US-UK dogfight downs Jet plans

[demobrit]

Harrier Two Must Fly
Updated: 10:14, Friday December 08, 2006

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.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1243372,00.html

The Typhoon(Eurofighter) can be modified to be a Carrier aircraft and may prove more economical in the long run and would be under total UK control

[Hekate]

1. I don't get it. The US seems hell-bent on selling any technology or port to ANYONE...

...no matter how anti-democratic a regime, as long as it's a corporation to corporation money-making deal. It would seem to make sense that one of our oldest allies could finagle this information with little difficulty.

I must be very confused.

Hekate

[wakeme2008]

2. It is my guess the "technology" they are looking for comes from

the corp LM and LM is hiding something :shrug:

[The Stranger]

11. The ports deal didn't have any technological aspect at all.

The Neocons decided to share nukes with India, but not Pakistan. (That whole "uniter, not a divider" bit). And the nation with whom the U.S. appears to share the most military technology, at least since post WWII, would be Israel. The Saudis get a few jets now and again, but they probably don't even know how to fly them.

[xchrom]

3. so england -- i have a suggestion --

turn to germany.

or france.

there are corporations and scientist there who can create -- if they haven't already the tech specs you need.

turn on your heel -- don't let lockheed martin dictate to you.

[Cobalt-60]

4. The Germans have been known to dabble in aeronautics

And the French have been in the game from the start.
And the UK has flown some excellent machines as well.
My advice to the UK is: save yourself.
All our corporations really know how to do is rape and cheat.

[demobrit]

5. The whole point was to standardise NATO hardware

There dosn`t seem to be much trust between allies aka NATO organisation behind the scenes, how on earth are we going to win the `War on Terror`.
Bush and Blair show a united front in public.but behind the facade, mistrust lurks.

[xchrom]

6. that's because our corporatists have opposed a formalised E.U.

an organized europe -- operating under a constitution -- that would standardise trade, defence, etc would present a considerable ''threat'' to u.s. corporate interests.

as long as the e.u. continues to operate trade and other issues along the lines of individual countires -- then this gives u.s. multinationals a leg up.

[demobrit]

9. UK Nuclear deterrent not independent, cuts in our Navy

We need US satellite to guide the missiles if ever we used them independently, if we get permission of course.
The once proud Royal Navy, the biggest in the world pre World War 2 will soon consist of 17 escort ships.
The RAF is being squeezed.
The Army is being cut to the bone.
Who will defend this land
We are becoming the 51st State by proxy it seems:toast:

[xchrom]

12. by proxy -- only if the eu decides not to forge it's own way.

and it looks more likely that it will now rather than not.

it will launch it's own satellite systems for protection.

that being said -- the eu is more thoughtful and cautious than is the us -- they will do it their own way.

[Stella_Artois]

16. Thats not quite true

The missiles are inertially guided, they guide themselves without any outside help.

GPS is used to fix the position of the boat before firing, but there are other ways to do that.

Its not quite 100% independant because the missiles are built and serviced in America, but the warheads are British and only the PM has firing authority.

[ulysses]

19. RN at 17 ships?

Holy shit. My interest is purely historical (soft spot for Jellicoe and the Grand Fleet, weird for a pacifist like myself), but I'd have never imagined a 17-ship fleet...

[Stella_Artois]

20. It isn't

I counted 13 ships of a single class on their website

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1288

The rest must number 30+ at least...

[demobrit]

23. Those Battleships in line ahead

Those old films of 1st world war nostalgia with Dreadnoughts in line ahead
The mightyHMS Hood, Repulse, Renown, King George V,Prince of Wales,Rodney,Barham, all ruled the seas but most of them were sunk in World War 2

[ThsMchneKilsFascists]

8. The WOT isn't meant to be won

How do you defeat an emotion anyway?

[TheBaldyMan]

7. Those new russky planes are nice. Su-34 & MiG-29

Enough to make any aeronautic nut drool.

[hack89]

10. But they are not stealthy ..

and their avionics are at least a generation behind state of the art western designs. They also have lousy engine technology.

[jmowreader]

22. MiG-29s ain't exactly new

The German Air Force inherited a squadron of them at reunification. IIRC the commander of the Luftwaffe took one out for a flight, reported that it was an absolutely breathtaking aircraft to fly, and shortly thereafter grounded the whole fleet because breathtaking or not, it was the most expensive-to-maintain plane they had.

The Su-34 could be entertaining, though...according to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-34.htm, the plane has massagers in the crew seats and a place behind the crew seats for one pilot to lie down and rest during long transits of the airplane.

[MilesColtrane]

13. Principles for this were already supposed to have been decided.

This must be some last minute negotiating tactic by the Brits.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,108100,00.html

U.S., U.K. Reach JSF Agreement

InsideDefense.com | Jason Sherman | August 02, 2006

U.S. and British defense officials have inked a new agreement on the transfer of sensitive technologies for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, removing an irritant in the close relationship between the two allies that has rankled both sides for months.
At a July 18 meeting in London, Kenneth Krieg, the Pentagon's acquisition executive, and Sir Peter Spencer, the U.K. Ministry of Defence's chief of procurement, signed an agreement setting forth a statement of principles for Britain to achieve operational sovereignty of any Joint Strike Fighter aircraft it may acquire, according to Defense Department officials.

The U.K. Ministry of Defence wants access to technologies and secrets that will give it the means to maintain and upgrade its notional JSF fleet independent of the United States; the Defense Department in recent months has resisted releasing the technologies Britain seeks.

Aviation experts say the sticking points in deliberations likely have been British access to stealth technology, software source code underpinning the aircraft's operations, and agreements on follow-on development of after-market capabilities that U.K. firms could manufacture and market around the world.

---snip---

President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on May 26 issued a joint statement in Washington, resolving to iron out long-standing disagreement.

“Both governments agree that the U.K. will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the Joint Strike Fighter such that the U.K. retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft,” the two leaders said in a statement.

Defense officials from both countries are now expected to hammer out a series of classified annexes to the agreement that will spell out protocols and particulars of transferring sensitive technologies essential for Britain's operational sovereignty of the aircraft.

These follow-on agreements, each for a particular technology area, are expected to be in place by November, Pentagon officials said, in advance of a December decision on the next phase of the program: production.

[MilesColtrane]

14. More reason to believe that this is an old story with the wrong date.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17789&rsbci=0&fti=112&ti=0&sc=400

[Stella_Artois]

17. It isn't

It was supposed to be sorted out, but it never happened.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6219122.stm

MP's have only just advised to pull out of the deal if the problems are not resolved by the end of the year.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

15. jsf

A friend of mine is working on the JSF project by was of BAe and he says that Boeing and Lockheed got along better during the competition than the multinational partners are now.

He was there when an entire party of visiting British officals just walked out.

He also said the probability of this thing comming in anywhere near budget is almost nil - and what was supposed to be the inexpensive multirole fighter of the future is just going to be too expensive to be bought in any number by anyone other than the US.

[The Sushi Bandit]

18. The Sweeds have great planes like the Gripen

the brits can use them!

[Locrian]

21. jsf engine dual source

Dont get me started on the JSF.

Europe is pissed that the GE engine was canceled. Rolls was to have a bunch of stuff on that engine. The Pratt engine is the only source now that they killed the GE engine (very little EU content on the Pratt).

This program is way in trouble. Engine pump, avionics, etc. The STOVL will likely get chopped soon. It's way overweight and driving insane decisions. Gov cheese at its finest.