ORAC quoted this from the FT:
......"I have always been clear that the UK would only sign if we were satisfied that we would have operational sovereignty over our aircraft," Lord Drayson said after meeting Gordon England, the US deputy defence secretary. "I have today received the necessary assurances from the US on technology transfer to allow me to sign the MoU."
Last week, the Commons defence committee urged the Ministry of Defence to move towards buying a different fighter jet if agreement could not be reached this year. While welcoming the deal, Lord Drayson said it was important that the UK continue to have a "Plan B". Earlier this year, he told a key congressional committee that the UK would move to a Plan B if the Pentagon did not agree to provide key technology. Experts have speculated that this might involve buying French Rafale jets or Eurofighter Typhoons.
Lord Drayson yesterday said the key to resolving the dispute had been ensuring that there was an "unbroken chain of command of UK citizens" that would deliver operational sovereignty. "We have that," he added.
He said that the agreement would mean the UK would have access to the source code needed to maintain and update the stealth technology, adding that it would "deliver the necessary technology to industry"........
While researching some IPR issues at work I came across this little gem in the ministrys own guide to IPR:
"When the USA is a party to an international collaboration arrangement it poses particular difficulties arising out of US law and US government policies. ... All disclosures of unpublished US technology require the grant of an export licence and this follows a security review. The US government is unable, or unwilling, to give any watertight assurance that information promised ... will be forthcoming. This poses a particular problemwith regard to computer source code and, in highly classified projects, to information generally. The problems do not stop when information has been delivered from the USA ... the information is then subject to 'third party use and disclosure' provisions ... not limited to classified information ... prevent release of information to the following: 'foreign' controlled companies; 'foreign' governments; and 'foreign' nationals even when working for UK companies"
My italics for emphasis. There is a lot more but frankly I can't be bothered to type too much now.
Can't blame the Americans for this particular approach especially when dealing with a socialist government (remember giving away gas turbine engines to Russia in the late 40's/50's etc), but you do wonder exactly what Lord Drayson actually thinks he's got, and who at MoD was advising him to roll over. But of course we all knew that didn't we?