Defensiebegrotingen en -problematiek, niet NL

[Elzenga]

In de UK beginnen sommigen al dezelfde waan ideëen te krijgen als in Den Haag (volgens het onderstaande artkel)...

Nu maar hopen dat dit soort publiciteit geen breder gevolg gaat krijgen want dan komt er een moment dat Europa een serieus probleem heeft.

ja...een artikel vol naïviteit en gebrek aan inzicht...triest en ook gewoon gevaarlijk.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

In de UK beginnen sommigen al dezelfde waan ideëen te krijgen als in Den Haag (volgens het onderstaande artkel)...

Nu maar hopen dat dit soort publiciteit geen breder gevolg gaat krijgen want dan komt er een moment dat Europa een serieus probleem heeft.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

The UK should ask its army to do less

No nation is about to attack us; the only threat is terrorism. Our defence bill should reflect that

Peter Preston
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 7 August 2011 17.00 BST
Article history

Defence spending is precisely what it says on the tin: spending to defend this country. So before you get too deep in scrapped aircraft carriers, slashed regiments et al, answer the question on the other side of the label. What is the threat we're defending ourselves against? Who's coming to get us? And here's where the debate – whether led by old sea dogs short of a Harrier or now, the relevant Commons' select committee – grows foggy, going on totally impenetrable. We aren't convinced that our "armed forces will maintain the capability to undertake all that is being asked of them", say the MPs. Well, ask for less ...

Are we, pliant planters of the Nato flag anywhere in the world the Pentagon prescribes, going to get involved in another Iraq – or, worse, another Afghanistan? Of course not, says bitter experience. Even America, saving its trillions, can't be so foolishly heedless. Thirty-one more servicemen dead in a single helicopter make a savage point. There is no winning or losing in far foreign fields. Tea Party blackmail and S&P ratings are the real enemies now.

Modest ventures – say, bombing Libya's coast roads to stop too much slaughter – are probably off any future agenda, too. The cash we pay for such minor "defence" operations – counted in millions rather than the billions NHS computers lose – isn't enough to keep planes in the air day after day without top brass wailing that they need more.

Simply: saving lives in Libya is the most modest kind of out-of-area task you could envisage. If we can't do that without calling for Wing Commander Twist, then forget it. Leave the Libyans to a Syrian fate. Park consciences, wash hands. Come back to fortress Europe.

Who, looking round there with due solemnity, is going to start attacking the UK any time soon? Iceland, France, Germany? Ah! The old Muscovite hordes are on the march, are they? Give me one believable scenario that makes sense. There could be trouble in the Balkans, of course. (And no, vice-admiral, I haven't forgotten the Falklands).

But the only true threat, if any, is terrorism, again; with maybe a pinch of Tottenham-fuelled civil disorder and a spoonful of Northern Ireland thrown in. Does that need £25bn a year? Does it need heavy tanks, nuclear subs and Eurofighters? Both the bill and the shopping list are wholly out of proportion. Indeed, they are only proportionate if you conjure up a wild menu of threats that would, lumped ludicrously together, demand huge extra capacity.

Only two strands of debate support such a conclusion. One is the bog-standard MoD concern that cuts mean fewer chaps on the ground and fewer billions to spend. The other is that we shall lose "global influence". Cue the departing US defence secretary, Robert Gates, and his warning that America can't do all the world's "heavy lifting" alone.

But Gates, at the CIA, was a main proponent of the hollow "Soviet threat". He was big on Saddam threats and Taliban threats, as well. He's an intervener and cheque signer from the days when America poured zillions into "defence" because that was its role – and what its defence industries demanded.

Be clear today, though, that this era is past. Be clear that defence spending is what we need to spend – not what the heavy lifters say might be useful. And be clear, too, about the Tripoli dither. If £25bn can't set bombing waves pounding over a few months without second thoughts and escalating cost demands then there's no point in "asking" for such operations any more. And, equally, no point in providing the cash for them. No threat; no action; no argument.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/07/defence-spending-ask-less

[Lex]

Ministry of Defence to axe 7,000 more civilian jobs

Cash-strapped department to make further redundancies in effort to bring soaring budget under control

The Ministry of Defence is to axe a further 7,000 civilian jobs as part of the department's desperate efforts to bring its soaring budget under control, the Guardian has learned.

