China to buy Eurofighters?

"tscottme" wrote in message
...
Scott Ferrin wrote in message
...



In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
years.

What makes you think the Europeans don't want the next problem for the
US to be as bad as possible? They have no hope of exceeding the US
unless a full-scale war devastates the US. The fact that it helps
communists is a happy coincidence.


In fact there is no prospect of the ban being lifted anytime soon.
While the French Government and some corporate bodies
have pressed for it the EU itself has stated that it has no
plans to lift the embargo and even if it did has stated that
other agreements controlling the arms trade would prevent
such deliveries taking place.



In fact the main suppliers of high tech weaponry to China
have been Israel and Russia and even the USA supplied
dual use technology supposedly for satellite launching
that is believed to have been used in the Chinese
missile program. Finally of course we miust recall that Boeing has a
large operation in China, publically states that it supports
the one China policy and Condit is president of the
US China business council.

Keith

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:11:12 -0000, Keith Willshaw wrote:

In fact there is no prospect of the ban being lifted anytime soon.
While the French Government and some corporate bodies
have pressed for it

And the German govmt.

the EU itself has stated that it has no
plans to lift the embargo and even if it did has stated that
other agreements controlling the arms trade would prevent
such deliveries taking place.

That's a relevant point.



In fact the main suppliers of high tech weaponry to China
have been Israel and Russia and even the USA supplied
dual use technology supposedly for satellite launching
that is believed to have been used in the Chinese
missile program.

It seems to me that if Israel can supply China with missiles and
other technology, there should be no problems for Europe doing so,
since Israeli military tech is roughly on a level with European.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:11:12 -0000, Keith Willshaw
wrote:

In fact there is no prospect of the ban being lifted anytime soon.
While the French Government and some corporate bodies
have pressed for it

And the German govmt.


Cite please.

the EU itself has stated that it has no
plans to lift the embargo and even if it did has stated that
other agreements controlling the arms trade would prevent
such deliveries taking place.

That's a relevant point.



In fact the main suppliers of high tech weaponry to China
have been Israel and Russia and even the USA supplied
dual use technology supposedly for satellite launching
that is believed to have been used in the Chinese
missile program.

It seems to me that if Israel can supply China with missiles and
other technology, there should be no problems for Europe doing so,
since Israeli military tech is roughly on a level with European.


The EU views supplying arms to China as a bad idea however as
does the USA since it was US pressure that stopped the development
of an AWACS type system for China by Israeli companies.

Keith

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:44:55 -0000, Keith Willshaw wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:11:12 -0000, Keith Willshaw
wrote:

In fact there is no prospect of the ban being lifted anytime soon.
While the French Government and some corporate bodies
have pressed for it

And the German govmt.

Cite please.

http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_97.html

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:44:55 -0000, Keith Willshaw
wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:11:12 -0000, Keith Willshaw
wrote:

In fact there is no prospect of the ban being lifted anytime soon.
While the French Government and some corporate bodies
have pressed for it

And the German govmt.

Cite please.

http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_97.html


Hearsay at best

I'd rather prefer a record of a statement by a member of the German
government.

Keith

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 8:11 AM
Subject: China to buy Eurofighters?



"tscottme" wrote in message
...
Scott Ferrin wrote in message
...



In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
years.

What makes you think the Europeans don't want the next problem for the
US to be as bad as possible? They have no hope of exceeding the US
unless a full-scale war devastates the US. The fact that it helps
communists is a happy coincidence.


In fact there is no prospect of the ban being lifted anytime soon.
While the French Government and some corporate bodies
have pressed for it the EU itself has stated that it has no
plans to lift the embargo and even if it did has stated that
other agreements controlling the arms trade would prevent
such deliveries taking place.



There is a GAO report dating from 1998 that states that the current EU
embargo does not enjoy a common interpretation; what makes you think that
these "other" controls will have any real impact?


In fact the main suppliers of high tech weaponry to China
have been Israel and Russia and even the USA supplied
dual use technology supposedly for satellite launching
that is believed to have been used in the Chinese
missile program. Finally of course we miust recall that Boeing has a
large operation in China, publically states that it supports
the one China policy and Condit is president of the
US China business council.

