WI no 'NATO Basic Military Requirement' programmes

There's ways around it, see for example Westland exporting helicopters of Sikorsky design.

That's dependent on be granted licences from third parties. Even the Swedes had to get clearance to sell their aircraft because they used certain foreign components. Would it require the consent of all parties if a nation were to sell anything abroad?

Face it, the USA would've dominated any procurement programmes/NATO defence industry, because it would pay the lion's share for development and receive the largest number of units. Naturally, they'd put their domestic defence industry and jobs first.

You'd be in the position of a smaller NATO nation wanting to sell surplus/organic weaponry to another nation, but is stopped because another nation won't allow it (for it's own commercial, economic or political reasons).
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
No it doesn't. Even standardized equipment can be produced nationally, recent examples include much of the simple stuff (ie. infantry weapons) all the way up to helicopters. (Agusta, Westland). Pork could have been still delivered by ensuring that production would be divided to national factories.

As for US carriers, I think A-6 was one of the examples of NIH syndrome. At similar time FAA had perfected vastly superior strike aircraft, the Blackburn Buccaneer, but the USN decided to go the way of pork.


Have to ask - How do you define superior? Range? War load? Reliability? Crew size? Longevity?

The A-6 had far more range and 50% greater war load (for that matter, the slightly later A-7 had MORE than 50% greater war load). Reliability was about the same, crew was two in both aircraft. The Buccaneer was a 1958 airframe that endered service in mid-1962, the A-6 was a 1960 design that entered service in early 1963.

The Buccaneer was barely an upgrade over the A-4 performance wise. If you want to call something "pork" (a term that I feel isn't justified) it would be the Buccaneer. The A-4 could do 90% of what it could AND act as a very handy light fighter as well. The comparision is, of course, invalid, because the FAA needed the exact capacity of the Buccaneer, just as the USN needed the additional capacity of the A-6 for the deep nuclear interdiction mission that was part of the SIOP.
 
Have to ask - How do you define superior? Range? War load? Reliability? Crew size? Longevity?

The A-6 had far more range and 50% greater war load (for that matter, the slightly later A-7 had MORE than 50% greater war load). Reliability was about the same, crew was two in both aircraft. The Buccaneer was a 1958 airframe that endered service in mid-1962, the A-6 was a 1960 design that entered service in early 1963.

The Buccaneer was barely an upgrade over the A-4 performance wise. If you want to call something "pork" (a term that I feel isn't justified) it would be the Buccaneer. The A-4 could do 90% of what it could AND act as a very handy light fighter as well. The comparision is, of course, invalid, because the FAA needed the exact capacity of the Buccaneer, just as the USN needed the additional capacity of the A-6 for the deep nuclear interdiction mission that was part of the SIOP.

Apart from politics, we shouldn't forget the NATO member states have different defence doctrine. The danger of multinational weapon development is that it's usually difficult to accomodate all the different preceived national needs.

Another example, apart from the A-6 vs. Buccaneer comparsion, is the difference between UK- France/ Italy about the role and armamemnt of the Horizon class frigates. Why did the UK insisted on a better AAW capability? What does that tell us about the differences between British and French naval doctrines and intended operational environments? Any discussions that just talked about politics and ignore how the respective states intended their navies to be used (in both peace and war)are just baseless.
 
Apart from politics, we shouldn't forget the NATO member states have different defence doctrine. The danger of multinational weapon development is that it's usually difficult to accomodate all the different preceived national needs.

That's the usual justification for pork, doctrinal differences. Of course there are doctrinal differences but if one ends up with 100 pieces of 100% doctrine combatible tanks compared to 150 95% doctrine compatible tanks there's something wrong. Especially when usually one gets those 100% doctrine compatible tanks many years later... And unfortunately that's what the situation has been especially with latest generations of Western European fighter aircrafts. Short production runs seriously limit the numbers AF's can acquire, as well as their capabilities.

