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

LOL..just wondering why the several brits around here have not come down on that one

Stealthspy....We don't respond because he is quite clearly talking out of his arse and it would be a waste of time, energy and too much stress to argue with him.

He probably doesn't know that a good portion of several American military companies are owned by BAe..... One that springs to mind is Northrop-Grumman....

UK MPs meet with US counterparts to discuss ....

17 August 2005, A delegation of UK members of parliament (MPs), which recently returned from a little-publicised visit to Washington, DC, to discuss the problems of military technology transfer, has said US congressmen do not want to see the UK "frozen out" of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme.

Speaking to their counterparts in the US, delegation members highlighted a UK government Ministry of Defence concern that the UK will not have full access to JSF technology and thus be unable to maintain or modify its own aircraft.

The delegation, which included Peter Viggers (MP for Gosport), Kevan Jones (MP for North Durham), Paul Keetch (MP for Hereford) and John Spellar (MP for Warley), travelled to Washington on 25 July for four days of talks with US politicians to bring the issue "onto their radar screens".

Mr Viggers said the technology transfer issue was "worrying for the defence industry and for the UK government", and accepted it was having a delaying effect on the CVF future aircraft carrier programme.

full >> www.janes.com...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.

ABL is already flying, it will probably do it's first missile shoot down in 2006 or 2007. And then enter service 2-3 years after that.

[edit on 21-8-2005 by NWguy83]

AMERICAN defence firm Lockheed Martin is laying plans for special export version of the $250bn (£139bn, E203bn) joint strike fighter aircraft (JSF), depressing any hope of quick breakthrough on the contentious issue of transatlantic technology transfer.

The UK invested £2bn upfront when the plane programme, the largest project in military history, was launched five years ago; Britain's BAE Systems is the only "first tier" foreign partner in the nine-nation plane consortium led by Lockheed.

But strict controls on the export of US technology have meant that the foreign partners have not had full access to software codes on the plane, particularly those to maintain and upgrade the aircraft.

UK government ministers have repeatedly argued for free technology sharing between America and Britain because of the long-standing special relationship between the two countries.

Originally the US and export versions of the plane were to be the same. But Lockheed is working on a version to be released to foreign partners involved in the programme's system development phase.

The design, called the SDD-Delta, should be finalised by December. It will take account of the technical constraints imposed by the US government's export policy but still have commonality with America's version of the fighter jet.

Industry sources praised Lockheed's move as a bold way of tackling the technology transfer issue until it is resolved. That may be many years away, they added. The UK must decide by next year whether to purchase as many as 150 of the aircraft.

But the need for so many planes and three different models is being assessed as part of America's 2005 Quadrennial Defence Review of all weapons systems. The results of the review are due to be reported to Congress by late next month.

Link< br />

(mod edit to reduce long url to a shorter link)

[edit on 8-3-2006 by pantha]

The reluctance to share tech transfer on the software and stealth is entirely understandable.

Consider this:

Framework Agreement between The French Republic, The Federal Republic of Germany, The Italian Republic, The Kingdom of Spain, The Kingdom of Sweden and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Concerning Measures to Facilitate the Restructuring and Operation of the European Defence Industry

signed during the Farnborough Air Show on 27 July 2000.

Article 23

4. Access to Classified Information either Confidential or Secret by a person holding the dual nationality of both a Party and an EU country shall be granted without the prior authorisation of the originating Party. Access not covered by this paragraph shall follow the consultation process as described in the Annex on security of Classified Information.


www.grip.org...

ie give secrets to the UK and constitutiuonally they are bound to pass it on to their european partners. Consider too that China is now a 'strategic partner' with China.

Originally posted by Brenden
Article 23

4. Access to Classified Information either Confidential or Secret by a person holding the dual nationality of both a Party and an EU country shall be granted without the prior authorisation of the originating Party. Access not covered by this paragraph shall follow the consultation process as described in the Annex on security of Classified Information.


www.grip.org...

ie give secrets to the UK and constitutiuonally they are bound to pass it on to their european partners.

- You think you have it down because you've managed to pull one out of context paragraph.......

....... out of a document of how many paragraphs and words; which itself is set against how many documents, protocols and international agreements (on trade and security/defence)!?

I notice you've not bothered referring to the caveats and exceptions referred to in the small print nor how this relates to other international agreements.

