F-16.net

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 01, 2004 Posts: 53

I thought Britain is set to be just the partner that gets the source code? I wonder what Option B is. What could they possibly replace their Harriers with except for the F-35B?

Quote:

Britain may quit F-35 fighter plan
Wednesday December 6, 11:57 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Britain may make good on a threat to withdraw from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the biggest international arms-acquisition project, absent ironclad U.S. pledges to share the plane's technology secrets, Shadow Defence Minister Gerald Howarth said on Wednesday.

Howarth said he had discussed the matter on Thursday with Lord Drayson, Britain's minister for defence procurement,
(Advertisement)

as a target looms this month for signing a pact on the program's next stage.

"If this issue cannot be resolved there is the real prospect that, as the British (Defence) Minister Lord Drayson has made plain and as he confirmed to me last week, we will pull out," Howarth said.

Lockheed Martin Corp. is building three models of the supersonic radar-evading F-35 for the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, and for the British Royal Air Force and Royal Navy to replace the Harrier GR.7 and Sea Harrier.

If the government backs out, it would go with "Option B which, it is true, is as yet unspecified," Howarth added at a defence industry conference hosted by the Hudson Institute, a policy research group, in Washington.

On Tuesday, Marine Brig. Gen. David Heinz, the Pentagon program office's deputy director, told the Reuters Aerospace and Defence Summit in Washington that he expected Britain to sign a memorandum of understanding extending its participation in the F-35 by the end of this month. All other partners, with the possible exception of Norway, are also expected to sign similar documents, Heinz said.

Drayson, testifying at a March 14 U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, had threatened to leave the project if Washington withheld such things as the software source code behind the aircraft's electronic brains.

Britain has committed $2 billion (1.02 billion pounds) to develop the F-35, the most of any U.S. partner. It is being co-developed with Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.

"It is simply not conceivable that we should have a piece of kit central to our inventory that we cannot operate autonomously," Howarth told reporters after his presentation. He said Britain wanted firm commitments that it would get source code that would let it operate the aircraft on its own even if contracts it signed now failed to foresee every eventuality.

Drayson is due to visit Washington next week to try to wrap up a technology-sharing deal before signing the pact that would commit Britain to the program's production and support phase.

Kathy Crawford, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office, said Howarth's comment "does not line up with the feedback that we're receiving from meetings taking place between high-level U.S. and UK government officials."

Lockheed Martin said it believed the U.S. and British governments had made excellent progress on technology transfer issues since President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair met on the issue earlier this year.

"The two governments continue to work this issue very closely, and we remain confident we will reach a positive resolution," said Thomas Jurkowsky, a Lockheed spokesman in Bethesda, Maryland.

Lockheed expects all partners to sign "Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development" pacts in coming weeks, he added.

The British embassy did not return calls seeking comment.

Key F-35 subcontractors include BAE Systems Plc and Northrop Grumman Corp..

Britain is scheduled to buy as many as 138 F-35s.

Source: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/06122006/325/b ... warth.html

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

when they first threatened to pull out of the deal, it was suggested that Rafales may be purchased instead. Not sure if they were bluffing or not (or now), but they did threaten it back then, and they are threatening again apparently.

Call their bluff. What give the British the right to the source code for the systems that run this bird. Why should we allow BAE to be able to modify the AC without the participation of LM? What stops them from using the lessons learned in other AC that may one day compete with our planes for export sales. Why should we allow BAE to be able to independently upgrade other non british F-35s.

"Operational Sovereignty" is just code for stealing something to which they are not entitled to. They put up 2 billion dollars out of the 200billion dollar development cost. What do they get in return? Work for British Aerospace companies worth at least 16billion. A pretty good deal. Now they have the stones to ask for more. Screw them. Let them buy more Tiffies or Rafael's. I am sure LM can find another sub that can do the work BAE had been promised.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Call their bluff. What give the British the right to the source code for the systems that run this bird. Why should we allow BAE to be able to modify the AC without the participation of LM? What stops them from using the lessons learned in other AC that may one day compete with our planes for export sales. Why should we allow BAE to be able to independently upgrade other non british F-35s.

"Operational Sovereignty" is just code for stealing something to which they are not entitled to. They put up 2 billion dollars out of the 200billion dollar development cost. What do they get in return? Work for British Aerospace companies worth at least 16billion. A pretty good deal. Now they have the stones to ask for more. Screw them. Let them buy more Tiffies or Rafael's. I am sure LM can find another sub that can do the work BAE had been promised.

