Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Bush Jet Sale Shoots Down Security Policy, Says BASIC
From: ivler@mdcbbs.com (J.M. Ivler    ivler@mdcbbs.com)
Date: 14 Sep 92 10:39:23 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: ivler

In article <1992Sep14.111426.2874@samba.oit.unc.edu>, 
Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>  
>    WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The F-15s being sold to
> Saudi Arabia represent the most capable fighter aircraft the United
> States has ever built.  The sale -- worth as much as $5 billion -- is
> likely to include 48 F-15XPs, based upon the F-15E, and 24 F-15Hs.
> The F-15XP is an export version of the F-15, but it still uses the
> airframe of the F-15E, which has never been exported.
>    British American Security Information Council (BASIC) Deputy
> Director Dr. Natalie J. Goldring stated, "Selling our most advanced
> fighter to the region at this time contradicts the president's own
> commitment to avoid destabilizing sales.  It also clinches the demise
> of the Big Five talks on conventional arms restraint, already
> jeopardized by last week's Taiwan announcement."

Okay, let's take a closer look at what was happening in terms of this sale. The 
Saudies had made it clear that they "were going to purchase fighter aircraft". 
They then stated that they would like to purchase the F-15. They also stated 
that they would purchase fighter aircraft from Europe if America didn't sell 
them what they wanted.

France has been flying a "demo" of thier latest fighter in the region for any 
Saudi prince that asked. England has also been entertaining the Saudies and 
asking them if they would like to purchase any British Aerospace products.

In other words, if the U.S. refused to sell these aircraft, then there were 
others that would have gladly sold them. Those others are our friends in 
Europe, our allies.

By selling them the F-15s they get an advanced airframe (minus many of the 
electronics that the non-exported version of the F-15 has). This airframe needs 
parts. They still have to buy parts from the US. This gives the US a *very* 
large voice over the use of the weapons. Without spares, the planes don't fly. 
If you don't believe that, look, as you suggested we do, at what happened in 
Iran. 60% of their fleet is grounded at any one time due to the need for spare 
parts. The remaining 40% of the fleet is not "flyable" as these planes have 
been scavenged to provide parts for the 60% that still flies. Due to this parts 
shortage, the 60% of their force that can fly doesn't. Their planes average 
less than 2 hours flight time per month for pilot training and air-defense.

If they were flying mirages, do you think that France would be withholding 
parts. We are talking about the biggest exporter of arms in the world (based on 
what they build and keep .vs. what they build and sell - Statistics from 
Aviation Week and Space Technology - The US and Russia were the biggest 
exporters of arms, but the percentage of what they built and kept was *much* 
higher than that of either France or England). I think not.

The time has come to admit that we sell death, but if we sell these advanced 
items we also retain a bit of a stranglehold on the buyers as only we can 
supply parts. this means that they *must*, to some degree, keep us happy, or 
they will just have expensive toys that are only good as paprerweights sitting 
on their runways when the parts to keep them flying stop coming in.

In the economics of the issue, the sale was in the best interest of the United 
States in both the short term (by providing jobs for those at McDonnell Douglas 
and the sub-contracters) and in the long term (we control the access to spares, 
and by doing so we also control some of their "war policy").

Yes, it would be better if we weren't the biggest (by volume) arms seller in 
the world, but better us where we can control access to spare parts, than 
England or France (expecially France), who may not share our ultimate goals and 
desires.

jmi
ivler@mdcbbs.com
[former MDC employee, but this is not their official opinion. Most of this 
information was gleened from the pages of Aviation Week and Space Technology a 
McGraw-Hill publication, and also not associated with MDC to the best of my 
knowledge].
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.save.the.earth