Re: The proposed two Royal Navy 'super carriers'



In message <jeqdnTHCEczImW3enZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kevin Brooks <brooksvmi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
"Paul J. Adam" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0LTwZ7PRs87DFwoV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well, quite: we should be _happy_ to contribute to a program we're not
allowed to know about.

Let's see, you folks are planning on buying a whopping 15o F-35's, and are
whining because RR will get to contribute the lift-fans and associated
equipment for not only those, but another 500 or so B models to be purchased
by the US forces (and no telling how many for export to other parties), BAE
will be providing a chunk of the airframe (and lots of subsystems) for some
1500 to 2000 US aircraft (all variants) and maye another thousand or two
thousand export aircraft, Smiths will be providing significant compoents for
all of aircraft, etc.? Gee, what a LOUSY deal for you folks! Funny thing is
that you may very well end up making more money off of the F-35 program than
you may actually make off the Typhoon program...

Absolutely, Kevin. A quick trawl of Jane's turned up the following quotes:-

+++++
Restrictions limiting the UK's access to design data and weapons technology relating to the USD244 billion Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme are a "very serious issue", UK Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram has conceded.
-
Mike Turner, head of BAE Systems, told reporters in June that he believed that Britain might withdraw from the programme unless it secures a greater share of the JSF technology.
-
Chief of Defence Procurement Sir Peter Spencer and Minister for Defence Procurement Lord Drayson told the House of Commons Defence Committee that technology transfer was key to the aircraft's procurement.
-
The Chief of the Air Staff was reported to have stated that 'there is clearly a growing urgency in addressing technology access and the related ability of independent support of the aircraft'.
-
The UK Secretary of State for Defence, Dr John Reid, reiterated his opinion that US reluctance to allow the UK full access to Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) technology is a "serious issue".
-
The UK will not sign the Production, Sustainment and Follow On Development (PSFD) memorandum of understanding (MoU) for the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA- known in the US as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)) with the US "without achieving the appropriate level of sovereignty" over its technology, according to the former UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) programme team leader.
-
Commodore Simon Henley, who headed the programme for the UK until mid-January 2006, added that the UK "has no Plan B" if it is not allowed the access it requires and admitted that if the terms of the JCA procurement "become unacceptable, then we need to look again".
+++++

Or perhaps there's the Commons Select Committee on Defence?

+++++
We fully support MoD's position that the ability to maintain and upgrade the JSF independently is vital. We would consider it unacceptable for the UK to get substantially into the JSF programme and then find out that it was not going to get all the technology and information transfer it required to ensure 'sovereign capability'. This needs to be sorted out before further contracts are signed and we expect MoD to set a deadline by which the assurances need to be obtained. If the UK does not receive assurances that it will get all it requires to ensure sovereign capability, we would question whether the UK should continue to participate in the JSF programme.
108. We note that production and support of the JSF will be allocated on the basis of global best value. Achieving best value is important but, if this resulted in all future support of the aircraft being undertaken overseas, then achieving sovereign capability could be put at risk. We expect MoD to demonstrate that achieving global best value and ensuring sovereign capability are compatible.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/554/5
54.pdf
+++++

Don't ask us, ask Congress. We thought we'd done our part, obviously we
were wrong.

Based upon the numerous examples of UK industry contributions to the program
(the ones you conveniently snipped...), your argument does not hold any
water.

Absolutely right, Kevin. You know better than the UK's Secretary of State for Defence; better than the Parliamentary Select Committee for Defence; better than the Armed Forces Minister; and so it goes.

We should be *glad* not to be able to integrate UK weapons onto the aircraft, and the US is doing us a *favour* by ensuring we can't maintain the aircraft. Go explain it in Westminster and Abbey Wood where they lack your insight and wisdom.


Workshare goes where the value is - to quote Commodore Henley, 'the JSF programme was not a ‘work-share’ programme and that work will be allocated on the basis of ‘global best value basis’.' and that's always been a given. But how do we hang Brimstone or ALARM or Storm Shadow on JSF? How do we maintain it ten years on when requirements have diverged?

Now, stop wasting your time talking to _me_ and go and explain to those silly Government and industry people why they're all wrong and you're right.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
.