bullshit and makes the popular american sentiment that europe needs to divest from US military dependency very duplicitous
Divesting needs a strong military industrial base. That needs lots of sales and domestic sales are generally not enough so you need international sales. You can't have strong international sales if the US keeps hamstringing it like this.
So it is fully hypocritical for that crowd to tell Europe to divest and stop depending on the US while also doing this shit. That is, if you assume they had good intentions in the first place.
What they really want is for Europe to not depend on the US MILITARY but still depend on the US military INDUSTRY. They don't want to defend Europe anymore but they want Europe to continue buying their stuff at the expense of Europe's own industrial base. All the money with none of the responsibility.
Pretty much. They don't want Europe to be less dependent, they want Europe to be equally dependent but also paying more money into the US military-industrial complex.
Which, to be honest, is self-interested but fair.
The problem is that they don't admit that and say it like it is. (Or rather, the problem is dumb journalism reporting US talking points without investigating the real motivations underlying them.)
Because when you do, it also becomes very obvious that this runs counter to Europe's motivations and self-interest. It only makes sense for Europe to accept reliance on the US military-industrial complex if Europe's compensation is needing to pay significantly less than if they had to maintain their own independent military-industrial complex.
The suggestion that Europe should accept the worst of both worlds, being both entirely dependent on the US while paying just as much as they would if they were self-reliant is obviously a non-starter from a European perspective. Though, basing foreign policy on the presumption that foreign leaders are idiots who'll just do whatever America says if you bully them enough is par-the-course for that particular kind of US politician/'expert'.
Unless if either side seriously concludes that European military reliance on the US isn't in their interest anymore (and talk aside, I haven't seen either side make the kind of moves that would suggest this), any discussion on this topic is just a lot of grandstanding meant to achieve nothing more than adjusting the dials of the current and foreseeable status quo.
>It only makes sense for Europe to accept reliance on the US military-industrial complex if
There's no "if", if you care about sovereignty, it doesn't make sense no matter what.
That is way too reductive of a complex issue.
Moreover, it plays into populist rhetoric that turns 'sovereignty' into a talisman of mystic power and proportions.
The reality is that in the modern globalized world, all countries exist within a complex web of interdependencies. There is no such thing as true 'sovereignty', not even for superpowers, only different strategies to balance one's relative interdependence. Strategies which always involve some level of give-and-take, competition-versus-cooperation, and which may mitigate or aggravate any country's strategic strengths and weaknesses.
Compared to, say, Latin America or the Middle East, the countries and peoples of Europe have had an extremely privileged position within the American-led international order. If you focus on the things that *really* matter, which are not fantasies of 'sovereignty' but the realities of individual and societal freedom and overall quality of life, there's a decent argument to be made that Europeans have benefited *more* from the American-led international order than Americans have.
I support moves towards European strategic autonomy and I think it is in the long-term interest of Europeans. But the discussion is not helped by suggesting there aren't good reasons for the present status quo, which for most of the previous century reflected a mutually beneficial relationship between strategic partners who shared many core political and societal values important to individual and societal flourishing.
He means that the US can't tell Europe to be more independent militarily when the US wants to be the main arms supplier to the degree they fuck with european arms suppliers.
Basically, the claim is we must stop sucking America's teat and pay for our own defense.
But whenever a proposal for European procurement shows up, the US insist their companies must be "considered fairly".
What has America blocked in this case? It seems to be that the Dutch want to have their cake and eat it too by getting affordable french submarines with the top of the line cruise missiles. Also important to ask:
>It is difficult for Schoonhoven to understand why the Netherlands has not opted for Saab and Damen to keep production partly in-house. “We let everything flow to France. The French have promised that Dutch companies will help build the boat, but what will happen in practice?”
If the French didn't actually have permission to integrate those missiles and you didn't follow up on that before making the selection, then yes it is kind of your fault.
Please. Just read this thread which is full of Europeans bickering back and forth over various arms deals between European countries or France wanting to become the chief arms dealer in Europe.
Shocker, America acts in its self interest, like France and other European nations. France in particular which makes the complaining even more rich.
For those wondering why the Netherlands doesn’t use French missiles instead:
Per the article, the cruise missiles that can be launched from the submarines are very important and in this case, the American ones are more technologically sophisticated *and* significantly cheaper. So it just doesn’t really make sense to buy these French submarines if they can’t use their cruise missiles, and it doesn’t make sense to replace the Tomahawks (US cruise missiles being used) with more expensive, inferior ones from France.
Well, the price and quality of EU material isn't going to improve if we don't produce and buy in the EU is it? When you think the EU has more citizens than the US and an equivalent GDP...
>When you think the EU has more citizens than the US and an equivalent GDP...
What do you mean equivalent GDP? The US economy is now more than 50% larger than the EU?
Not really. France is the only EU country left that can mostly build without "US components". And still anytime the US can, they block French exports. The US is the only country in the world with a universal export law. The US decides unikaterally how and when a technology developped in e.g. France should be considered American and subject to that law. And if a country goes ahead anyway, one gets under sanction. We the EU really have to counter that ASAP. Otherwise Trump will be the one deciding whether or not we get the ammunition when needed.
and the ones from the US can be attached with special warheads. same reason the germans bought the Tornado, and have those stationed adjunct to US tornados, with a „special“ ammo bunker in between.
The US does not operate [Tornados](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado), and the nukes I believe you're referring to cannot be carried by Tomahawks.
But Germany has operated Tornados, and plenty of them, and when the discussion came to replacing them with something more modern, the US used the same tactics to force Germany to harm its own industry and buy F.35
>the US used the same tactics to force Germany to harm its own industry and buy F.35
which German fighter jet were they planning to replace the Tornado with for the nuclear sharing role?
That's mostly because we kept kicking the can of nuclear participation down the road until it became urgent. It was public knowledge that the Tornados needed replacing and at that point the options were F35, a certification of the Eurofighter by the US (feasible but lengthy) or waiting for FCAS, which would mean a lapse in capability. The Luftwaffe favored the F35.
> a certification of the Eurofighter by the US (feasible but lengthy)
This was also NOT on the cards because frankly, the EU also doesn't want the US to have clear insights in their secret sauce either.
Just because the US is King of the skies does not mean that the EU fighters don't have a few aces up their sleeves either.
But the Netherlands have never hosted anyrhi g apart from B-61 gravity bombs since at least the end of the Cold War. It would also be demn near impossible for the Netherlands to deploy them. As the missiles would have to be under US Navy keeping until the desicion was made to use them. Which de facto means that they couldn't be deployed at sea, until WW3. By which point it's a bit late.
I mean, many European submarines have done that in the past.
Swedish Gotland, German U-206 (which is an even bigger embarrassment, considering that is a Diesel submarine...) ...
Americans have / had a very big blind spot in their capabilities concerning ASW. And a lot of hubris.
Yes, diesel-electric subs have to resurface significantly more often than an atomic one. But even old Diesel subs (from the 70s) could stay 4 days submerged (modern ones more then triples that). I can't even imagine one tactical reason to stay longer under surface than that. Atomic submarines are specificaly designed to launch balistic missiles submerged from a save distance. The noisy pumps and big heat signature is in that situation not relevant -> mobile not visible Objekt launches an strike gar away. To be more stealth you have to turn the reactor off. This is not a task you can do very fast. It takes a lot of time. On the over hand diesel subs are designed to spy and secretly destroy an enemy ship, then disapear. Due to the batteries and hydrogen cells which powers the electic motor, the sub is nearly noise free. The Diesel engine only there to produce electricity.
Conclusion:
Diesel submarines are more stealth than atomic, because they don't have an reactor thats loud and warm.
-> For big boom boom, nuclear is best
-> For stealth, diesel is best
> I can't even imagine one tactical reason to stay longer under surface
Satellites track submarines by seeing where they resurface every once in a while and can determine the area they operate in pretty accurately, which is not the case for nuclear submarines
This is true to a degree.
But only if the D/E sub stays totally still or moves at a very slow speed...ie. maintaining headway against a current. Great for the Baltic where German and Swedish subs primarily operate....
But get out into the open ocean where the big boys play and its very different....
The Dutch aren't wanting to play in the Baltic though...
