By: St. John
- 19th February 2018 at 17:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In fairness ITAR is beyond a joke. You have guys at the US end who don't really know what should and shouldn't be labelled ITAR, so they play it safe and consequently you end up with fire extinguisher brackets labelled as ITAR. No joke, the Nimrod MRA4 had fire extinguisher brackets in the ITAR database and a whole load of other miscellaneous crap that wasn't remotely cutting edge, or a matter of military security, or even military really.
By: Tony
- 19th February 2018 at 18:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
….its really all about picking which export is the lesser evil for you
US - tight controls over spares/upgrades/stock French - more flexible but will charge you twice as much as the Americans. Unless your enemy has more money
Swedes/Germans - you must follow their human rights philosophies or no spares Russians - no spares to give, no cares to give, Chinese - spares made in China
J-20 sometimes I think your original and twisted sense of humour flies over many peoples' head!
Pretty pretty close to the bone....with just some truth....anyway made me smile ;-)
By: Siddar
- 20th February 2018 at 01:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To elaborate on my original response and to illustrate why I was so dismissive of french position.
They knew from the time they designed those missiles with US components. That they would have to get US approval to export them. They chose to use those components anyway. Now their upset that something they knew was going to happen has happened. It was entirely predictable that US was not going to allow export to the middle east.
If France wants to have clear ability to sale arms exports, then it shouldn't use US parts. There is cost to that choice both in weapon system cost and time to duplicate whatever US component are required. Then you have secondary effects of taking those french resources away from other things to duplicate US components. And then the long term the drifting apart of the US and France on defense cooperation caused by refusal to use US sourced components. Lastly you have the potential loss of french exports to US that such a policy would inevitably result in as US returned the favor.
All of those things were very much considered when France designed that missile. Now they find what they knew going into it. That exporting said missiles to the middle east was going to be a non starter for US. So they sit and bitch about it even though they knew all along it was likely outcome.
By: xena
- 20th February 2018 at 05:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not all parts are affected by US arms control. With a wise selection of US components you can make both, fine deals with the USA and still sell your weapons all over the world.
By: J-20
- 20th February 2018 at 06:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're welcome Tony!
As for Siddar's remarks,
he is probably referring to US blocking SCALP sale to Egypt. it was mentioned in the news thread.
I was surprised since I thought it was an entirely European missile but I guess it has some US components.
The question now is, will Russia sell them the Russian equivalent for use on their MiG-35s
By: Blue Apple
- 20th February 2018 at 09:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To elaborate on my original response and to illustrate why I was so dismissive of french position.
They knew from the time they designed those missiles with US components.
That's far from obvious.
Without any detail on the component in question, there are several scenarios where a component that was ITAR-free can suddenly become subject to US regulations. For example, the company making it might have been bought by a US one. Another possibility is that the US government might have decided to reclassify the component as dual-use.
By: halloweene
- 20th February 2018 at 09:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@Siddar I understand your point, but.
Obama changed the rules setting ITAR regulations as retroactive (afaik) . Second point : some GPS stuff is now classed in items cat. XII since 2016. ITAR rules change.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 20th February 2018 at 12:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: swerve
- 21st February 2018 at 12:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Siddar:
It was entirely predictable that US was not going to allow export to the middle east.
Why? It's already been exported to the Middle East.
France sold a variant of SCALP (Black Shaheen) to the UAE after the USA refused to sell JASSM. The UK's exported the British version, Storm Shadow, to Saudi Arabia.
By: swerve
- 21st February 2018 at 12:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Blue Apple:
Without any detail on the component in question, there are several scenarios where a component that was ITAR-free can suddenly become subject to US regulations. For example, the company making it might have been bought by a US one.
So, if something entirely French (or British/German/Italian/Swedish/whatever) designed, financed & made is produced by a firm which is bought by a company based in the USA, it somehow, miraculously, becomes American? Really? In that case, the British, French, German etc. governments can ban the export of huge numbers of US-made weapons on a whim. The SDB, for example, since the manufacturer of the wing is owned by a company based in France.
