France, U.K. Could Partner for Anti-ship Missile

[mosu]

LONDON and PARIS — Britain has offered to fund the start of a delayed Anglo-French program to develop a new helicopter-borne anti-ship missile in order to avoid the collapse of the 2010 defense treaty between the two nations.

Under the British proposal, London will provide front-end funding of the Future Air-Surface Guided Weapon (FASGW) (Heavy) missile, with France paying its share of the total development cost at the back end of the 400 million euro ($510,000) program. The existing plan calls for both sides to fund the program simultaneously.

France calls its version of the weapon Anti-Navire Leger, or light anti-ship missile.

People familiar with the proposal say the missile’s delay means it might not be ready in time to meet the in-service date of the maritime version of the new Wildcat helicopter, scheduled to be operational with the Royal Navy in early 2015.

London is applying “gentle, firm and unrelenting pressure to help France make the right decision for the long term,” one British defense official said.

British authorities see the missile program as the “first and only step on a corporatist basis” to a bilateral industrial rationalization, he said.

If France opts out, it could undermine British confidence in cooperation, with political and industrial consequences, the official said.

The other major weapons development program being pursued by the two sides — a possible jointly developed medium-altitude, long-endurance UAV — is also proceeding at a slow pace.

French and U.K. defense ministers discussed the FASGW (Heavy) program’s fate during a meeting late last month.

That meeting followed a French parliamentary finance committee rejection of an attempt to provide 10 million euros next year to launch the program, parliamentary records show.

Member of Parliament François Cornut-Gentille proposed an amendment to the 2013 defense budget, arguing that France needed to show commitment to cooperating with Britain under the 2010 Lancaster House Treaty.

“If we renounce the FASGW (Heavy) program, we won’t have a program in this area,” he said.

The French share of the FASGW (Heavy) program was 35 million euros to 40 million euros a year for five years, Cornut-Gentille said in the committee meeting. Costs would double if France waited two or three years before starting development, he said.

London has made it clear it would look to the U.S. for an alternative if Paris fails to commit next year, he said. “Financial virtue meets with diplomatic interest,” he said.

The French don’t have a requirement to equip their NH90 helicopters with a missile until 2020, so the program is not seen as a priority for the defense minister, French MP Jean Launay said in the committee meeting.

“Any decision on the anti-ship missile has to be taken in the context of the defense white paper,” a spokesman for the Direction Générale de l’Armement procurement office said Nov. 8.

The white paper, which will reset strategic objectives, is due by the end of the year.

If Cornut-Gentille’s amendment had been approved, funds would be needed in following years, pre-empting the outcome of the defense white paper.

The amendment proposed using money from the budget for military colleges, including the elite Ecole Polytéchnique, and the defense diplomacy network.

Committee Chairman Pierre-Alain Muet voted against the amendment; he said the missile program was premature and he disliked the idea of taking funds from the colleges, particularly the Polytéchnique. Muet is an economics professor at the Polytechnique.

“The U.K. understands [French Defense Minister Jean-Yves] Le Drian’s position. He wants the full picture before he commits,” the British official said.

The French Navy has never had the type of capability FASGW (Heavy) would provide. Given the financial strictures, the Navy wants to preserve capabilities it already has.

But London sees a “domino effect” if Paris walks away from the FASGW (Heavy).

Asked if Britain had put a funding deal on the table to help smooth out French budget problems, a U.K. Defence Ministry spokeswoman said: “We remain committed to procuring a weapon for the Wildcat helicopter with France. Having successfully completed the assessment phase, MBDA [is] now ready to proceed to the demonstration and manufacture stages.”

The British see FASGW (Heavy) linked to the planned midlife upgrade to the MBDA Storm Shadow/Scalp cruise missile and other potential complex weapons program.

The missile industry restructuring under the “One Complex Weapons” plan being pursued by missile maker MBDA would be delayed probably until 2015, the British official said.

MBDA — which is jointly owned by BAE Systems, EADS and Finmeccanica — declined to comment.

Delays to the FASGW (Heavy) program have potential military consequences for the British.

A replacement for the aging Sea Skua missile, FASGW (Heavy) is planned to enter service onboard the Royal Navy’s variant of the AgustaWestland Wildcat helicopter now in the final stages of development. Wildcat is on schedule to be delivered to the British Army in 2014, followed a year later by the Navy’s first surface combatant maritime rotorcraft variant.

The Royal Navy is scheduled to arm its Wildcats first with the FASGW (Heavy) followed by a much smaller Thales UK weapon known as the lightweight multirole missile (LMM) to fulfill the FASGW (Light) requirement.

Sources familiar with the weapons programs said that because of the delays, the British were considering leading with the LMM. The first LMMs are expected to be delivered next year.

Israeli-developed Spike missiles, MBDA’s own maritime version of the Brimstone and other potential suppliers are among the options being looked at as a backstop if FASGW (Heavy) runs into deeper problems, two sources said.

The British MoD spokeswoman said it was “premature to speculate about unilateral or other alternative action at this stage.”

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

When France and UK will like each other then there would be winter on surface of sun

 

[INDIAISM]

When France and UK will like each other then there would be winter on surface of sun

Dude world is changing....Btw this partnership is perfect example of

'' Waqt Aane Pad Gadhe Ko Bhi Baap Banana Padta Hai''

They know that time of Europe is almost over and in modern era they won't able to fund their weapon project by themselves....

 

[Tshering22]

Dude world is changing....Btw this partnership is perfect example of

'' Waqt Aane Pad Gadhe Ko Bhi Baap Banana Padta Hai''

They know that time of Europe is almost over and in modern era they won't able to fund their weapon project by themselves....

