F-16.net

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 27, 2006 Posts: 67 Status: Offline

idesof wrote:

You know, I have to say that some of the jingoistic declarations on the part of some of my fellow Americans on this board are utterly disgusting and unbecoming, yet again lending credence to our reputation as "ugly Americans" with the intellectual and emotional capacity of a child. When does "patriotism" devolve into hubris and tyranny? In my experience, most of the flag-waving "patriots" who go on and on about the alleged superiority of the good ol' US of A are uneducated Neanderthals who have made absolutely no contribution to making this country great and, if anything, they spoil it for the rest of us. Enough with this "take it or leave it" crap. It's starting to remind me far too much of Nazi Germany.

Quite simply, it is absolutely imperative that we as Americans start treating our most valuable allies--and England is our MOST valuable ally--with the respect that they deserve. We are in the mess we're in throughout the world because we have treated others like sh!t and have in the process squandered whatever goodwill the rest of the world was willing to extend to us in the aftermath of 9/11. By god, if the UK wants the source code for the F-35 they are more than entitled to it. When every other important ally has pretty much abandoned the U.S. in Iraq, only the British have stepped up to the plate. These are people who are willing to shed blood for the U.S. through thick and thin. How dare we question their motives? How dare we not extend to them whatever courtesy that is asked of us? Great leaders know when it is imperative to help our allies for the sake of our own continued existence. Think Roosevelt and arms transfers to Britain during WW II. Had it not been for that assistance, that war may have turned out quite differently. It is not generosity but egotism and selfishness that time and again have proved to be the undoing of people and of nations.

Handing over $40 billion worth of R&D for free when they are already getting an outsized workshare because they are whining is not being a good ally.

like I said, to put this into perspective, $40 billion is more than the enitre country spends on R&D in an entire year.

F-16.net Sponsor

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

OMG what a load of drivel, Thumper you seem to be very anti-British, no wait, anti-European. I hardly every agree with Idesof but what he said in his last post was spot on.

Quote:

Yeah like giving them Aim-9Ls, Phalanx, logistical support and satellite imagery during the Falklands war. Sharing with them our cruise missiles and Trident D-5, etc........

Yeah that was a while ago and maybe you should check out the ground breaking tech the US received around that time. The UK shared a hell of a lot of tech with the US, and the US involvement in the Falklands was appreciated, but was not really a strain for the US. And do remember Britain was scheduled to receive the Sidewinder anyway, the delivery was expedited for the war. Also this gave a chance for the US to see the effectiveness of the Sidewinder missile, not to mention the value of the feedback provided by the RN/RAF on its use. Tech sharing between the US and UK ensured there was no gap left in defense during the cold war, thats why the UK and US kept their "special relationship".

Quote:

Ever hear of common interests? Ever hear of WWII. Lets not get in to blood shed or treasure spent because if anything it is the British who are in debt.

You are incredibly ignorant or uneducated on the events of WW2, seeing as you persist to bring it up I'll fill you in. Germany never declared war on Britain, Britain declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland (so it wasn't even the UK's war), unfortunately thanks to French leadership the battle for France was lost leaving Britain on its own to fight it out with the Germans, with the British still recovering from WW1 and no where near prepared for a second WW. The US was asked to join the allies but declined due to the lack of support from US public after the events of WW1. FDR was a very good man and knew the threat Germany posed to the world and the USA. So he sent support in the form of weapons and a few service men to help the British out. The US only entered the war when both Japan and Germany declared war on the USA.

Germany lost the Battle of Britain so an invasion was not feasible, so in summary the Germans would not have been deafeated if either the UK, US or Russia did not participate. Germany posed a great threat to the US, at the end of the war they built and flew a bomber that reached New York and flew back undetected. A lot of the US tech developed after WW2 was German, so imagine if they hadn't been defeated. Basically WW2 was not the US saving Britain's "a$$" as so many Americans believe, but protecting their own interests as well as others.

To be honest the UK is not whining, its not threatening, it was promised increased technology transfer and it hasn't happened. Thats what this thread is about. And not being a good ally Neotopia? Check the news lately? The UK is increasing its already generous support in the 2 US led wars it is fighting. The UK could have pulled of of the Iraq war like other nations have, but it hasn't, it supports the US. Afghanistan has seen a vast increase in UK servicemen and when US requests came through asking for experienced mountain warfare troops and additional Harriers, there was no hesitation from the UK.

Thumper if you want the US to look out for its own interests then maybe the UK should do the same, 9/11 wasn't our problem, Iraq was based on a US decision, we didn't need to be in either those wars. But I don't agree with that, I think we should be in Afghanistan after 9/11, a lot of people died that day thanks to the terrorist training ground of Afghanistan. The US and UK learn a lot from each other, I think isolation of tech, experience and military isn't going to help progress in the world now is it?