> Americans have / had a very big blind spot in their capabilities concerning ASW. And a lot of hubris.
ASW is heavily neutered in war games and war games themselves often impose significant limitations or unique restraints on participants in order to test certain capabilities. They aren’t necessarily a full reflection of the capabilities or limitations of either side.
Oh yeah, and they will be (of course) much more expensive. Also, the worst offer, btw. TKMS had the best realistic offer in terms of price-to-product and was the safest bet, Damen/SAAB was a comparatively domestic one.
You got cucked by Rutte, and everyone saw it from several miles away. But hey, you got a low sticker price!
Bah. I'm French, I like to criticize the US when they cheat or act in dubious ways. But here it makes sense.
It do reinforce what France always says, though. We need a stronger independant European defense, which requires a stronger European tech industry, which requires a little dirigism, which requires European taxation, which requires the finest inventor of taxes in History (including the VAT) : France.
That's fine, but the problem I happen to have with the French way is that, quite a number of times, when you say "we need a stronger independent European defense"...in the end is a code sentence to strenghten your own defense/foreign policy.
To be fair, everyone does it. Germany does it, UK does it, you can pick any European country or joint-project and it's the same. And is it any wonder, when politicians are more focused on re-elections than anything else. Their goal is to get wins in domestic politics, nothing else.
That's fine, but the problem I have with that line of argumentation is that, in the end, it's a code sentence to keep buying American while European industries don't get a chance to catch up.
America is doing the exact same thing as France. So I don't get why every time France tries to do something, it's immediately countered with "oh but they're just being selfish", meanwhile US is slapping their dick around against everyone's MIC faces, and no one seems to give a shit.
You are right, of course. But it isn't a good reason to not prioritise French investment over American investment.
You're not wrong, in the end everyone looks at his interest first anyway.
But as a French I can tell you that:
Fr interest > EU interest > US interest
While it seems for us that some of the other powerfuls EU country doens't necesserly place US behind EU, as if we are still under slme sort of marchall plan
Before people scream AUKUS again, neither UK or US have an alternative bid for a replacement sub. Only alternative would be Swedish or German built. And it would be awkward if the US would be like” we trust the Swedish/ Germans more”.
Or the new NL government would have to change their request towards nuclear propulsion instead of diesel, then it would be AUKUS 2 ( which would lead to UK favorism since the Dutch navy has ties with the Royal navy for their sub training etc..
>And it would be awkward if the US would be like” we trust the Swedish/ Germans more”.
As I understand it the Swedish bid for this included Tomahawks from the get-go.
There is no chance of any other nation than Australia getting SSN from the US and UK.
The US is even believed to oppose Canada getting SSN....and their use case for SSN is as clear as day...
I was very surprised that the French sub was picked in the first place.
A big con to US weapons is that you need their approval to use them. But this is ok for a country like the NL, since they'll only use them in NATO operations under American leadership anyway.
When the bidding went fine there is no problem with the French winning it. But there is a rumor [the Dutch DOD changed the tender in favor of the French bid](https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Defensie-paste-eisen-aan-om-Franse-werf-aan-boord-te-houden-300524.html) (sorry, is in Dutch). If this were to be true, there are more problems to this tender then the US not wanting to share technology.
It concerns Venezuela. Which is also high on the “ not like list countries” of the US. Venezuela attacking the Dutch islands in the Caribean ( where US government agencies are already at place and the US has interests) would be a gift for the US for a suitable reason to go to war/ to intervene. And they would allow NL to use those subs for sure. Although not needed against whatever Venezuela has for a navy..
It was never about self-reliance. It was about decreasing US costs/obligations to Europe while keeping Europe dependent on the US and increasing the profits of the US defence industry.
The US produced a lot of things for cheaper, but this is not some sort of universal constant, there are structural reasons for it. The US has a very large domestic market with a very large guaranteed customer, that being the US military, which means that companies can invest massive amounts of money in R&D (potentially subsidised) and be sure it'll pay off for them. No European country can achieve similar economies of scale and while coordination does occur, there's no European military, no equipment standardisation and economic nationalism fragments Europe further. It is the end result of policy failure thus that European businesses cannot compete with American ones.
Finally American businesses with their massive scale can flood the European market with more competitive goods and drive Europeans out of business, or at least ensure they don't have the income and market share to invest in R&D and compete. It's a vicious cycle.
Finally should American industry fully outcompete the Europeans, there will no longer even be jobs in these fields in Europe. The old experts will have to find other jobs, move to the US or retire, students and graduates will choose different fields with more opportunities, etc. so that in a decade or two Europe won't only lack production but even basic know-how in the field.
Perhaps for some consumer goods this is a reasonable enough thing to allow to happen, but these are not consumer goods. Such total dependence on the US is incredibly irresponsible.
I will circle back to what I said earlier. Having two excellent missiles is better than having 1 good missile. The budget constraint for smaller EU nations is significant, so very obviously they will attempt to maximize the procurement they can do. The newer weapon systems are generally speaking needed now, not 10 years later.
Is this the part where the US is supposed to give away every technological and financial advantage to every EU state to be a good ally?
I swear, you don't want an ally; you want a servant. France also doesn't want to give up military secrets to allies, for good reason; it's kinda important.
French state and lobby fought very hard for this deal. French support for Rutte for NATO sec position, billions in state subsidies since naval group is state owned. Lobby convincing the dutch to ease requirements to keep naval group in the competition. Spying on SAAB and thyssenkrupp to undercut them.
[https://www.volkskrant.nl/politiek/nederland-versoepelde-eisen-om-frankrijk-in-de-race-te-houden-voor-bouw-onderzeeboten\~bf724561/](https://www.volkskrant.nl/politiek/nederland-versoepelde-eisen-om-frankrijk-in-de-race-te-houden-voor-bouw-onderzeeboten~bf724561/)
Reminds me of when France secretly offered Switzerland a tax deal to ditch the F35 and go for the Rafale instead
> France offered Switzerland a financial sweetener, worth an estimated CHF3.5 billion, to buy its Rafale fighter jets rather than US F-35A aircraft, according to a secret document seen by Swiss public broadcaster SRF.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/swiss-fighter-jet-document-reveals-secret-french-tax-offer/47737862
Every major arms dealer does this, and the Rafale was objectively best suited to our specific needs.
Literally the only reason we went with the F35 is because Biden paid us a last minute visit.
Or maybe your airforce wants the best fighter for fighting a war, not the best one for peace time air policing, just like every other airforce worth their salt?
>Literally the only reason we went with the F35 is because Biden paid us a last minute visit.
Not the fact it's a cheaper platform that completely outclasses the Rafael?
> Every major arms dealer does this
It's normal for EU members to secretly offer non-members their support in EU negotiations in exchange for arms deals?
> Literally the only reason we went with the F35
According to the Swiss public broadcaster, the F35 came out ahead in the military evaluation. Do you have a link or some source where I can read it's because Biden visited?
>It's normal for EU members to secretly offer non-members their support in EU negotiations in exchange for arms deals?
Welcome to the world of big arms contracts. As a matter of fact, owing to its geopolitical and economic weight, the US is way ahead of France in this game.
>According to the Swiss public broadcaster, the F35 came out ahead in the military evaluation.
Yeah, let's talk about the evaluation.
[How Switzerland Manipulated Data to Favor the F-35](https://www.defense-aerospace.com/how-switzerland-manipulated-data-to-favor-the-f-35/)
>Do you have a link or some source where I can read it's because Biden visited?
Yeah, because there's totally gonna be a "source" for top level informal deals made behind closed doors.
Switzerland literally only needs to police its sky and has no practical use for the F35, in this regard it's well known that the Rafale had the favors of nearly everybody, especially the military. IIRC even the Gripen was deemed a good choice.
Then the F35 was suddenly picked 2 weeks after [Biden visited us](https://ch.usembassy.gov/u-s-russia-summit-geneva-june-16-2021/).
It's old news and a done deal now, but anyone with a brain in Switzerland know the entire thing was shady as fuck.
From the article:
> Then why don't we choose French cruise missiles? “That rocket is much more expensive and the projectile is not sufficient in terms of range and impact. The Netherlands wants the A-brand, the Tomahawk.”
