ManuOz following quickly in the steps of Mother Country:
Fighter deal stalls on secret technology
Fighter deal stalls on secret technology
By Max Blenkin
15mar06AUSTRALIA has demanded a US guarantee that it will fully disclose secret technology before Canberra signs for further involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project.
“Guaranteed access to necessary JSF data and technology to allow Australia to operate and support the JSF will be required before we join the next phase of the project,” Australia’s defence adviser in Washington, Rear Admiral Raydon Gates, has told the US Senate armed services committee.
He said on-schedule delivery of the new Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF was critical because of the planned retirement of the ageing F-111 and F/A-18 aircraft early next decade.Australia joined the JSF project in 2002 as one of eight foreign partners. So far it has invested $300 million in the development phase.
The first production aircraft is set to fly later this year, and Australia is now negotiating to join the production phase, which is expected to be finalised before the end of this year.
Under present plans, Australia will acquire about 100 JSF aircraft, which are scheduled to enter service in the period 2012-14.
JSF is a stealth fighter with advanced radar, weapons and mission systems.
Prime contractor Lockheed Martin has repeatedly assured Australia of full access to this technology.
In a report released today, the US General Accounting Office (GAO) said transfer of JSF technologies to partner nations was expected to far exceed past transfers of advanced military technology for other systems.
The most sensitive technology typically relates to stealth and computer source codes to which Australia, as a US ally, could expect to gain reasonable access.
But transfers even to close allies can be halted by just a few powerful US congressmen by way of the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).
Australia has been negotiating an ITAR waiver but the problem is not Australia’s alone. The United Kingdom has also vigorously voiced its concerns.
Britain’s defence procurement minister Lord Peter Drayson added to that today, saying the US decision to eliminate funding for a back-up JSF engine, built by General Electric and Rolls-Royce, could threaten British participation in the JSF program.
Admiral Gates said there needed to be difficult legislative change in the US to overcome the technology transfer issue.
“Legislative change is a difficult road. I thought our political system in Australia was challenging enough. Here it is quite fascinating,” he said.
“I don’t think it is impossible. I think it is critical to us.”
The head of the Australian Defence Force new air combat capability project, Air Commodore John Harvey, said the JSF would meet all future threats.
He rejected claims that JSF’s stealth capability had been downgraded.
“The requirements are the same and the aircraft is performing to those requirements,” he told the ABC.
“What has happened is there was a re-categorisation of just the terminology in the US and that led to the change of one letter in one PowerPoint slide on the Internet. So there is no change to the performance or the capability.”
Air Commodore Harvey said Australia had been involved in the JSF project for more than three years.
“We have had DSTO (Defence Science and Technology Organisation) scientists involved in analysing it. We have had Australian pilots flying simulated missions and so we are very confident of the capability of the aircraft,” he said.
© The Australian
ManuApologies if this has been posted elsewhere.
Computer codes row threatens £12bn jet order
Computer codes row threatens £12bn jet order
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 15/03/2006)Britain threatened the United States yesterday that it will cancel its £12 billion order for the new Joint Strike Fighter unless America agrees to give the Armed Forces full access to the warplane’s critical computer codes.
Lord Drayson, Minister for Defence Procurement, issued the blunt warning as he arrived in Washington to address members of Congress.
The bad-tempered row not only threatens the 150-aircraft programme, but also the intimate Anglo-American military partnership.
Without full access to computer software, the next-generation aircraft would effectively remain under the control of the Americans and could be “switched off” without warning.
“I’m aware that the British can be accused of understatement on these things,” Lord Drayson said. “We do expect this technology transfer to take place, but if it does not take place we will not be able to purchase these aircraft.”
The programme is critical to Britain’s much-trumpeted “expeditionary” strategy, which is based on two new multi-billion pound aircraft carriers.
The Royal Navy plans to equip the new 65,000-ton vessels with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), whose construction is being led by the US firm Lockheed Martin.