No, they put in $2 billion of a $40 billion development tag. We need to get the numbers right. But no they are not entitled to 100% of the fruits. As far as I am concerned they should be given no more than the external programming interface disclosure so they can integrate additional weapons and EW profiles on their own. The internal implementation of the F-35's software and hardware should be completely off limits.

$2 billion is immaterial, an order of about 150 aircrafts is also relatively insignificant. Giving up cutting edge F-35 technology for a dime on the dollar is not.

Don't see it happening. Common tactic.

The Brits know they have a lot more to loose if they pull out and we know that their "Plan B" wouldn't match the Lightning II anyways.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Call their bluff. What give the British the right to the source code for the systems that run this bird. Why should we allow BAE to be able to modify the AC without the participation of LM? What stops them from using the lessons learned in other AC that may one day compete with our planes for export sales. Why should we allow BAE to be able to independently upgrade other non british F-35s.

"Operational Sovereignty" is just code for stealing something to which they are not entitled to. They put up 2 billion dollars out of the 200billion dollar development cost. What do they get in return? Work for British Aerospace companies worth at least 16billion. A pretty good deal. Now they have the stones to ask for more. Screw them. Let them buy more Tiffies or Rafael's. I am sure LM can find another sub that can do the work BAE had been promised.

Why should have Britain given the US blueprints for a jet engine, exhanged a far superior pioneering jet fighter for an incredibly inferior US jet fighter fighter (during WW2), radar tech, an enitre cutting edge aircraft (harrier), air to air refuelling tech, advanced composite armour that is used on US MBT's, aircraft carrier tech and concepts, howitzer tech etc. The UK has given the US a lot of leading edge technology and quite rightly so. Tech transfer should occur between the US and UK as they have a 'special relationship', a US led coalition will involve the UK probably providing the second most military support.

I can't see what is the problem with the UK having this source code, as I have said before leading edge tech belonging to the UK has been given to the US in the past. Thumper I know you seem to think the UK is turning on the US but look at the commitment the UK is providing. Iraq is not a UK led war, the UK could have done the same as the Italians and pulled out, but their commitment to see it through is as strong as the US's. When the US requested the Royal Marines to be sent to Afghanistan for their expertise in mountain warfare there was no hesitation, the UK's commitment in Afghanistan is as strong as it was at the beginning. The UK is committed to the US led coalitions it is involved in, and have been for all previous post WW2 coalitions. So I can't see, with all the tech and commitment the UK has provided the US, why the UK shouldn't get this source code, the White House even agrees with this.

I believe the US will allow the UK the access its requesting to the source code, if it does not then I guess the UK is going back to catapults and cables on her carriers and the Harrier will remain in service with the RAF a lot longer than anticipated.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1012 Status: Offline

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

Why should have Britain given the US blueprints for a jet engine, exhanged a far superior pioneering jet fighter for an incredibly inferior US jet fighter fighter (during WW2), radar tech, an enitre cutting edge aircraft (harrier), air to air refuelling tech, advanced composite armour that is used on US MBT's, aircraft carrier tech and concepts, howitzer tech etc. The UK has given the US a lot of leading edge technology and quite rightly so.

I guess they should have thought about that before they became part of EADS then huh? It's one thing when the British defense industry is fairly isolated. It's a whole different ballgame when it's tightly integrated with the rest of Europe.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

Tech transfer should occur between the US and UK as they have a 'special relationship', a US led coalition will involve the UK probably providing the second most military support.

Tech transfer DOES occur. I'm sure you've heard of the Trident D-5?

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

I can't see what is the problem with the UK having this source code, as I have said before leading edge tech belonging to the UK has been given to the US in the past.

Uh yeah. US gives the tech to the UK, it gets to EADS then funneled through France to China just as soon as the arms embargo is over. Tell me why the US should be stupid enough to assist with that.

I say go Britain bout time somebody put those yanks in their place without European Technologies we'd still be fantasising about many things we take for granted and even see as obsolete today.

This is a joint development. The partner countries are not paying for a jet for the USA but they're paying for a jet for all of them. This jet unlike the F-16 is being developed by many nations and therefore is not american is not british but is international.

If the USA expects that they can sell the F-35 to European nations without European nations being able to opperate it the way they see fit then the Americans truely are as stupid as they denie to be.

A huge part of that aircraft is outside-USA technology and design so if the USA will not share their part with us and we do share it with them ( which makes them not much better then thiefs ) then the USA wont get our part either.

