When Pressed, DoD Says It Could Build F-35 Without UK

Morningstar/DJ ^ | 03/15/06 | Rebecca Christie

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The Defense Department's chief weapons buyer said Thursday that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program could continue without its international partners, if current disputes over export controls and engine makers escalated to a point of no return.

Ken Krieg, the Pentagon's undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, said such a showdown was hardly imminent. "I don't think we're at that stage," Krieg said at a House Armed Services Committee panel hearing.

But when pressed, Krieg acknowledged that continuing the program without the U.K. was possible. Britain is the lead partner on the $256 billion program headed by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT).

"Yes, we can build a joint strike fighter," Krieg said, responding to a barrage of questions from U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., and chairman of the subcommittee holding the hearing.

Krieg protested questions that would "speculate" about a negative outcome to current negotiations. The U.S. wants to work with allied nations to share development costs, deepen military ties and take advantage of a global supply chain, he said.

But Weldon pushed for a more definite answer.

"Could you build the program without the Brits? We have to speculate because we have to make a decision," Weldon said.

The Joint Strike Fighter has come under heavy scrutiny on Capitol Hill this week because of a new Pentagon plan to cancel the fighter's alternate engine program, which is led by General Electric Co. (GE) and U.K.-based Rolls-Royce PLC (RR.LN). The Senate held two hearings dedicated to the program, followed by Thursday's House panel hearing.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., has been an outspoken proponent of the two-engine strategy. Few other lawmakers have taken up the issue as strongly, however, although they have quizzed Pentagon planners heavily about the rationale for the move.

U.K. officials oppose cutting the alternate engine, which would give a monopoly to U.S.-based United Technologies Corp.'s (UTX) Pratt & Whitney unit for the thousands of F-35 planes expected to be sold around the world.

The U.K. also is concerned about export controls that have so far limited the transfer of key technology. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing this week, U.K. defense procurement minister Peter Drayson said the U.K. would drop out of the program if its concerns were not allayed.

The U.K. and other partner nations are working with the Pentagon this year on a memorandum of understanding for long-term participation in the program.

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

OOPS.. didnt paste the link...

http://news.morningstar.com/news/DJ/M03/D16/200603161921DOWJONESDJONLINE001294.html?Cat=WashWire

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

There is also a pissing match over source code for the control systems. We arn't willing to give it up.

[gafusa]

I am not sure about selling so many F-35s overseas. After all China has gotten their hands on F-16s, and the F-35 has stealth technology they really want. If we do sell thousands of F-35s, they will buy, borrow or steal one, or at least get the technical knowledge. The fact is that this new F-35/F-22 generation is so far ahead of the rest of the world, exporting may not be the greatest idea, as if we are the only ones with them, our air dominance will be insured for a long time. At least we are not selling the F-22.

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

I have a funny idea the software is not being released as source for a reason. Something along the lines of the Soviets stealing pipeline control software during Reagan, and then mysteriously Ruskie pipelines going boom.

[Echo Talon]

they only chip in a couple billion and they think they run the show.

[Echo Talon]

F-35 is NOT invisible to ground radar, it's straight on cross section for air-to-air is "stealthy" and can avoid missile lock
from an aircraft, but can be seen from ground radar. Same for the F-22 from what I hear.

[grcuster]

Think again.

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=9953
Raptors to foreigners?
BY: Dave Hirschman, Atlanta Journal-Constitution*
03/14/2006

In addition, with the cuts in the Air Force and Navy I can't but wonder where in the hell is our country going. We are slowly giving (rolling over) up our military might.

[A.A. Cunningham]

low band search radar

[Proud_USA_Republican]

England is building two new aircraft carriers that were supposed to be based around the idea of a new fleet of the F-35's with vertical takeoff capabilities. They were the ones that pushed for the vertical takeoff version. These F-35s to replace their harrier jets. The lockheed version of the plane won over the boeing jet because the vertical takeoff system ended up being superior.
It would be idiotic by England at this point to pull out of the F-35 deal. They have invested a lot of R&D money into this project as well.

[Echo Talon]

The F-35C(Navy Model) will probably be have a larger radar signature than the other models since it has larger wings. Disregard the fuel rating in the chart I haven't looked at those numbers. Just used the picture to show the difference between the different F-35 models.

[Echo Talon]

Ahh heres a better picture.

[Canard]

"It would be idiotic by England at this point to pull out of the F-35 deal. They have invested a lot of R&D money into this project as well."

It wouldn't be ideal, but there's little point us having an aircraft that we do not have full operational control over.

[Echo Talon]

If England wants the planes fine, I wouldn't trust anyone with the source code(our own govt. is leaky enough no need to make more problems) If they don't want to play by these rules fine give them back their 2billion dollars.

[Poundstone]

Don't worry. The UK will not back out of the F-35 deal. They'll bitch and moan about source codes and whatnot, but in the end, they don't have a choice: there's no alternative to the F-35 for the Royal Navy. All this talk about Britain opting for the French-built Rafale is simply foolishness because the Rafale can't begin to fulfill the mission requirements the Royal Navy has set. Only the F-35 can fulfill the Royal Navy missions.

[tonycavanagh]

re :they only chip in a couple billion and they think they run the show.

Its more a case of they can switch are aircraft of.

Now if the Americans can foresee a future where they may need to switch our aircraft of, then I believe we should also prepare for that future and build are own aircraft or deal with a country that does not see Britain as a possible future threat.

[tonycavanagh]

"It would be idiotic by England at this point to pull out of the F-35 deal. They have invested a lot of R&D money into this project as well."

It wouldn't be ideal, but there's little point us having an aircraft that we do not have full operational control over.

I agree.

[tonycavanagh]

re :They'll bitch and moan about source codes and whatnot.

Its more a case of having operational control of the Aircraft, unless Pentagon or DOD see a possible future scenario, within the life time of this aircraft that is,where we will be opponents.

LOL I know many freepers do.

[gafusa]

It is not perfect stealth, but has incorporated RCS reducing tech, stuff you do not want in China's hands.

[gafusa]

I had not heard about that. Well Israel and Japan are better than anyone else, but I hope we do not sell it, fortunately the cost is prohibitive, and Japan is trying to develop its own fighter. I agree on the rest though, we should be expanding, not cutting our capabilities. We have the best technology, but we have to use it. This is war, we should be hacking giveaway programs, and investing far more in our military. This is Bush's big flaw, he keeps creating more wasteful programs like Medicare coverage, when we have a debt to pay off and a military/security apparatus to expand.