| Submit your comments on this article |
| Down Under |
| Aust. & U.K Fighter purchase off if Stealth secrets not shared |
| 2006-03-15 |
| AUSTRALIA is threatening to reconsider its $12 billion commitment to buy up to 100 joint strike fighters unless the US agrees to share the secrets of the planes' Stealth technology. In a dramatic escalation of the stakes over the US-led JSF program, the head of the Australian Defence staff in Washington told the powerful US Senate Armed Services Committee that Australia needed access to the technology to support the new-generation war planes. Rear Admiral Raydon Gates said that if Australia did not win that access to information such as software codes to be able to service the fighters, Canberra's involvement was in doubt. "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," Admiral Gates told the committee, which is conducting two days of hearings into the JSF. Admiral Gates said if the issue was not resolved it would also have ramifications for future joint combat operations with the US. Canberra has already expressed concern about the technology-transfer issue. But Admiral Gates's warning adds weight to a diplomatic row that is disappointing US allies who are partners in the JSF - particularly Britain, the US's biggest partner in the development, which also wants access to the technology. Australia is slated to spend $12billion buying up to 100 of the F-35s, which are due for delivery about 2012 to 2014 to replace its ageing F-111 and F/A-18 fleet. It would be the biggest military procurement in Australia's history and central to Australia's defence capability for the next 30 years. But Admiral Gates said that "overly restrictive access to United States technology could have numerous negative consequences for both of us". He said this included "forcing Australia to acquire systems elsewhere" as well as threatening the inter-operability of the warplanes in allied assaults. He added it would "limit operational capability of Australian forces alongside US forces, and reduce the level of co-operative technological development between our governments and industries". Admiral Gates told the senators that Australia was still committed to the JSF program as a "key element of our future defence capability, both for the defence of Australia and to contribute to future coalition operations (but) let me stress our ongoing success in terms of operations and co-operative projects, such as the JSF, are subject to timely access to necessary technology and data". He said this kind of access was "essential for successful coalition operations, including our ongoing co-operation in Afghanistan and Iraq". Canberra says negotiations with the Pentagon are being conducted with goodwill, with sign-off on the next phase of the JSF program due in September. But the US Congress and aircraft-maker Lockheed Martin are resisting the transfer of technology. They fear handing over the keys to the closely guarded Stealth aircraft evasion systems, particularly to industrial competitors. Without a transfer, Australia and other JSF partners would become beholden to Lockheed Martin specialists after every sortie of the warplanes in order to work through any technology issues. Australia expects there should be a domestic capability. The senators were told that letters between US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and then defence minister Robert Hill in 2002, when Australia joined the project, spelt out an understanding over the technology-transfer issue. Outside the hearing, Admiral Gates played down the threat of Australia withdrawing from the program but said the technology issue was a "major concern for us", saying it "was largely about our ability to support the aircraft". He remained "confident of a good outcome". Britain's Defence Procurement Minister, Paul Drayson, who also attended yesterday's hearing chaired by Republican John Warner, told the committee: "We are approaching important decisions that will impact on both UK and US military capability for a generation." Lord Drayson said the US needed to understand that a mutual commitment to the JSF was dependent on Britain having "the operational sovereignty that we require". He also told reporters that Britain's ability to buy the next-generation fighter was at risk. "We should be absolutely clear about what our bottom line is on this matter ... we will not be able to purchase the aircraft," he said. |
| Posted by:Oztralian |
| #12 Bombay, your absolutely right on this one. China set the standard for ripping off technology secrets from others. Now, it would appear, the Brits and Aussies are following suit. I hope the US holds firm on this and similar. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-03-15 23:12 |
| #11 These are negotiating tactics, this has become common since European intervention in the industry a la Airbus, and will be par for the course for many programs to come (commercial and military). |
| Posted by: bombay 2006-03-15 21:45 |
| #10 Damn uppity anglos want dibs on our anti-grav technology! |
| Posted by: DanNY 2006-03-15 21:29 |
| #9 On the subject of Aussies and source code: here's a gem of a story. One of those apocryphal stories that is just too good to fact-check. |
| Posted by: xbalanke 2006-03-15 20:48 |
| #8 Zhang, its a common practice to give favoured customers access to the source for debugging purposes, even the arch-copyright protectionist Microsoft does it. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-03-15 20:41 |
| #7 Article: On the American side, there is also the quasi-protectionist angle of not wishing to have others copy the software and develop spin-off products in future that are based on US work. Quasi-protectionist angle? There's nothing protectionistic about retaining sole access to proprietary intellectual property on which one has spent hundreds of billions of dollars. Levying high tariffs on imports - that's protectionistic. Not handing out your source code to your competitors - that's merely keeping a tight rein on your personal property. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-03-15 20:12 |
| #6 link For example, Britain is seeking full independent maintainability and control over its F-35 fighters - and one of the most critical and contested areas lies in the plane's massive software source code. Since software will run so many aspects of the F-35's operations, access to the source code is necessary in order to debug many flaws, and may be required to integrate new weapons. At the same time, the plane's dependence on software makes protecting the securtity of that source code an absolute must. To have even parts of it fall into hostile hands could be a disaster of the first magnitude. On the American side, there is also the quasi-protectionist angle of not wishing to have others copy the software and develop spin-off products in future that are based on US work. Even attempting to scrutinize that would be a challenge, however, and creates intrusiveness, approval, and friction problems of its own. |
| Posted by: john 2006-03-15 19:34 |
| #5 NS: Australia, OK. UK, No way. Australia has said it will not get involved if China invades Taiwan and the US intervenes. I don't know if this means that the US will not be able to use its bases in Australia. But it sure doesn't make me want to risk handing over stealth technology to Australia. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-03-15 19:28 |
| #4 software codes Yet another article that says more about the ignorance of the writer than it does about the subject matter. If he is referring to codes in the sense of passwords, then Australia is absolutely correct in demanding them. If he is referring to the code, i.e. the source code, then that is an entirely different matter. As a general rule only one entity should own any particular source code and I'd question why the Australians want it. If, in fact, they do, because the difference between code and codes changes the meaning of most of the article. And BTW, the headline and first sentence are highly misleading, since the issue appears to be about the aircraft's systems, not its stealth technology. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-03-15 19:22 |
| #3 Let's remember where the Brits were last summer with selling military items to China, shall we? They joined their PU comrades to propose lifting the ban. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-03-15 18:52 |
| #2 Australia, OK. UK, No way. UK is no longer an independent country, it is an appendage of the EU and will do France's bidding. France is an enemy who would give stealth to China in a nanosecond. The UK needs to decide which side it wants to be on. And so far, it has chosen Europe. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-03-15 18:51 |
| #1 American taxpayers have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on stealth technology. This is before the first aircraft even rolled off the assembly line. There is no way we should be handing source code over to anyone. Even the Brits and the Australians. As far as I'm concerned, they're welcome to buy fighter aircraft from other countries. Maybe they'll get stealth technology from these suppliers. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-03-15 18:30 |