For instance, I see you chose not to quote article 24

Article 24

1. The Parties shall not release, disclose, use or permit the release, disclosure or use of any Classified Information except for the purpose and limitations stated by the originating Party.

You also left out reference to article 44

Article 44

Where Technical Information is received from a third party or another Party, nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the rights of that third party or other Party with regard to that Technical Information.

Furthermore, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring a Party to disclose Technical Information contrary to national security laws and regulations or laws and regulations on export controls or contrary to any end user agreements where an appropriate waiver has not been secured.

www.grip.org...

- But I suppose that just wrecks the point you are attempting to make......or didn't you read the document beyond the bit you thought gave you what you wanted?

Had you read article 1 properly you would have found right at the begining of this document the statement -

Article 1

The objective of this Agreement is to:

(e) facilitate exchanges of Classified Information between the Parties or their defence industry under security provisions, which do not undermine the security of such Classified Information

(same source)

In fact the document is full of those sorts of conditions over what is at heart an attempt at closer European coopertion, not ripping off the tech or ideas of anyone else.

I'm really not intending this as flame bait but IMO it's rather ridiculous, quite frankly this is at best simply incorrect and at worst laughably dishonest.
I suppose it is 'legal-ise' so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

In addition there are umteen legal documents going back several decades circulating between the US, UK, EU, Germany, France etc etc.
Some public and some not.
One paragraph in a single document does not give you total understanding of 'how it is'.
It's quite absurd to suggest otherwise.

But lets be perfectly clear about this, if that is the attitude of your government to a technology sharing partner like the UK, then kindly let us know right at the start of the program before we part with a few billion £ (not US $) of our cash and share our high-tech freely with you guys.
(No-one could do a practical V/Stol without our engines, control systems and help).

Way to make a best friend and ally really reconsider where we stand with each other.
Real brains at work there.

Consider too that China is now a 'strategic partner' with China.

- You don't say.

I suppose this is some kind of misworded attempt to imply the EU arms embargo is not still in force (you might care to know that it still is) or to cloud the issue that Chain's biggest arms dealer is in fact the USA and not Europe.

But what the hell, who's interested in the relevant facts, hmmmmm?

[edit on 7-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

i really hope we do go ahead with the JSF programme!!

regardless of what ch1466 says "nobody wants the trash that is the JSF /anyway/"

it will still be the BEST aircraft 'of its type' in the world (and only 2nd behind the F-22) which the US are selling to japan anyway!!

so i don't know what all the fuss is about with 'technology sharing!!'

if the US wants to sell an F-22 to a country that they nuked 60 years ago (japan) and not honour a JOINT contract between ^thier closest allies^ (Britain), then fair enough! but i guess thats what the american govenment REALLY think about their ^closest allies^ and i feel all that will backfire on the US rather than it will with britain, especially the way america have been acting on a global scale these past few years.

but as far as i'm aware all this 'technology sharing' issue is about stealth!

stealth is not a big secret anymore (just look at some of BAE's UCAV stealthly designs) and other nations.

yet i think the american government 'STILL' think they are 20 years ahead of the rest of the world in terms of ^military technology^

that is no longer true, and with each passing year other nations are getting CLOSER and CLOSER to america's military technological advantage (if not on par already).


[edit on 8-3-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by Brenden
Consider too that China is now a 'strategic partner' with China.

WOW! Now what is the point here? China and China are the SAME country. Parteners are two or more people or groups that work together. You only have one contry listed here. You may want to revise this comment so that it makes sense!

Tim

I'm not so sure. Do we really need to maintain STOVL operations or are we simply obsessed with maintaining the Harrier legacy?

The areas in which the F-35 will excel will be in bringing us a supersonic STOVL aircraft that is stealthy. If we don't need STOVL (it hasn't been an asset in any recent operations) do we need stealth? Maybe not if we are looking mainly for a 'UCAV leader' type of aircraft, the UCAV's will be at the coal face, not the fighter, and they will be very stealthy.

If we remove STOVL and stealth from the equation what does the F35 offer that the Typhoon (or Rafale) does not not? The answer to that question is 'nothing'.

I'm not toally convinced that STOVL and stealth ARE superfluous to our needs but these questions are worth thinking about as, if it does prove to be the case, then we would be better off overall with more existing aircraft like the Typhoon which is superior in pure air combat terms and would also bring benefits in the commonality and economy of scale areas, as well as 100% ownership of the technology base.