But Lord Drayson said that Britain had a “Plan B” and would implement it if an agreement with the Americans is not been signed by the end of the year.
He refused to offer details, but it is widely believed that this could involve the Royal Navy buying a new naval version of the Typhoon, or the French-built Rafale.
Lord Drayson said that talks with the Bush administration were going well. But the problem has little to do with America’s government, which has been trying for five years to exempt Britain from stringent technology transfer rules.
A Republican congressional source said that the problem lay with the Pentagon, not with Congress.
The current US rules mean that British requests for almost anything linked to American technologies can take 20 days or more to get approval. British officers say that if applied to the JSF, it would severely restrict the aircraft’s operational use.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, Chief of the Air Staff, who was accompanying Lord Drayson, said: “We have to be able to integrate our weapons, sensors, information and fuse them together on the [aircraft]. If we can’t do it, then we won’t be able to fight effectively. That’s why this is absolutely critical.”
Manu
and an Indian version of Smarties (I think)(also Cadbury) 
Manu and an Indian version of Smarties (I think)(also Cadbury)
ManuManuManuAbout that NPT business: Besides the fact that the NPT from 1968 is a joke in itself (now more than think India…..x snip x
India is not a signatory to the NPT (or the CTBT). We cannot be accused of violating a treaty which we never signed on to.
You failed to mention a very important point: countries who are within the NPT and have proliferated wily-nily.
Other than that I agree with what you have posted.
ManuGarry, While I have immense respect for your aviation and general military related knowledge, I find it hard to believe that a person of your calibre would equate NATO and US Army to Hezbollah.
I am certainly not a gungho pro-US fellow, but I know bias when I see it. I don’t think you understand Iranian politics and their quest for legitimacy within a largely Sunni-Arab dominated Middle east.
My little tête – à – tête with my Iranian buddy was more to play the devils advocate as Israel-Bashing on this forum seems to be par for the course, sometimes it even has moderator sanction. Just trying to bring a little balance, that’s all.
ManuThe Nader Shah’s attack was to regain land , treasure, and cities lost during previous wars and invasion by others on us more than anything else…. I am not pretending anything sir and I would appreciate if you will stop from insulting me and my heritage by making hollow statement and taking cheap shots.
Forgive this belated reply….exigencies of work etc.
I must say, I immensely enjoyed your rantings – let us continue our obsequious banter.
Point out a few inconvenient facts and out comes the ‘wounded child’ :diablo:
But you can save those for the impressionable folks who get their knowledge of history from Hollywood.
Oman and India had never, I mean never, attacked Iran. The Peacock throne was not looted to right some historical grievance, okay? If Nader Shah had a taste for Empire, you would do well not to be in denial about it. And nice way of skirting around the Military build-up by the Shah. 😉
I have already said that as an Iranian and I can easily speak for millions of my countrymen that we have no respect for those who hurt, kill and bring suffering to the innocent and defensless no matter what. Maybe you should take some time and learn about Iran a little and know us better, It might do you good.
Two things:
(1) You refuse to acknowledge that Iran supports and has supported for the longest time – terrorism (defined as killing innocent civilians) against Israel. Your having no ‘respect’ for Hizballah does not bring back the innocent people they killed.
(2) Methinks you doth protest a wee bit too much. Do not pretend to know what will do me good – I know much more about Iran and “Persian” culture than you think. India has the second largest number of Shia Muslims in the world (after Iran). In any case the only surviving “Persian” culture remains in the city of Mumbai in the form of Zoroastrian Parsis who have lived in India for over 9 Centuries – the holy Iranshah fire is still burining in India. And yes, there are a bunch of Iranians in Pune too. Nice folks, but their internet-warrior brethren would do well to admit that there are some skeleton’s in Iran’s closet.