Funny, how the UK had fits over the possible cancelation of the GE F-136 engine. Now we are to believe they would cancel the F-35 Order and loose all of its investment in the multi-billion dollar project??? Sorry, its just more of the same...................................(i.e.politics). Confused

I dont get it... why do these nations complain when they barely pay for the aircraft's development? Its sad.

Quote:

skrip
why do these nations complain when they barely pay for the aircraft's development? Its sad.

Right on. The UK is getting full, unfettered use of the plane as designed. They are getting a nice chunk of the work share and they are even getting 50 percent of the alternative engine which the AF did not want. Talk about balls demanding more.

Quote:

Speak the Truth
it was promised increased technology transfer and it hasn't happened.

By whose definition has it not happened. The UK signed ITAR and now they want to change the agreement. BS go buy mirages. My hard earned tax dollars went to fund the VAST MAJORITY of the JSF development work. Maybe instead of subsidizing Airbus or buying a few less Tiffies you would have money enough to spend as a true development partner.

Lastly, the "anti" seems to be coming from your side of th Atlantic. I am anti nothing. Europe and Britian cannot continue to burn both ends of the candle. You are the one who started by bringing up who gave what to whom not me.

Lastly, ever hear of 711? Islamic terrorism is just as much of not more of a threat to Europe as to the US. The difference here is despite the F7ck up Bush has done in Iraq and Afghanistan the majority of us know that the only way they will be defeated is if we fight them on their own turf. At least Tony Blair had the brains to realize that.

skrip00 wrote:

I dont get it... why do these nations complain when they barely pay for the aircraft's development? Its sad.

It has much to do with Pride, Workshare, and above all else Money! Wink

Quote:

Right on. The UK is getting full, unfettered use of the plane as designed. They are getting a nice chunk of the work share and they are even getting 50 percent of the alternative engine which the AF did not want. Talk about balls demanding more.

Demanding more? No they are questioning why the promised tech transfer is not happening, if the US said at the start that there would be limited tech transfer in that the UK could not operate and upgrade its aircraft independently then I doubt the UK would have continued. The UK, like the US, has a policy of running and upgrading aircraft independently, and if the situation was the other way around you can bet the US would be questioning like the UK is now.

Quote:

Lastly, ever hear of 711? Islamic terrorism is just as much of not more of a threat to Europe as to the US. The difference here is despite the F7ck up Bush has done in Iraq and Afghanistan the majority of us know that the only way they will be defeated is if we fight them on their own turf. At least Tony Blair had the brains to realize that.

I'm guessing you mean 7/7? That happened 4 years after 9/11 and is widely agreed to have occurred because of UK involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like I said I agree with the Afghanistan campaign, but your proposing the US remains isolated on technology, and I pointed out that the UK could have remained isolated after 9/11 as it wasn't their deal, but instead we joined the coalition therefore UK citizens spent a lot of their hard earned tax money on the 2 US campaigns.

As I have said, tech transfer has occurred many times between the US and UK since WW2 in BOTH directions, why should it stop now. Take the Harrier, the principle tried and tested British design design was improved by the US and UK later on, but the US got a lot of the work and sold US built Harriers around the world.

Technology transfer has occurred between the UK and US for years and should continue to do so, a new revolutionary tech being developed in the UK is electrically charged Armour, after showing extreme success in trials this will be developed even further. And I'm sure the US will acquire this technology later on (judging by their current interest) despite it being mainly a UK funded project. And I'm happy for that, as it will provide much greater protection for US, UK and other coalition members in future (and perhaps current) campaigns.

Forward not backwards Thumper.

Can you independently upgrade Tomahawk? What about Trident?. Sorry you do have full operational sovereignty what you do not have and you do not have a right to is the ability to upgrade or develop weapons for it independently of the US. It is called protecting jobs more than anything else. If BAE where part of Boeing it may be different but right now BAE has its fingers in a few too many pots for my taste. Like I said spend a bit less on subsidizing Airbus (how many billions in launch aid did you give for the A380 and now A350)and more on developing JSF and maybe you would have some rights to more of the technology. Right now 2billion out of 40 is pocket change. Take the 2 billion and buy Rafaels for all I care.

Has What I said gone straight over your head?

Thumper3181 wrote:

Can you independently upgrade Tomahawk? What about Trident?. Sorry you do have full operational sovereignty what you do not have and you do not have a right to is the ability to upgrade or develop weapons for it independently of the US.