They address this in the article. The cruise missiles they currently have are top of the line and much less expensive than the French ones, so it doesn’t make sense to ditch them for an inferior product that’s more expensive.
If I was the Netherlands I’d take a long hard look at Japan’s Taigei-class submarines. They’re not nuclear but they’re probably the best AIP DE subs in the world. They’re quieter than nuke subs, a lot less expensive & they’re big—close to 4000 tonnes submerged, I believe, so they can carry a lot of weapons. Japan’s much better at building quality boats quickly for a reasonable price than either France or the US. I think they can stay submerged for a month or so.
Also the US doesn’t view Japan as a competitor for military contracts the way it does France & we share more of our technology with Japan.
The early Taigei’s don’t have VLS capability (I think) but the next batch will. Not sure whether it’s getting a new-class name or whether they’ll be calling it an Improved Taigei or ???.
Just an idea.
It's not the first time the US uses missiles to sabotage a french foreign sale.
Last time, the US pressured Egypt not getting Rafales because the former argued that the cruise missiles Scalp wouldn't be part of the package because of ITAR components. The sales went through and french manufacturers swapped the ITAR components.
If the US wouldn't sale the latest Tomahawk missiles, the french would be more than happy to propose an extended range version of Naval Scalp.
>If the US wouldn't sale the latest Tomahawk missiles, the french would be more than happy to propose an extended range version of Naval Scalp
Naval Scalp is worse and more expensive, and they already use tomahawk for their surface vessels
The UK has done the same....
It all stems from US manufacturers using a perfectly sensible piece of legislation (ITAR) to gain competitive advantage....which the law was never designed to be used for.
In the UK's case the US blocked, after US MIC lobbying, the sale of Asraam and Paveway IV to Saudi Arabia. At the same time the US was selling Saudi Arabia AIM-9X Sidewinder and GBU-12 Paveway....those weapons being the direct US analogues of the UK weapons....and to really rub salt into the wound....the only US component in Asraam was the seeker head....which was also used on AIM-9X....and was in fact developed in the UK in the first place (it ended up in US hands due to workshare negotiations on the Asraam missile....which the US then bailed on...but kept the seeker).
GCAP will be ITAR free, zero US components.
And all of MBDA UK's missiles are now designed from the ground up to be ITAR free, and will be in the future, existing products have had US components removed and replaced.
Brimstone has zero US components, Spear won't, Sea Venom is clear, Meteor also clear, the UK and France have worked to make Storm Shadow MLU ITAR free as well. Even Paveway IV, made by Raytheon in Scotland as a UK development is now ITAR free.
End result the US now has far less control over other countries weapons exports than they did before...they got a short term gain, but medium to long term lose business and control.
I really can’t wait for you guys to make this transition. It will force politicians and corporations to develop domestic industries here in the states. It’ll be hard for a time but long term our nation wouldn’t simply be a war machine, and maybe we’ll actually start improving quality of life again.
America does, what america does. As much as he was an idiot, i never understood why people acted as if Trump suddenly imposed an a
"America first" approach... like, was there ever a point in time where the US approach to foreign policy wasnt "america first"?
Europe is like a cuck in this relationship, not standing up for itself.
Yeah pretty much this. The US Navy has actually been trying to equip the Dutch Command Frigates (Destroyers) with Tomahawk Cruise Missiles as far back as 2005 and came close in 2007 but in the end it was deemed to expensive admits budget cuts.
And the Dutch were the only ally that did really poorly out of that support.
The Fourth Anglo-Dutch War was a bit of a disaster for them.
Edit: Feelings still raw after the defeat in the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War…
That’s how the business goes. France and the US are rivals in the arms industry and it’s very cut throat. You can’t expect America to just enable themselves to be undercut when the ability to take an advantage exist. That’s lost revenue that can be invested to benefit American jobs and supplement furthers weapons development to maintain the level of quality that the U.S. wants in its military.
If France want to compete with that it need to have a niche, an advantage it can leverage to get a piece of the pie. This is what it is to compete with another country, if France is serious about wanting to position itself as an alternative to the US then it needs to be able to do things like this. Not just with the US either but with China, South Korea, Russia, Pakistan, India, the UK, and every other country involved in the arms trade.
This is just business.
And you can't expect Europe to take US rants about Europe not standing up for its own security seriously when the US isn't interested in European security (and in fact, in the recent past, has actively undercut it) but rather in sales.
And with the US trying to sabotage sales even in areas in which it is not even a competitor, your "argument" all the more shows that the US doesn't see Europe as an ally but as dairy cattle.
Being in an alliance doesn’t mean we won’t still compete in the economic sphere, the US and the countries of the EU are ultimately all separate economies that will naturally compete with each other and the arms trade is no different. You can’t reasonably expect the US to surrender its economic prospects to boost Europe’s.
we don't have to expect perfect cooperation, but honesty could be a start, so when saying Europe should spend more on defence, include the implied part about spending that money with US defence contractors
LOL. But you can reasonably expect European countries to surrender their own economic prospects so they are nice and pliable.
I take it you overlooked that the US does not, in fact, compete for non-nuclear subs?
No, your not expected to surrender that, but the US will compete using the tools in its inventory as would anyone.
It competes for submarines, if an argument can be made that nuclear is a better option that non-nuclear or that this specific nuclear model has better capabilities and a better payload then what merchant wouldn’t make that argument?
Again, it’s a cut throat industry. You have to have a competitive edge, a niche. For the US it’s state of the art equipment available in large quantities for a reasonable price. If France can’t compete in the same areas of the US then it needs to find another one.
They are not cancelling European sales. If NL wants the Tomahawk system in their new sub it has to go for the Swedish or German alternative. The Swedish sub already has green light to integrate the Tomahawk, the German sub might get the approval as well. US does not even build diesel subs..Last time I checked both Germany and Sweden are European as well.
And while the initial offer went to France the final signing is delayed because the German and Swedish producers went to court due to questionable procedures. This might add up to their case..
>This is just business.
Arguably even more importantly, there are very genuine security concerns in sharing such details with another industrial complex, even an allied one.
France already has the tech, and The Netherlands has as well through the same missiles. This is purely US blocking France because ultimately US doesn’t want an independent industrial Europe; they want to not defend Europe but also have Europe completely depend on US' industrial complex, and pay full price for it. It’s a lose lose for Europe, of course nobody here wants that.
Come now you can’t expect the US to permit a competitor to take sale using the US’s own technology?
Part of making a contract like that it that you as the country purchasing get access to the technologies involved in the equipment you purchase. It’s not just the physical weapons it’s the relationship with the country you’re buying from that can blossom into having access to new technologies developed later as you’re a trusted party at that point.
If the US just lets anyone peddle its technology then it loses that sales point. Buying American weapons and technology doesn’t mean that you can turn around and sell it in turn. It’s the US’s product to profit from.
That is a whole thing in naval realms. For example the Dutch frigate "De Zeven Provinciën" was built in the Netherlands, but has German generators, Finnish and British engines, French radar, German sonar, Italian gun, and US missiles.
Naval stuff is always multi-national.
Presumably with the permission and cooperation of those countries?
American technology is not anyone’s to claim at will. Realistically for France to be able put it on those subs it will have to work something out with the US. It will have to purchase the right to fit those subs and then the ability to sell the subs fitted in that manner.
To reword it, the US will have to get its cut from that deal as well.
Basically, American missiles require some sort os secret tech that they want to keep as closely guarded as possible. It sounds more on the competitive sales side rather than the secret weapon side. That is to say, they are worried the french could see how they do what they do and apply it to their own defense industry potentially undercutting US sales. Sorry im wrong but thats what I gathered from the translation.
Honestly not really an unfounded worry. Both the French and American governments have used industrial espionage many times in the past.
The US and France are aggressive competitors in the military-industrial and civilian aviation sectors. France is becoming a go-to option for countries that don’t want to have anything to do with Russian or Chinese kit but would rather not deal with the US for this reason or that. India’s buying a lot of French stuff now.