A letter signed by the permanent secretary, Ursula Brennan, will be sent to all staff explaining that cuts are necessary and conceding that the move "will raise questions which cannot be answered immediately".

The decision has infuriated union leaders and defence officials who say they were not consulted. They accused the department of acting in a cavalier fashion without thinking through the consequences.

The move means the defence civil service, which is responsible for scrutinising contracts to ensure they do not run over budget, will have been cut by a third within nine years.

Last week, the defence secretary, Liam Fox, outlined proposals to cut a further 7,000 military jobs from the army between 2015 and 2020. His statement to the Commons made no reference to civilian posts at the MoD, which are already being cut as part of last year's strategic defence and security review (SDSR).

The review outlined plans to get rid of 25,000 civil servants between now and 2015, and the fresh announcement, which could come on Friday, will add a further 7,000 to that total by 2020.

The letter from Brennan, which is being circulated around Whitehall, says that the department needs to "bear down further on non-frontline costs".

"In the SDSR we planned for ... a 25% reduction in the cost of civilian personnel by 2015, bringing the size of the MoD civil service down to a total of some 60,000 civilian posts," the letter says.

"As part of the package announced last week we need to make further reductions in ... civilian manpower. For civilians, we will be extending the earlier planned reductions, coming down to a total of 53,000 civilians by 2020."

Brennan says she hopes that many of the job losses will be "achieved by natural wastage" and that "compulsory redundancy will only be used as a last resort".

However, the letter concludes: "We recognise that news of further staff reductions ... will raise questions which cannot be answered immediately. We will let you have more news on this ... over the coming months."

Union leaders said the announcement reflected "what the MoD can afford, not what it needs". They believe the cuts could backfire with poor quality equipment being commissioned that could put the armed forces at greater risk.

Steve Jary, national secretary of Prospect, the union which represents MoD civil servants, said: "A defence civil service of just 53,000 will be just half the size it was in 2005. The further cuts in civilian numbers were not mentioned in Liam Fox's statement last week and have not been the subject of any consultation."

He added: "The MoD has consistently avoided open and detailed consultation on the changes since the SDSR was published. This is leading to a breakdown in trust; 53,000 is a totally arbitrary figure."

The saga over the MoD's runaway budget has become one of the most difficult and enduring issues facing the coalition government.

Despite all the cost cutting announced in the SDSR, there was still a substantial overspend in last year's defence budget – estimated at more than £1bn.

Officials at the MoD blamed this on the speed in which the review was undertaken, and also privately raised concerns that the government had not properly funded the reforms it wanted to make to the armed forces between now and 2020.

This led to demands from the Treasury for further cost cutting. Last week Fox said the army will shrink from its present size of about 101,000 to 82,000 by 2020.

The SDSR had already cut the army by 7,000 by 2015 – when troops will no longer have a combat role in Afghanistan. In return, the Treasury has promised that the armed forces will get a 1% real terms budget increase from 2015 to 2020 to help pay for the reforms.

However, the Guardian has been told that this is far short of what the MoD believes it needs if it is to build the promised hi-tech Future Force 2020.

The Guardian, Friday 29 July 2011

[andré herc]

18 July 2011

Defence equipment budget rises as Future Force takes shape

The Government today committed to increasing the planned MOD equipment budget by over £3bn during the Spending Review period after 2015 to fund vital future military equipment.

The longer-term vision for the make up of our military – Future Force 2020 – will be secured by this one-per-cent-a-year real terms increase in the planned equipment and equipment support programme.

The culmination of this work has meant the Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox was able to announce today, 18 July, that this funding will allow the MOD to order significant pieces of equipment over the next decade, 

voor meer  zie link
http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/future-force-18072011

[ARM-WAP]

Dr Fox is expected to endorse a review of reserve forces that says the UK should follow the US and Australia in making more use of volunteers, like the Territorial Army, to man the frontlines.
The idea is to ensure reservists are "properly trained and equipped" so that more soldiers, sailors and air personnel are ready for frontline duties.

Ondanks dat dit iets is dat ook ik propageer, hoop ik wel dat de heren ministers zich realiseren wat de problemen zijn. Al is het alleen maar dat reservisten in veel moderne conflicten niet op grote schaal inzetbaar zijn, en daarbij gewoon niet de zeer specialistische militaire taken kunnen volbrengen.

