Showing posts with label weapons exports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label weapons exports. Show all posts
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Israel and Saudi Arabia to Buy Advanced War Planes from US
The US Arms Bonanza in the Middle East
By JONATHAN COOK
Two of the United States’ closest allies in the Middle East, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are on the brink of signing large arms deals with the US in a move designed to ratchet up the pressure on Iran, according to defence analysts.
America has agreed to sell Saudi Arabia 84 of the latest model of the F-15 jet and dozens of Black Hawk helicopters. The deal also includes refurbishing many of the kingdom’s older F-15s, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
Israel is believed to have opposed the $30 billion deal. However, in a concession to Israel, the new F-15s, made by the Boeing Company, will not be equipped with the latest weapons and avionics systems available to the US military.
The last such major arms sale by the US to Saudi Arabia was in 1992, when the kingdom received 72 F-15s. On that occasion, Israel tried to block the $9bn deal by lobbying the US Congress, straining relations with the White House of George H W Bush.
Meanwhile, the US is preparing to provide Israel’s air force with the F-35, the latest jet fighter made by Lockheed Martin, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported last week.
The F-35’s stealth technology, which allows it to evade radar detection and anti-aircraft missiles, comes with a hefty price tag of up to $150 million a plane -- a cost that Israel had been balking at.
But, according to the reports, the US has offered Israeli firms defence contracts worth $4bn to supply parts for the F-35 -- a deal some Israeli analysts believe is designed to buy Israel’s silence over the Saudi deal and ensure it gets through the US Congress.
It is one of the largest such deals in Israel’s history and it would offset much of the cost to Israel of buying its first batch of F-35s.
The aircraft is not expected to enter service until 2014. If Israel signs up for a single squadron of 20 F-35s, as expected in the next few weeks, it would be the first country outside the US to secure the jet. Israel has been given an option to buy 55 more.
Last year Israel had threatened to abandon negotiations over the F-35 and opt instead to buy the advanced F-15. Saudi Arabia’s reported purchase of that jet appears to make such a scenario less likely.
The Obama administration has faced heavy lobbying from Israel to prevent the sale of the F-15s to Saudi Arabia.
“Today these planes are against Iran, tomorrow they might turn against us,” Haaretz quoted an unnamed security official as saying last month.
Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister, told the Washington Post last month that the US administration was committed to making sure Israel was not left in an “inferior situation” and was “doing a lot to support Israel’s qualitative military edge”.
The Saudis have become one of the largest purchasers of US-made arms since they bought the first AWACS surveillance planes in the 1980s. According to a recent Congressional report, the Gulf kingdom spent $36 billion world-wide on arms in the seven years to 2008.
Today, Saudi Arabia has the third largest air force in the Middle East behind Israel and Iran. The Royal Saudi Air Force has 280 “combat capable” aircraft, according to data compiled by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, compared to Israel’s 424 and Iran’s 312.
The Wall Street Journal did not specify the model of F-15 being bought by Riyadh, but experts widely assumed it to be the upgraded Strike Eagle. The jet, designed for precision air-to-surface attacks, was the main one used by the US in destroying Iraq’s radar and missile systems during the 2003 invasion.
Analysts said the joint strengthening of the Saudi Arabian and Israeli militaries was seen as a key regional interest for the US, given the belief in Washington that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear warhead and is rapidly amassing a large arsenal of missiles.
If, as Iran reportedly claimed last week, it is in possession of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, the F-35 stealth technology would give Israel an important advantage in an attack.
However, some analysts have questioned the wisdom of the US arms sales.
Trita Parsi, an analyst at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington and an expert on Israeli-Iranian relations, said it was a “misguided policy” aimed at keeping Tehran “isolated and subdued”.
“All that is achieved by heavily arming Arab states and Israel is to increase Iran’s sense of insecurity and therefore make the region less secure,” he said.
Stephen Zunes, a US-based Middle East policy analyst, accused Washington of setting the stage for another “arms race” in the region.
“This is a pattern we’ve seen before. The US offers Arab states expensive modern armaments, and then turns around to Israel and tells it it needs to have even better weapons to stay ahead in the race. Then the pressure again mounts on the Arab states. It’s a racket that has been a bonanza for US arms manufacturers,” he said.
