Forum: Program and politics

Bush, Blair agree on F-35 fighter technology transfer

By Jim Wolf, Reuters - Friday, May 26, 2006; 4:44 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has agreed to step up Britain's access to sensitive technology in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter being built by Lockheed Martin Corp., President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Friday.

The radar-evading F-35 is the costliest warplane acquisition program ever at a projected $276.5 billion through 2027 for the total 2,593 jets that the United States and Britain plan to buy.

"Both governments agree that the UK will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK
retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft," they said in a joint statement.

At issue were such things as radar-evading technologies, know-how involving the aircraft's electronic brains and future weapons integration -- items Britain has equated with what it calls operational sovereignty.

The first F-35 is to be delivered in 2009 in the United States.

Britain has committed $2 billion to developing the fighter, more than twice the sum put up by the other partners -- Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.

Britain's minister for defense procurement, Paul Drayson, warned Washington in March that London would quit the co-development program unless Britain's technology-access needs were met.

"Without the technology transfer to give us the confidence to deliver an aircraft fit to fight on our terms, we will not be able to buy these aircraft," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 14.

Bush and Blair said in the statement they were still working out details of the technology-transfer deal designed to clear the way for Britain to sign a pact on buying its planned F-35 fleet.

"The United States has no closer ally than the United Kingdom," the statement said, referring to their cooperation in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the U.S.-declared global war on terror.

U.S. officials have said they hope to wrap up talks with Britain and the other partners next month on how many F-35s they would buy. This would set the stage for a formal signing ceremony in December after purchase reviews are completed in the partner countries, officials said.

Bush and Blair also spoke in the statement of a need to enhance U.S.-British military cooperation.

They said the two countries must strengthen and deepen the relationship between their defense establishments, achieve fully interoperable forces and leverage the strength of their industries.

F-16.net Sponsor

Andy, I posted this news on the "Bad news for JSF" thread earlier. Seeing as you have put up a dedicated thread I will comment here.

I wondered about this news item. A key phrase is..

"Bush and Blair said in the statement they were still working out details of the technology-transfer deal designed to clear the way for Britain to sign a pact on buying its planned F-35 fleet".

Ah, it is nearly time for the UK for commit to firm orders, so here comes the Tech` transfer deal!

As I understood, I thought it was up to congress to decide on ITAR deals or waivers, not George W?
Did I miss something? Has congress already approved? Bill Clinton said he wanted the UK to have full tech` access years ago but it still had to get past congress...

I don`t actually doubt that we will get great access but it is not exactly clear cut or final.... We will have to see the details of this YET to be signed deal, or at least the overview.

Will we be allowed to repair stealth coatings? As an example, if a wing leading edge is damaged, will we be able to repair it or will we just order a new part from LM and fit it ourselves? If we repair, we will, by virtue have full access to the black art of US stealth tech`...The stealth coating repair debate has been the most common example I have seen around.

Even the ability to integrate FUTURE UK kit is desirable on it`s own independently. I wonder whether we really need to be able to repair RAM coatings though?

Trident D-5 rockets always go back to the US for servicing, we have NO access to them. Except for warhead work because they are UK devices. In fact, D-5 rounds for the RN come from a combined pool of missiles shared by the USN and RN. RN SSBNs have to go to Norfolk, Virginia to exchange them. One of the reasons the US gave us Trident/Polaris was to to keep the technology/capability of building SLBMs within the US cynics have claimed.

If you doubt that, UK Trident warheads are almost exact copies of current US designs, we just build and service them at Burghfield/Aldermaston....All computer modeling/finite model testing is done at US facilities, their national labs, Sandia and Lawrence Liv`. The US has unrestricted access to any UK warhead design innovations, of which there have been some notable ones. That access was part of the deal.

There's always been confusion regarding ITAR waivers. My understanding is that ITAR does not decide what technology the UK is allowed to have but merely details what needs to be done once transfer has been agreed. ITAR is a very long and laborious process and the UK would like to side step it. But that side step does not remove the need to gain the original OK.

If you think about it, the UK has received a ton of US classified info over the past 50 or so years without any kind of waiver at all. That includes a great deal of JSF technology that has already reached the UK in order for brit companies to build JSF parts. There are public statements that the UK has received every single JSF technology it needs so far. The compaints are all about how much effort it needs to get each particular item thru the process. US companies are in full agreement that it's a pig and they would like the UK to get the waiver. But it's not Bushes to grant.

My interpretation of this announcement is that Bush has agreed that the UK can have what it need for the sovreign thingie. That's not 100% of the secrets. It's just some of them. And defining that "some of them" and how exactly to fence them off from the rest is what is being negotiated. By the way, despite all the arm waving and jumping down by various brit politicians types, this was always going to happen. 99% of talk of US stiffing the UK by withholding information comes from yankee bashers and supporters of competing products like Dassault and Eurofighter who have been running around spreading JSF FUD at every opportunity. If you don't believe me go read what the EF salesman said to the Norwegians.