Mijn visie: politici beslissen nog maar eens over zaken waarover ze geen zak begrijpen en dat enkel en alleen maar om te besparen. Heb de afgelopen jaren al sterk de indruk dat de 'Army' de meest vocale en sterkste supporters hadden bij de Conservatives (enkel MP's zijn oud-Generaals/Kolonels), ten koste van de Royal Navy en Royal Air Force. Maar nu wordt blijkbaar ook het mes gezet in de Army.
De Britten zouden al veel besparen met het volledige terugtrekken (en al dan niet gedeeltelijk ontbinden) van hun British Forces in Germany.
http://www.bfgnet.de/Documents/english_bro.pdf

De TA zou m.i. nooit als frontline mogen ingezet worden en was oorspronkelijk zelfs bedoeld om de boel in GB (thuis dus) draaiende te houden terwijl de professionals in het buitenland ingezet werden.
Sedert de eeuwisseling is dit dus sterk gewijzigd en vind je meer en meer Territorials in Irak en Afghanistan.
Wat betreft de "verloning, statuten, enz" enerzijds en ook de training en integratie bij de beroepseenheden stel ik me wel wat vragen.
En dan vooral wanneer je leest hoe alle veteranen klagen over de gebrekkige of onbestaande steun na terugkeer uit conflictgebieden, waarbij sommigen invalide raakten...

[Lex]

Army to be cut by 19,000 soldiers as reservists increase

The government is expected to confirm later a sizeable cut in the regular Army, as part of a radical overhaul of the armed forces.
Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox has pledged a build-up of reservists to around 38,000, following a model used in the US and Australia.
The Army would be reduced from its present strength of 101,000 regulars to some 82,000 by 2020.
Several threatened Scottish military bases will also find out their future.
RAF Leuchars, in Fife, could close but be transformed into an army barracks instead, while RAF Lossiemouth, in Moray, could well be spared, and RAF Marham in Norfolk is also expected to remain open, the BBC's defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said.
It had already been announced that RAF Kinloss, in Moray, was to close.
The proposed changes would mean that by 2015, the regular Army will be at its smallest size for a century.
Dr Fox is expected to endorse a review of reserve forces that says the UK should follow the US and Australia in making more use of volunteers, like the Territorial Army, to man the frontlines.
The idea is to ensure reservists are "properly trained and equipped" so that more soldiers, sailors and air personnel are ready for frontline duties.
The BBC's defence correspondent said the Ministry of Defence (MoD) may also have won a guarantee of a slight increase in spending on equipment from 2015.
Our correspondent said the MoD had been trying to balance the books again since last October's defence review,.
The extra cash would pay for 14 new Chinook helicopters, as well as more unmanned aerial vehicles.
However, the overhaul will also mean changes for the RAF bases.
The MoD said the move would mean more service personnel being stationed in Scotland, and therefore the so-called ''defence footprint'' would increase.

BBC News,
18 July 2011 Last updated at 04:03 GMT

[Elzenga]

Challenges for European Defense Budgets after the Economic Crisis

Interessant artikel...alleen ik mis 1 mijns inziens heel bepalend aspect...de ondermijnende invloed van de NAVO en VS...of beter de "strijd" tussen pro-Atlantici en pro-EU actoren en partijen.... bij het tot stand komen van een Europese/EU defensieorganisatie en samenwerking. Dat had niet mogen ontbreken vind ik...

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Challenges for European Defense Budgets after the Economic Crisis

In Europe, some of the most dangerous effects of the 2008 financial and economic crisis have not yet been fully understood. For almost three years, the focus has been on the financial sector, the job market, and the stability of the euro. These were the areas where the immediate effects of the crisis were most damaging and where systemic stability was at stake. Due to massive state intervention, the system did not collapse; and where it crumbled, further state intervention has, so far, prevented worse outcomes. However, any such state intervention comes at a price. In part that price is clear, and in part it is hidden. This Outlook examines the effects of the economic crisis on European defenses.

Key points in this Outlook:

•Europe's financial and economic crisis is leading to further defense cuts and much-diminished defense capabilities.
•Case studies of European states--Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Poland, and Sweden--suggest the need for greater defense cooperation and pooling of military resources among European states.
•However, Europe cannot "pool and share" its way out of the fact that it spends too little on defense.
•Europe's leaders need to do a better job of convincing their publics that a credible military capability is needed to defend the international order that Europe depends on and benefits from.