Israel receives $3bn annually in US military aid, more than any other country and covering about a quarter of Israel’s defence expenditure. Unlike other recipients, Israel is allowed to spend 26 per cent of the aid on the development and production of its own weapons systems.
However, Israeli officials are reported to fear that a combined squeeze on the country’s defence budget and a massive outlay on buying a large number of F-35s would leave the military without money to replenish its stocks of ammunition and bombs.
Last month Washington agreed to an additional military subsidy of $420 million to help Israel develop its “missile shield” programmes, designed to intercept short-, mid- and long-range missiles.
Israel has been concerned by the growing stockpiles of rockets and missiles that Hamas and Hizbullah have accumulated close to its borders as well as the more advanced arsenals of Iran and Syria.
In addition to the question of the price of the F-35, Israel and the US have been at loggerheads over whether Israel should be allowed to install its own avionics and weapons systems. So far the US has refused, and last month denied Israel a test aircraft.
In the past, Tel Aviv and Washington have fallen out over Israel copying and selling on American systems to other regimes.
By JONATHAN COOK
Two of the United States’ closest allies in the Middle East, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are on the brink of signing large arms deals with the US in a move designed to ratchet up the pressure on Iran, according to defence analysts.
America has agreed to sell Saudi Arabia 84 of the latest model of the F-15 jet and dozens of Black Hawk helicopters. The deal also includes refurbishing many of the kingdom’s older F-15s, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
Israel is believed to have opposed the $30 billion deal. However, in a concession to Israel, the new F-15s, made by the Boeing Company, will not be equipped with the latest weapons and avionics systems available to the US military.
The last such major arms sale by the US to Saudi Arabia was in 1992, when the kingdom received 72 F-15s. On that occasion, Israel tried to block the $9bn deal by lobbying the US Congress, straining relations with the White House of George H W Bush.
Meanwhile, the US is preparing to provide Israel’s air force with the F-35, the latest jet fighter made by Lockheed Martin, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported last week.
The F-35’s stealth technology, which allows it to evade radar detection and anti-aircraft missiles, comes with a hefty price tag of up to $150 million a plane -- a cost that Israel had been balking at.
But, according to the reports, the US has offered Israeli firms defence contracts worth $4bn to supply parts for the F-35 -- a deal some Israeli analysts believe is designed to buy Israel’s silence over the Saudi deal and ensure it gets through the US Congress.
It is one of the largest such deals in Israel’s history and it would offset much of the cost to Israel of buying its first batch of F-35s.
The aircraft is not expected to enter service until 2014. If Israel signs up for a single squadron of 20 F-35s, as expected in the next few weeks, it would be the first country outside the US to secure the jet. Israel has been given an option to buy 55 more.
Last year Israel had threatened to abandon negotiations over the F-35 and opt instead to buy the advanced F-15. Saudi Arabia’s reported purchase of that jet appears to make such a scenario less likely.
The Obama administration has faced heavy lobbying from Israel to prevent the sale of the F-15s to Saudi Arabia.
“Today these planes are against Iran, tomorrow they might turn against us,” Haaretz quoted an unnamed security official as saying last month.
Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister, told the Washington Post last month that the US administration was committed to making sure Israel was not left in an “inferior situation” and was “doing a lot to support Israel’s qualitative military edge”.
The Saudis have become one of the largest purchasers of US-made arms since they bought the first AWACS surveillance planes in the 1980s. According to a recent Congressional report, the Gulf kingdom spent $36 billion world-wide on arms in the seven years to 2008.
Today, Saudi Arabia has the third largest air force in the Middle East behind Israel and Iran. The Royal Saudi Air Force has 280 “combat capable” aircraft, according to data compiled by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, compared to Israel’s 424 and Iran’s 312.
The Wall Street Journal did not specify the model of F-15 being bought by Riyadh, but experts widely assumed it to be the upgraded Strike Eagle. The jet, designed for precision air-to-surface attacks, was the main one used by the US in destroying Iraq’s radar and missile systems during the 2003 invasion.
Analysts said the joint strengthening of the Saudi Arabian and Israeli militaries was seen as a key regional interest for the US, given the belief in Washington that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear warhead and is rapidly amassing a large arsenal of missiles.