So, the real question is that at what point does the doctrine start to eat from real combat capability? Of course, even Tornado ADV was justified by doctrine...

Another example, apart from the A-6 vs. Buccaneer comparsion, is the difference between UK- France/ Italy about the role and armamemnt of the Horizon class frigates. Why did the UK insisted on a better AAW capability? What does that tell us about the differences between British and French naval doctrines and intended operational environments? Any discussions that just talked about politics and ignore how the respective states intended their navies to be used (in both peace and war)are just baseless.

The essential difference between Horizons and Type 45, capability wise, is that Type 45 has more powerful SAMPSON radar and 4,5" surface target gun instead of Horizon's shorter range dual use 3" guns. The decision to go with national designs has probably cost about 2 ships for Britain and 1 each for Italy and France. First ships in a new class are always expensive.

One must admire the US ability to design a good basic configuration and stick with it with Spruance-Ticonderoga-Kidd-Burke (Kongo, Atago, KDX-III as well) -combo. One must also wonder what condition the European navies would be in if similar far-reaching decisions could be made instead of every shipyard whining for state subsidies.
 
Last edited:
That's the usual justification for pork, doctrinal differences. Of course there are doctrinal differences but if one ends up with 100 pieces of 100% doctrine combatible tanks compared to 150 95% doctrine compatible tanks there's something wrong. And unfortunately that's what the situation has been especially with latest generations of Western European fighter aircrafts. Short production runs seriously limit the numbers AF's can acquire, as well as their capabilities.

So, the real question is that at what point does the doctrine start to eat from real combat capability? Of course, even Tornado ADV was justified by doctrine...

The essential difference between Horizons and Type 45, capability wise, is that Type 45 has more powerful SAMPSON radar and 4,5" surface target gun instead of Horizon's shorter range dual use 3" guns. The decision to go with national designs has probably cost about 2 ships for Britain and 1 each for Italy and France. First ships in a new class are always expensive.

One must admire the US ability to design a good basic configuration and stick with it with Spruance-Ticonderoga-Kidd-Burke (Kongo, Atago, KDX-III as well) -combo. One must also wonder what condition the European navies would be in if similar far-reaching decisions could be made instead of every shipyard whining for state subsidies.

Doctrinal defence may indeed can be attributed politics, in the sense that national politics affect particular countries' preception of national interest/ security and the decision about development of particular type of equipment.

The Spruance- Ticonderoga lineage is not exactly the best example, given that the AEGIS system was planned to be installed on nuclear cruisers. Ticonderoga is, in a sense, a second best choice. Also, the Kidd came out before Tico and Burke, and is very much a specialized job not to be included in the lineage.
 
National doctrinal differences do exist and are quite legitimate, indeed doctrine has been used as a work-around for pork. Eg. flying low instead of buying extra ECM support, using helicopters behind the FEBA instead of in front of it and taking less losses, amphibious landings on quiet beaches instead of buying extra fire support.

The US doesn't have a monopoly on doctrine, indeed for much of NATO's history their doctrine was nothing special. Nor do they have a monoply on weapons design, again many US weapons weren't as good as their allies had. I don't think it is pork barrelling for an advanced industrial country to support its own defence industry, many fine European weapons have found large export customer bases to spread development costs and bought into the western sphere of influence countries that may not have been included if they were dealing with the US.

CalBear, the A4 can do 90% of what the Buccaneer does, really? In 1966 a Buccaneer flew from the Irish Sea and conducted a mock nuke attack on Gibraltar, a 2300nm round trip. I'd like to see an A4 do 90% of that.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
National doctrinal differences do exist and are quite legitimate, indeed doctrine has been used as a work-around for pork. Eg. flying low instead of buying extra ECM support, using helicopters behind the FEBA instead of in front of it and taking less losses, amphibious landings on quiet beaches instead of buying extra fire support.

