From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

BTW

http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/1620062164.htm

"Both the U.S. Congress and Lockheed Martin are not in favour of any
technology transfer fearing it would mean handing over stealth aircraft
technology to industrial competitors in the U.K.

But the Royal Airforce commanders say in the absence of such an
understanding, they will be at the mercy of Lockheed Martin executives in
operating the fleet.

Lord Drayson told media persons before his meeting with the senators that
Britain wants to be absolutely clear about what the bottom line is on this
matter. Unless this is clarified, "we will not be able to purchase the
aircraft.”.

Meanwhile, defence experts in the U.K. are talking about the government
considering alternatives to the joint strike fighter, including continuing
with the Harriers or buying the French Rafale aircraft. Indeed it is
thought that the UK has already entered into a verbal agreement with the
French to buy 150 Rafale aircraft for use on the new generation of aircraft
carrier.

If this is the case, as is likely, then it could be that the British
Government is spinning this for all it's worth in an attempt to get out of
the JSF deal when in fact another deal has been done for the French
aircraft. This could be the reason why the US is slow to come forward with
the technical and sensitive data as one would expect if they know about the
Rafale deal too.
"

Or they could invest the cash in drones & satellites launched in nice
shiny ariane's

"Britain believes that the row could impact future cooperation between
the two countries, especially on issues like replacement of Trident as
Britain's nuclear deterrent. Britain is also apprehensive about the U.S.
defence department's decision to scrap a $2 billion program for a second
engine for the joint strike aircraft, proposed to be jointly developed by
Rolls-Royce and General Electric.

Lord Drayson said Pentagon did not consult Britain properly before the
project was dropped.

Several key U.S. senators questioned the Pentagon on its decision to scrap the plan.

Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner, said relying on a
single-engine design is a "scenario that presents unprecedented
vulnerability," notably if a glitch should ground the fleet.

The administration in its fiscal 2007 spending plan, has suggested ending
the alternative engine proposal, developed in 60-40 partnership by GE and
Rolls-Royce.

Deputy defence secretary Gordon England had told the senate hearing that
the Pentagon had felt "it would be nice to have a second engine, (but)
it is not necessary and not affordable."

England said the defence department has found that the second engine will
never yield savings in the "most realistic scenario". "

We want to be able to fully service our aircraft. & that includes
building new engines as & when we see fit.

"The F-35 project is being co-financed by the U.S., Britain, Italy,
the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway. While
Britain and other countries, except the U.S. have committed $2 billion for
the project, while the U.S. has committed the balance. Lockheed Martin is
the prime contractor, while Pratt & Whitney, part of United
Technologies Corp. , has been chosen to build the plane's initial
engine."

How many of these will stick around if the UK & Oz (the 2 closest
allies the US has) pull out?

Adam


Adam > wrote:
> http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/03/16/Navigation/177/205479/UK+and+
Australia+threaten+to+pull+out+of+Lockheed+Martin+JSF+over+tech+transfer.html
>
> Both UK & now Oz.
>
> How long before Norway et al follow?
>
> Time instead to invest in this:
>
> http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=1019
>
> Hey at least you can trust the French.
>
>
> Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5