Secret codes clash may sink £140bn fighter deal

[cal04]

A British defence minister arrives in Washington today in an attempt to save a collaborative deal with the Americans on the £140 billion Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive military programme in history.

The visit by Lord Drayson, the Minister for Defence Procurement, comes before a looming December 31 deadline for Britain to sign up for the next stage of the proposed new jet aircraft’s development.

Britain has threatened to pull out of a planned £10 billion purchase of the new fighters if the US refused to share secret computer technology needed to maintain operational sovereignty over the Armed Forces.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2497741,00.html

[Trajan]

1. It is safe to presume that EVERY jet fighter sold abroad ....

Has a built-in 'kill switch' available for disabling the aircraft, if necessary ....

Im not against such a thing, mind you, but I am sure the Brits arent too pleased to be one of those parties who dont rank high enough to get the entire package ....

I guess Blair hasnt licked ass quite good enough yet ....

[MGD]

3. I'm not sure how safe it is to assume it has anything to do with a "kill switch".

My understanding of the argument is that Britain can't guarantee the security of sensitive technology that we do not want falling into the wrong hands. That's a legitimate concern IMO. Our enemies/friends have demonstrated their abilities to cut decades off their R&D time by stealing the fruits of US labors (not to mention billions of dollars). As much as I would like to see Britain have this plane, I wouldn't be comfortable knowing that our secrets weren't 100% protected. I think they're just haggling over the price anyways.

[lovuian]

13. I agree totally and the ability to control it

the word is out

[MGD]

2. I think maybe we need a clause that guarantees that the technology in question is protected

I was thinking maybe a clause of some kind that allows US agents to work with whoever will have access to the technology and by "work with", I mean, oversee the protection of our secrets. I understand there was a problem with the GE engines and Rolls Royce contracts too. Not sure if that has been worked out yet. It would be, IMO, a shame for this to fall apart as Britain is a strong ally and should definitely have access to the F-35 which promises to be a superior aircraft. At the same time, I believe the US has made vastly larger monetary sacrifices in this jet's development so we should be able to call a few shots here and there especially considering the fact that we spent a hell of a lot of time and R&D dollars to develop the verticle take off version just for them. And bringing Iraq into it makes the whole thing seem pretty unfriendly too IMO.

[sweetheart]

4. Wow, that's an imperial attitude

I hope the british defense minister tells the yanks to shove off.

The 'secrets' are not worth the bullshit and the loss of sovereignty.

Considering that the british invented computing science, to suggest the
short sighted history of 'who' owns 'what', IP-wise, really is petty,
and that the US is doing this, implies that it has become a tyrant and
not an ally.

The same money will buy a better deal across the chanel, why cross the pond.

[MGD]

6. Imperialist? What's imperialist about protecting military secrets?

"The same money will buy a better deal across the chanel..."
A better deal but a lesser plane.

"Considering that the british invented computing science"
George Stibitz invented the computer and he was from Pennsylvania.

"and that the US is doing this, implies that it has become a tyrant and
not an ally."
I'm sorry you feel that way. Truly.

[sweetheart]

8. If it were only that

There is no gun worth selling sovereignty for, and this little-dog dragged to war
role, a US state in all but name, propping up the same criminality with that military
budget. It would be good common sense to stop feeding that beast given its imperialsm.

Alan Turing invented the computer, the first ones were in britain:
http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/scrapbook/computer.html

Why should any nation go to war with an allie that is not an equal? The us gathers
intelligence that it does not pass on to the UK, and vice versa, with the common
interest being the defense of sovereign individualism and the enlightenment.

Both of these committments are seriously under threat across the pond, even
with pelosi's fingers on the pursestrings. Is it wise to be in a 1-sided relationship
with a power that works against all of our strategic interests? When are people
gonna start calling that silly? So what the aircraft is better, it is only as
good as the intelligence that wields it. Hitler had better tanks than the allies, and
an outgunned T34 won that war.

[jody]

10. "sovereignty"? 20th century history suggests the United Kingdom that once dominated second and third

world countries and stole their resources no longer exists. I believe the sun started setting in 1776 on the UK.

Canada and India no longer listen to England except for ceremonial purposes when one of your royal family make a social call

England's 60 million population might be further fragmented because Scotland is following its own path toward sovereignty. It's still possible that Northern Ireland and Ireland may someday reunite a proud people under their own sovereign banner.

Bush used and abused Blair and I assume most citizens in England are embarrassed by that. I am and I'm not a Brit!

Sorry but England's claim to sovereignty makes as much sense as Israel's. Both are sovereign only as long as that sovereignty is not a major threat to the U.S.

If England was sovereign as you suggest, then given its unparalleled pool of foreign policy experts, England might have prevented our rogue president from plunging the world into a religious war pitting Shiites against Sunni and Muslims against Christians.

Peace to you and may good fortune fall like gentle rain on your endeavors.

