Forum: F-35 Lightning II

edwin3060 wrote:

But giving the F-35 to Israel and expecting them not to sell it or trade it away to other countries like China or Russia is wishful thinking, IMO, especially given the precedent that we have in the Lavi fighter project.

The Israelis are heavily dependent on US military assistance, and as such, will do what they are told when it comes to technology transfer. Does anyone honestly believe that the Israelis transferred any technology to China without the US knowing about it, and giving at least tacit approval at the time?

Israeli-Chinese cooperation on the J-10 (and other programs) came about at a time when the US was relatively lax with regard to technology transfers to China. Anyone interested can read about that sorry era in the Cox Report if they haven't done so already. The Lavi used an American-made engine and American-made composite wings and vertical tail. The engine and composites technology were about the only thing that the Israelis did not share when the Chinese went to build the J-10. The Israelis knew perfectly well where the red-lines were and what they could and could not trade with the Chinese.

And when the US finally changed its policies, and woke up to the emerging Chinese threat in 1998? The Israelis were told to shut down their trade with China, and did so. Cooperation on the J-10 was the first thing to go. After a little arm twisting the Phalcon deal and maintenance for the Harpy drones followed. Is there any other nation on earth that would cancel an already signed delivery contract - and absorb all of the cancellation penalties involved - just because the US government said so? The US does not have that kind of leverage over any other ally - least of all with the UK, which continued to supply jet engines for China's JH-7 fighter-bomber long after the Israelis had canceled the Phalcon and Harpy deals. Yet I don't see people complaining that the US is giving away too much F-35 technology to the British.

edwin3060 wrote:

Well most recently the Israeli's are openly selling UAVs to Russia. Take that for what it's worth.

Of course the Israelis are selling UAV's to Russia. Outside of the US the Israelis dominate the UAV market. And has the US government expressed any opposition to the Russian sale? No. The US is well aware of what the Israelis are trading with the Russians (and no, it's not the most advanced UAV package that the Israelis have at their disposal). If the US government had wanted the sale to stop, it would.

The US supplies weapons to Israel because it fulfills US national security objectives. It supplies the US with leverage over Israeli actions, deters Israel's neighbors from launching new wars, and provides the US with a stable proxy in a region where stability can never be taken for granted. As demonstrated in Iraq in June 1981 and in Syria in September 2007, the supply of US F-15 and F-16 fighters to Israel has to rank as among the best uses of US foreign military aid - ever.

As for Israeli participation in the F-35 program, the degree to which the Israelis are free to reexport electronics packages connected with their particular version of the F-35 will depend largely on agreements struck by the US government at the time. That responsibility lies in Washington, as it always has, not Tel Aviv.

F-16.net Sponsor

tmofarrvl wrote:

The Israelis are heavily dependent on US military assistance, and as such, will do what they are told when it comes to technology transfer.

Of course they will not. Israel has one of the most pervasive and compromising spy networks in the United States. Despite their apologies over and over and their false assurances. Whats more, the Israeli lobby is so strong, and sympathizers so high in power, that they have gotten away with so much crap we would usually tolerate from no country.

tmofarrvl wrote:

The US supplies weapons to Israel because it fulfills US national security objectives. It supplies the US with leverage over Israeli actions, deters Israel's neighbors from launching new wars, and provides the US with a stable proxy in a region where stability can never be taken for granted. As demonstrated in Iraq in June 1981 and in Syria in September 2007, the supply of US F-15 and F-16 fighters to Israel has to rank as among the best uses of US foreign military aid - ever.

You seem to forget the blow back the United States has suffered for our blind support when it comes to Israel. Make sure you also add all the useless conflicts Israel has fueled and started with our great military aid. Conflicts that pretty much ensure the new generation being born into the region is inundated and indoctrinated with hatred for the Untied States and the Israelis.

And once again you have not mentioned the Israeli lobby. I don't know any other country that we essentially give money to use toward "buying" U.S. systems. Invite into strategic programs, and let them then develop their own systems which sometimes compete with ours on the open market. And when not on the open market, through back door deals with potential foes.

Yeah I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. They're looking our for themselves, we're just a nice cooperating country which they have by the gonads. That's why I hate bureaucracy and spineless politicians. So what if you donor list shrinks? At least stick up for the United States best interest.

PhillyGuy wrote:

the Israeli lobby is so strong, and sympathizers so high in power, that they have gotten away with so much crap we would usually tolerate from no country.

In the United States, foreign policy is the domain of the executive branch (the Presidency) not the legislature (Congress). It doesn't matter how many lobbyists you have on Capital Hill. If you can't get your plan endorsed by the President, it's not going anywhere.

You may be too young to remember it, but the US first started providing military grants to Israel under President Nixon. Now in case you didn't know it, Nixon owed nothing to the "Israel lobby". They didn't elect him. Most of their supporters never voted for him. But it was Nixon who transformed the US-Israel relationship as part of a regional strategy to lure Egypt out of the Soviet sphere and to curtail any future fantasies that Israel's neighbors might still have harboured about waging yet another "war of annihilation".

