FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1984
1984 - 1015.PDF
FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL Week ending 23 June, 1984 Number 3919, Volume 125 ISSN 0015-3710 IN THIS ISSUE World News Air Transport Defence General Aviation Avionics Industry Spaceflight Letters Straight and Level 1594 1596 1598 1602 1604 1605 1606 1612 1616 DEVELOPMENTS IN MILITARY HELICOPTERS 1619 As an appendix to our recent Military Aircraft of the World survey, we provide tabulated data for the helicopters equipping the world's armed forces. AST.404: A THREE-HORSE RACE 1623 Aerospatiale, Sikorsky, and Westland are competing to supply the RAF's Wessex/Puma support helicopter replacement. We look at the respective contenders and the requirements that they have to meet. Published in association with Airports International by Transport Press; a division of Business Press International Ltd, Quadrant House, The Quadrant, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5AS, England. World's first and only complete aeronautical weekly © Copyright Business Press international Lid. 1984 Founded 1909 Second-class postage paid at New York, NY, and additional entries. Editor David Mason Associate Editor Peter Middleton Assistant Editor Tom Hamill Air Transport Editor David Learmount Air Transport editorial Alison Chambers, Chris Kjelgaard BSc Defence Editor Graham Warwick BSc Defence editorial Mike Gaines, Simon Beavis facnnical Editor David Velupillai BSc Technical editorial Julian Moxon BSc General Aviation editorial Ian Goold. Ian Parker BSc Production Editor Philip Jarrett Sub-editor Graham Cowell Art Editor Colin Paine Layout Rita Molineux Technical Artists Frank Munger, John Marsden Paris correspondent Gilbert Sedbon 825 5261 US Wast Coast correspondent Norman Lynn (213 377 8485 Tel Aviv correspondent Charles Fleming (03) 4813 43 Publishing Director James Weymouth Editor-in-Chief J M Ramsden Advertisement Manager Trevor Barratt Assistant Advertisement Manager Give Richardson Advertisement Sales Executives Sarah Beck, Robert Hancock Advertisement Production Howard Mason Advertisement Sales—France Pierre Mussard, 18,20 Place de la Madeleine, Paris 75008, France. Telephone Pans 2655014 Telex: 215334F BISPRSF. Advertisement Sales—Italy Romano Ferrario, Etas Kompass Periodici Tecnici Sp A, Via Nuova Rivoltana, 95, 20090 Limito—Milano, Italy Advertisement Sales—USA (East Coast) Dean Kelly, Classified Advertisement Sales—USA Joe Connors, Business Press International Ltd, 205 East 42nd Street. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 867 2080 Telex: 238327 Advertisement Sales—USA (West Coast) John Tidy, Business Press International (USA), 4300 Campus Drive, Suite 204, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Telephone: (714) 756 1057 Telex: 238327 Subscriptions Manager A. Walden Telephone England (0444) 459188 (UK and overseas subscription rates and agents can be found in this issue) Telephone 01-661 3315 (Display Advertisement Sales) 01-661 3274 (Classified Advertisement Sales) 01-661 3267 (Advertisement Production) 01-661 3321 (Editorial) Telegram/Telex 892084 BISPRS G Access code: (TRP) Facsimile (Group lll/ll) on request. Telephone 01-661 3321 REgl Member of the Audit Bureau of Circulations Front cover: The Hughes 500MD is operated by a number of armed services. The example demonstrating its agility oh the cover carries a brace of missiles to port and a podded machine gun to starboard. EDITORIAL Western European What? The struggles to find a cogent European voice in defence go back a long way. In 1954 efforts were made to estab lish a European Defence Community, with six nations forming a united European force. The idea foundered. A year later, the Council of the Western European Union established a Standing Armaments Committee which would, among other laudable aims, encourage agreements in Europe on the "development of stan dardisation, production, and pro curement of armaments". In 1968, within Nato itself, several European defence ministers dreamed up Euro- group, which now includes all Euro pean countries except France, although France sends observers to meetings. Eurogroup's aim is to strengthen the alliance by helping to ensure a strong and more cohes^ European contribution to the common defence. Now France is taking a new initiative in reviving the Western European Union's concern with defence. Mr Mauroy said nine months ago: "This European organisation is the only one which can tackle matters relating to defence and security". This week the seven WEU foreign ministers have followed that rather extravagant claim by agreeing to relaunch the moribund WEU. Among its aims, following revitalisation, are "addressing military, political and psychological threats" and the "collaborative production of arms". Why the WEU should be bothered to be involved in these questions is obscure. Why it should warrant a relaunch after several years of doing very little is even less clear. Lying at the root of the conundrum is the French position. When De Gaulle pulled his country out of the military integrated structure of Nato in 1966 he opened a wound on the face of European unity which may have healed, but has certainly left a scar. French efforts to rebuild Euro pean defence unity by a flanking manoeuvre will do nothing to conceal the damage they originally caused, nor will the establishment of yet another forum help to cement European unity or help to develop a concerted defence effort. We already have Nato (which includes Eurogroup), the EEC (although its neutral members virtually preclude its direct involvement in defence), and the Council of Europe. There are serious defence questions to be faced in the remaining 15 years of the century. How, for example, should the balance be struck between conventional and nuclear forces? Can Europe afford the level of conven tional forces that will deter a Soviet first strike? Will emerging technology weapons be enough to A) raise the nuclear threshold and B) render tactical nuclear weapons obsolete? Can mutual agreement be achieved on space based weapons? These questions offer fruitful areas for debate, but as yet no answers, at least for the near term. The immedi ate defence answers are vastly simpler and could rapidly be agreed. Strength ening European defence requires more money in all the conventional areas—more aircraft in all roles, including helicopters, improved conventional missiles, better guns, more and better intelligence and communications equipment, and probably * more and better trained manpower. These simple aims could be achieved if all European countries increased their defence spending to match that of the USA. France puts 4-2 per cent of GDP into defence, Germany 3;4 per cent, and Italy only 2 • 5 per cent. The UK's spending is 5 per cent of GDP. Only Greece (7 per cent) exceeds America's 5-9 per cent. Any allocations of greater Euro pean resources would demonstrate Nato's resolve and could tempt the Soviets back to strategic arms limitation talks. More integrated procurement would yield economies of scale. Those economies would libe rate greater funds for research, and the research would in turn produce better weapons, and not least settle the question of whether ET could replace some nuclear arms. Nato is a perfectly good forum in which Europe can debate all these defence concerns. If France would commit itselfwholeheartedly to Nato, that organisation would be even better. On the principle that effective defence is in inverse proportion to the number of committees organising it, the last thing Europe needs is another talk shop. FLIGHT International, 23 June 1984 1593
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