Regarding leading edge replacement & RAM coatings. Maintenance of LO in the field is a problem. Even determining if you still have LO is a problem. It's a problem for every single user including the USAF, USN & Marines. It's not simple, will take some time to work thru and will not be helped along by nationalistic willy waving as I've seen in some places. I assure you that the US marines are no more likely to sign off sending back a bent leading edge to Lockheed than the RAF.

RonO, its pretty certain that the main outside-US major servicing centre is going to be in the UK, but controlled and ran by the US... so it isn't a problem really to get a replacement part.

Plus the RAF have a habbit of making their own replacement parts by reverse engineering the original part. They do it to keep the E-3D's going... Boeing only make replacement parts for the 707 series in bulk when there are enough orders. Therefore they make their own parts if they just need 1 or 2! Especially as it was RAF techies that discovered the major flaw with the E-3, the buffeted air from the disc, actually causes structural damage to a couple on panels on the tail! And they need regular replacing.

Andy

Thanks RonO, Andy, some interesting things to think about in your posts...

I agree that the UK will only get what it needs to operate and upgrade the JSF. That will be quite adequate. As said earlier, the deal was always going to be done, it was the scope which was never determined. It still is`nt.

I think the fears of some in the US, in terms of technology loss and a LEAD in it must be addressed. The fears in the Uk of a complete reliance on LM also has to be allayed.. This deal is the perfect opportunity for closure on these issues, with various assurances and guarantees.

I perfectly understand the US stance on tech` transfer. The Stealth R&D has already been done and paid for by the US. The US has a world lead and wants to maintain it, that is without going into compromising tactical advantage...

" There are public statements that the UK has received every single JSF technology it needs so far."

I to have read these kind of reports, as you said, the process has always required smoothing and speeding up. There have always been very practical difficulties with teams working JSF being prevented from taking data back to the UK for further work, but being allowed to use the same data whilst in the US!!

I would be perfectly happy to have jets that we can service and maintain, upgrade at will at a fair price from LM. While making concessions to preserve US technology and prevent overseas leakage. A tricky but not impossible deal to put together.

One question I have..will this understanding open the door for the Dutch (If they still want JSF), Norway, Israel, etc, etc, to DEMAND the same access. I know the US deals with different customers at differing levels, but I suspect the willy waving won`t stop with this deal! Cool

Israel can hand wave and scream all it likes it will likely still get the middle finger. Their track record of keeping secrets sucks. Norway hasn't made any commitments. In fact they've have the gall to demand work share and at the same time said "even if we get it that doesn't mean we'll buy the F-35". They should get the finger too, this isn't a welfare project.

Unfortunately willy waving is not a purely European disease (sigh)

Interesting thought about the ramifications of the Bush/Blair accord on the other partners. Not crossed my mind. It will be interesting although the Dutch seem to be very happy with the promise of a regional engine depot. There is a realism in some of those smaller countries that their defense industry is really not up to exploiting US technology that comes their way. There's also realism that the UK & US have a different relationship.

There's many in the US that would be very happy to see the Israeli's try out their bag of tricks on the F-35. There's been a significant flow of good kit & technology from them back to the US. Smart people. Democratic. Allies too.

RonO wrote:

Unfortunately willy waving is not a purely European disease (sigh).

So having an opinion that doesn't think the F-35 should be a welfare project is "willy waving" huh? Wanting some of our best technology to stay out of China is "willy waving"? Nice. [/quote]

RonO wrote:

There's many in the US that would be very happy to see the Israeli's try out their bag of tricks on the F-35. There's been a significant flow of good kit & technology from them back to the US. Smart people. Democratic. Allies too.

As the saying goes "with friend like these. . . ." Maybe you can justify Israel giving Lavi and Patriot technology to China? Is that what "friends" do? There's a reason they're not allowed a bigger part of the program, you might want to think about that. Rolling Eyes

I think this is great news, for the UK and the JSF program. The more we sell, the cheaper ours become and are therefore less vulnerable to cuts. Besides, while I have questions about a couple of the partners in JSF, I have no doubts about F-35's in RAF and RAAF squadrons.

sferrin, you talk like a child. Norway is our ally in NATO and has been a true friend for decades. It's next purchase of fighter aircraft is a very big decision for them as it will dominate their procurement budget for years. Its perfectly right and proper they examine all aspects of that decision including the effects on their small defense industry. I don't know what twisted logic leads you to the conclusion they're a welfare case. I do know it's extremely rude and you should shut up and mind your manners.

Whiteman, agree 100%. Don't forget not all countries will get JSF's with the same capability.

sferrin wrote:

As the saying goes "with friend like these. . . ." Maybe you can justify Israel giving Lavi and Patriot technology to China? Is that what "friends" do? There's a reason they're not allowed a bigger part of the program, you might want to think about that. Rolling Eyes

1. I want to see any reliable source that says the Lavi has anything to do with the J-10 and that Israel has given the Patriot to China. Assumptions are not to be made.

2. And check this out:
A) The US buys the F-16's flight control system from Israel, and supply it
to other countries, including Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman, Indonesia and the UAE.