So if there was this all-powerful "Israel lobby", why could they not have persuaded Congress to vote for military grants for Israeli prior to 1973? Why did the US have an arms embargo against Israel from 1948 up until the 1960s? Where was this might lobby you speak of? The only thing that the "Israel lobby" can do is ensure that Congress votes "yes" when the President proposes an aid package to Israel. Nothing more.

Still don't want to believe? How about when the Clinton Administration was pressuring Israel to cancel the Phalcon AWACS sale back in 2000? Congress was prepared to back the President up, and deduct the value of the Phalcon sale from Israel's military aid package that year. Where was this all powerful lobby you speak of?

As I said, it's the President who formulates foreign policy. Congress can agree or occassionally disagree with the President's proposals: vote the budget up or down. But at the end of the day foreign policy initiatives flow out of the White House, not Capital Hill.

PhillyGuy wrote:

Make sure you also add all the useless conflicts Israel has fueled and started with our great military aid.

In 1948 the US had an arms embargo on the Middle East. No aid, no guns, nothing. And Israel's neighbors pledged to wipe Israel off the map. No - not defeat and occupy Israel like Germany did to France: but wipe it out, down to the last man woman and child. Israel's neighbors lost. In 1956 there was also no US aid to Israel, and the Egyptian army attempted to strangle Israel's shipping routes, sparking another war. Egypt lost. In 1967 there was no US aid to Israel, and again Israel's neighbors attempted to drive Israel into the sea. And again Israel's neighbors lost. I do not envy the Israelis for the neighborhood that they live in. But I know enough to be aware that the Middle East's problems have nothing to do with whatever aid that the US supplies to Israel.

That region has been a thorn in the side of the US since America won the Revolutionary War - and had to raise a Navy to defend US merchant ships from the pirate states that preyed on American shipping from the shores of North Africa. Israel didn't create the powderkeg that is the Middle East. But they do have to live in it. I give them credit where credit is due. Israeli airmen, and their families, live at far greater personal risk than our families in America - thousands of miles from the front line - have to deal with.

The US supplies aid to Israel because it is in America's best interest. That aid goes to pay for US products, and US jobs. And in return the US expects, and receives a great deal of influence over Israeli actions - as well as supporting the only stable ally that we will ever have in that troubled corner of the world. Israel remains the only nation in the Middle East that is not at risk of one day going the same route as the Shah of Iran.

Getting back to the original thrust of this thread, I have no doubt that the differences between the US and Israel regarding how to outfit Israeli versions of the F-35 can and will be ironed out - to the advantage of both nations. I fully expect that the F-35 will continue to benefit from that same sense of innovation that saw Israeli-developed targeting pods and helmet mounted sights equipping America's F-15 and F-16 fleets today. America and Israel are still separate nations, with separate obligations and objectives. But we share many of the same enemies, and the same threats. In that corner of the world it pays to have a friend who knows how to fight.

Sorry tmofarrvl-- but Israel's publicly-unacknowledged-but-much-written-about nuclear program and related activities (such as the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactors) is the biggest roadblock in your argument of a US-puppet Israel. When it comes to perceived national survival, the Israelis are not worried about stepping on any toes.

edwin3060 wrote:

Sorry tmofarrvl-- but Israel's publicly-unacknowledged-but-much-written-about nuclear program and related activities (such as the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactors) is the biggest roadblock in your argument of a US-puppet Israel. When it comes to perceived national survival, the Israelis are not worried about stepping on any toes.

Selling arms is not the same thing as national survival. Yes, on issues that directly relate to Israel's own national security the Israeli government will do whatever they need to - as will any government. But who Israel does or does not sell arms to is not the same thing as a national life-or-death trade.

I can give a more recent example. As some of us are aware, the government of India is contemplating its next buy of fighter aircraft, and has put out an RFQ to supply 126 warplanes to fulfill its Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) requirement. Current bidders include the MiG-35, the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Dassault Rafale, Saab's Gripen NG, as well as Boeing's F/A-18E/F and Lockheed Martin's F-16IN. Israeli firms reportedly have a potential stake in providing avionics elements under several of the offerings.

More recently, however, the US government is reported to have pressured the Israeli government to withdraw their proposal to supply an Israeli AESA radar and avionics package for the Saab Gripen NG (a bigger version of the current JAS-39 Gripen with a larger engine and additional fuel capacity).
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... n-bid.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull

Of the Western aircraft being offered, only the Gripen NG had a prayer for competing with the F-16IN on a cost basis. The US government naturally wanted to maximize the chances for a US firm to win the contract. The Israelis were therefore asked to withdraw their support for the Saab offering - and they did.

When it comes to arms trade, the Israeli government knows where the red lines are - and will submit to US pressure if and when Washington chooses to exercise it. The examples cited in the past of Israeli dealings with China or other parties were all instances where the US chose either not to restrain Israeli arms sales, or chose to do so only after the fact.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Israel, US Bridge Gaps Over F-35