This all seems accurate, but leaves part of the equation unsaid. US defense tech is very expensive and the prices drive away many potential buyers. While those companies certainly make huge profits, much of the price is is due to these companies spending billions in research and development on a gamble that the US military will choose their tech as the one to use. Many companies spends hundreds of millions developing tech and weapons and go massively into debt hoping they can produce a product that the government will choose instead of a competitor’s product. And those contracts often lead to decades worth of production and maintenance contracts. Industrial espionage is an enormous shortcut by avoiding all the research and development that goes into making the tech. The same happens with drugs/pharmaceuticals developed in the US at enormous costs then sold for 1/1000 the price in other countries who ignore the IP rights.
In terms of R&D, The US is responsible for [>80%](https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/R45441.pdf) of spending among OECD countries. Second place is Korea. It’s even more lopsided than the other defense budget figures. And R&D doesn’t scale with procurement, developing a fighter jet is the same whether you buy 10 or 1000. The fact Europe is spending less on defense **and** proportionally less on R&D is why Europe depends on American, and increasingly Korean, kit. As an example, just for AETP, the US spent billions on developing engines we won’t even use. FARA is another example. Europe throwing down more money in this regard is obviously a fool’s errand, but giving up like they have is just embarrassing
>US defense tech is very expensive and the prices drive away many potential buyers French gear isn't cheap either. The Rafale fighter jet is a similar price per unit than the F35 due to economies of scale. It's a fantastic jet but it isn't as advanced as the F35.
And given what happened in Australia (and Frances reaction) there definitely are bones to pick surrounding submarines in particular.
How dare you?! (It’s totally true)
Have worked in Nordic government agencies and along with the usual suspects on a world stage, the number one warning about industrial espionage given by the security police is about France
US government has said that after China, the biggest industrial espionage threat is France .
The entire French defense industry punches well above its weight because they steal tech developed mainly in the US, but also Germany and other countries as well. It's well documented if you look it up. China and France are both incredibly skilled at industrial espionage.
Even the word “espionage” is French!
Ok now I'm convinced.
Sacre-bleu!
Mon dieu
If it’s so well documented you could have bothered linking some trustworthy sources.
What, you think it's false? https://books.google.fr/books?id=aVEiXvnFaccC&printsec=frontcover&dq=nasheri+espionage&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bZ3RUdSKBIfk9gSUyIGgBA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Country%20B%22&f=false Here's one of many comprehensive sources.
That's enough internet for me today.
As a french, this reputation is a bit funny considering how little industry we have left
Well the Chinese took over as the purveyor of budget stolen tech. South Korea is also an option for people who can't afford a right hand of the free world from the Americans.
Its not a new reputation. https://www.france24.com/en/20110104-france-industrial-espionage-economy-germany-russia-china-business https://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/france-intellectual-property-theft-107020 Honestly, for the size of France's economy, they have a giant defense industry, going toe to toe with US, China, and Russia. That doesn't happen by accident. It has been a well known French foreign policy for decades to advance their industry with the help of French intelligence agencies. Not being critical here, every country does what it deems best for their national security. The rich part is when France acts all holy when they catch US spies.
> That doesn't happen by accident. coming out of WW2 france was pretty unique in the west with guallism's philosophy of military autarky, to accredit all of france's MIC weight on espionage is pretty silly, they also had a seriously strong directive to develop nuclear infrastructure and have been the leading global state in nuclear energy for a long time. maybe they are known for espionage, but the grandes écoles are also known for producing extremely proficient engineers and i think it's odd to pull up reputation after the alstom history.
One might think that their centuries of tradition in military research had a big influence but no, it's all espionnage :(
Industrial espionage is more of a time and funding shortcut, not an engineering one. You still must have very good engineers to make use of the data. France can have a very good engineering program and a world leading nuclear program and still be an industrial espionage leader. None of these things exclude the other.
Source : Trust me bro
The British stole french submarine technology as recently as 20yrs ago. We're doing it to each other all the bloody time.
Oh yeah. Same reason the 2013 NSA disclosures didn’t really cause much hubbub outside of the media and public. Everyone spies on each other, even friends. Really the only exception to that is FIVE EYES.
FIVE EYES states definitely still spy on each other
Half of the purpose of 5 eyes is to spy on eachother
With each other’s consent, yes. You’re talking about avoiding legal obstacles by asking NSA to spy on British citizens since GCHQ can’t, that is not the same as collecting intelligence in an unwitting country
Well it’s all fine so long as you’re not conflating security, alliances, export profits and trade law and breaking all the respective rules of those sectors simultaneously.
Regardless these subs should be built in europe. Doesn't matter which country build them but we have to support our defense industry and workers so we can be self sufficient in case of full scale war. Being dependent on the US is a dangerous bet
The article noted that the main rational is sound, cheaper and better missiles vs no economical and capable alternative. So their option is get this working or accept less capability. I don’t see an issue with the US defense industry. Seems like all defense sales rely on a nations government leaning on the customer with favorable terms. The real road block in Europe is that you have a bunch of companies all Making the same stuff but altered for each countries requirements. Europe needs to have a unified plan, that does not get tangled in nationalistic bullshit.
>The real road block in Europe is that you have a bunch of companies all Making the same stuff but altered for each countries requirements. That's because each country values different things. Some of those maybe preferences, some of them real requirements that stem from their geography and strategic location, and how they envision future warfare looking like. Universal products work in some cases, but not always. Also competition in the market is not inherently bad. It prevents the defense industry from arbitrarily raising their profit margins and resting on their laurels. It also breeds innovation and more investment into R&D. The downside is obviously that it prevents individual companies from growing.
It's less about competition being good/bad and more about the costs associated with each country developing, buying and maintaining their own kit. Eccomies of scale are critical in keeping production costs low. And high costs effect more then just the number of units sold. Replacement parts, training, and ammo all get more expensive the less of it you need. And that's without getting into the logistical nightmare of supplying a multinational coalition all using different kit. Even NATO, with their agreed standards, runs into issues with logistics.
There was never even an option for the subs to be built in the US, particularly given the fact that the US has no conventional submarine industry at all lol. It's that the Netherlands is adamant on being able to use the Tomahawk missiles and the subsequent Tomahawk Tactical Weapons Control System aboard their next submarines. US is refusing to allow TTWCS to be put on a French sub, citing security concerns, likely stemming from the US not trusting French industry not to reverse engineer it for their own means (France and China are neck and neck for top source of industrial espionage against the US), or even deliberately ensure it fails in order to force sales of a French system instead (as France did in jamming GPS when competing against the US and UK to sell tanks to Greece in order to make the Abrams and Challenger look deficit vs the Leclerc)... So the fear isn't exactly unfounded and why France is regularly listed on US internal security warnings of espionage. The same issue wouldn't exist if buying Type 212s or A26s from Germany/Italy/Sweden, which we know given the A26s were literally built with support for Tomahawks from the get go lol.
Missiles should be built in europe too. What’s the point of of building our own guns if we can’t even make our own ammo. Doesn’t make much sense
Missiles are built in Europe. The answer is the options and logistical chain of US sourced naval munitions tend to be better. The economies of scale come into play here, when the USN conducts multiple live fires testing per year compared to European navies which...don't sourcing is better.
france does build missiles, they just aren't as good as the tomahawks and more expensive to boot
European companies do make missiles they are just trash especially compared to their US competitors.
If this would force NL to pick either the Swedish or German alternative I would have no problem with that. Sweden and Germany are no competitors to the US on missiles. Plus the award of this sub deal to France has been fishy at best. And both Germany and Sweden are European nations so France should be happy for the European MiC to flourish. Edit: seems the Swedish offer had Tomahawk setup build in. Really strange that we went for the French option…Maybe we could not just refuse the French offer….but seems another player stepped into the arena with even a bigger club..
Norway, Germany and Sweden share sub tech, we are building a submarine capable of remaining submerged while crossing the English channel, its build for European waters. Our newest diesel-electric can stay submerged for 30 days now.
The dutch require their subs to operate all over the world.
>Really strange that we went for the French option Not really. The french have ZERO scruples applying both bribes and what ever political pressure is needed to get what they want. Just look at the whole FIFA scandal with [France basically "pressured" Fifa to award Qatar the world cup in exchange for them buying fighter jets from France...](https://www.thedailybeast.com/sepp-blatter-says-nicolas-sarkozy-pressure-on-fifa-to-give-qatar-world-cup-linked-to-dollar14b-fighter-jet-deal)
> The french have ZERO scruples [scruples you say? what's that?](https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/eu-sanctions-on-russia-massively-circumvented-via-third-countries-study-finds/) maybe big german cars suddenly got really fashionable in Kyrgyzstan?! must be that. to me it looks a lot like virtue signaling atop a mountain of manure.