[edit on 8-3-2006 by waynos]

i don't know much about the eurofighter, i hear mixed things about it to be honest!!

looking at pictures of it, it looks ugly as hell - but seeing video clips of it it looks a decent aircraft

just been looking on google about eurofighter and found this:-

scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...

Although that is a positive report I would warn against taking ANY information about aircraft from newspapers or newspaper sites, accurate appraisal is WAY down on their list of priorities.

A good example is this report by the daily Mirror on the recent emergency landing by an RAF Typhoon, which it reports as having 'crashed in flames' and the whole thing is complete cobblers from start to finish, but worth a laugh.

Notice how it claims this (very minor) incident places the whole programme in doubt, which is nonsense. The ficition is maintained as it is claimed that 36 Typhoons are set to be based on each of the two new carriers (where did that come from?) and not forgetting the tabloid staple device of 'quoting an insider', yeah, right

The Typhoon is universally regarded as the worlds number two fighter behind the F-22 which I agree with, don't forget that the F-35 is primarily an attack aircraft with some A2A capability (hence its position as a Harrier replacement rather than an alternative to the Typhoon), it is not intended to outfight the Typhoon and doesn't.

[edit on 8-3-2006 by waynos]

[edit on 8-3-2006 by waynos]

Check this out :

Norway to Back out of F-35 JSF Over Industrial Share

Another article reads :

Norway wants its companies to work on high-technology elements, such as system integration or advanced materials, and not be relegated to building commodity items to specifications.

www.aviationnow.com.../022706p2.xml

Denmark is considering the Gripen instead of participating in the JSF :
www.primezone.com...
www.gripen.com...

Australia is apprihensive :

AUSTRALIA is facing a further cost blowout on its purchase of next-generation fighters...

[...]
A report in London's Sunday Times newspaper cited Ministry of Defence officials as saying Britain was developing a "PlanB" to purchase an alternative fighter - a modified Eurofighter - for its navy if it cannot overcome concerns over the project costs and technology transfer.

Any pullout by Britain, which has invested $2billion and was slated to buy 150 F-35 aircraft for its air force and navy, would force up the costs for other countries planning to buy the fighter jet.

www.theaustralian.news.com.au...

Before this, it was long understood that Australia, along with the other participating nations, was required to sign contracts detailing the number of aircraft it required in the second half of 2006. Each nation was also required to nominate which JSF variants it wanted. According to Hill, however, the Australian government is now expected "to make a decision on aircraft purchases in 2008".

The revised 2008 deadline is understood to have been brought about by delays in the JSF programme. Canberra is likely to use the additional time to further refine its JSF options for replacing F/A-18 Hornet fighters and F-111 strike aircraft currently in service with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).

www.janes.com...

JSF is having a rough time to say the least.

Could a mod please correct the typo in the thread title ?


[edit on 8-3-2006 by Stealth Spy]

Yeah, its having a rough time, that's for sure. But in the end I think everything will be fine. Many countries benefit from industrial orders for parts manufacturing for the JSF.
Yesterday the European partners of the program met in Holland to talk things over. I posted a translation of press release by the Dutch DoD on my website. They make some plans for European cooperation, and will talk that over with the US. At the end of this year, final decisions have to be made, in order to sign a MoU.

Norway will decide if they're staying in, before April 1st.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by Zion Mainframe]

i mentioned MONTHS ago that the 4 countries that brought teh F-16 to europe are all now looking elsewhere - denamrk has ordered the gripen , norway are seriously considering it after the recent JAS-39C/D visit and fly off with there F-16`s , belgium really need to replace there F-16`s and are looking at the Typhoon - and the rumours are that Holland are doing the same.


And with the UK looking at Rafale/Sea Typhoon for the new carriers - that leaves spain , india turkey and Australia - and turkey have mooted at Typhoon NOW not F-35 later.

Originally posted by NWguy83
ABL is already flying, it will probably do it's first missile shoot down in 2006 or 2007. And then enter service 2-3 years after that.

Yeah, but IIRC, they JUST put the laser into it. I THOUGHT the original timeline had the laser installed and flying by early 2005, with the first airborne test firing by early this year.

Waynos I just mailed the guy who wrote it lol ,cant wait for a reply...

That should make good reading......provided you get one