Voor het complete artikel (past er niet op) lees:

http://www.aei.org/outlook/101062

[Elzenga]

di 05 jul 2011, 17:06
Brits leger mist voor 7 miljard aan materieel
LONDEN -  Het Britse leger is voor 7 miljard euro aan materieel kwijt. Dat heeft een comité dat het huishoudboekje van het ministerie van Defensie doorlicht in verband met bezuinigingen dinsdag gemeld. Het deed een dringende oproep aan het ministerie om orde op zaken te stellen.

Onder meer radio's met een totale waarde van 205 miljoen euro zijn spoorloos. Het vaststellen waar en in welke staat de spullen zijn duurt naar verwachting twee tot vier jaar.

De Britse Defensie moet de komende vier jaar 8 procent bezuinigen. Er worden geen grootschalige militaire operaties meer uitgevoerd en tot 2020 moeten zo'n 42.000 medewerkers vertrekken. Ook wordt er op materieel bezuinigd.
www.telegraaf.nl

[Elzenga]

27 June 2011 Last updated at 17:43 GMT
Liam Fox targets waste in 'radical' MoD shake-up

Liam Fox has set out plans for a "radical" re-organisation of the Ministry of the Defence, including a cut in the number of senior officers.

The defence secretary said the MoD was "top heavy" and an over-bureaucratic system had led to poor decision-making and financial management.

He told MPs the heads of the Army, Navy and RAF would get more autonomy but would be held "robustly to account".

Labour welcomed measures to cut waste but attacked cuts in troop levels.

Outlining what he said was a "radical new approach to the management of defence", Dr Fox said he had accepted the recommendations of a report by Lord Levene - the chairman of Lloyd's of London - into how to make the MoD more efficient, cut red tape and reduce inter-service rivalry.
'Constructive critique'

As part of the shake-up, the heads of the three services are set to lose their places on the MoD's most senior decision-making body - the defence board - but will be jointly represented by the chief of the defence staff, General Sir David Richards.

Dr Fox said this would end a situation in the which the chiefs spent most of their time "trying to influence policy and haggle over funding in London" and, instead, would be "empowered" to determine their own operational priorities once budgets were determined.
Continue reading the main story
"Start Quote

    We are top heavy and that must end"

Dr Liam Fox Defence Secretary

As part of a general reduction in senior officers, the rank of Commander-in-Chief across the armed forces is set to be phased out while all non-frontline posts, including reservists and contractors, are to be reviewed - starting with the most senior ranks.

"We are top heavy and that must end," Dr Fox told MPs.

He said the overhaul - in which a new joint force command will be created to oversee and integrate areas such as cyber warfare and military intelligence - would seek to tackle some of the managerial and budgetary problems which had plagued defence for many years.

"The report describes a department bedevilled by weak decision-making and poor accountability where there is insufficient focus on affordability and proper financial management," he said.

"I am confident that when people within defence review the recommendations they will recognise this work not as a criticism but a constructive critique of a department in need of reform and they will relish, as I do, the challenges it represents."
Tension

The MoD is to shed 25,000 civilian staff over the next four years as part of spending cuts announced last year while the armed forces will also shrink in size with 5,000 posts due to go in both the Army and Navy and 7,000 in the RAF.

Monday's announcement comes at a time of tension between senior ministers and military commanders about the likely duration and cost of the UK's involvement in the international mission in Libya and its impact on other military commitments.

But Dr Fox warned those top brass to be "very careful... in discussing the sustainability of our mission".
Continue reading the main story
"Start Quote

    Once you have sacked RAF pilots, you cannot reorder new ones."

Jim Murphy Shadow defence secretary

"People's lives are at stake. There can be only one message that goes out to Libya - that is, we have the military capability, political resolve and legal authority to go through with what we started," he said.

"We will continue our mission until our mission succeeds and Colonel Gaddafi must get no other signal than that."

Prime Minister David Cameron has said the service chiefs should do the fighting and leave the "talking" to the politicians.

Dr Fox said senior military commanders had unanimously agreed with the organisational changes he was proposing, adding the UK would remain in the "Premier League" of military powers following the changes.

The MoD has been criticised in recent years for waste and inefficient procurement, with an estimated £38bn "black hole" in its finances as a result of ordering more equipment than it had the budget for.
Military capability

Labour have acknowledged procurement mistakes during their time in office, but said the bigger issue was the need to rethink last year's strategic defence review as a result of the series of uprisings in the Arab world.