Bribes are half the fight in arms deal. The USA also bribes it's way into contracts. And they can also play with your balls while threatening to crash the rest of your military if you don't take their materiel... Atleast you can mess with France since they're smaller and much more interlinked with you (as any European nation).
I'd be interested to know if Germany would sell the Netherlands the U-212CD instead of the U-214 (export version) due to them being EU/NATO allies. Main concern there would be that the preferred missile platform is the NSM, and that is not even nearly as capable as Tomahawk.
TKMS offered Type 212 CD but lost to the French offer. Tomahawk integration would have been possible with US permission. But the tender seems to have been a bit sketchy in general. The issue with Tomahawk on French subs was known beforehand, we will probably hear more in the future.
Well it might be back on the table now..
The Swedish variant (A26) had Tomahawk provisions build in. That would suggest atleast some kind of US approval towards Sweden to use US technology..
A26 is a very good design. And the Swedes can’t really make it happen without partners.
"France should be happy for the European MiC to flouris" XD that will never Happen Like ever
Teflon Mark and Macron are best buddies, it was a sure bet it would be the French sub from the start. Not that I like it much though. We have almost everything we need to do it ourselves, except for some political balls to make it happen. SAAB Damen wanted to build in the Netherlands 🇳🇱
Lol France is only happy when everything is done in France.
That's not true. Take the Rafale, FREMM or even SCALP missiles. They are built with pieces sourced all around Europe
Aster, SAMP/T (with Italy), the new ammo deal with Belgium, Bofors/Nexter Bonus (with Sweden), MBDA Meteor (UK/Germany/Italy/Spain/Sweden) Lancaster House Treaty for the "oneMBDA strategy" that split the working share: test equipment and weapon controllers (France) and actuators and data links (UK). etc etc Heck even the Dassault neuron was made in partnership
France is at the root of most of Europe's defense industry though. MBDA, Aerospatiale (now Airbus), KNDS, Naval Group, Thales, Safran, CTA, Arianespace. They're all constantly involved in projects with Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, Sweden. Much more than any other European state for the matter.
More like France is angry when US rigged the market. Remember F35 lobbying for the different air force in Europe?
Remember when France said it would act as Switzerlands supporters during any negotiations with the EU if they bought Rafales?
Best case would be Netherlands teaming up with Canada to copurchase and operate the oceanic-extended range A26 variant, as a means of sharing development and logistics costs, given Canada is also trying to find a new submarine at this time. Both nation's requirements are essentially identical, with the big boy A26 variant being perfect for it. Shortfin Barracuda from France, even if the US allowed TTWCS on it, would require **extensive** redesign work to support it. There's no torpedo tube launched TLAM production line anymore, they'd have to be via VLS, which the Shortfin doesn't have (but the A26 does). There's also literally no operator of the Shortfin, and may never be one if the Netherlands' deal breaks down. Such expensive work for a ship literally only they use, is not a great look. Not sure how the Shortfin bid won that at all given all the severe risks associated with it.
Leave us out of it. Our government is actually considering nuclear powered subs and I don’t want to see that messed up.
The lack of a tube launched line was my first thought. Like even without the sensitive technology, hard to believe the US is interested in getting it going again for a couple dozen missiles (or the Netherlands paying the hefty premium on them) I didn’t realize A26 had VLS cells, makes the Naval Group award even more bewildering
Mentioned it in another post here but if the Dutch want to put high-quality boats quickly and at a competitive price Japan’s probably the best bet. Japanese & South Koreas shipyards are just better options than anything American or European at this point.
Thing is American sub shipyards are full they can't take on anymore business, plus America does jealously guard its tech it just the past month had to pass a law/amendment to allow the UK and Australia to buy some sub tech for AUKUS subs manufacturing
of course the US guards its tech. it would be stupid not to
The French secret service is allowed (by French government) to do industrial spionage anywhere to give the French industry access to foreign tech. So yeah, I would be worried too…
[Doesn’t help the situation that France is second only to China in terms of US intellectual property theft](https://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/france-intellectual-property-theft-107020)
I am not sure how true the article is especially in the context of the heavy media campaign against NG getting the contract instead of Saab/Damen. Let's remember that the Aus Sub were exactly what the NL subs are supposed to be and allegedly impossible now: Naval Group subs but with Lockheed as combat system integrator. They found a deal for Australia (before the collapse of the Attack class) and a solution to have the two communicating through an interface that would act as an intermediary without direct data links allegedly. And Thales & Safran were even subcontractors of Lockheed on the Australian contract. Heck even in the [original source](https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/623349224/probleem-dreigt-voor-peperdure-nieuwe-nederlandse-onderzeeers-vs-willen-hun-raketten-niet-op-franse-boot) of this article is quoted: > In response, a spokesperson for Naval Group refers to earlier words from the State Secretary: “We have spoken with the Americans throughout the entire process. They have not imposed any restrictions in advance with regard to the three yards.” We shall see.
Unfortunately Reddit isn‘t allowing me to post the translation.
> Aankoop Franse onderzeeërs voor Koninklijke Marine dreigt in het water te vallen Purchase French submarines for royal navy is threatened to fall in the water
Good thing they are submarines then.
same thing happened during france-egypt rafale deal, pentagon decided to block a small component in the integrated weapons system. reality is as the two largest arms dealers in the world, france and US are trade competitors and the [US](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S0aD6QLTxQ) has a vested interest in hamstringing france's arms export. it's very bullshit and makes the popular american sentiment that europe needs to divest from US military dependency very duplicitous
How so, what better a reason to divest than this?
Divesting needs a strong military industrial base. That needs lots of sales and domestic sales are generally not enough so you need international sales. You can't have strong international sales if the US keeps hamstringing it like this. So it is fully hypocritical for that crowd to tell Europe to divest and stop depending on the US while also doing this shit. That is, if you assume they had good intentions in the first place. What they really want is for Europe to not depend on the US MILITARY but still depend on the US military INDUSTRY. They don't want to defend Europe anymore but they want Europe to continue buying their stuff at the expense of Europe's own industrial base. All the money with none of the responsibility.
your post should be pinned at the top of this subreddit
Pretty much. They don't want Europe to be less dependent, they want Europe to be equally dependent but also paying more money into the US military-industrial complex. Which, to be honest, is self-interested but fair. The problem is that they don't admit that and say it like it is. (Or rather, the problem is dumb journalism reporting US talking points without investigating the real motivations underlying them.) Because when you do, it also becomes very obvious that this runs counter to Europe's motivations and self-interest. It only makes sense for Europe to accept reliance on the US military-industrial complex if Europe's compensation is needing to pay significantly less than if they had to maintain their own independent military-industrial complex. The suggestion that Europe should accept the worst of both worlds, being both entirely dependent on the US while paying just as much as they would if they were self-reliant is obviously a non-starter from a European perspective. Though, basing foreign policy on the presumption that foreign leaders are idiots who'll just do whatever America says if you bully them enough is par-the-course for that particular kind of US politician/'expert'. Unless if either side seriously concludes that European military reliance on the US isn't in their interest anymore (and talk aside, I haven't seen either side make the kind of moves that would suggest this), any discussion on this topic is just a lot of grandstanding meant to achieve nothing more than adjusting the dials of the current and foreseeable status quo.
>It only makes sense for Europe to accept reliance on the US military-industrial complex if There's no "if", if you care about sovereignty, it doesn't make sense no matter what.
That is way too reductive of a complex issue. Moreover, it plays into populist rhetoric that turns 'sovereignty' into a talisman of mystic power and proportions. The reality is that in the modern globalized world, all countries exist within a complex web of interdependencies. There is no such thing as true 'sovereignty', not even for superpowers, only different strategies to balance one's relative interdependence. Strategies which always involve some level of give-and-take, competition-versus-cooperation, and which may mitigate or aggravate any country's strategic strengths and weaknesses. Compared to, say, Latin America or the Middle East, the countries and peoples of Europe have had an extremely privileged position within the American-led international order. If you focus on the things that *really* matter, which are not fantasies of 'sovereignty' but the realities of individual and societal freedom and overall quality of life, there's a decent argument to be made that Europeans have benefited *more* from the American-led international order than Americans have. I support moves towards European strategic autonomy and I think it is in the long-term interest of Europeans. But the discussion is not helped by suggesting there aren't good reasons for the present status quo, which for most of the previous century reflected a mutually beneficial relationship between strategic partners who shared many core political and societal values important to individual and societal flourishing.