Lastly, dust e man, I don’t care how many times you say Marg-bar Amreeka, you have every right to buy any number of misslies (that was originally the topic) – just wanted to point out a few fallacies in your ‘holier than thou’ post. Khodaa-Haafez.
ManuThe nation of Iran has not initiated hostility or attacked any country in the past several hundreds of years and is not about to do that any time soon no matter what the politicians of day say or the media says about them.
Between 1736-1743, the Afsharid King, Nader Shah, invaded Afghanistan, India, Turkey, Transoxania and Oman – without provocation. I admit, that it has been “several hundreds of years’ since that event.
Had Mohammad Reza Shah (a.k.a ‘Shah of Iran’) not been overthrown, he had some grand plans to resurrect the Persian Empire. FYI, Between FY 1950 and FY 1977, the United States gave Iran $20 billion + in Arms under the Military Assistance Program (MAP) and the Foreign Military Sales Program (FMS). I don’t need to repeat the absolutely *huge* military expansion that occurred in Iran during the time and also Iran’s role in regional wars in the neighbourhood. It is only when Iran has historically had the ability and military power to expand that other countries have felt the ‘love’. So let us not pretend to be peace-loving good Samaritans.
Terrorism: We Iranians have as much respect for any terrorist or anyone who attacks defensless civilians as their primary target as we have for the hated group MEK based in Iraq and supported by Saddam over decades. We had during desperate times our soilders run under Crazy Saddam T72’s with explosives and blowing themselves and the T72’s up but name one Iranian who blow himeself up to hurt any civilians anywhere in the globe.
Other than the obvious links between Shi’ite Hizballah (Guardians of the Revolution units are posted in the Baka’a Valley) – Iranian support to Sunni Hamas, PIJ and Ahmad Jibril’s PFLP-GC does not support your contention above. An Iranian “Fund for the Martyrs” most definitely is blood money for killing Jewish Civilians.
Even if Iranians are themselves (directly) not involved in fighting “the occupation regime of al Quds”, they sure provide a lot of back-office support.
ofcourse yes, it shud have been done earlier, if the West truly wanted to show their sympathy, they shud have settled the Jews in America or Australia where land mass is huge with little population
Do us all a favor and keep your Asinine comments/views on Israel to yourself. There is not and never was (historically speaking) a Palestine. It is a Roman invented fiction to blot out the Jewish homeland. Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam.
ManuSome images:
Computer generated images give an idea of the size of the planned new aircraft carriers. [Image: DPA]
The new ships will carry a complement of 1500 personnel, and about 40 aircraft. [Image: DPA]
A plan shows the new carriers in comparison to those of the USA and France, as well as to the UK’s current Invincible-class ships.
It seems that JSF is going full steam ahead?
ManuSince there was no thread that dealt with the current Royal Navy, I started this. Admins/Mods may merge if they so desire.
Future Aircraft Carrier project moves to next phase as assembly plans are agreed
Published Wednesday 14th December 2005
Defence Secretary John Reid has announced a series of major developments in MoD’s multi-billion pound programme to build a new class of aircraft carrier for Britain’s Armed Forces today, 14 December 2005.
The key developments – which together will provide our Forces with the largest and most powerful warships ever constructed in the UK – include:
* The current carrier Alliance team of MoD, BAE Systems, Thales and KBR, is to be joined by VT Group and Babcock.
* Plans for the construction and assembly of the ships at Alliance members’ yards have been agreed.
* MoD is to spend some £300M to develop the design of the ships to the point at which manufacturing can begin.
* Commitment to some long-lead items for the ships will be made, where necessary, to maintain the programme.
* It is also planned to explore, with the same companies, encompassing in-service support for the new carriers and the existing carriers through to their out of service dates.Mr Reid said:
“These are major steps forward for the future carrier project. Work will now commence on finalising the delta design, which will ultimately provide the UK Armed Forces with the largest and most powerful warships ever constructed in the UK, and an expeditionary capability unparalleled outside of the US.