By: halloweene
- 21st February 2018 at 13:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So, if something entirely French (or British/German/Italian/Swedish/whatever) designed, financed & made is produced by a firm which is bought by a company based in the USA, it somehow, miraculously, becomes American? Really? In that case, the British, French, German etc. governments can ban the export of huge numbers of US-made weapons on a whim. The SDB, for example, since the manufacturer of the wing is owned by a company based in France.
Or the F-35... (tyres, batteries, parts of obogs, much wiring etc.)
By: bring_it_on
- 21st February 2018 at 13:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Foreign countries can most definitely begin asserting greater regulation on their products that end up on US systems. As a reaction, this will likely lead to a very selective use of foreign components in US weapons which will have industrial repercussions for industrial partners involved on these efforts both on loosing out on future contracts for the systems they are already suppliers to but also for securing work on future systems. If this is done systemically, it would essentially push a lot of suppliers out of what is now a > $144 Billion a year market (US DOD Procurement budget ( more if you add FMS)). This could also impact acquisitions when companies based in Europe (Britain and Sweden for example) buy US defense or A&D suppliers to get a foothold in the market.
By: halloweene
- 21st February 2018 at 15:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Foreign countries can most definitely begin asserting greater regulation on their products that end up on US systems. As a reaction, this will likely lead to a very selective use of foreign components in US weapons which will have industrial repercussions for industrial partners involved on these efforts both on loosing out on future contracts for the systems they are already suppliers to but also for securing work on future systems. If this is done systemically, it would essentially push a lot of suppliers out of what is now a > $144 Billion a year market (US DOD Procurement budget ( more if you add FMS)). This could also impact acquisitions when companies based in Europe (Britain and Sweden for example) buy US defense or A&D suppliers to get a foothold in the market.
By: Blue Apple
- 21st February 2018 at 15:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So, if something entirely French (or British/German/Italian/Swedish/whatever) designed, financed & made is produced by a firm which is bought by a company based in the USA, it somehow, miraculously, becomes American? Really?
Yes, really. The US is quite unique in asserting extraterritoriality in a number of domains (e.g. US citizens working abroad are still subject to IRS taxation on the money they earn even if they haven't been in the USA for years).
To give an example of how crazy ITAR regulations are, there was a time where Microsoft Windows was under ITAR restrictions. That meant that if a London shop had Windows boxes for sale on its shelves and that, says, a Pakistani national happened to pick it up, the store owners was now in violation of US law and could be imprisoned if he set foot in the US...
In that case, the British, French, German etc. governments can ban the export of huge numbers of US-made weapons on a whim.
None of these countries assert the same extraterritoriality as the USA. The USA is the proverbial 500-pound gorillas that does as it pleases, twisting the arms of everyone. This is not a two-way street, if any country tries to do what the US does, they quickly get bashed by US retaliations till they stop and beg for forgiveness.
By: Cream
- 22nd February 2018 at 18:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's so funny, they found a US part on a cruise missile and they try to block the sale but on the other hand it prove that they try whatever they can to block the Rafale sales, i wonder why since it's only a 4 gen figther from the 80s who is even inferior of the others 4.5 gen, more expensive and he can only use french weapons (which like everyone knows are vastely more expensive than the US ones and so much less efficiant...). :eagerness:
For me that confirm the choice of France to build an entire fighter with french parts and the France's doctrine to be entirely independent of the USA with her defence (nuclear, aviation..).
By: Cream
- 22nd February 2018 at 19:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
None of these countries assert the same extraterritoriality as the USA. The USA is the proverbial 500-pound gorillas that does as it pleases, twisting the arms of everyone. This is not a two-way street, if any country tries to do what the US does, they quickly get bashed by US retaliations till they stop and beg for forgiveness.
If the guys in charge in France have the balls they should do the same with the F-35, they have so much more to lose than us, It would be so bad and so funny (maybe 4/5 more years of development to substitute the french parts and how much billions ? ) with a program which will already be seen in the next coming years as one of the most laughable in aviation history...
