Lockheed, Pentagon Urged to Share Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Technology

Washington Post ^ | January 2, 2004 | Renae Merle

[pttttt]

Also see related article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48424-2004Jan1.html

Allies Feel Left Out in JSF Fighter-Jet Program Lockheed, Pentagon Urged to Share Data

By Renae Merle Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 2, 2004; Page D10

As Lockheed Martin Corp. begins building the first test models of the Joint Strike Fighter, some foreign partners object to security restrictions that the U.S. government has imposed on the project, initially hailed as a prototype for international cooperation.

Some foreign participants in the project who assumed they would get access to certain sensitive technology have found the Pentagon unwilling to share it. Also, some companies complain that it's more difficult than they had expected to get contracts related to the project.

. . .

Lockheed Martin and the White House are trying to placate European allies to avoid setbacks to the expected rollout of the new fighter in 2008.

"If we fail to get this right I think you can kiss goodbye to international cooperation programs," said Jeffrey P. Bialos, former defense deputy undersecretary for industrial affairs.

. . .

A General Accounting Office report noted that foreign partners could not be forced to contribute more money if the plane goes over budget -- a virtual certainty in most defense programs.

. . .

The Clinton administration conceived the Joint Strike Fighter program in the 1990s to replace the current fleet of fighter jets, most of which were built in the 1980s. Not only would the Air Force and Navy share an aircraft, but allies would be brought in to help pay for the most expensive part: developing the technology.

. . .

[pttttt]

This was a Clinton bright idea to finance development of the next generation US fighter by passing the tin cup around the allies. Trouble is, if they've put in money for developing the new technologies (even if it's not all that much compared with total program cost), they tend to think they own them, and they can't be forced to cover program overruns, which are guaranteed in a developmental program. So the technology and jobs get spread around even though the US taxpayers end up picking up most of the tab. Not sure the US is winning this poker game.

The civics lesson we all should have learned from Professor Clinton is that "Clinton" in the same sentence as "technology" means "trouble".

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
34 locations total		$2,718	71	$38.28	14,122	$0.19	$8,437.81	532

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[CasearianDaoist]

If we fail to get this right I think you can kiss goodbye to international cooperation programs," said Jeffrey P. Bialos, former defense deputy undersecretary for industrial affairs.

Well, one can only hope...

[11B3]

No foreign production, subcontracting, design, or any other part of a defense item should ever be allowed to start with. Yes, we have allies. France and Germany come to mind. Do we want them to have the best technology we have? No.