The USA had better play it fairly instead of hogging all they can get and not sharing anything at all. Or they will find the UK pulling back making the jet too expensive for smaller buyers who will then pull out aswell resulting in a situation that the USA (who is already high in debt and in danger of losing finance for even more debt) will be stuck with a super expensive jet that is so expensive they can never fully replace all F-16s A-10's etc. etc.

In short what Im saying is this: All partners put together money for candy but one is trying to keep all the candy for himself and if he keeps trying he'll find that his partners have left.

USA gets pissed off when it gets ripped off. Now dont be hypocrite and rip off your friends.

As someone involved in the JSF program, I can tell you with absolute certainty that "source code" for foreign (non-USA) developed systems is NOT being shared with Lockheed Martin or the US Government unless it is explicitly identified in the ITAR agreement. No one is getting ripped off, no one is playing trump cards. BAE, Smiths, Honeywell, and countless others treat their code and their designs as proprietary, and it is not shared or disclosed to partners (US or otherwise) per the terms of the ITAR agreement.

Again, this isn't about US vs. Britain, it is about the ITAR agreement every JSF partner signed up to before a single line was drawn, before a single line of code was written. All this press about threats of pulling out over "source code" is nothing more than public posturing by political pundits - no one on the JSF program is playing the "gimme or else" card. If it were really an issue then said partners would be involved in negotiations to modify or amend the ITAR agreement, and that just isn't happening.

Quote:

Dwightlooie
No, they put in $2 billion of a $40 billion development tag. We need to get the numbers right.

You are correct. My bad. I agree.

Speak the truth. You always come to the jet engine story. Well lets just keep in mind that it was early in the war and the UK was desperate for AC so of course they had no choice. Lets see in exchange for that we did the following.
Died defending your country prior to our entry in to the war in the Battle of the Atlantic. Made available 50 destroyers. Approved Lend Lease. All before we entered the war.

More recently. Trident, Polaris, Poseiden. Aim-9L, Phalanx, and satellite imagery during the Falklands. I could go on but hopefully by now you get the point.

Quote:

ScorpionAlpha
The Brits know they have a lot more to loose if they pull out and we know that their "Plan B" wouldn't match the Lightning II anyways.

Absolutely agree. It's just they way they are going about trying to do it is rather distasteful. It takes a solid set of nuts to portray yourself as the victim while it is you who is in fact attempting to perpetrate the crime.

Quote:

Driver
This is a joint development. The partner countries are not paying for a jet for the USA but they're paying for a jet for all of them. This jet unlike the F-16 is being developed by many nations and therefore is not American is not British but is international.

Wrong. Several nations including the UK put up a total of about 5 billion dollars to help develop the JSF. The US funded the other 35B. In return they where promised a share of the production work. This has turned out to be a pretty lucrative deal. Consider for 2B investment the UK gets about 16B dollars worth of production work back.

Quote:

Driver
A huge part of that aircraft is outside-USA technology and design so if the USA will not share their part with us and we do share it with them ( which makes them not much better then thiefs ) then the USA wont get our part either.

wrong again. 35B dollars USA contribution - 5B dollars other nations contribution. Do the math and then tell me about the technology.

So Habu2 what exactly is it the British want then?

British may just consider the "Plan C" more and more seriously ~ Cancelling the project of CVF carrier and the fighter project for it.

The defense budget of UK has been over-stretched more and more seriously due to the military actions in Iraq, Afghan, and the war of anti-terrorism in the recent years, and it seems that a certain kind of sacrifice in UK's major military projects is unavoidable now.

As for the UK's major military projects that might be sacrificed, CVF and the fighter project for it are the two "hot" candidates.

Blair also wants to revamp their missile subs completely. THat cant be cheap as well.

Quote:

Speak the truth. You always come to the jet engine story. Well lets just keep in mind that it was early in the war and the UK was desperate for AC so of course they had no choice. Lets see in exchange for that we did the following.
Died defending your country prior to our entry in to the war in the Battle of the Atlantic. Made available 50 destroyers. Approved Lend Lease. All before we entered the war.

I said the "jet-engine" story once before and that was when you were saying the same drivel your saying now. Seeing as this aircraft has a jet engine powering it I think it has some relevance do you? Please note there were other examples mentioned as well. Not once did I say the US hasn't given the UK support or technology, I'm just reminding you all the ground breaking technology the US acquired from the UK and that if the UK took the same approach to technology isolation as your proposing the US does, then the US would not be where it is now.