"In general there are some sensible proposals but it does not affect the biggest problem affecting the MoD which is the government going too far and cutting military capability too quickly," said shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy.

"While the deficit is temporary, the cuts they are making are permanent... Once you have sacked RAF pilots, you cannot reorder new ones. They have gone and they have gone for good. I think we will rue the day they made some of these cuts."

And one expert on the RAF suggested eliminating bureaucracy would not address the wider dilemma facing the armed forces.

"The fundamental problems - that there is not enough money and there are too many demands on that money - will still be pertaining," Andrew Brookes, director of the Air League, said.

"So you might change the architecture but I have yet to be convinced this is going to do what everybody hopes it will."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13923042

[andré herc]

The creation of a new joint command for the Army, Navy and RAF could be a key part of a radical re-structuring of the Ministry of Defence being announced today by the Defence Secretary Liam Fox.

He will outline changes to the organisation and management of the MOD which will increase accountability for spending in the chains of command and help prevent a repeat of the situation that led to a £38 billion blackhole.

meer nieuws en video

http://www.bfbs.com/news/uk/fox-set-mod-shake-announcement-49046.html

[Lex]

Libya action may cost UK 'hundreds of millions'

The total cost of the UK's involvement in Nato's military action in Libya could run "into the hundreds of millions" of pounds, Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander has said.
He told Sky News that while the campaign was currently costing "tens of millions", spending would rise as operations continued.
The government had previously said it would not cost hundreds of millions.
The cost of the military campaign is being met by Treasury reserves.

'Moral case'
Mr Alexander said that as the money was coming from reserves "set aside precisely for contingencies such as this, it doesn't have an effect on any other spending, on any other public services".
He added: "Of course there is a very powerful moral case for the action we are taking in Libya, it's right that we find those resources precisely from the contingency reserve that we have.
"It's right that the United Kingdom is playing a leading role to protect Libyan civilians from the appalling activities of the Libyan government and to take that country, we hope, to a better future."
When military strikes against Col Muammar Gaddafi's forces began on 19 March, Chancellor George Osborne estimated that the cost of British involvement would be "in the order of tens of millions of pounds, not hundreds of millions".
Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said: "It is worrying that Danny Alexander seems to be guessing about current costs, which are dramatically more than George Osborne originally predicted.
"We support the mission in Libya, but the government need to be clearer on the costs."
The BBC said last week that it understood that the cost of military operations in Libya to the British taxpayer had reached £100m.

BBC News,
19 June 2011 Last updated at 12:46 GMT

Dit bericht is in dit topic geplaatst, omdat hier ook duidelijk wordt hoe het met de begrotingen gesteld is en wat de gevolgen van deelname aan missies kunnen zijn in deze moeilijke tijden.

[Lex]

After the Global Recession, Who's Still Spending on Military Aircraft?

While there are signs of a recovery from the global financial crisis, its effects are still being felt in the aviation sector, notably in defense spending. Cash-strapped nations are only now starting to spend, and many of them may still be looking for bargains at the Paris Air Show this year.

"In the West, the economic crisis has had a major impact over the last couple of years," says Craig Caffrey, aviation analyst for military aircraft programs for Jane's. "European countries in particular have seen significant cuts to their defense budgets over the last two years that have seen a number of military aircraft programs delayed, cut or cancelled outright. In the U.S., by far the largest market for military aircraft, the effects have been far less severe — however growing concerns over the budget deficit and national debt there are likely to ensure that spending remains flat for at least the next five years."

Overall, military spending of all kinds increased 1.3 percent globally in 2010, the smallest annual increase in a decade, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI.  In Western Europe, it actually declined 2.8 percent.

Jane's estimates that $70 billion will be spent globally on procurement and major upgrades for military aircraft during the course of 2011, and much of the buying — or at least window shopping — could occur in Paris.
Stephen Trimbull, Americas managing editor at FlightGlobal, also sees a flat marketplace.

"There will be growth in some sectors, but others are in a decline," says Trimbull. "Unless something happens of course, but nothing is driving the market right now."

One factor is what Trimbull calls "war fatigue".
The changing role of the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan, says Trimbull, makes it hard to predict the future of aviation defense spending.