If, as Iran reportedly claimed last week, it is in possession of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, the F-35 stealth technology would give Israel an important advantage in an attack.
However, some analysts have questioned the wisdom of the US arms sales.
Trita Parsi, an analyst at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington and an expert on Israeli-Iranian relations, said it was a “misguided policy” aimed at keeping Tehran “isolated and subdued”.
“All that is achieved by heavily arming Arab states and Israel is to increase Iran’s sense of insecurity and therefore make the region less secure,” he said.
Stephen Zunes, a US-based Middle East policy analyst, accused Washington of setting the stage for another “arms race” in the region.
“This is a pattern we’ve seen before. The US offers Arab states expensive modern armaments, and then turns around to Israel and tells it it needs to have even better weapons to stay ahead in the race. Then the pressure again mounts on the Arab states. It’s a racket that has been a bonanza for US arms manufacturers,” he said.
Israel receives $3bn annually in US military aid, more than any other country and covering about a quarter of Israel’s defence expenditure. Unlike other recipients, Israel is allowed to spend 26 per cent of the aid on the development and production of its own weapons systems.
However, Israeli officials are reported to fear that a combined squeeze on the country’s defence budget and a massive outlay on buying a large number of F-35s would leave the military without money to replenish its stocks of ammunition and bombs.
Last month Washington agreed to an additional military subsidy of $420 million to help Israel develop its “missile shield” programmes, designed to intercept short-, mid- and long-range missiles.
Israel has been concerned by the growing stockpiles of rockets and missiles that Hamas and Hizbullah have accumulated close to its borders as well as the more advanced arsenals of Iran and Syria.
In addition to the question of the price of the F-35, Israel and the US have been at loggerheads over whether Israel should be allowed to install its own avionics and weapons systems. So far the US has refused, and last month denied Israel a test aircraft.
In the past, Tel Aviv and Washington have fallen out over Israel copying and selling on American systems to other regimes.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Obama Seeks to Expand US Arms Exports
(Sounds like a bad idea to me...--jef)
by Maggie Bridgeman, Thursday, July 29, 2010 by the McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The United States is currently the world biggest weapons supplier - holding 30 per cent of the market - but the Obama administration has begun modifying export control regulations in hopes of enlarging the U.S. market share, according to U.S. officials.
We Arm the World
President Barack Obama already has taken the first steps by tucking new language into the Iran sanctions bill signed in early July. His aides are now compiling the "munitions list," which regulates the sale of military items.
The administration's stated reason for the changes is to simplify the sale of weapons to U.S. allies, but potential spinoffs include generating business for the U.S. defense industry, creating jobs and contributing to Obama's drive to double U.S. exports by 2015.
Critics say the reforms are being rushed and warn that the expedited procedures could allow weapons technology to fall into the wrong hands.
India, which currently is seeking 126 fighter-jets worth over $10 billion, 10 large transport aircraft worth $6 billion, and other multi-billion dollar defense sales, could be among the possible beneficiaries. Allies seeking advanced U.S. weaponry and equipment, who now often buy elsewhere due to the cumbersome U.S. approval process, would draw immediate benefit from the reforms, U.S. officials said.
Obama first called for the reforms in August 2009, then referred to them in his Jan. 27 State of the Union address as an element toward doubling exports by 2015.
In the House of Representatives, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, (D-Calif.), is drafting a bill that parallels the president's plan.
However, it isn't clear that the Senate will go along, as it is still reviewing the president's proposals.
"It is probably going to be some time yet before there is movement in the relevant committees on formal hearings or writing or legislation," said Andy Fisher, spokesperson for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Obama's plan, according to top officials, is to ask Congress to streamline the bureaucratic process for approving arms sales by setting up a single new agency to oversee one list of exportable weapons, "tiered" according to the sensitivity of the technology. Currently the State and Commerce Departments maintain separate lists, and the State Department list contains many restrictions.
"Our aim is to make the system more transparent, efficient, and effective," said Ben Chang, a White House spokesman. "This means we are improving our ability to administer our controls, which improves our ability to enforce them, and equally important, improves the ability of companies to comply."
Critics say decontrolling weapons systems could fuel regional arms races, allow technology to fall into the wrong hands and, because arms purchasers often want to set up their own industries, end up exporting jobs abroad.