B) Israel developed a procedure which helps to increase the Hawk SAM life expectancy. The Americans liked that, and now they share it with other countries, including Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

C) The F-16's CFT were developed with co-operation with IAI and are mostly manufactured by IAI, and are supplied to other countries, including the UAE.

D) The F-16's horizontal stabilizers, wing boxes and fuel tanks are manufactured in IAI, and are supplied to other countries, including Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman, Indonesia and the UAE.

E) The JHMCS helmet was developed by Elbit, and is incorporated into the Block 60 which is being sold to the UAE, and is about to be used on the JSF as well.

F) Israel developed night vision equipment for the M1 tanks. The US supplied the system to Egypt, and now they even manufacture it themselves.

And I'm sure there are more examples.

So, my friend, is that what friends do?

Shalom DeepSpace,

In 1997, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen visited the Holy Land.
He also visited Hatzerim AB and saw in the museum one of the Lavi's.
Angrily he asked: Where is the fourth Technology Demonstrator?
Answer: China. The technology of the Lavi is used in the J-10.
In the nineties the Americans also accused your country about technology transfer regarding the Patriot system and Mark 48 torpedo. They were also not amused when they found out that a chrome alloy liner was applied to your Merkavah 120mm smooth bore tankguns, this was stolen from a U.S. company.
DeepSpace, have you ever heard of a Israeli company named 'Lakam', this company is specialised in retrieving technology and hardware from other countries.

Point A - F; yep, there are more examples about technology, hardware, intelligence and tactics which they share(d) with the USA and their allies. What a hypocrite muslem countries!: I thought they boycotted Israel completely. Well wait, it happened in the eighties that US developed weapons were flown to Iran by Israeli Herks and other weapons came in via ZIM sea containers. (Zim is an Israeli logistics company)

Friends? What to think about Donald Rumsfeld, a Jewish man who had in 1983 a cozy meeting with a well-known psychopath from Tikrit. Business is business and Donny decided to sell chemical and biological weapon components, yeah even anthrax and bubonic plague cultures to this charming creature.
As good friends, Donny travelled after that many times to Babylon and kept on doing business, untill 1990!!!
In good times, in bad times, that's were friends are fore ...ooohh oohh

Guys, lets not let this topic spiral towards the direction I think it is going. Even though I posed the original question, I can`t see why Israel shouldn`t get the F-35. Israel is still getting F-16s so obviously the US doesn`t care that much about what supposedly happened to the Lavi...right?

Even if Israel doesn`t get certain bits of kit that come with the F-35, I am absolutely certain Israel is more than capable of filling the gaps and probably turn the F-35 into a BETTER airplane.

As RonO said, the different allies have differing levels of capability in the aerospace business. Norway may not be able to exploit the same tech` access as successfully as say, Italy or the UK or the Aussies`.

Deals will be tailored to suit this. Instead of tech` access, a support package that is more attractive may be included. This isn`t a welfare project, but it is about SELLING jets. The way to sell a product is to meet the customers needs. Some customers want tech` access, others are happy to build some components locally. Yet others will be happy to have special support sweeteners.

Bottom line it`s about sales. The US won`t have to worry too much about tech` leakage from her major allies. There are individual cases that will be dealt with, lets just say, in a more diplomatic fashion!!!

locum wrote:

Shalom DeepSpace,

In 1997, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen visited the Holy Land.
He also visited Hatzerim AB and saw in the museum one of the Lavi's.
Angrily he asked: Where is the fourth Technology Demonstrator?
Answer: China. The technology of the Lavi is used in the J-10.

I'm sorry mate, but you lost your case already. Out of five planned prototypes, only 3 were ever completed and flown. B01's first flight was on December 31st 1986 and B02's on 30th March 1987. B03's, the third prototype and the technology demonstrator, on 25th September 1989. The program canceled on the 30th August 1987. After the program was canceled, B02 went to the museum in Hatzerim, while B01 and B03 were scrapped after there was no use for a testbed for Israeli-developed avionics. The other 2 planned prototypes were never completed, not even talking delivered to China.

Quote:

DeepSpace, have you ever heard of a Israeli company named 'Lakam', this company is specialised in retrieving technology and hardware from other countries.

No, and I would love to hear more about it from you.

Quote:

Point A - F; yep, there are more examples about technology, hardware, intelligence and tactics which they share(d) with the USA and their allies. What a hypocrite muslem countries!: I thought they boycotted Israel completely. Well wait, it happened in the eighties that US developed weapons were flown to Iran by Israeli Herks and other weapons came in via ZIM sea containers. (Zim is an Israeli logistics company)

You might be surprised to know that Israel suggested to Iran to develop a new fighter jet together. After the revolution in the late 70s/early 80s, the relationship with Iran was halted. If you think otherwise, please show me reliable sources which state that.

Again, all I see is a bunch of assumptions being thrown one after the other, without any reliable sources to prove them right.

P.S. The US doesn't care about Israel and China. The US doesn't want to approve Israel to modify its F-35s with Israeli technology, as we do with most if not all of our fighters/helicopters.