Of course they'll find a way to f**k us (maybe remove all Mc Donalds in France because of ITAR or rename french wine the freedom wine ? ) but just for the laught if it was me i go for it.
Of course i know that would be worst than that, but honnestely.. Just for the fun it would worth it. :D
By: Vnomad
- 22nd February 2018 at 20:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the guys in charge in France have the balls they should do the same with the F-35, they have so much more to lose than us
Err.. no. Its quite the other way round. According to this article, in 2016, France's defence exports to the US ranged around $1-2 bn while US defence exports to France were worth $350 mil.
with a program which will already be seen in the next coming years as one of the most laughable in aviation history...
I imagine that's a cathartic thought, as its order book and customer base continue to grow, now possibly extending to India & UAE.
Posts: 550
By: St. John - 19th February 2018 at 17:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In fairness ITAR is beyond a joke. You have guys at the US end who don't really know what should and shouldn't be labelled ITAR, so they play it safe and consequently you end up with fire extinguisher brackets labelled as ITAR. No joke, the Nimrod MRA4 had fire extinguisher brackets in the ITAR database and a whole load of other miscellaneous crap that wasn't remotely cutting edge, or a matter of military security, or even military really.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 19th February 2018 at 17:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well you are exporting mlanes with french components aren't you? Apart from that, anything to bring to the debate?
Posts: 497
By: Tony - 19th February 2018 at 18:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
J-20 sometimes I think your original and twisted sense of humour flies over many peoples' head!
Pretty pretty close to the bone....with just some truth....anyway made me smile ;-)
Posts: 253
By: Siddar - 20th February 2018 at 01:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To elaborate on my original response and to illustrate why I was so dismissive of french position.
They knew from the time they designed those missiles with US components. That they would have to get US approval to export them. They chose to use those components anyway. Now their upset that something they knew was going to happen has happened. It was entirely predictable that US was not going to allow export to the middle east.
If France wants to have clear ability to sale arms exports, then it shouldn't use US parts. There is cost to that choice both in weapon system cost and time to duplicate whatever US component are required. Then you have secondary effects of taking those french resources away from other things to duplicate US components. And then the long term the drifting apart of the US and France on defense cooperation caused by refusal to use US sourced components. Lastly you have the potential loss of french exports to US that such a policy would inevitably result in as US returned the favor.
All of those things were very much considered when France designed that missile. Now they find what they knew going into it. That exporting said missiles to the middle east was going to be a non starter for US. So they sit and bitch about it even though they knew all along it was likely outcome.
Posts: 137
By: xena - 20th February 2018 at 05:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not all parts are affected by US arms control. With a wise selection of US components you can make both, fine deals with the USA and still sell your weapons all over the world.
Posts: 163
By: J-20 - 20th February 2018 at 06:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're welcome Tony!
As for Siddar's remarks,
he is probably referring to US blocking SCALP sale to Egypt. it was mentioned in the news thread.
I was surprised since I thought it was an entirely European missile but I guess it has some US components.
The question now is, will Russia sell them the Russian equivalent for use on their MiG-35s
Posts: 394
By: Blue Apple - 20th February 2018 at 09:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's far from obvious.
Without any detail on the component in question, there are several scenarios where a component that was ITAR-free can suddenly become subject to US regulations. For example, the company making it might have been bought by a US one. Another possibility is that the US government might have decided to reclassify the component as dual-use.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 20th February 2018 at 09:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@Siddar I understand your point, but.
Obama changed the rules setting ITAR regulations as retroactive (afaik) . Second point : some GPS stuff is now classed in items cat. XII since 2016. ITAR rules change.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 20th February 2018 at 12:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Expect some massive changes here..
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-weapons-exclusive/exclusive-trump-administration-prepares-to-ease-export-rules-for-u-s-guns-idUSKCN1BU2N8
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/29/trump-global-arms-sales-243282
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 21st February 2018 at 12:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Siddar:
Why? It's already been exported to the Middle East.