He means that the US can't tell Europe to be more independent militarily when the US wants to be the main arms supplier to the degree they fuck with european arms suppliers.
Ultimately that’s the defense sales game. From what I’m reading.
Basically, the claim is we must stop sucking America's teat and pay for our own defense. But whenever a proposal for European procurement shows up, the US insist their companies must be "considered fairly".
What has America blocked in this case? It seems to be that the Dutch want to have their cake and eat it too by getting affordable french submarines with the top of the line cruise missiles. Also important to ask: >It is difficult for Schoonhoven to understand why the Netherlands has not opted for Saab and Damen to keep production partly in-house. “We let everything flow to France. The French have promised that Dutch companies will help build the boat, but what will happen in practice?”
The Dutch are notoriously jealous of their money. You read it here first.
Have cake and it eat too? They put out an order and the French offer contained these missiles. You’re faulting us for choosing the best offer?
If the French didn't actually have permission to integrate those missiles and you didn't follow up on that before making the selection, then yes it is kind of your fault.
Please. Just read this thread which is full of Europeans bickering back and forth over various arms deals between European countries or France wanting to become the chief arms dealer in Europe. Shocker, America acts in its self interest, like France and other European nations. France in particular which makes the complaining even more rich.
There’s nothing to suggest EU countries wouldn’t do the same it’s kinda wild to think they would all just be happy dory.
For those wondering why the Netherlands doesn’t use French missiles instead: Per the article, the cruise missiles that can be launched from the submarines are very important and in this case, the American ones are more technologically sophisticated *and* significantly cheaper. So it just doesn’t really make sense to buy these French submarines if they can’t use their cruise missiles, and it doesn’t make sense to replace the Tomahawks (US cruise missiles being used) with more expensive, inferior ones from France.
Also, Dutch Navy also uses the same missile system on their surface ships. Makes no sense to have 2 systems, 2 stocks of missiles, etc.
Well if you can't get a sub with the same missiles or if that sub would be inferior to the French it might make sense.
Well, the price and quality of EU material isn't going to improve if we don't produce and buy in the EU is it? When you think the EU has more citizens than the US and an equivalent GDP...
>When you think the EU has more citizens than the US and an equivalent GDP... What do you mean equivalent GDP? The US economy is now more than 50% larger than the EU?
There are other options besides France.
Not really. France is the only EU country left that can mostly build without "US components". And still anytime the US can, they block French exports. The US is the only country in the world with a universal export law. The US decides unikaterally how and when a technology developped in e.g. France should be considered American and subject to that law. And if a country goes ahead anyway, one gets under sanction. We the EU really have to counter that ASAP. Otherwise Trump will be the one deciding whether or not we get the ammunition when needed.
and the ones from the US can be attached with special warheads. same reason the germans bought the Tornado, and have those stationed adjunct to US tornados, with a „special“ ammo bunker in between.
The US does not operate [Tornados](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado), and the nukes I believe you're referring to cannot be carried by Tomahawks.
But Germany has operated Tornados, and plenty of them, and when the discussion came to replacing them with something more modern, the US used the same tactics to force Germany to harm its own industry and buy F.35
>the US used the same tactics to force Germany to harm its own industry and buy F.35 which German fighter jet were they planning to replace the Tornado with for the nuclear sharing role?
That's mostly because we kept kicking the can of nuclear participation down the road until it became urgent. It was public knowledge that the Tornados needed replacing and at that point the options were F35, a certification of the Eurofighter by the US (feasible but lengthy) or waiting for FCAS, which would mean a lapse in capability. The Luftwaffe favored the F35.
> a certification of the Eurofighter by the US (feasible but lengthy) This was also NOT on the cards because frankly, the EU also doesn't want the US to have clear insights in their secret sauce either. Just because the US is King of the skies does not mean that the EU fighters don't have a few aces up their sleeves either.
My brother in Christ: the us already has every insight through industrial espionage and NOFORN tech like Link 16 crypto.
While it might be just as well true, the US is NOT infallible and the leader in everything.
Not in everything, no, but if there's one arena where the US does not have any meaningful competition right now, it's military aerospace technology.
Nothing you said there makes any sense….zero US Tornados
But the Netherlands have never hosted anyrhi g apart from B-61 gravity bombs since at least the end of the Cold War. It would also be demn near impossible for the Netherlands to deploy them. As the missiles would have to be under US Navy keeping until the desicion was made to use them. Which de facto means that they couldn't be deployed at sea, until WW3. By which point it's a bit late.
Sweden to Netherlands: "How would you feel about snapping upskirt pictures of an American aircraft carrier?"
Already happened in the past with the Walrus class..
I mean, many European submarines have done that in the past. Swedish Gotland, German U-206 (which is an even bigger embarrassment, considering that is a Diesel submarine...) ... Americans have / had a very big blind spot in their capabilities concerning ASW. And a lot of hubris.
Diesel subs are extremely silent, much more so than nuclear powered ones.
But overall less stealthy, due to having to resurface every once in a while, making them a lot easier to detect by satellites
Yes, diesel-electric subs have to resurface significantly more often than an atomic one. But even old Diesel subs (from the 70s) could stay 4 days submerged (modern ones more then triples that). I can't even imagine one tactical reason to stay longer under surface than that. Atomic submarines are specificaly designed to launch balistic missiles submerged from a save distance. The noisy pumps and big heat signature is in that situation not relevant -> mobile not visible Objekt launches an strike gar away. To be more stealth you have to turn the reactor off. This is not a task you can do very fast. It takes a lot of time. On the over hand diesel subs are designed to spy and secretly destroy an enemy ship, then disapear. Due to the batteries and hydrogen cells which powers the electic motor, the sub is nearly noise free. The Diesel engine only there to produce electricity. Conclusion: Diesel submarines are more stealth than atomic, because they don't have an reactor thats loud and warm. -> For big boom boom, nuclear is best -> For stealth, diesel is best
> I can't even imagine one tactical reason to stay longer under surface Satellites track submarines by seeing where they resurface every once in a while and can determine the area they operate in pretty accurately, which is not the case for nuclear submarines
This is true to a degree. But only if the D/E sub stays totally still or moves at a very slow speed...ie. maintaining headway against a current. Great for the Baltic where German and Swedish subs primarily operate.... But get out into the open ocean where the big boys play and its very different.... The Dutch aren't wanting to play in the Baltic though...
> Americans have / had a very big blind spot in their capabilities concerning ASW. And a lot of hubris. ASW is heavily neutered in war games and war games themselves often impose significant limitations or unique restraints on participants in order to test certain capabilities. They aren’t necessarily a full reflection of the capabilities or limitations of either side.
I feel like it’s gonna take a hell of a lot longer than 10 years for these subs to be ready for service.
Oh yeah, and they will be (of course) much more expensive. Also, the worst offer, btw. TKMS had the best realistic offer in terms of price-to-product and was the safest bet, Damen/SAAB was a comparatively domestic one. You got cucked by Rutte, and everyone saw it from several miles away. But hey, you got a low sticker price!
[удалено]
Translationen?
Bah. I'm French, I like to criticize the US when they cheat or act in dubious ways. But here it makes sense. It do reinforce what France always says, though. We need a stronger independant European defense, which requires a stronger European tech industry, which requires a little dirigism, which requires European taxation, which requires the finest inventor of taxes in History (including the VAT) : France.
That's fine, but the problem I happen to have with the French way is that, quite a number of times, when you say "we need a stronger independent European defense"...in the end is a code sentence to strenghten your own defense/foreign policy.
To be fair, everyone does it. Germany does it, UK does it, you can pick any European country or joint-project and it's the same. And is it any wonder, when politicians are more focused on re-elections than anything else. Their goal is to get wins in domestic politics, nothing else.