The biggest problem with western arms industry is that their costs are impossible to recover. They are so extreme that they just barely match their American counterparts and are costlier, making it un-attractive compared to US made weapons for Western clients and Russia's dominance in weapons supply to its major customers.

Also many weapons innovated by US and Russia earlier came up as a "late awakening" for the Europeans who are now making similar stuff (except the latest electronic tech involved) at a much higher price. A400M is the perfect example. It is a slightly larger C-130 that costs almost double and does only marginally more payload. The C-130 has been sold so extensively that their costs are almost negligible for Lockheed Martin compared to the number of units that Germany and others are forced to order to reduce manufacturing costs.

EFT is another example of cost. Despite having more than 800 units of these jets, they are still struggling while the US has been awash in F-15's profits. Also forgetting about the ground fighting element and later bringing out a new variant for ground attack (tranche 3) has put so much burden on the Eurocanards member states.

If Saudi had chosen Rafale, EFT would have simply collapsed overnight.

 

[Donatello]

The biggest problem with western arms industry is that their costs are impossible to recover. They are so extreme that they just barely match their American counterparts and are costlier, making it un-attractive compared to US made weapons for Western clients and Russia's dominance in weapons supply to its major customers.

Also many weapons innovated by US and Russia earlier came up as a "late awakening" for the Europeans who are now making similar stuff (except the latest electronic tech involved) at a much higher price. A400M is the perfect example. It is a slightly larger C-130 that costs almost double and does only marginally more payload. The C-130 has been sold so extensively that their costs are almost negligible for Lockheed Martin compared to the number of units that Germany and others are forced to order to reduce manufacturing costs.

EFT is another example of cost. Despite having more than 800 units of these jets, they are still struggling while the US has been awash in F-15's profits. Also forgetting about the ground fighting element and later bringing out a new variant for ground attack (tranche 3) has put so much burden on the Eurocanards member states.

If Saudi had chosen Rafale, EFT would have simply collapsed overnight.

It's not just that, but the way in which the Aerospace industry has changed in Europe, during the past 3-4 decades. I mean, at one time, there were more than 10 manufacturers of airplanes in the UK alone, now there is hardly any. Plus most European nations are tired of fighting wars. Their history is littered with it. and they no longer have the money to spend.

At one time, their Navies patrolled the world's oceans. Now they are more of a regional force. France, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Britain, Italy, Greece and so on. Times have changed man.

Welfare states can no longer sustain world wide defense expeditions. Which means, less orders for arms manufacturer, and most of them either went defunct or merged into what we now know as BAE Systems and/or EADS etc

Expect some mergers in the USA in the next 2 decades. Small manufacturers will go defunct. In the case of F-15s, USA wasn't really awash in profits, maybe in case of F-16s, but F-15s were hardly exported in great numbers. The thing is, their government funded the entire projects because they had money to spend. Borrowed money. But there is a limit to everything.

Time is indeed a great equalizer.

 

[Tshering22]

It's not just that, but the way in which the Aerospace industry has changed in Europe, during the past 3-4 decades. I mean, at one time, there were more than 10 manufacturers of airplanes in the UK alone, now there is hardly any. Plus most European nations are tired of fighting wars. Their history is littered with it. and they no longer have the money to spend.

The Europeans have not fought a single war since WW2. The only countries having any meaningful contributions in the war in Afghanistan are UK & Germany. And that too German troops are not allowed to engage in combat; they can only act as peacekeepers.

Without war and peace for too long, one will lose value for that particular period. War is as much essential as peace is. I know this might sound crazy but if Europe wants to become a war economy like US, it has to take this path. Their current self-destruct mode will leave them nowhere.

If it continues like this, there will be only 4 countries left in entire Europe: UK, France, Germany and Poland.

At one time, their Navies patrolled the world's oceans. Now they are more of a regional force. France, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Britain, Italy, Greece and so on. Times have changed man.

Other than the French and Brits here, nobody else has ever had anything more than a regional navy. It was just that historically, our focus was never naval in entire Asia. Japanese were the first military in modern Asia to ever embrace the Naval war culture from the West. Otherwise, even their Samurai were land oriented warriors; an Asian trait across (I am talking about the last 200 years, not ancient history).

Welfare states can no longer sustain world wide defense expeditions. Which means, less orders for arms manufacturer, and most of them either went defunct or merged into what we now know as BAE Systems and/or EADS etc

Where are they participating to such an extent that they are losing out? European crisis is simply because of public overspending and getting no returns. It is just like you keep eating junk food for years and then later you start getting stomach, blood and heart issues, you wonder where did you go wrong.

Every input has to have some output. Europeans doled out too much cash for useless things like raising chavs, giving money to violent, unstable refugees from unfriendly countries etc and at the same time tried to do a USA who has a well oiled and extremely powerful military industry.

You can't do 2 opposite things at the same time.

One has to choose between being a Sweden or being a USA. One cannot do both.

Expect some mergers in the USA in the next 2 decades. Small manufacturers will go defunct. In the case of F-15s, USA wasn't really awash in profits, maybe in case of F-16s, but F-15s were hardly exported in great numbers. The thing is, their government funded the entire projects because they had money to spend. Borrowed money. But there is a limit to everything.

I agree. Boeing and Lockheed Martin might emerge as the EADS and BAE of the USA in the next two decades. The Americans however are unwilling to sell their defense companies to international potential buyers while Europeans are more open to selling off smaller defense related companies to non-European countries.

Time is indeed a great equalizer.

100% Agree. Time is the ultimate power. It changes everything.