"With America pulling back in both Iraq and Afghanistan that could be huge spending that goes away," he says. "Something always seems to fill the gap in the security world, but we'll have to see what happens this time."
Question marks aside, certain aircraft suppliers are better positioned than others, says Wayne Plucker, aviation analyst for research firm Frost and Sullivan. He says Lockheed Martin is looking good with its F-35 program, as is Boeing   with its FA/18 and C-17.

"Lockheed will be fine, as they have the C-130, and I think variants of it will be around forever, " says Plucker.
The Middle East market remains a dynamic one.
Even as America downsizes its role in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's unclear to the experts how much they will spend or even can spend on military aircraft. More importantly, given the continued threat of insurgency in both nations, the role aircraft will play is not so clear.

"The need for aircraft in Afghanistan is going to be pretty low," says Plucker. "The same may hold true in Iraq.
Iraq already has plans in place to buy a squadron of combat aircraft over the next few years, but the focus in these nations — as with many other Middle Eastern countries — could be helicopters, as well as fixed wing aircraft that are able to provide logistical and surveillance capabilities.

"The clear cut winners in military aircraft industry are those who can produce multi-role aircraft of any kind, especially unmanned," says Trimbull. "That market is going to be growing over the next decade, and we're seeing a huge amount of investment as well as the potential for business growth."

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, UAVs, could be one growth sector, and Plucker says it will be interesting to see how many UAV platforms show up in Paris.
"So far the contenders haven't been enormously successful, but companies you'd never expect bring UAVs to the show," he says. 
Additionally, the high price of oil has further ensured that many of the traditional Middle Eastern nations may once again be looking at major investment in their Air Forces.

While U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia have cooled in recent months, the experts don't believe that the Saudis will look to either China or Russia when it comes to aircraft spending. Saudi Arabia, as well as the United Arab Emirates are currently investing vast sums of money in modernizing and expanding air forces as a hedge against ongoing instability in the region.

"Saudi Arabia traditionally purchases European or American military hardware and there have been few signs over recent years that this stance will alter any time soon," says Caffrey.
Trimbull adds that the Saudis have signed a deal for new American made F-15s and area looking at an upgrade of their existing F-15s.

"The Saudis will stick with the West," says Trimbull, who notes the Saudis have been in talks to purchase eight Russian S-400 anti-aircraft platforms, as part of a deal worked out with the West. "Basically they did the deal with the Russians, so the platforms weren't sold to Iran.
Russia will continue to be both a big spender and supplier. China and even India are also expected to increase spending on defense significantly over the next decade, just as they had done over the previous decade.

"Russia remains one of the key suppliers of military aircraft on the international market in almost all sectors," says Caffrey," adding that helicopter sales have experienced a resurgence over the past five years.
Russia's aircraft, however, are still based on designs from the Soviet era, but the government is beginning to invest in the modernization to retain the country's position as a major exporter.

Going forward, "Moscow will have to find replacements for its traditional main markets — China and India — which are increasing their self sufficiency," says Caffrey
China, on the other hand, remains a relatively minor player in the manufacture of military aircraft, but Caffrey says the country's aerospace industry is developing quickly and is increasingly able to provide China's armed forces with the equipment it requires.

"They still have major issues and gaps in capability in certain areas but by 2020 they are likely to start to have an increasingly significant impact upon the market," he says. "Given  the relatively low cost of Chinese aircraft, the country is also likely to become an increasingly capable competitor for Russia in the export market over the medium to long term."
"Right now they're sort of an importer," says Plucker. "On the horizon I could see them becoming a producer of aircraft for smaller non-aligned countries. The Chinese could be export worthy in the not too distant future," including something resembling the F-15.

Beijing's move into aerospace includes a number of partnerships with western companies. The result is that China may actually produce better products for the export market than they would use domestically.
China's major current shortcoming is that it lacks indigenous jet engine development. As a result, it could dive ahead in other technology.

"We don't know how much they know about stealth, but stealth is going to be the future in the defense sector," says Trimbull. "China can't be ignored and they can't be just dismissed as rip- off artists."

CNBC.com
| 17 Jun 2011 | 02:29 PM ET

[Elzenga]

Harrier jump-jets sold 'for peanuts'

Dozens of British Harrier jump jets are to be sold to the United States Marine Corps for £34 million after more than £1 billion has been spent on them in the last decade.

Tja...de "overstap" van F-35B naar F-35C moest toch ergens mee worden "betaald"...