The US doesn't have a monopoly on doctrine, indeed for much of NATO's history their doctrine was nothing special. Nor do they have a monoply on weapons design, again many US weapons weren't as good as their allies had. I don't think it is pork barrelling for an advanced industrial country to support its own defence industry, many fine European weapons have found large export customer bases to spread development costs and bought into the western sphere of influence countries that may not have been included if they were dealing with the US.

CalBear, the A4 can do 90% of what the Buccaneer does, really? In 1966 a Buccaneer flew from the Irish Sea and conducted a mock nuke attack on Gibraltar, a 2300nm round trip. I'd like to see an A4 do 90% of that.

That was my point. Close enough generally isn't.
 
That's the usual justification for pork, doctrinal differences. Of course there are doctrinal differences but if one ends up with 100 pieces of 100% doctrine combatible tanks compared to 150 95% doctrine compatible tanks there's something wrong. Especially when usually one gets those 100% doctrine compatible tanks many years later... And unfortunately that's what the situation has been especially with latest generations of Western European fighter aircrafts. Short production runs seriously limit the numbers AF's can acquire, as well as their capabilities.

That's true. French stuff is notoriously expensive per unit, for this very reason. However, you have not answered how you'd resolve this wrt domestic defence industries, employment and foreign exports.

So, the real question is that at what point does the doctrine start to eat from real combat capability? Of course, even Tornado ADV was justified by doctrine...

The Tornado ADV is an example of producing something that, IMO, was largely unnecessary; although more a product of poor timing with the end of the Cold War than anything else. (I would have thought licence-building the
F14, bolstered by improved F4s with Skyflash/Blue Fox radar (?) would have been better and served UK Cold War interests just as well, because we were already producing and developing the Harrier/Sea Harrier F2, the Tornado Gr, the Hawk, etc.)

However, its production reiterates the importance governments place in keeping their R&D and production facilities by placing orders.




The essential difference between Horizons and Type 45, capability wise, is that Type 45 has more powerful SAMPSON radar and 4,5" surface target gun instead of Horizon's shorter range dual use 3" guns. The decision to go with national designs has probably cost about 2 ships for Britain and 1 each for Italy and France. First ships in a new class are always expensive.

We could not come to an agreement with France and Italy. The French see their AAW ships as complimentary to carrier aircraft (indeed, the FN has for a long time been geared towards a maintaining a composite carrier group with second echelon patrol frigates making up the bulk); the Italians see theirs in a similar vein, albeit under landbased/coalition cover. The UK, however, wanted something better (more expensive), more suited to the likelihood of having to operate in a hostile environment independently.


One must admire the US ability to design a good basic configuration and stick with it with Spruance-Ticonderoga-Kidd-Burke (Kongo, Atago, KDX-III as well) -combo. One must also wonder what condition the European navies would be in if similar far-reaching decisions could be made instead of every shipyard whining for state subsidies.

And that's not a condition in US shipyards? No pleading for orders, no orders placed or construction staggered, from constituents? I think it is.

Again, I can appreciate that streamlining defence would have allowed for more units, and that it co-operation could have been better to avoid unnecessary duplication, but it fails to take into account the nature of the defence industry and its special place in the government's heart.

A politician will gladly equip the armed forces with an inferior weapons system and in lesser numbers, if it's made in his own constituency.
 
Economic rationalism sucks dogs balls, almost as much as globalisation does, or maybe more. Neither should be used as a basis for defence of the realm.

I'd rather have busy defence-industry factories, and a slightly higher defence procurement budget then having a slightly lower defence procurement budget and longer dole queues. If you're not paying that bit more to buy your weapons at home then you're paying more out in welfare and getting less income from tax, not to mention missing out on exports which feed back into the cycle.

However there should be a limit to where politics comes into defence procurement. Britain is the prime example of this; 1957 defence white paper, TSR2, P1154, CVA 01, F111K, Blue Streak, 10kt nuke yeild limit, Nimrod AEW3. If defence, treasury and industry had been left to get on with it I'm sure Britian would be far better off today.
 
Top