You are sort of ignoring reality here a bit, Keith. You seem to have
forgotten the UK (like those "peaceful" Searchwater radars that were agreed
for sale?), French (everything from Crotale to the licensed helicopters that
form the basis for the only real attack helo that the PLAAF has, the WZ-9),
Italy (Aspide and current attempts to sell Grifo for the PRC's new fighter
programs). Yes, the US has (pre-89) sold some very limited weapons to the
PRC, and likely, despite some attempt to control it through the contract
conditions, some of the past satellite assistance did yield some support to
the PLA missile program. But if you are going to hang the US for that, just
what the heck do you consider the recent news that the EU and the PRC are
hopping into the same bed with Gallileo? *That* program is going to have
more impact on PRC military programs than did the old US tech transfers.

Brooks

Keith

You are sort of ignoring reality here a bit, Keith. You seem to have
forgotten the UK (like those "peaceful" Searchwater radars that were agreed
for sale?), French (everything from Crotale to the licensed helicopters that
form the basis for the only real attack helo that the PLAAF has, the WZ-9),
Italy (Aspide and current attempts to sell Grifo for the PRC's new fighter
programs). Yes, the US has (pre-89) sold some very limited weapons to the
PRC, and likely, despite some attempt to control it through the contract
conditions, some of the past satellite assistance did yield some support to
the PLA missile program. But if you are going to hang the US for that, just
what the heck do you consider the recent news that the EU and the PRC are
hopping into the same bed with Gallileo? *That* program is going to have
more impact on PRC military programs than did the old US tech transfers.


Which is going to be a real bitch. Imagine a decade or two in the
future (if that ) and something serious going on with the
US/Taiwan/China thing. Even if the US had the capability at that
point to take out the Galileo satellites their hands would be tied by
the prospect of all the users from "allied" countries being SOL. Not
to mention the heat the US would take for doing it. Would it be
possible for the US to jam Galileo while leaving Navstar working? Who
knows but I'll bet someone is thinking real hard about it.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

You are sort of ignoring reality here a bit, Keith. You seem to have
forgotten the UK (like those "peaceful" Searchwater radars that were
agreed
for sale?), French (everything from Crotale to the licensed helicopters
that
form the basis for the only real attack helo that the PLAAF has, the
WZ-9),
Italy (Aspide and current attempts to sell Grifo for the PRC's new
fighter
programs). Yes, the US has (pre-89) sold some very limited weapons to the
PRC, and likely, despite some attempt to control it through the contract
conditions, some of the past satellite assistance did yield some support
to
the PLA missile program. But if you are going to hang the US for that,
just
what the heck do you consider the recent news that the EU and the PRC are
hopping into the same bed with Gallileo? *That* program is going to have
more impact on PRC military programs than did the old US tech transfers.


Which is going to be a real bitch. Imagine a decade or two in the
future (if that ) and something serious going on with the
US/Taiwan/China thing. Even if the US had the capability at that
point to take out the Galileo satellites their hands would be tied by
the prospect of all the users from "allied" countries being SOL. Not
to mention the heat the US would take for doing it. Would it be
possible for the US to jam Galileo while leaving Navstar working? Who
knows but I'll bet someone is thinking real hard about it.

So how would it be better if the Chinese stuck with Navstar or
switched to Glonass ?

Keith

So how would it be better if the Chinese stuck with Navstar or
switched to Glonass ?

Keith



At least the US has control over Navstar. I don't know if they do
this or not but I don't imagine it would be impossible to say, deny
all service to a war zone except to those using such and such
decription.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:40:10 GMT, Scott Ferrin wrote:

At least the US has control over Navstar. I don't know if they do
this or not but I don't imagine it would be impossible to say, deny
all service to a war zone except to those using such and such
decription.

Would it be technically possible to have a local positioning
system for military purposes? If it had lots of transmitters and
switched frequencies often, it would probably be hard to jam or
destroy.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).