:hi: Jody

[sweetheart]

11. Recapitulating that history

'no longer exists' HA!! don't be fooled. It exists a plenty,
brewing behind the public image, britain is a balkan of racism
and drunken imperial thuggery. The mantle may have passed on to
the US to be the new imperial thug for a historical moment, but
that will pass as well. The goodwill and stability of a people that
has lasted in self government of one sort or another for over a
millenia is very powerful, if nations are like warriors, then
a warrior that has been vigilant at keeping its people free and
generally educated, and if being a bastion of education in a world getting
tragically ignorant, all the kiddies return home to mommy.

The fragmentation of Ireland is wholly brilliant. I had a moment
to meet some irish parliamentarians this past november in london,
and they were very impressive people, who i felt really happy about...
like as much as bush pushes all my buttons of being an evil dork,
those people practically glowed.

(I also encountered a conservative MP from england not long back, and he was dull
as a hammer, full of machinations of his self importance, that he
was blind to those around him. And rather, his companions were those
who were polite, but the conservative did not impress... just to
contrast to those irish folks) There are ideological zeaolots in every culture.)

If that is what the breakup of britain comes to, some glowing people,
then i'm all for it, 5-6 millions in scotland, 60 million in england.

Britain, IS sovereign, and we will all suffer for the breakup of goodwill
that bush has brought about in the loss of the goodwill that this
gentlemen is speaking about in this video:

&t=OEgsToPDskKohgjk9pe4yVxPQMkpocGg

[MGD]

14. ---------

"There is no gun worth selling sovereignty for, and this little-dog dragged to war
role, a US state in all but name, propping up the same criminality with that military
budget. It would be good common sense to stop feeding that beast given its imperialsm."

Britain is still more imperialistic than we are. Anguilla, Bermuda, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena and Ascension, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands... America visits these places, Britain claims them. Furthermore, you aren't sacrificing your sovereignty to us for anything although I'm sure plenty of people will buy into that rhetoric. We just want to make sure that our secrets don't end up in a Chinese aircraft. If that's too much to ask than "bugger off mate" because no deal is worth that to us period.

"Alan Turing invented the computer, the first ones were in britain:"
"...George R. Stibitz is internationally recognized as the father of the modern digital computer...The next year, with the help of S.B. Williams of Bell Labs, he developed a full-scale calculator for complex arithmetic. This computer was operational late in 1939 and was demonstrated in 1940 by remote control between Hanover, New Hampshire, and New York. Several binary computers of greater sophistication followed. In these were introduced the excess 3 code, floating decimal arithmetic, self-checking circuits, jump program instructions, taped programs and 'table-hunting' subcomputers."
http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.invent.org/hall%5Fof%5Ffame/1%5F1%5F6%5Fdetail.asp%3FvInventorID=140

[Little Wing]

5. 140 Billion pounds = 274.6 Billion US

Or a thousand bucks from every person in the United States.

Can I have mine back?

[Vidar]

7. Pull out, Britain. The US can't be trusted.

[wakeme2008]

9. Hope the Brits have some Jovial programmers

:rofl:

There is a lotta Jovial code in the JSF... In the early 70s the military moved to ADA and other languages away from Jovial EXCEPT the Air Force.

[Sherman A1]

12. Good!

Maybe the Brits will pull out and we can sink the whole deal. First we might ask, if we really, really need this aircraft, when no one can touch what we have in the air today? Yes, airframes are wearing out and need to be replaced, but do we need another whole generation of machines designed for destruction? Why can't we sink some of the money into some peaceful programs to build alliances?

[Posteritatis]

15. Two hundred.. seventy-five.. BILLION dollars.

Love those so-called fiscal conservatives taking deals of that magnitude and then shooting them in the foot - and with one of the closest allies the US has, no less. Brilliant!

Then again, I'm sure France and Germany will be pleased to see Britain throw in with the new Eurofighter projects if they end up avoiding the JSF - something which I'm sure will leave the White House positively wracked with glee.

Really, guys. If you're going to go and spend sagans on a project such as this, the least you can do is not alienate your export market.

[Eugene]

16. AP: Britain Signs Deal on Strike Fighter

Britain Signs Deal on Strike Fighter


Tuesday December 12, 2006 5:31 PM

By STEPHEN MANNING

AP Business Writer

COLLEGE PARK, Md. (AP) - Britain signed an agreement Tuesday committing to
the next development and production phase of the new Joint Strike Fighter,
resolving a dispute between the Pentagon and its biggest overseas partner
over sharing technology for the advanced fighter jet.

Lord Peter Drayson, Britain's arms procurement minister, said the country
hasn't fully committed to buying the jets, though preliminary plans call for it
to buy 150 of the fighters, also known as the F-35.

Britain already has invested $2 billion in the $276 billion defense program.
But it had threatened to pull out because of concerns the Pentagon wasn't
sharing enough information about the sensitive software and other technology
for the jet.

Drayson said he received assurances within the last 24 hours that the
Pentagon would allow an unbroken British chain-of-command once the planes
are being used by the Royal Air Force. That means the British would not have
to rely on the U.S. military for technology support.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6275735,00.html