The Joint Strike Fighter, developed by the United States with the UK as senior partner, has proved a controversial project due to the domestic decisions of the Ministry of Defence. Their wish to retire the Harriers early and deprive British flagships of air cover has been criticised for short-termism. The project has also raised critical questions about our defence partnership with and our dependence upon the United States. The war with Iraq has undermined the 'special relationship' and replaced the unstinting Atlanticism of the Cold War era with a more Europhile response amongst all of the major parties, as a recognition of new realities. As Thatcherism was an Indian summer fo the 'special relationship', the Iraqi war may prove a last hurrah.
If this were to be the case, the faultlines lie on both sides of the Atlantic. The unthinking anti-Americanism and obliging love of 'soft power' by the Europhile appeasers will crumble at some crisis, probably Iran, where their policies prove deficient. The United States will find, that allies require respect, and that has been in short supply this century. No doubt the latest flare up will not prove too damaging. It was flagged by Flight International on the 3rd January 2006.
The future of the General Electric Rolls-Royce F136 alternate engine for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) appears to be once again under threat, following a US Navy proposal to remove funding for its development from the 2007 defence budget, writes Guy Norris.
Although neither the companies nor the US Department of Defense can comment on the budget request before it is published in February, Pentagon insiders say the threat is being taken seriously by the project’s senior partner, the UK, which is believed to be involved in “direct lobbying at the highest levels”.
However, most observers believe the GE R-R team’s receipt of a $2.4 billion system development and demonstration (SDD) contract for the F136 in August makes it unlikely that the threat will materialise to the extent proposed by the USN.
Yet, the threat has materialised and the lobby from a close ally has been rejected. Perhaps there are good reasons for this, but when political support for the alliance has thinned, it is not wise to allow lobbies from the highest quarters of your ally to be dismissed out of hand. Countries will turn elsewhere, especially when there is a question mark over whether they can utilise the Joint Strike Fighter to its full efficacy, depending upon the whims of the Pentagon.
The Government has stayed tight-lipped about claims that Rolls Royce Group PLC
and General Electric Co have lost out on a multi-billion dollar contract to
supply engines for America's F-35 joint strike fighter.
The Ministry of Defence declined to comment on a story in The
Business claiming that US president George Bush has rejected an appeal to the US
from UK prime minister Tony Blair to refrain from scrapping a plan to develop a
second engine for the F-35.
Dependence upon any other country in matters of defence is best avoided. Perhaps there is a Gaullist streak running through my backbone, but the United States has proved, from Suez to the present day, a partner that has no compunction in acting against our interests when it so desires. European nations are just as fickle, and also best avoided.
Now that the government has managed to hobble and rundown our forces, so that the 'last generation' of effective troops are currently fighting, our usefulness to the major powers of the world may be coming to an end. Perhaps we will be able to replace state mandated alliances with a free market securocracy adding force as another paid service which Britain excels at. Bring back the letter of marque!