"The concern that we have is that the net result of this process would be to open the floodgates for military sales to states that do not meet the standards established in years previous," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.
"We're No. 1 in weapons in the world, so I don't understand what the problem is we need to fix," said a Republican staffer for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the topic.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the most outspoken administration advocate for the new system, said it will "build high walls around a smaller yard" by narrowing in on the nation's "crown jewels."
However, critics point out that what those crown jewels are depends on decisions yet to be made.
"There's nothing in their top tier currently," the Senate GOP staffer said. "They can't figure out what should be in their top tier."
Senior officials have said possible "top tier" items include certain night vision technology and advanced stealth technology, which makes aircraft invisible to radar, infrared, and sonar.
The new system would allow older technology such as Lockheed Martin's F-16 fighter to fall to a lower tier as newer, more advanced technology emerges. The staffer said that some versions of the plan currently circulating don't include the F-16 in the top tier of the secured list.
The F-16 may no longer be top technology for the U.S., but as is the case with much of the aging technology that will be decontrolled, the Senate GOP staffer said, "It's often a question of what China, a terrorist, or even a rogue state would do with these things."
Members of the Obama administration say that changes will enhance national security.
"In fact, our system itself poses a potential national security risk based on the fact that its structure is overly complicated, contains too many redundancies, and tries to protect too much," United States National Security Advisor General James Jones said in a speech introducing the plans.
The administration hopes that by streamlining the process, allies will be able to receive more weapons and technology faster, making their equipment more compatible with that of the United States, and making it easier to complete joint operations.
"It spells the difference between U.S. forces going it alone or having allies who are able to operate in the lethal battle space with U.S. military forces," said former Bush administration arms regulator Amb. Lincoln Bloomfield Jr.
Rep. Donald Manzullo, R-Ill., represents a district with aerospace and other manufacturers, and said reform is needed for the survival of U.S. manufacturing.
"We can begin to manufacture our way out of this recession by reforming our export controls," Manzullo said in a speech at the American Enterprises Institute, a conservative think tank.
Manzullo has worked for export control reform throughout his career and says that the job creation benefits make the initiative worthwhile, but he retains doubts about the current review.
"I have a problem with giving all that power to one agency," Manzullo said.
Manzullo explained that having one agency to govern export controls could be dangerous if the wrong person were put in charge.
Similarly, Christopher Wall, former assistant secretary of commerce, said he supports reform but thought initially that the changes were being rushed. In recent weeks, he said, the administration appears to have a better understanding of the immensity of the task.
"Whether it has to do with the possible departure of Secretary Gates or the election timetable coming up, neither of these should drive the reform process," Wall said.
The Senate GOP staffer said that if the United States decontrols as the number one seller in the market, then others with less scrupulous records will follow suit.
The Obama administration isn't the first executive to see the benefits of export control reform; both former President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush undertook similar reviews, which according to Gregory Suchan, a former deputy assistant secretary of state, "crashed and burned essentially because of opposition from Congress."
"Anybody who thinks that they can come to a conclusion as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing," Suchan said, "such a judgment is premature"
***
WASHINGTON - The United States is currently the world biggest weapons supplier - holding 30 per cent of the market - but the Obama administration has begun modifying export control regulations in hopes of enlarging the U.S. market share, according to U.S. officials.
We Arm the World
President Barack Obama already has taken the first steps by tucking new language into the Iran sanctions bill signed in early July. His aides are now compiling the "munitions list," which regulates the sale of military items.
The administration's stated reason for the changes is to simplify the sale of weapons to U.S. allies, but potential spinoffs include generating business for the U.S. defense industry, creating jobs and contributing to Obama's drive to double U.S. exports by 2015.
Critics say the reforms are being rushed and warn that the expedited procedures could allow weapons technology to fall into the wrong hands.
India, which currently is seeking 126 fighter-jets worth over $10 billion, 10 large transport aircraft worth $6 billion, and other multi-billion dollar defense sales, could be among the possible beneficiaries. Allies seeking advanced U.S. weaponry and equipment, who now often buy elsewhere due to the cumbersome U.S. approval process, would draw immediate benefit from the reforms, U.S. officials said.