Quote:

Absolutely agree. It's just they way they are going about trying to do it is rather distasteful. It takes a solid set of nuts to portray yourself as the victim while it is you who is in fact attempting to perpetrate the crime.

Distasteful? Sorry I think its quite justified. If the US has the same situation where they couldn't operate their aircraft independently of another nation you can bet they would be doing exactly the same. Perpetrate the crime? geez you come out with some crazy stuff Thumper, the US initiated the JSF program which the UK joined early, the UK was expecting to get an aircraft that it could fly, maintain and upgrade independently. The same deal went down with the US and the Harrier so why not here?

The UK government is lead by the party of Labour now ~ A party that has been famous for sacrificing many big and important military projects for saving money or for some silly reasons (such as "Missile would be able to deal everything, so let us terminate every domestic manned-fighter projects....." in 1960s). Many UK's major military projects such as Type 45 AAW and Astute SSN have suffered the significant cut-back after it became the incumbent party, and the CVF and the fighter project for it may be the next two to be axed.

Enthusiast Joined: Dec 07, 2006 Posts: 28 Status: Offline

fretmarks wrote:

I thought Britain is set to be just the partner that gets the source code? I wonder what Option B is. What could they possibly replace their Harriers with except for the F-35B?

Quote:

Britain may quit F-35 fighter plan
Wednesday December 6, 11:57 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Britain may make good on a threat to withdraw from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, [...]

Long time listener, first time caller:

What is the point in the JSF (no Troll comments, please) other than a low RCS airplane with the same levels of perfromance of the F-16? Why with the "Future Air Force Needs for Survivability" document, it was found that the propulsion was the single most important requirement for future aircraft. Meaning that supercruise is a requirement for all future combat aircraft (fighters/bombers). Since the JSF cannot supercruise, this aircraft flies in the face of the Air Force's own findings. Why develope and field a new fighter that cannot supercruise and only takes advantage of radar RCS reductions (which is important, but new AF findings with practice missions of the F-22 vs the F-15 found that supercruise was *critical* to the success rates of the F-22). Since no aircraft is totally undetectable, should not the JSF programme have taken advantage of the lessons learned in the ATF competition? (i.e. meaning the supercruise capability) Of course the JSF has superb sensor fusion from all published available information, but sensor fusion does not make up for being slow (a relative term when compared with the F-22 and perhaps the Typhoon). Would not the prudent action to have been to include a supercruise requirement in the original JSF programme? The technology obviously existed, but why was it left out of the requirements package? Considering the limited production run of F-22s I feel that the F-35 is only 1/2 the plane the US/allies should have bought. Since the original JSF was supposed to have been a "modular" aircraft with different wings for the different branches of service, why could not the X-35/32 been modular enough for different wings/tail surfaces to allow for at least 80% the cruise speed of the F-22? Obviously the Navy requirement calls for larger lifting surfaces and that would take the Navy out of the "need for speed" aspect, but the Air Force version does not need the same wing geometry for slow speed carrier landings.

I've also seen a lot of posts comparing the F-16 programme to the JSF programme; that is not a fair assesment since the F-16 was designed from the outset to be a pure air to air fighter (taking advantage of the lessons learned from the Vietnam conflict and more specifically was designed without heavy involvement of the US Air Force generals) and was only modified later to include mud moving missions. While on the other hand the JSf was designed at the outset to be a mud mover. Also the F-16 was not designed for multiple branches of service and their inherently different missions which is why it is the stellar perfromer we all know and love.

With the limited run of F-22 Raptors, it is not unfair to pose the question if the F-35A is on par with the current state of the art F-15's outfitted with AESA radar, slammers, and look and shoot helmets. LO aside, how well will the F-35A handle the air superiority mission against the new Sukhoi's and that plane China is developing? I am assuming that if there is ever a WWIII there will be so many jammers in the air that *all* aircraft are going to be flying blind with regards to radar detection and the air battles are going to wind up being knife fights. Is the F-35A the right plane for that mission?

Of course the F-35 will provide the pilot with superb sensor information and will have the look and kill capability, but is not the F-35 a tad bit on the heavy side for a single engine fighter? Thrust is only one piece of the equation since weight also plays a role in the equation as well as lifting surfaces. An engine with 40,000 lbs of thrust would make for a hell of fast and nimble fighter if the package were light enough. Does not the F-35 fly in the face of the energy maneuvering eqations that are the reasons behind the success of the F-15s and F-16s?

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

UK may pull out of F-35 project