Posted on 12/10/2006 7:26:38 AM PST by Axlrose
Ministers have been urged to scrap the multi-billion-pound Joint Strike Fighter project unless the US agrees to share its sensitive technological specifications.
Sky Defence Correspondent Geoff Meade says the UK badly needs a replacement for the ageing Harrier - whatever it gets called.
Although the Falklands veteran jump jet has proved valuable beyond its years, flying mission after mission in support of ground troops in Afghanistan, the fierce tempo of operations is taking a toll on the lifespan of ageing airframes.
The problem is nobody knows yet if the new US-designed jet will be bought, or even what it will be called.
America designates it the F35, Lightening Two and Joint Strike Fighter. Britain prefers Joint Combat Aircraft. For simplicity why not name it the New Harrier?
We've already spent £1bn towards development, and the 138 aircraft we might buy would involve a pocket-stretching £70bn.
It is intended to equip two planned new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, both yet on the drawing board and budgeted at over £3bn.
So as the deal looks vulnerable, what's at stake is an awful lot of money and Britain's centuries-old ability to project power at sea.
But why is America falling out with her closest ally? It's all about what's called "technology transfer and operational sovereignty".
Like any state-of-the-art platforms, modern aircraft depend on computer software to perform. Indeed the RAF's Eurofighter Typhoon only achieves its astonishing agility by being inherently unstable in design and depending on massive computer power to make microscopic adjustments to the control surfaces every millisecond to stay airborne.
So ultra-secret computer codes are key to how the New Harrier performs, fights, arms, and adapts to changing missions and climates - even whether it can be repaired.
But the American government fears EU employment laws guaranteeing freedom to work to citizens within the union means this information could leak to a rival foreign power.
They'll sell Britain and other European partner nations the aircraft. But the planes would either have to return to the US for any adjustments, or await a team to arrive from the Fort Worth, Texas factory.
Eurofighter Typhoon For the RAF and Royal Navy, proud of their ability to adapt and adjust and repair on the frontline, this would be unacceptable. It might even make the New Harrier not worth the massive price tag.
So what is the "Plan B" Defence Procurement Minister Lord Drayson floated a year ago.
We already have a formidable and modern combat aircraft. It's called the Typhoon.
The high-level interceptor's been fiercely criticised as being a cold-war leftover we can ill afford, with nothing to contribute to the sort of war being fought in Afghanistan. Almost before it's entered service, its makers and the RAF are rushing to adapt the delta-wing fighter to a ground-attack role.
If it could also be configured to fly from the new carriers, it would do much to rid it of a reputation for redundancy.
The cost would be phenomenal. The whole airframe would need strengthening. But that would take up some of the jobs lost if the New Harrier was abandoned.
Britain is already committed to buying more than 200 Typhoons. Diverting some to a maritime role could be portrayed as cost effective.
Or it could all be a negotiating ploy aimed at making the Americans divulge their "crown jewel" computer codes - or risk losing their biggest ever arms export contract.
Seems that the US-UK relationship is going through a rocky patch...
"Looks like the Brits are going wobbly on co-operation with the US"
This issue has been going on for sometime and could just as easily be portrayed as the US 'going wobbly on co-operation with the UK'. Although, given the anti-British agenda that permeates many of your posts, it doesn't surprise me that you would automatically see it the other way.
There is a definite issue with a country paying a lot of money for some aircraft without any guarantee that they would not be able to service them at some point in the future, would you not agree.
I am also not really sure what you're going on about with 'first they drop the use of the term "War on Terror" as they fall over themselves to appease the enemy'. Probably I missed another memo...
The US has spent nearly 300 billion on this program vs the UK 1-2 billion. Its codes were an offshoot of the F-22 program. Now why would we give these over to the socialist EU(BAE and EADS work together alot) who wants to lift the arms embargo against communist china.This would make US air dominance vulnerable.
Answer:We wont.The program will survive with just the US if it has to.
No you didn't miss another memo, you missed the thread posted.
The Brits ARE dropping the term 'War On Terror'.
what's really disgusting is that the chinese probably already have the secret software.
Oh you mean the one where The Observer 'claims' that Foreign Office bureaucrats have 'suggested' that Ministers avoid the term for strategic reasons.
I'd make some point about how it seems that unattributed leaks in left wing newspapers suddenly seem to acquire so much more credibility when they support the posters world view and/or trolling agenda. But then I don't really care and I always thought 'war on terror' to be a nonsensical phrase anyway.
And it's a pretty awesome plane. I only clicked here to see some great shots of it.
Many nations still want to buy the F-35 with our rules. Japan will buy more of them than the UK anyhow. I love the UK but they must know that the EU lifting the arms embargo to non-democratic nations is a security risk for us. We also know that members in the EU loath the US and would please them to shyte on us.
Exactly. Giving these codes to the Brits is no better than giving them to the French and then the Chinese.
The Brits keep forgetting their place in the world, its a very long time since they were able to demand anything, heck even the French don't listen to them anymore.
We thank you for your $2bn, now where are the other $150bn or so needed to give you a REAL say ?
The US will roll over on this one. Get back to me when they don't.
Unfortunately, the Typhoon costs a lot more money and doesn't have the VSTOL capability needed on the current British carriers.
I have a feeling in the end this argument is mostly about sub-contractor work and long term maintenance contracts, aka jobs for UK citizens. There will be a compromise solution and the UK will be flying Lightning.
To be fair, their new carriers will be able to operate catapults and conventional aircraft should they need to.
They are not currently being built with them, but the design is supposedly able to to accomodate them.
They'll be part of an EU navy before their careers are done, hence why giving them the ability to operate American aircraft totally independantly is not a great idea...
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what OS these computers run on in these aircraft? Is it proprietary?
The bottom line is we dont trust the EU with US intrests or national security. The truth hurts but that is the reality of the situation.
How is this different than any other classified information we share with the UK? Our intelligence sharing with the UK has continued unabated since WWII, and for the most part, they've proven themselves to be dependable allies. Why are we worried about them leaking F-35 source code when we continue to share with them much more important material through UKUSA and high-level exchange programs? If we just stamp the source code TS/RELUK, it should be treated with at least as much secrecy as anything else we've given them.
Or we could go the other direction and put it on SourceForge. If it's worth what we paid for it, it should withstand that scrutiny.
>Answer:We wont.<
I wish I had you faith that we won't open up all our trade secrets to the world ....... in an effort to further the establishment of globalization.
The US trusts the Brits just not the EU.Them being part of the EU,and an EU defense force is where things could hurt the US in the future. We dont know what the future will hold for UK integration into the EU. What we do know is our national security should come first.Dont get me wrong I love the UK,but we dont know how anti-US the EU will become in the future. Chances are it will be against us and cozy up to russia,china,and the islamic world.
We trust our closest ally with the Trident II missile systm but not the JSF? Please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.