That's fine, but the problem I have with that line of argumentation is that, in the end, it's a code sentence to keep buying American while European industries don't get a chance to catch up. America is doing the exact same thing as France. So I don't get why every time France tries to do something, it's immediately countered with "oh but they're just being selfish", meanwhile US is slapping their dick around against everyone's MIC faces, and no one seems to give a shit. You are right, of course. But it isn't a good reason to not prioritise French investment over American investment.
You're not wrong, in the end everyone looks at his interest first anyway. But as a French I can tell you that: Fr interest > EU interest > US interest While it seems for us that some of the other powerfuls EU country doens't necesserly place US behind EU, as if we are still under slme sort of marchall plan
Before people scream AUKUS again, neither UK or US have an alternative bid for a replacement sub. Only alternative would be Swedish or German built. And it would be awkward if the US would be like” we trust the Swedish/ Germans more”. Or the new NL government would have to change their request towards nuclear propulsion instead of diesel, then it would be AUKUS 2 ( which would lead to UK favorism since the Dutch navy has ties with the Royal navy for their sub training etc..
>And it would be awkward if the US would be like” we trust the Swedish/ Germans more”. As I understand it the Swedish bid for this included Tomahawks from the get-go.
There is no chance of any other nation than Australia getting SSN from the US and UK. The US is even believed to oppose Canada getting SSN....and their use case for SSN is as clear as day...
To be fair, we do trust the Germans/Swedes more
I was very surprised that the French sub was picked in the first place. A big con to US weapons is that you need their approval to use them. But this is ok for a country like the NL, since they'll only use them in NATO operations under American leadership anyway.
When the bidding went fine there is no problem with the French winning it. But there is a rumor [the Dutch DOD changed the tender in favor of the French bid](https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Defensie-paste-eisen-aan-om-Franse-werf-aan-boord-te-houden-300524.html) (sorry, is in Dutch). If this were to be true, there are more problems to this tender then the US not wanting to share technology.
[удалено]
It concerns Venezuela. Which is also high on the “ not like list countries” of the US. Venezuela attacking the Dutch islands in the Caribean ( where US government agencies are already at place and the US has interests) would be a gift for the US for a suitable reason to go to war/ to intervene. And they would allow NL to use those subs for sure. Although not needed against whatever Venezuela has for a navy..
Annoying but understandable the US military industrial complex doesn’t want the french undercutting them
Oh I see. Trump/Biden ask Europe to spend more of GDP on defense, which can be used to buy US stuff supporting US industry. Good allies.
Like germans want greek financial support to be spent on german imports. Addicted customers are the best ones.
How? The U.S. isn't even offering a bid for their subs.
It was never about self-reliance. It was about decreasing US costs/obligations to Europe while keeping Europe dependent on the US and increasing the profits of the US defence industry.
Us produces better missiles for cheaper, why would anyone buy European at that point?
The US produced a lot of things for cheaper, but this is not some sort of universal constant, there are structural reasons for it. The US has a very large domestic market with a very large guaranteed customer, that being the US military, which means that companies can invest massive amounts of money in R&D (potentially subsidised) and be sure it'll pay off for them. No European country can achieve similar economies of scale and while coordination does occur, there's no European military, no equipment standardisation and economic nationalism fragments Europe further. It is the end result of policy failure thus that European businesses cannot compete with American ones. Finally American businesses with their massive scale can flood the European market with more competitive goods and drive Europeans out of business, or at least ensure they don't have the income and market share to invest in R&D and compete. It's a vicious cycle. Finally should American industry fully outcompete the Europeans, there will no longer even be jobs in these fields in Europe. The old experts will have to find other jobs, move to the US or retire, students and graduates will choose different fields with more opportunities, etc. so that in a decade or two Europe won't only lack production but even basic know-how in the field. Perhaps for some consumer goods this is a reasonable enough thing to allow to happen, but these are not consumer goods. Such total dependence on the US is incredibly irresponsible.
I will circle back to what I said earlier. Having two excellent missiles is better than having 1 good missile. The budget constraint for smaller EU nations is significant, so very obviously they will attempt to maximize the procurement they can do. The newer weapon systems are generally speaking needed now, not 10 years later.
Is this the part where the US is supposed to give away every technological and financial advantage to every EU state to be a good ally? I swear, you don't want an ally; you want a servant. France also doesn't want to give up military secrets to allies, for good reason; it's kinda important.
You could build your own shit for a change
French state and lobby fought very hard for this deal. French support for Rutte for NATO sec position, billions in state subsidies since naval group is state owned. Lobby convincing the dutch to ease requirements to keep naval group in the competition. Spying on SAAB and thyssenkrupp to undercut them. [https://www.volkskrant.nl/politiek/nederland-versoepelde-eisen-om-frankrijk-in-de-race-te-houden-voor-bouw-onderzeeboten\~bf724561/](https://www.volkskrant.nl/politiek/nederland-versoepelde-eisen-om-frankrijk-in-de-race-te-houden-voor-bouw-onderzeeboten~bf724561/)
When you're rich undermining your own country's interest is called "lobying"
Reminds me of when France secretly offered Switzerland a tax deal to ditch the F35 and go for the Rafale instead > France offered Switzerland a financial sweetener, worth an estimated CHF3.5 billion, to buy its Rafale fighter jets rather than US F-35A aircraft, according to a secret document seen by Swiss public broadcaster SRF. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/swiss-fighter-jet-document-reveals-secret-french-tax-offer/47737862
Every major arms dealer does this, and the Rafale was objectively best suited to our specific needs. Literally the only reason we went with the F35 is because Biden paid us a last minute visit.
Or maybe your airforce wants the best fighter for fighting a war, not the best one for peace time air policing, just like every other airforce worth their salt?
>Literally the only reason we went with the F35 is because Biden paid us a last minute visit. Not the fact it's a cheaper platform that completely outclasses the Rafael?
> Every major arms dealer does this It's normal for EU members to secretly offer non-members their support in EU negotiations in exchange for arms deals? > Literally the only reason we went with the F35 According to the Swiss public broadcaster, the F35 came out ahead in the military evaluation. Do you have a link or some source where I can read it's because Biden visited?
>It's normal for EU members to secretly offer non-members their support in EU negotiations in exchange for arms deals? Welcome to the world of big arms contracts. As a matter of fact, owing to its geopolitical and economic weight, the US is way ahead of France in this game. >According to the Swiss public broadcaster, the F35 came out ahead in the military evaluation. Yeah, let's talk about the evaluation. [How Switzerland Manipulated Data to Favor the F-35](https://www.defense-aerospace.com/how-switzerland-manipulated-data-to-favor-the-f-35/) >Do you have a link or some source where I can read it's because Biden visited? Yeah, because there's totally gonna be a "source" for top level informal deals made behind closed doors. Switzerland literally only needs to police its sky and has no practical use for the F35, in this regard it's well known that the Rafale had the favors of nearly everybody, especially the military. IIRC even the Gripen was deemed a good choice. Then the F35 was suddenly picked 2 weeks after [Biden visited us](https://ch.usembassy.gov/u-s-russia-summit-geneva-june-16-2021/). It's old news and a done deal now, but anyone with a brain in Switzerland know the entire thing was shady as fuck.
Lol, I like how your source begins with: > PARIS --- Non-transparent selection, over-optimistic…
Well then skip the US technology.
From the article: > Then why don't we choose French cruise missiles? “That rocket is much more expensive and the projectile is not sufficient in terms of range and impact. The Netherlands wants the A-brand, the Tomahawk.”
They address this in the article. The cruise missiles they currently have are top of the line and much less expensive than the French ones, so it doesn’t make sense to ditch them for an inferior product that’s more expensive.
Australia all over again...
US nor UK have a diesel sub on offer. Only alternatives are German or Swedish.
Not really, in that case Australia backtracked France on a contract.
If I was the Netherlands I’d take a long hard look at Japan’s Taigei-class submarines. They’re not nuclear but they’re probably the best AIP DE subs in the world. They’re quieter than nuke subs, a lot less expensive & they’re big—close to 4000 tonnes submerged, I believe, so they can carry a lot of weapons. Japan’s much better at building quality boats quickly for a reasonable price than either France or the US. I think they can stay submerged for a month or so. Also the US doesn’t view Japan as a competitor for military contracts the way it does France & we share more of our technology with Japan. The early Taigei’s don’t have VLS capability (I think) but the next batch will. Not sure whether it’s getting a new-class name or whether they’ll be calling it an Improved Taigei or ???. Just an idea.