France sold a variant of SCALP (Black Shaheen) to the UAE after the USA refused to sell JASSM. The UK's exported the British version, Storm Shadow, to Saudi Arabia.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 21st February 2018 at 12:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Blue Apple:
So, if something entirely French (or British/German/Italian/Swedish/whatever) designed, financed & made is produced by a firm which is bought by a company based in the USA, it somehow, miraculously, becomes American? Really? In that case, the British, French, German etc. governments can ban the export of huge numbers of US-made weapons on a whim. The SDB, for example, since the manufacturer of the wing is owned by a company based in France.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 21st February 2018 at 13:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Or the F-35... (tyres, batteries, parts of obogs, much wiring etc.)
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 21st February 2018 at 13:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Foreign countries can most definitely begin asserting greater regulation on their products that end up on US systems. As a reaction, this will likely lead to a very selective use of foreign components in US weapons which will have industrial repercussions for industrial partners involved on these efforts both on loosing out on future contracts for the systems they are already suppliers to but also for securing work on future systems. If this is done systemically, it would essentially push a lot of suppliers out of what is now a > $144 Billion a year market (US DOD Procurement budget ( more if you add FMS)). This could also impact acquisitions when companies based in Europe (Britain and Sweden for example) buy US defense or A&D suppliers to get a foothold in the market.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 21st February 2018 at 15:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thumbs up.
Posts: 394
By: Blue Apple - 21st February 2018 at 15:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, really. The US is quite unique in asserting extraterritoriality in a number of domains (e.g. US citizens working abroad are still subject to IRS taxation on the money they earn even if they haven't been in the USA for years).
To give an example of how crazy ITAR regulations are, there was a time where Microsoft Windows was under ITAR restrictions. That meant that if a London shop had Windows boxes for sale on its shelves and that, says, a Pakistani national happened to pick it up, the store owners was now in violation of US law and could be imprisoned if he set foot in the US...
None of these countries assert the same extraterritoriality as the USA. The USA is the proverbial 500-pound gorillas that does as it pleases, twisting the arms of everyone. This is not a two-way street, if any country tries to do what the US does, they quickly get bashed by US retaliations till they stop and beg for forgiveness.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 21st February 2018 at 15:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
TBH Blue Apple, France just didand Europe is elaborating extraterritoriality rules also as retaliation.
Posts: 248
By: Cream - 22nd February 2018 at 18:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's so funny, they found a US part on a cruise missile and they try to block the sale but on the other hand it prove that they try whatever they can to block the Rafale sales, i wonder why since it's only a 4 gen figther from the 80s who is even inferior of the others 4.5 gen, more expensive and he can only use french weapons (which like everyone knows are vastely more expensive than the US ones and so much less efficiant...). :eagerness:
For me that confirm the choice of France to build an entire fighter with french parts and the France's doctrine to be entirely independent of the USA with her defence (nuclear, aviation..).
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 22nd February 2018 at 19:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Blocking the missile on the basis of ITAR would not stop the sale unless the customer demanded they be bought together.
Posts: 248
By: Cream - 22nd February 2018 at 19:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the guys in charge in France have the balls they should do the same with the F-35, they have so much more to lose than us, It would be so bad and so funny (maybe 4/5 more years of development to substitute the french parts and how much billions ? ) with a program which will already be seen in the next coming years as one of the most laughable in aviation history...
Of course they'll find a way to f**k us (maybe remove all Mc Donalds in France because of ITAR or rename french wine the freedom wine ? ) but just for the laught if it was me i go for it.
Of course i know that would be worst than that, but honnestely.. Just for the fun it would worth it. :D
Posts: 2,661
By: Vnomad - 22nd February 2018 at 20:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Err.. no. Its quite the other way round. According to this article, in 2016, France's defence exports to the US ranged around $1-2 bn while US defence exports to France were worth $350 mil.
I imagine that's a cathartic thought, as its order book and customer base continue to grow, now possibly extending to India & UAE.