• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

French supply video systems?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Broadsword2004

Registered User
I was reading that the French supply the video systems for Apaches and Cobras and the engines for many of the refueling tankers used by the Air Force; just wondering, if this is true, why would the DoD have a French corporation, when they and the U.S. have never liked each other, supply such critical parts for American military equipment?

And yes HueyCobra, I did google this but didn't find much.
 
You know what's worse? I heard that the engine oil they use comes from the Middle East.
 
First of all the French are a$$holes but that doesn't mean we don't like each other. The rift between us and France really has to do with that the French feel the need to do things differently to set themselves apart from the rest of the western world (eg. they didn't want to use 5.56 nato initially, they're weapons design is sometimes similar to what warsaw pact countries had etc..) that doesn't mean we hate each other. You need to look at this more from an economic and technological standpoint. We have a significant amount of trade with France because the they are good and better then us at some stuff and when it comes to national security egos shouldn't get in the way. Odds are when the contracts for those system went out dassault or some other french company had the best looking cost/benefit.
 
Yes, but national security is what made me ask the question from the start. The military in general, from my understanding, doesn't outsource stuff to foreign contractors, especially key pieces of military equipment. Guns and rifles, yes, and electronics I guess I can see, but things like aerial re-fueling tankers are key pieces of military hardware for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. So it just seemed odd to me that they would have a French company supply the engines for them.

This has nothing to do with ego; true, when it comes to national security, you want the best product for the best price, but if that product is a key piece to your military, it shouldn't make a difference if the products are similar; you should make it at home if you can (though I think the U.S. gets licenses to build the equipment here; it is just designed by the French). Normal things for the economy are different, but the military is the military. You don't have a foreign supplier supply you with key components of your military equipment (if that is the actual case).

Also, from what I have read (though I have only read a limited amount), the military doesn't always want to use such foreign engines, they want to use the domestic ones, just politics forces them to use the foreign equipment (for example I believe the U.S. Air Force wanted to use Pratt & Whitney engines, not the French ones).

Smaller pieces of equipment I can see being foreign-made, but very important pieces, like engines to refueling tankers, seems a little strange to me, so I figured I'd ask.

And airgreg, don't speak unless you can at least improve upon the conversation; oil is not something a country has a choice about producing...they either have it or they don't. Military hardware for a country like the United States is different.
 
Your view of National Security is a bit narrow (NATO is part of our National Security policy), Since the begining or WWII there has been much sharing of technology...The English developed choppom armor for M1's as well as the jet engine, we provided nukes, Germany has did some tank stuff for us, and well the I'm sure the french did something and if they didn't then if they do they're suppose to share. The French aren't going to tell they guys we hate how to take us out...at least by being part of NATO they're not supposed to. I know I keep on bringing up NATO and I do this because its really important within its framework lies certain technology sharing agreements meant to benefit all countries within. Its not just a piece paper saying if you kill we all kill.

You're right sometimes the military does stay within, but obviously it means otherwise just as well. And its sometimes politics that forces them stay within as well. Its easy to take an isolationist view on National Security because pre WWI it made more sense, there was much in the way of information intelligence back then.

The only pitfall to this is that if France stopped shipping the stuff over in protest to what we were doing (which is the only realistic argument you can make with your contention) in which case we would have to develop a bunch of stuff quickly....but that would take a very big war...a war where France would more then likely be on our side
 
And airgreg, don't speak unless you can at least improve upon the conversation
Click to expand...

Broadsword,
Thanks for the advice. I would really appreciate any further help you can give me. </sarcasm>
If I don't take your questions seriously, it's because your questions aren't serious. You ask very random things without, it seems, any thought. I'll cut you some slack since you're probably 11 years old.

I'll take an swing at answering your original question, just to be nice. I'm no expert, but I would guess using foreign parts has something to do with one or all of the following factors:

1) Risk Diversification - if you had one manufacturer build an entire airplane, what happens if that manufacturer has quality control problems? Or gets bombed during a war?
2) Politics - foreign governments are known to actively lobby US politicians
3) International Trade - if we want Boeing to be able to make parts for other countries' aircraft, we might have to throw foreign manufacturers a bone every now and then.
4) Industry Specialization & Production Efficiencies - some countries are better at producing some things (i.e. Taiwan is very efficient at producing semiconductors, Japan builds good cars, the US builds good Walmarts...)
5) Cost - lowest bidder often wins.
6) Sales Incentives - it's easier to sell an aircraft to other countries if they get kickbacks on the production process. The Eurofighter is an example of an international production team: http://www.eurofighter.com/Organisation/

I'm sure there are more knowledgeable people around to go into further detail on your questions.
 
