It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK threatening to pull out of the F-35 JSF programme if the US dose'nt share technology

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   

The UK is threatening to pull out of the $200bn Joint Strike Fighter programme if the US continues to refuse to share technology. In particular, what the British Government wants is access to the software codes that would allow it to maintain and upgrade the aircraft without having to depend on US manufacturers. Some executives believe that if a compromise is not found, Britain may decide to pull out, dealing a body blow to the programme.

This was the message being delivered in the past few days by BAE's chief executive, Mike Turner, while at the Paris airshow. "Technology transfer is a very, very big issue," Turner says. "Without it, there will be a real problem on this programme and others."But the UK is still concerned about getting access to much of the sophisticated technology."Although you may be a partner, you could end up as a 'metal bashing' partner if you do not have proper access to the high-value electronics and computing parts of the aircraft" says Gareth Evans of AT Kearney, the consultancy. According to Turner, there are wider ramifications. Technology transfer is vital if Britain wants to maintain a strong defence industrial base, he argues."The last thing you want to do is expose yourself to having to buy expensive support from America throughout the life. And you lose sovereignty."So it's not only wealth creation that you give up in your own country, but you lose sovereignty" Turner says.


Read the full article .............

I guess technology transfer is pretty important. But i can also understand why America is reluctant to give the Brits sensetive high end tech (like stealth, the laser on the JSF, etc). Its glad to see that the brits are placing importance on thier sovereignty..because the way things look today to my eyes..Britian is behaving like a colony of the US


Australia is dilly dallying on the JSF, Israel gets suspended from the programme for leaking tech to china, Turkey and Singapore are considering the Rafale, the US Navy is mooting the F/A-18 block 3 stealthy super hornet and may dump the F-35B, the F-35 has weight problems, and the UK-one of the key partners may pull out ... the future of the F-35 looks bleak to say the least.

The UK is also working on a stealthy derrivative of the Eurofighter

Perhaps the F-35's substitute ?

[edit on 22-6-2005 by Stealth Spy]




posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
What the heck does sovereignty have to do with JSF technology sharing?! Do I need to buy you a dictionary...



[edit on 22-6-2005 by John bull 1]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Thanks but i have my own


Better argue with that BAe top man, i've just quoted him.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   
What do they need the codes now? The JSF program is not set for production until another 5-6 years.
The British have been asking for these codes from day one and I do not understand it ,its like me asking the deal for car keys before I even get the car.


RAB

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   
When we buy it, we will get full access it the whole source code, and we may even get a plane to play with. But we haven't signed up yet so i do not see the problem.

May just be BAe talking up the problem to get a manned requirement FOAS back up and running or a navy version of the typhoon, go figer.

RAB



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by RAB
When we buy it, we will get full access it the whole source code, and we may even get a plane to play with. But we haven't signed up yet so i do not see the problem.


What do you mean you haven't signed up?
Haven't the Brits already invested $200 million in this project?



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Britain is already a full partner in the F-35, and there's the rub. Its not really to do with 'codes', If I remember rightly that whole argument stemmed from a UK tabloid report. Theyt said it was to do with codes because they have to to consider the mental age of their readers.

BAE''s issue basically boils down to 'are we a full partner or just sheet metal workers bashing out shapes?' Don't forget the UK (very foolishly)sacrificed its place as the world leader in V/STOL technology to join the JSF in order that our new fighter would not only be a supersonic V/STOL but stealthy too.

Now it seems that the UK is being denied access to any of the real technological areas because of America's new found paranoia. As US citizens you may have no problem with that stance but as supposedly 'trusted' allies, indeed the closest and most loyal America has ever had, we in the UK very much do have a problem with that.

In terms of Sovereignty, what Mike Turner is talking about is the sovereignty of technology and design, not of the nation itself. You see with Jaguar, Tornado and Typhoon for example the UK (or any of the other partners) could do whatever it liked with the aircraft in terms of design, development and marketing. Examples of this include the Jaguar International, designed by the UK alone and supplied to India, or the Tornado ADV, designed by the UK for the RAF and the Tornado ECR which was designed by MBB for the Luftwaffe. Each partner holds sovereignty on the aircraft within its own industry. That this is not the case with BAE is what is really frustrating them.

You might think that the F-35 is 90% American anyway so whats the probem? Well, that is exactly the problem, the UK's input has been too restricted and they are also not being allowed to incorporate their own design ideas even into the versions we want for ourselves, is that any way to treat a partner?



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Question : Is the UK getting technology transfer of the F-35's stealth secrets (used on the F-22 as well) and its laser to fry incoming missiles ?



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:49 AM
link   
The specific areas of technology involved are classified but I would imagine that, after Replica, HALO, and Nighjar, the actual stealth tech itself is not one of them, after all the areas being built by BAE will need to be just as stealthy as the rest of the plane or your enemy will just be able to aim for the 'British bit'


As regards the laser, I understand that this is quite a long way in the future (look at how the AL-1 has to be based on the 747!) and is more a long term design objective rather than an actual piece of kit, by which I mean the F-35 is expected to be around for such a long time it is designed to be able to accept a laser when one is actually ready (whenever that may be) It will certainly not be a part of the armoury of the F-35 by 2014, maybe even by 2025.