Obama first called for the reforms in August 2009, then referred to them in his Jan. 27 State of the Union address as an element toward doubling exports by 2015.
In the House of Representatives, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, (D-Calif.), is drafting a bill that parallels the president's plan.
However, it isn't clear that the Senate will go along, as it is still reviewing the president's proposals.
"It is probably going to be some time yet before there is movement in the relevant committees on formal hearings or writing or legislation," said Andy Fisher, spokesperson for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Obama's plan, according to top officials, is to ask Congress to streamline the bureaucratic process for approving arms sales by setting up a single new agency to oversee one list of exportable weapons, "tiered" according to the sensitivity of the technology. Currently the State and Commerce Departments maintain separate lists, and the State Department list contains many restrictions.
"Our aim is to make the system more transparent, efficient, and effective," said Ben Chang, a White House spokesman. "This means we are improving our ability to administer our controls, which improves our ability to enforce them, and equally important, improves the ability of companies to comply."
Critics say decontrolling weapons systems could fuel regional arms races, allow technology to fall into the wrong hands and, because arms purchasers often want to set up their own industries, end up exporting jobs abroad.
"The concern that we have is that the net result of this process would be to open the floodgates for military sales to states that do not meet the standards established in years previous," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.
"We're No. 1 in weapons in the world, so I don't understand what the problem is we need to fix," said a Republican staffer for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the topic.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the most outspoken administration advocate for the new system, said it will "build high walls around a smaller yard" by narrowing in on the nation's "crown jewels."
However, critics point out that what those crown jewels are depends on decisions yet to be made.
"There's nothing in their top tier currently," the Senate GOP staffer said. "They can't figure out what should be in their top tier."
Senior officials have said possible "top tier" items include certain night vision technology and advanced stealth technology, which makes aircraft invisible to radar, infrared, and sonar.
The new system would allow older technology such as Lockheed Martin's F-16 fighter to fall to a lower tier as newer, more advanced technology emerges. The staffer said that some versions of the plan currently circulating don't include the F-16 in the top tier of the secured list.
The F-16 may no longer be top technology for the U.S., but as is the case with much of the aging technology that will be decontrolled, the Senate GOP staffer said, "It's often a question of what China, a terrorist, or even a rogue state would do with these things."
Members of the Obama administration say that changes will enhance national security.
"In fact, our system itself poses a potential national security risk based on the fact that its structure is overly complicated, contains too many redundancies, and tries to protect too much," United States National Security Advisor General James Jones said in a speech introducing the plans.
The administration hopes that by streamlining the process, allies will be able to receive more weapons and technology faster, making their equipment more compatible with that of the United States, and making it easier to complete joint operations.
"It spells the difference between U.S. forces going it alone or having allies who are able to operate in the lethal battle space with U.S. military forces," said former Bush administration arms regulator Amb. Lincoln Bloomfield Jr.
Rep. Donald Manzullo, R-Ill., represents a district with aerospace and other manufacturers, and said reform is needed for the survival of U.S. manufacturing.
"We can begin to manufacture our way out of this recession by reforming our export controls," Manzullo said in a speech at the American Enterprises Institute, a conservative think tank.
Manzullo has worked for export control reform throughout his career and says that the job creation benefits make the initiative worthwhile, but he retains doubts about the current review.
"I have a problem with giving all that power to one agency," Manzullo said.
Manzullo explained that having one agency to govern export controls could be dangerous if the wrong person were put in charge.
Similarly, Christopher Wall, former assistant secretary of commerce, said he supports reform but thought initially that the changes were being rushed. In recent weeks, he said, the administration appears to have a better understanding of the immensity of the task.
"Whether it has to do with the possible departure of Secretary Gates or the election timetable coming up, neither of these should drive the reform process," Wall said.
The Senate GOP staffer said that if the United States decontrols as the number one seller in the market, then others with less scrupulous records will follow suit.
The Obama administration isn't the first executive to see the benefits of export control reform; both former President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush undertook similar reviews, which according to Gregory Suchan, a former deputy assistant secretary of state, "crashed and burned essentially because of opposition from Congress."
"Anybody who thinks that they can come to a conclusion as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing," Suchan said, "such a judgment is premature"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)