“As part of today’s announcement, I am allocating some 60% of the ships’ construction to named UK yards: BAE Systems at Govan and Barrow; VT in Portsmouth and Babcock in Rosyth. I can also confirm final assembly of both carriers will be at Rosyth.
“At the same time there is a substantial opportunity for the involvement of other UK shipyards in the remaining parts of the build programme that will be open to competition. This could go well beyond traditional shipbuilders since the project will use modern modular production techniques.
“We will now work with industry to finalise the programme budget; to set a construction timetable and establish in-service dates; to ratify how the ships will be supported through a service life of up to 50 years; and to ensure that our detailed requirements are met. Together with the parallel design work, this means that when we come to commit to the manufacture of the project we can do so with the highest degree of confidence and certainty in our plans.
“Alongside this, I am announcing our intention of asking the alliance to put forward one integrated plan: not only to maintain the new carriers but to look after the existing carriers until they go out of service. By getting the same people to commit to maintain the existing carriers until the new ones are ready to go we will ensure there is a continuity of capability for the Royal Navy.
“This project is a key to the Defence Industrial Strategy and marks the end to the ‘boom and bust’ industrial cycle. The introduction of a managed and steady work stream will allow industry to plan efficiently and to retain the highly skilled workforce that has contributed to the fine tradition of shipbuilding in this country. In addition, this project will sustain and create some 10,000 UK jobs around the country.”
For the Future Aircraft Carrier project (also known as the “Carrier, Vehicular, Future” or CVF project) the “Main Gate” approval – a stage of the MOD’s procurement process which must be fulfilled before projects can move to manufacture – has been split into two incremental steps. Today’s announcement marks the movement of the project through the first step, from the MOD’s assessment phase into the demonstration phase. This next phase of design work will further remove risk from the project and give greater understanding of projected costs, allowing Ministry of Defence to make its main investment decision in confidence. At that time, the MOD will be able to announce the expected programme costs and “in-service” dates for the new ships.
From a range of proposed designs for the new carriers, the adaptable design labelled “Design Delta” has been selected. When the ships are built, they will be fitted with a ski-jump to operate short take-off and vertical-landing (STOVL) aircraft. However, the design can be altered later in the ships’ service life, for example to accommodate catapults and arrestor gear to fly conventional carrier aircraft. This is future-proofing for a class of ship expected to have a 50-year life.
The new class of carriers will be much larger than the Royal Navy’s existing “Invincible” class carriers. It is currently estimated that the new class will have a displacement (weight) of 65,000 tonnes, will be 280m long and 70m wide, and have a draught (the depth of water needed to float the ship) of 9m. The ships’ complement will be around 1500 all-told, including the Joint Force Air Group (JFAG) who will support and fly the embarked aircraft. Each ship will carry about 40 aircraft (Joint Combat Aircraft, Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control system, and Merlin helicopters).
Plans for the construction and assembly of the ships in yards owned by members of the new expanded Alliance include hull block 4 at BAES Govan, block 3 at BAES Barrow, block 2 at VT Group Portsmouth, and the bow (block 1) and final assembly at Babcock Rosyth, all subject to value-for-money and cost-effectiveness considerations. This work is some 60% of the overall build. Substantial elements of the remainder of the ship super-structure are to be competed for by other shipyards and manufacturing facilities.
Manu#1 Labatt Blue of Canada
#2 Baltika of Russia
#3 Godfather Beer of India
Although I am essentially a non-beer drinker. A White Russian or Vodka & Red Bull usually does it for me.
Manu#1 Labatt Blue of Canada
#2 Baltika of Russia
#3 Godfather Beer of India
Although I am essentially a non-beer drinker. A White Russian or Vodka & Red Bull usually does it for me.
ManuExercise won’t lower your LDL (not enough, anyway).
You could have a six-pack, and still drop dead before 35, if the “interior” is all screwed up.
Sign In
