Originally Posted by
sandiego89
Because they can. The US is perfectly able to design and field tier one precision weapons, and would have no interest in getting out the ability to do so. It keeps the knowledge, jobs and procurement chain in house, for a program that could run decades. Once you step off the train it is very hard to get back on.
In fairness the US did sign a binding agreement on NATO AAM development, with the US to lead on developing the AIM-7 replacement (AMRAAM) and Europe to lead on developing the AIM-9 replacement (ASRAAM). The US then leaned on the European programme to adopt a US seeker in the European design, causing a few Euro-teddies to be thrown and the first fracture in the consortium. The US then reneged on the agreement, further fracturing the European consortium and offering a take-it-or-leave it deals on the AMRAAM, AIM-9X and a US monopoly on AAM technology for all NATO nations. When the UK pushed forward with its own money for Meteor the US suddenly remembered the previous agreement that the European NATO nations would not produce an advanced medium-range AAM and threw their teddies around whilst displaying collective amnesia over the US antics over the ASRAAM program.
The US has shown it is quite adept at pushing others off the train and protesting when the hapless victims get-up, dust themselves off and build a new train. It has also had the effect of leaving the US armed forces with an asthmatic AIM-9X as a stupidly short-range missile and AIM-120 with its poor terminal kinematics at range. Still, the US industrial complex sold bucketloads of them so K Street was happy.
The lack of cooperation and underhanded tactics did leave the UK with Meteor and ASRAAM, so not all bad news, but it cost us a lot of time and money. Now the US backdoor-dealing with secret competitions and production awards is all internal to the US - K Street is as busy as ever knifing each other.
Some brief history:
https://publications.parliament.uk/p...544/544w09.htm