RAB

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by RAB
When we buy it, we will get full access it the whole source code, and we may even get a plane to play with. But we haven't signed up yet so i do not see the problem.


What do you mean you haven't signed up?
Haven't the Brits already invested $200 million in this project?


In that so much as siging the order form and putting it and a cheque in the post! The US isn't going to transfer any source code it BAe until the Cheque in the post and that a stand the US takes on lods of stuff.

Example being the F16 different version of the F16 being cleared to carry different weapons, it all come to the machine source code. I full see why the US dose it this way.

But once we have the order in place and start getting the machine we will have the source code anyway, so thay will have to pass it over.

Or it could just be a ploy by BAe to get some interest in a design it has floating around.

RAB



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:11 AM
link   
I think a lot of why the US did not give an exemption for Britain from rules governing the transfer of arms technology is the fact that Europe may lift the ban on weapons sales to China. For obvious reasons the US doesn't want this, and Britain is suffering as a result and if the ban is lifted Britain will suffer the most out of all European countries.

Li nk



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:20 AM
link   
The US seems to be adamant on not letting the codes out .

Read thes excerepts :

The U.K. shouldn't expect access to design data on the Joint Strike Fighter in return for helping fund the $244 billion program, a top Pentagon official said.

A lot of partners don't seem to quite understand that this isn't an old-style airplane program,'' said General Jeffery Kohler in an interview at the Paris Air Show. "This is not an offset program or an industrial development program'' that awards contracts in return for funding.

The U.K. is providing $2 billion of development funding toward the Lockheed Martin Corp.-led project. "We've put in a lot more than that,'' said Kohler, director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which oversees foreign military sales. "The U.S. isn't in a position to say you've invested a bit so here you go, here are the blueprints to the Joint Strike Fighter.''

The U.S. Congress's failure to approve an exemption for Britain from rules governing the transfer of arms technology has hurt companies including London-based BAE, Europe's biggest weapons maker, and Roll-Royce Group Plc, both suppliers to the JSF, said Alexandra Ashbourne, a defense analyst who heads London- based Ashbourne Strategic Consulting Ltd.

"There is a huge amount of frustration about the lack of progress on this issue,'' Ashbourne said. "There is real resentment within the U.K. government that despite being the most loyal ally in Iraq, we have nothing to show for it.''

The U.K. is buying about 150 of a version that uses jump-jet technology supplied by Rolls-Royce. BAE is supplying electronics and airframe parts.

And the most shocking part :

Manufacturing know-how developed by BAE and Rolls-Royce at the companies' U.S. divisions cannot be shared with their British operations because of strict Pentagon rules.


Read the full article ............

I guess the US is acting tough too...wonder which side will break ?



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Don't forget the UK (very foolishly)sacrificed its place as the world leader in V/STOL technology to join the JSF...


No; the UK is still the world leader in VSTOL tech... proved yet again :

Read :



UK engineers have achieved the world's first automatic landing of a short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft on a ship.


A team from Qinetiq was able to bring the experimental aircraft, the VAAC (Vectoredthrust Aircraft Advanced Control) Harrier to land on HMS Invincible automatically.

Funded by the US Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme and the UK MoD Joint Combat Aircraft Integrated Project Team (JCA IP), the development is seen as a key milestone in a risk reduction programme for the JSF STOVL aircraft. The ability to land an aircraft automatically on a ship will enable JSF pilots to conduct missions during the day or night and in poor weather conditions.

Qinetiq also claimed that the Autoland technology developed for JSF will significantly lessen the workload of pilots at the end of the mission, and reduce the difficulty of landing a plane on the moving platform of a ship.

The technology could also be used to enable unmanned aerial vehicles to be operated from ships.

The VAAC Harrier was designed by Qinetiq's predecessor DERA, with funding from the US-UK JSF Office. It uses advanced fly-by-wire technology to hand over many of the Harrier's flight characteristics to computers, making the aircraft simpler to handle and enabling engineers to fine-tune it quickly for improved handling based on pilot feedback.

It is anticipated that the procurement cost of the JCA will be £10bn, depending on the number of aircraft required.



link

[edit on 22-6-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:05 AM
link   
so that would be technology transfer from the UK to the US but not the other way around. That seems fair NOT!!!!!

Anyone else up for a navalised version of Replica????


RAB

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
so that would be technology transfer from the UK to the US but not the other way around. That seems fair NOT!!!!!

Anyone else up for a navalised version of Replica????


A navy Replica O god please, with a bomb bay and a good range, that would ROCK!

RAB



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Pardon my ignorance, but a what?



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   

as posted by waynos
As regards the laser, I understand that this is quite a long way in the future (look at how the AL-1 has to be based on the 747!) and is more a long term design objective rather than an actual piece of kit, by which I mean the F-35 is expected to be around for such a long time it is designed to be able to accept a laser when one is actually ready (whenever that may be) It will certainly not be a part of the armoury of the F-35 by 2014, maybe even by 2025.