Plenty of people ask senseless questions on these boards that they could look up with google or the past threads.

As for mine, I simply asked a question as I said my knowledge on it was limited, so that was why I asked. No need for insults.

As for technology sharing, like I said I know about that, just critical hardware pieces being outsourced confused me. Like how Airbus wants to supply the Air Force with their new refueling tankers, which some people are for and others against.
 
And yes HueyCobra, I did google this but didn't find much.
Click to expand...

lol, where did that come from?

Another point to remember is that the world is so globally oriented that it is hard to even pin down one country as producing something.

Japan makes a part and puts it in a Chinese case that is shipped off to Russia to screw on the flux capacitor or whatever, and the whole assembly gets shipped to France where they drink some wine and stencil "Made in France" on the side of it, then they ship it off to the States and Bell Textron throws it into the Cobra and stencils "Made in America" on the side of the whole thing.

National Security is a valid reason for industry protectionism (or so my economics textbook says), but that doesn't necessarily apply to EVER facet of the defense industry as a whole.

Yeah, maybe we should keep the nuke-building plant here in the states, but if we can get a cheaper windshield wiper for the 7-ton from North Kerblakistan, hell, why not save a few bucks?
 
Well HueyCobra, in the last few posts I made, you often would say something like, "Nothing a good use of google probably couldn't have solved."

I figured you'd say that here too, so I just figured I'd mention I tried google already.

And yeah I agree with your statement. Just engines themselves for aircraft like refuelers I'd rank as one of the things to make in the States, I guess (just my opinion).
 
I'm just wondering...why engines in particular?

And do you even know if we just get the designs and build them here or do they physically SHIP the engines or finished aircraft here? Cuz that seems kinda dumb, eh?

There are a plenty of things we use that are foreign-designed, but license-built in the States. Including guns.
 
vegita1220 said:
I'm just wondering...why engines in particular?

And do you even know if we just get the designs and build them here or do they physically SHIP the engines or finished aircraft here? Cuz that seems kinda dumb, eh?

There are a plenty of things we use that are foreign-designed, but license-built in the States. Including guns.
Click to expand...

Well, engines because engines are a critical component of an aircraft and that was just what my question was on. Yeah, I know about guns, almost every gun used in the U.S. military is foreign-designed I believe, except for the M-16.

I'm aware of that about how the foreign corporation designs something, but it is licensed to be built over here, I should have mentioned that in my original post. You're right it would be kinda dumb not to do so; I wasn't sure if that was how they did it though with the engines.

What do you guys think of Airbus wanting to get the contract to supply the new U.S. Air Force tanker fleet?
 
France does make some mighty good aircraft. One of the most ubiquitous helos in the world is the Eurocopter AS350, also called the "A Star" in the US. It was originally designed by Areospecial(sp?), a French company. It is a GREAT helo. I've flown quite a bit in them, very powerful, agile, and reliable. The engine powering the AS350 is a Turbomecha engine, Turbomecha is a part of Snecma. Turbomecha engines power several US aircraft.

Due to some weird US import laws, the use of a foreign airframe by the military (the HH-65 is a specific example) requires that part of that aircraft be US made. In the case of the HH-65 the original engines were replaced with Lycoming engines, which were very much inferior to their French counterparts. Recently, however, the USCG has realized the folly of their ways and is putting the original engines back in.

The point of my story is this: the US does not always make the best equipment out there. The French, for all their irritating quirks, are fine engineers.. I'd say they are crappy warriors, but great cooks, among other skills. The US should not limit it's buying of military equipment to just US manufacturers. If somebody has a better widget out there, buy it from them.
 
PropStop said:
.... The French, for all their irritating quirks, are fine engineers.. great cooks, among other skills.
Click to expand...
I can go along with that in a general sense, but this discussion overlooks the two greatest French contributions to Western culture:

1. RED WINE
2. BIDET
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top