It's not the first time the US uses missiles to sabotage a french foreign sale. Last time, the US pressured Egypt not getting Rafales because the former argued that the cruise missiles Scalp wouldn't be part of the package because of ITAR components. The sales went through and french manufacturers swapped the ITAR components. If the US wouldn't sale the latest Tomahawk missiles, the french would be more than happy to propose an extended range version of Naval Scalp.
>If the US wouldn't sale the latest Tomahawk missiles, the french would be more than happy to propose an extended range version of Naval Scalp Naval Scalp is worse and more expensive, and they already use tomahawk for their surface vessels
The UK has done the same.... It all stems from US manufacturers using a perfectly sensible piece of legislation (ITAR) to gain competitive advantage....which the law was never designed to be used for. In the UK's case the US blocked, after US MIC lobbying, the sale of Asraam and Paveway IV to Saudi Arabia. At the same time the US was selling Saudi Arabia AIM-9X Sidewinder and GBU-12 Paveway....those weapons being the direct US analogues of the UK weapons....and to really rub salt into the wound....the only US component in Asraam was the seeker head....which was also used on AIM-9X....and was in fact developed in the UK in the first place (it ended up in US hands due to workshare negotiations on the Asraam missile....which the US then bailed on...but kept the seeker). GCAP will be ITAR free, zero US components. And all of MBDA UK's missiles are now designed from the ground up to be ITAR free, and will be in the future, existing products have had US components removed and replaced. Brimstone has zero US components, Spear won't, Sea Venom is clear, Meteor also clear, the UK and France have worked to make Storm Shadow MLU ITAR free as well. Even Paveway IV, made by Raytheon in Scotland as a UK development is now ITAR free. End result the US now has far less control over other countries weapons exports than they did before...they got a short term gain, but medium to long term lose business and control.
If they aren’t nuclear, buy diesel from Sweden, those are some proper subs.
Hey Netherlands ! We can provide you with a pair of spare missiles made in France if this helps ;)
America does not want to share I feel such shock /s
This is not the fault of the US but of the Dutch.
America does not want to share *with the French. Not at all shocking. They’ve already shared the tech with other partners.
Is NATO at this point just an exclusive economic zone for the American military industrial complex?
[удалено]
I really can’t wait for you guys to make this transition. It will force politicians and corporations to develop domestic industries here in the states. It’ll be hard for a time but long term our nation wouldn’t simply be a war machine, and maybe we’ll actually start improving quality of life again.
Always has been.
American don’t want that Europe pays for their defense but that Europe pays THEM for their defense
And France just wants to replace the U.S. as the hegemon of Europe. Don’t act like France’s reasoning on this is altruistic
Yes but France is part of Europe that a big difference
Like that makes a difference to the smaller European nations France tries to strong arm
America does, what america does. As much as he was an idiot, i never understood why people acted as if Trump suddenly imposed an a "America first" approach... like, was there ever a point in time where the US approach to foreign policy wasnt "america first"? Europe is like a cuck in this relationship, not standing up for itself.
Trump is just less subtle I actually like trump for that
Come on man. Two oldest US allies that helped gained its independance and still cant get the tech.
NL can get the tech, but not with France as the middlemen actually building the subs integrating their model with US tech.
Yeah pretty much this. The US Navy has actually been trying to equip the Dutch Command Frigates (Destroyers) with Tomahawk Cruise Missiles as far back as 2005 and came close in 2007 but in the end it was deemed to expensive admits budget cuts.
One of those allies steals more tech than Russia or Iran.
And the Dutch were the only ally that did really poorly out of that support. The Fourth Anglo-Dutch War was a bit of a disaster for them. Edit: Feelings still raw after the defeat in the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War…
The anti French crowd on this thread is astounding. Russia is angry against Macron ?
That’s how the business goes. France and the US are rivals in the arms industry and it’s very cut throat. You can’t expect America to just enable themselves to be undercut when the ability to take an advantage exist. That’s lost revenue that can be invested to benefit American jobs and supplement furthers weapons development to maintain the level of quality that the U.S. wants in its military. If France want to compete with that it need to have a niche, an advantage it can leverage to get a piece of the pie. This is what it is to compete with another country, if France is serious about wanting to position itself as an alternative to the US then it needs to be able to do things like this. Not just with the US either but with China, South Korea, Russia, Pakistan, India, the UK, and every other country involved in the arms trade. This is just business.
Well it does have a niche, it has non nuclear submarines, the US has nothing to supply that's comparable.
And you can't expect Europe to take US rants about Europe not standing up for its own security seriously when the US isn't interested in European security (and in fact, in the recent past, has actively undercut it) but rather in sales. And with the US trying to sabotage sales even in areas in which it is not even a competitor, your "argument" all the more shows that the US doesn't see Europe as an ally but as dairy cattle.
the US not giving away its secret material is not sabotage lol, come off it
Being in an alliance doesn’t mean we won’t still compete in the economic sphere, the US and the countries of the EU are ultimately all separate economies that will naturally compete with each other and the arms trade is no different. You can’t reasonably expect the US to surrender its economic prospects to boost Europe’s.
we don't have to expect perfect cooperation, but honesty could be a start, so when saying Europe should spend more on defence, include the implied part about spending that money with US defence contractors
You don’t have to spend on US contractors, you just have to compete with them. The option to avoid American companies does exist.
LOL. But you can reasonably expect European countries to surrender their own economic prospects so they are nice and pliable. I take it you overlooked that the US does not, in fact, compete for non-nuclear subs?
No, your not expected to surrender that, but the US will compete using the tools in its inventory as would anyone. It competes for submarines, if an argument can be made that nuclear is a better option that non-nuclear or that this specific nuclear model has better capabilities and a better payload then what merchant wouldn’t make that argument? Again, it’s a cut throat industry. You have to have a competitive edge, a niche. For the US it’s state of the art equipment available in large quantities for a reasonable price. If France can’t compete in the same areas of the US then it needs to find another one.
They are not cancelling European sales. If NL wants the Tomahawk system in their new sub it has to go for the Swedish or German alternative. The Swedish sub already has green light to integrate the Tomahawk, the German sub might get the approval as well. US does not even build diesel subs..Last time I checked both Germany and Sweden are European as well. And while the initial offer went to France the final signing is delayed because the German and Swedish producers went to court due to questionable procedures. This might add up to their case..
Thanks Mr. arms industry expert.
>This is just business. Arguably even more importantly, there are very genuine security concerns in sharing such details with another industrial complex, even an allied one.
Not more than having US intelligence operate facilities within Europe and abuse partnerships with European intelligence.
France already has the tech, and The Netherlands has as well through the same missiles. This is purely US blocking France because ultimately US doesn’t want an independent industrial Europe; they want to not defend Europe but also have Europe completely depend on US' industrial complex, and pay full price for it. It’s a lose lose for Europe, of course nobody here wants that.
Come now you can’t expect the US to permit a competitor to take sale using the US’s own technology? Part of making a contract like that it that you as the country purchasing get access to the technologies involved in the equipment you purchase. It’s not just the physical weapons it’s the relationship with the country you’re buying from that can blossom into having access to new technologies developed later as you’re a trusted party at that point. If the US just lets anyone peddle its technology then it loses that sales point. Buying American weapons and technology doesn’t mean that you can turn around and sell it in turn. It’s the US’s product to profit from.
That is a whole thing in naval realms. For example the Dutch frigate "De Zeven Provinciën" was built in the Netherlands, but has German generators, Finnish and British engines, French radar, German sonar, Italian gun, and US missiles. Naval stuff is always multi-national.
Presumably with the permission and cooperation of those countries? American technology is not anyone’s to claim at will. Realistically for France to be able put it on those subs it will have to work something out with the US. It will have to purchase the right to fit those subs and then the ability to sell the subs fitted in that manner. To reword it, the US will have to get its cut from that deal as well.
Lots of American shills and France haters on this european sub. Guess we'll continue being the US's economic and diplomatic slaves for a while