Richard North is a tiresome political hack, and after his cretinous intervention in the BA 3 engine transatlantic thread I don't think he can be taken seriously.
Generally, anyone who resorts to
ad hominem abuse has lost the argument. What is it about me that worries you so much, that you have to be so rude and aggressive?
However, dealing with specifics, firstly, I did not intervene on the BA 3 thread, cretinous or otherwise. I only signed up to PPrune yesterday. As to the rest...
Apparently we have to maintain an independent capability to build fast jets at all costs, including not depending on THE FRENCH!!! for missiles.
Why is it wrong to want an independent capability to design and build strategic war materials? What, when the Swedish can build the Gripen (with the help of BAE Systems) and the French can build the Rafale, is it wrong for the UK to aspire to have its own capability?
But he is also furious about Storm Shadow on the grounds it cost more than just buying more Tomahawk - of course it cost more - we developed it ourselves, with THE FRENCH!!! and kept the capability in house!
You complain about my advocating a capability "at all costs" in respect of building fast jets, although I make no such assertion. But I do complain about the taxpayer having to pay a unit price of £1,090,000 for Storm Shadow when, if we had waited, we could have purchased JASSM (not Tomahawk) at £167,000 per copy.
At the same time, we shouldn't waste money on building UAVs and certainly not take part in anything involving THE FRENCH!!!, because anyway we can always buy them off the Americans, so we don't need to maintain that capability..but we should also put our money into 5th generation fast jet manufacturing.
I am concerned that we will rely too much on UAVs but I do not think I have suggested anywhere that we should not invest in the technology. I am puzzled why prematurely we pulled out of FOAS co-operation with the US and am concerned that working with the French on Neuron (should we do so), when the French have signed UAV deals with Russia, might strain even further our relations with the US.
A couple of months ago, North was wittering about making army uniforms abroad rather than, presumably, in Lancashire (and if you think making clothes in the UK is cheaper than in China you need your head examining)...
I "witter" do I? How kind of you to say so. Are you happy about British uniforms, paid-for with taxpayers' money, being subcontracted to China?
... and moaning about the decision to get Iveco trucks (is that almost FRENCH!!!? it sounds it! Whoops, it's Ford Germany's trucks division, give or take a few..THE HUN!!!) rather than American ones.
No, the Iveco Panther FCLV, which is Italian built by the Italian company's wholly owned military vehicle division, purchased at £413,000 each when a better South African built vehicle (the company owned by BAE Systems) could have been obtained considerably cheaper.
You are confusing this with the support vehicle contract, which went to MAN trucks. These vehicles will be built in Austria, when two Anglo-US consortiums offered a higher UK-build component to better spec. Is that wrong? Stewart & Stevenson would have built the trucks in Birmingham, using a British design firm.
So - we need to retain key high-tech industries like aircraft design....and textile mills! And we can happily get rid of low-tech lame ducks like UAV and missile manufacturing. And the truck makers can go too. So, to put it in a nutshell, we ought to give up industrial capabilities and buy off-the-shelf US kit, but we also ought to retain the capabilities and make our own.
This is straw dog territory... not worth answering, as I make no such assertions.
And, in the event that the US refuse us the JSF technology transfers, how does his assertion that France is "an untrustworthy partner" stack up? What Anglo-French or other European kit do we have that we aren't allowed to maintain, like Trident or Tomahawk?
This is a laughably simplistic approach to a serious problem. However, if we are working very closely with the French, who are illegally passing US technology to the Chinese, why would you expect the US to give us their highly sensitive technology?
And how does Richard North, HAMMER OF THE FRENCH!!!, square all this with acting as an "adviser" to Philippe de Villiers, leader of the Mouvement pour la France, as he did to such effect during 2004-5? Wasn't that a bit, er, French?
Don't know where you got that from. Is is pure invention. Not only have I never acted as an advisor to de Villiers, during 2004-5, I was working as a parliamentary advisor in the Westminister Parliament.