Waynos....links to sources or is the above merely an educated guess or speculation?
Seen these?


The 100-kilowatt infrared laser, which is being developed for the Lockheed-Martin F35 Joint Strike Fighter by contending companies TRW (Northrop-Grumman) and Raytheon, is far more powerful than any laser ever used in war.
The solid state laser is designed to attack targets such as incoming air to air and ground to air missiles, other fighter aircraft, ground vehicles and anti-aircraft batteries.
Lockheed, estimates the laser weapon will be ready to test by around 2008 and could go into service by 2010-2015, (other industry estimates have a more aggressive timetable).

Directed Energy Weapons, An ATS Analysis & Discussion

Or this with the F-35 and AC-130 mentioned:
Attack at the Speed of Light

Accordingly, the time frames are definately more aggressive than what you have asserted.





seekerof



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   
I'm not gonna hold my breath on them having it ready by then though. Isn't ABL way behind schedule due to the laser development? It would be NICE if it's ready by then, but with the way projects get delayed lately I wouldn't be surprised if it was more like test flying in 2010 at the earliest.

Kelly Johnson was the last of the great pioneers to bring a project in on time and under or on budget. The U-2 was 18 months from design to test flight.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   
This link opened my eyes to the power of the F-35 :



...engineers at Raytheon Electronic Systems to design a compact solid-state laser package that would fit in the empty bay. In addition, the engine-driven shaft, producing more than 27,000 shp, that would otherwise drive the vertical lift-fan can now be used to drive a generator. This gives the F-35 the ability to generate more than enough power to drive a laser, eliminating the need for heavy batteries and freeing the design from complex and unwieldy chemical lasers powered by toxic substances, such as that which will be used on the airborne laser (ABL) project. Additionally, a solid-state laser would prove less costly, more robust and more easily maintained in the field or onboard an aircraft carrier.

With an expected power output of 100 kilowatts
, a laser mounted on the F-35 would have an effective range of between 6.5 and 10 miles
.

It would likely be mounted on a moveable turret, similar to those used by current forward looking infrared (FLIR) and other electro-optical devices for use onboard aircraft.

Lasers would be used primarily against ground targets, particularly small, moving targets, used in place of precision-guided bombs or missiles. The turret would be mounted at the bottom of the lift-fan bay.

Along with a virtually inexhaustable ammunition supply
and a firing rate limited only by the need to cool components, lasers would also create the advantage of being largely undetectable. Their use, therefore would not only cause damage, but chaos and confusion within enemy forces and commanders. "There's no huge explosion associated with its employment," a Lockheed Martin official said. "There are no pieces and parts left behind that someone can analyze to say, 'This came from the U.S.' The damage is very localized, and it's hard to tell where it came from and when it happened. It's all pretty mysterious."


A laser could also be employed as a defensive weapon in aerial combat, though the need to cool-down briefly after two or three consecutive discharges could prove a liability in a dogfight.

Such an application would likely require a second, top-mounted, turret, however, limiting usable internal volume.


The use of a laser weapon at supersonic speeds also presents another problem, as it would require adaptive optics to account for air density distortions caused by the supersonic pressure wave that forms around high-speed aircraft.


A variant of the F-35 is also under consideration as an electronic warfare (EW), electronic intelligence (ELINT) and radar jamming platform to replace the venerable EA-6B Prowler in service with the Navy and Marine Corps.



I bet that no other member of the JSF programme except Big Bro will get these futuristic gizmos.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   
The F-35 still dose'nt stop amazing me. I found more



Magical Anti-Missile Chaff/Flare Dispenser :
In many ways this system is similar to technological versions of the Chaff/Flare system. The anti-missile system works by combining three spells. The three spells are Fire Bolt, Apparition, and Telekinesis. The physical effects of the system are identical to the Triax Anti-Missile chaff but instead of being reloaded, it is recharged by spells.

Effect: 01-50 Enemy missile or missile volley detonates in chaff cloud - Missiles are all destroyed


51-75 Enemy missile or missile volley loses track of real target and veers away in wrong direction (May lock onto another target)


76-00 No effect, missile is still on target

Also note that the chaff cloud will also blind flying monsters that fly through cloud. They will suffer the following penalties: reduce melee attacks/actions, combat bonuses, and speed by half. Duration: 1D4 melee rounds.

Payload: 10 Uses before being recharged. The dispenser is recharged by the spells Apparition (20 P.P.E.), Fire Bolt (7 P.P.E.), and Telekinesis (8 P.P.E.).


Techno-Wizard Modifications: The Joint Strike Fighter has the following Techno-Wizard Modifications built into the Aircraft. These require P.P.E. or I.S.P. from the pilot.
Special Features:
Impervious to Energy (6th level) 20 PPE or 40 ISP

Invisibility-Superior (6th Level) 20 PPE or 40 ISP




link

No wonder the faithful brits are not getting its tech.




new topics




 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join