UK signs JSF MoU
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK signs JSF MoU
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...c=66&type=qcna
Be interesting to see whether the tech-transfer issue was really sorted out or whether the MoD's bluff was called.
Be interesting to see whether the tech-transfer issue was really sorted out or whether the MoD's bluff was called.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We have today received the necessary assurances from the U.S. on technology transfer, which we would require to operate the aircraft safely and maintain, repair and upgrade it over its operational life."
Wonder if they are as reliable as the assurances one N. Chamberlain received from the then German Chancellor?
Wonder if they are as reliable as the assurances one N. Chamberlain received from the then German Chancellor?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: england
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We have today received the necessary assurances from the U.S. on technology transfer, which we would require to operate the aircraft safely and maintain, repair and upgrade it over its operational life."
Wonder if they are as reliable as the assurances one N. Chamberlain received from the then German Chancellor?
Wonder if they are as reliable as the assurances one N. Chamberlain received from the then German Chancellor?
Thats a no then .....
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However I heard a while back that the Aussies had confounded the US by managing to break into the F18 code and re-engineering it to do what they wanted it to.
Any truth in it?
Left behind by the Dutch........
Sitting on a flight into DFW last Monday, couldn't help notice a clean-cut chap next to me reading some Dutch techie-mag with the odd pic of JSF in it.
This following the news in FI that the Dutch being first to sign something or other (left the mag in seatback pocket).
Using the law of averages, asked the gent if he was from Cloggie Air Force and off to Lockheed for a course on the JSF.......I was surprised as he was when he said "yes"!!!
He was unaware about signature and suggested that the Dutch had better get a government first.........
This following the news in FI that the Dutch being first to sign something or other (left the mag in seatback pocket).
Using the law of averages, asked the gent if he was from Cloggie Air Force and off to Lockheed for a course on the JSF.......I was surprised as he was when he said "yes"!!!
He was unaware about signature and suggested that the Dutch had better get a government first.........
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
.......Lord Drayson, the Defence Procurement Minister, said that he had signed an agreement on the next phase of the fighter’s development. It followed talks in which he was promised that Britain would be able to operate the aircraft independently of the US. The minister said: “It was a question of getting their personal assurances about an unbroken British chain of command over the aircraft.”
"Verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on." Samuel Goldwyn
"Verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on." Samuel Goldwyn
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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"........
......"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"........
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Planet Zob
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I may say so this is a bit of a tricky one.
Do you want proven capability that works on the new carriers from the start? If so then your best bet is F18/Harrier AV8B+ or Rafale – as it/they are here and now.
If you want to have latest technology and a shedload of UK jobs (also fairly important) but possibly ‘missing the boat’ then JSF is the way.
However, if you want to spend a lot of money and get a shedload of jobs and have the aircraft miss this boat and the probably next, then navalised Typhoon is your preferred option.
The other concern is what is best for the people who are the end users – possibly F18?
Its a bit of a conundrum. Glad I don't have to decide.
Do you want proven capability that works on the new carriers from the start? If so then your best bet is F18/Harrier AV8B+ or Rafale – as it/they are here and now.
If you want to have latest technology and a shedload of UK jobs (also fairly important) but possibly ‘missing the boat’ then JSF is the way.
However, if you want to spend a lot of money and get a shedload of jobs and have the aircraft miss this boat and the probably next, then navalised Typhoon is your preferred option.
The other concern is what is best for the people who are the end users – possibly F18?
Its a bit of a conundrum. Glad I don't have to decide.
Do you want proven capability that works on the new carriers from the start? If so then your best bet is F18/Harrier AV8B+ or Rafale – as it/they are here and now.
Unlike the Future Carriers - which won't be ready until 20........errr well whenever the MOD decides they are due, although the SDR said 2012 and 2105.
The fact that they're not ready yet must effect aircraft type selection.
Unlike the Future Carriers - which won't be ready until 20........errr well whenever the MOD decides they are due, although the SDR said 2012 and 2105.
The fact that they're not ready yet must effect aircraft type selection.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 14th Dec 2006 at 23:28.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
......"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?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
On a related topic....
DID: ........In January 2006, DID ran "Reports: Cuts on the way to F-35 JSF R&D, Engine Programs," covering Pentagon attempts to remove FY 2007 funding from the F-35 Lightning II's second engine option, the GE/ Rolls Royce F136. As DID predicted, protests from fellow Tier 1 partner Britain followed at the highest levels of government. Many in the US Congress, meanwhile, were openly skeptical of handing Pratt & Whitney's F135 engine the keys to the entire F-35 fleet.
In the end, the Pentagon's "program risk with the F135 is so low that R&D spending on F136 development is a waste" argument failed. Congress re-inserted funding to the tune of $340 million, and F136 development has continued on schedule.
Fast forward to the FY 2008 budget, now that key partners like Britain have committed to the F-35 Production MoU. For the second year in a row, the Pentagon has removed funding for the GE/RR F136.........
DID: ........In January 2006, DID ran "Reports: Cuts on the way to F-35 JSF R&D, Engine Programs," covering Pentagon attempts to remove FY 2007 funding from the F-35 Lightning II's second engine option, the GE/ Rolls Royce F136. As DID predicted, protests from fellow Tier 1 partner Britain followed at the highest levels of government. Many in the US Congress, meanwhile, were openly skeptical of handing Pratt & Whitney's F135 engine the keys to the entire F-35 fleet.
In the end, the Pentagon's "program risk with the F135 is so low that R&D spending on F136 development is a waste" argument failed. Congress re-inserted funding to the tune of $340 million, and F136 development has continued on schedule.
Fast forward to the FY 2008 budget, now that key partners like Britain have committed to the F-35 Production MoU. For the second year in a row, the Pentagon has removed funding for the GE/RR F136.........
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
U.S. House Adds Funds for F136 Engine
By unanimous vote and without debate, the House seapower subcommittee approved almost all of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps’ 2008 budget request — and kicked in three unrequested ships as well. The additions include:..............
• $480 million to hire a supplier to build a second, competing engine for the F-35 Lightning II strike fighter. This move was taken in coordination with the House panel on air and land power.....
By unanimous vote and without debate, the House seapower subcommittee approved almost all of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps’ 2008 budget request — and kicked in three unrequested ships as well. The additions include:..............
• $480 million to hire a supplier to build a second, competing engine for the F-35 Lightning II strike fighter. This move was taken in coordination with the House panel on air and land power.....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This reminds me of a (slightly smaller) project of my own a few years back - replacing my business telephone exchange. I needed the codes to allow me to change prices and other settings on a regular basis without having to bugle up and pay for the supplier to visit each time. The supplier eventually gave in to avoid losing the contract. Unfortunately, I did not realise just how many codes I would require, so even now there are functions that I cannot alter and I just muddle on. So my advice to MoD's Dave procurement team is to get access to every function that they think they might require - and then some - before signing anything else.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real danger is not knowing there are missing codes, as the supplier can quite rightly say that the aircraft and software are exactly the same, the full potential is only released by using the right codes.
As long as someone in the purchasing country can verify that the source code doesn't contain such easter eggs then there should be no problem, but if its a black box with a "you gotta trust us" sticker across it then theres a big problem.
Cheers
As long as someone in the purchasing country can verify that the source code doesn't contain such easter eggs then there should be no problem, but if its a black box with a "you gotta trust us" sticker across it then theres a big problem.
Cheers