Why should the UK have let the US independently upgraded UK technology acquired bu the US? And believe me the US will have rights to upgrade future UK tech that is acquired by the USA. Like I have said tech sharing should continue as it has done so.

Thumper3181 wrote:

how many billions in launch aid did you give for the A380 and now A350

Me? none, BAe? A lot I guess seeing as they did own 20% of the company, Airbus was setup as a European company with the founding members receiving the percentage they put into it.

Thumper3181 wrote:

It is called protecting jobs more than anything else.

That is an issue but not a reason, there are other factors that contribute to this and the main one is maintaining a strong alliance. I don't remember the US announcing restricted access to the source code at the beginning of the JSF program, if they did then perhaps the UK wouldn't have joined, seeing as they didn't then I guess it would be nice for the US to deliver.

This argument has been handled already. The UK will have access to all the technology needed for operational sovereignty.

If they wish to integrate new weapons, or more weapons to the JSF, then they must contact Lock-Mart... or risk voiding their "warranty".

They will not be given access to components like US-built ECM systems, sensor algorithms, etc.

Simple as that. Got a problem with it? Kiss the US's a$$. Its their aircraft, they suffer the most risk in its involvement, and are practically footing the bill.

Dont like it? Tough ****. Next time build your own airplane, then offer it to a partner nation who wants to change it, then ask for workshares, then cut their own production numbers...

Oh wait... it was called the Eurofighter Project. Rolling Eyes

Well, it seems that UK doesn't think that USA has realized the duty it promised in the May of this year..............

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?S ... 2911-1585r

Report: U.S.-British jet deal endangered

LONDON, Dec. 11 (UPI) -- British defense officials are considering an alternative to spending $20 billion on U.S.-developed F-35 fighter jets over a dispute involving secret technology.

Monday, British Minister for Defense Procurement, Paul Drayson flew to Washington for talks on the deal, which has a Dec. 31 deadline. Britain had planned to purchase about 150 of the 2,500 new fighters, but balked when the U.S. military refused to share some of the aircraft's secret computer technology, The Times of London reported.

In May, British Prime Minister Tony Blair met with U.S. President George Bush in Washington, and Blair later said the matter had been rectified. However, British defense officials told the Times nothing at all has changed since then.

toan wrote:

Well, it seems that UK doesn't think that USA has realized the duty it promised in the May of this year..............

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?S ... 2911-1585r

Report: U.S.-British jet deal endangered

LONDON, Dec. 11 (UPI) -- British defense officials are considering an alternative to spending $20 billion on U.S.-developed F-35 fighter jets over a dispute involving secret technology.

Monday, British Minister for Defense Procurement, Paul Drayson flew to Washington for talks on the deal, which has a Dec. 31 deadline. Britain had planned to purchase about 150 of the 2,500 new fighters, but balked when the U.S. military refused to share some of the aircraft's secret computer technology, The Times of London reported.

In May, British Prime Minister Tony Blair met with U.S. President George Bush in Washington, and Blair later said the matter had been rectified. However, British defense officials told the Times nothing at all has changed since then.

Well, that's one view yet it doesn't happen to be ours! Seem like the UK wants total access for the purchase of 150 out of 2,500 F-35's! By the way this is US property. The UK is free to spend its resources to develope stealth fighters on its own if it so chooses. Seems to me its not the US that is taking advantage of the so called special relationship............ Confused

I am keeping my fingers crossed and hope we call their bluff. Let them buy Rafaels. I'm sure the French will have no problems with technology transfer.

Yep, real smart move by the British. They give up on having the one plane that superior to every other plane except the F-22 and go for the Rafael or Typhoon. Two planes that are and will continue to be inferior to late model F/A-18s and upgraded F-15s.

Will we show BAE and RR the door also? I am sure Mitsubishi and maybe Honda could take their place. JSF would be a fine addition to the JSDF. There is no reason to give British industry any industrial benefit if Britain is no longer part of the program.

Such a shame. Greedy Brits.

Personally, I don't believe the UK is going anywhere............Regardless, many other countries would love to step in if in fact the British decided to leave the project. Really, it all boils down to access to technology and work share!

I agree with you corsair. I just don't have much faith in the boobs in Washington. We would be fools to give anyone one unfettered access to the brains of the JSF. This is not like an f-4. Integrated, computerized combat systems and avionics are one of the things that sets the JSF apart from most AC. Why give a competitor help in developing both their own competing combat systems and a way for them to compete with us in future upgrades on the JSF.

I think the other problem is the British are unhappy about some helicopters that where sold to them. They are trying to get being to make some free modifications to them that according to the contract they are not entitled to. If they had the source code for the choppers they could do it themselves. It seems they have no sense of intellectual property.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

UK may pull out of F-35 project