Information sharing
101. The previous Defence Committee expressed concern
about information sharing and access to technology on the JSF
programme. In its 2004 Defence Procurement, the previous
Committee concluded that:
Information transfer delays, on programmes such
as the Joint Strike Fighter, can prevent co-operating industrial
partners from fulfilling their contractual obligations….
We note that MoD considers that, on the Joint Strike Fighter programme,
the necessary data and technical information is now being exchanged,
and we expect MoD to ensure that this remains the case.[156]
102. Sir Dick Evans the former Chairman of BAE Systems,
told the previous Committee in 2004 that on the JSF programme,
'it is no good when you have signed up and paid your cheque over
then trying to go back to negotiate the release of technology'.[157]
103. A Bilateral Defense Acquisition Committee has
been set up as a forum between the United States Department of
Defense and the UK MoD. Its terms of reference include to 'develop
and co-ordinate efforts to improve information and technology
exchange including the timely release of classified and sensitive
information'.[158]
104. We examined the issues of information sharing
and access to technology to establish whether the necessary data
and technical information were being exchanged to the required
timescale. We were particularly concerned by an article in Aviation
Weekly on 11 July 2005 where 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'.
105. We asked Commodore Henley about the mechanisms
in place to ensure the UK received all the required information
and access to technology to allow it to maintain the aircraft
when in service and undertake future upgrades—referred to
as 'sovereign capability'. Commodore Henley told us that:
we have a policy of progressive release of information
and progressive understanding. We have agreement signed between
the US and UK at Secretary of State level called "exchange
of letters" which lays out the UK's need to be able to operate
this aircraft in a sovereign capability when the aircraft is in
service.[159]
I cannot understate the fact that sovereign capability
for this aircraft is the most important aspect.[160]
106. We also agree that the most important area of
technology and information transfer relates to sovereign capability.
There is a risk that the UK could find itself in a position where
it had one of the most advanced military aircraft but could not
operate it independently of the US. We asked the Minister what
was being done to ensure that the UK would have total operational
independence for the JSF when it was in service. He told us that:
Where it stands today, my understanding is that
we do not have concerns relating to our ability to meet those
types of issues relating to operational sovereignty, but we are
mindful of that and that is why we have made sure that we have
visibility of when those issues are going to come up—that
we have clarity of that—and that we make sure that those
requirements are being met at that point in terms of technology
transfer. My understanding is that we do not have an issue on
that today but as we go forward with the project this is something
that we have to monitor closely'.[161]
107. 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.
109. Commodore Henley also told us that a technology
matrix was now in place and 'it is the vehicle around which we
are conducting discussions at the moment….That is why we
spend a great deal of time breaking this down into individual
technologies and saying, okay, against this technology are we
going to be able to get transfer?....We are making progress on
identifying the stopper to those technologies and then finding
ways to work round those stoppers to get us to the capability
that we need'.[162]
110. We were also interested in the UK industry's
view on the progress being made in sharing information and technology
on the JSF programme. Mr Mogford of BAE Systems explained that:
with the Joint Strike Fighter programme we have
had a progressive succession of licence applications which increase
access to technology…. we have had approvals for release
of information which allows us to meet the contract obligations.[163]
111. We asked the Minister what discussions he has
had with the US administration on the issue of the transfer of
information and technology. He replied that:
I have had conversations with members of the
United States' administration…. My understanding of the position
we are in at the moment is that we are not short of any information
at the present time which is adversely affecting the project.
The concern that we have is that in the relatively near future
we are going to need to see the transfer of information and intellectual
property for us to see our needs in the long-term to be met. So
it is important that those things take place and we are making
that point very clear.[164]
112. While we recognise the need for MoD to discuss
issues relating to the transfer of information and technology
with the US administration, the US Congress is where the issue
needs to be addressed as individuals within the US Congress appear
to be the main opposition to allowing information and technology
transfer.
113. We note that good progress with the release
of information and technological exchange on the JSF programme
has been made to date, but concerns remain. MoD has focussed its
efforts on the US Administration to ensure that all the information
and technology it requires on the JSF programme for the future
is obtained in a timely fashion. In our view, dialogue with the
US Administration is not sufficient given the key role played
by the US Congress. We will support MoD on this issue where we
can. We intend to visit Washington in the New Year and plan to
raise this issue with the US Administration and with Members of
Congress.
United States review of the programme
114. A Quadrennial Defense Review in the US is looking
at all defence programmes including the JSF. Press reports in
early autumn 2005 suggested that the US JSF programme could be
trimmed back due to budgetary pressures. There were also press
reports that UK defence officials were worried that the Quadrennial
Defense Review could affect the UK plans to procure JSF aircraft.
Senator Carl Levin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services
Committee, is quoted in Aviation Week & Space Technology
of 10 October 2005 as saying that 'the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
is likely to be trimmed back.....there's going to be budgetary
pressure on those programs and others'.
115. We were concerned to hear that possible changes
to the US JSF programme might impact on the UK JSF programme.
Mr Burbage told us that:
Congress directs the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a detailed review on the alignment of the defence budgets
with future strategies….There have been a number of different
options looked at and our best sense right now is that the project
is doing quite well in the end game.[165]
I have heard nothing threatening the STOVL version
at all lately'.[166]
116. We asked the Minister about the press reports
and the possible impact on the UK JSF programme. He commented
that:
It is something which we are watching very carefully
indeed…. In terms of the requirement which the United Kingdom
has for the Short Take Off and Landing aircraft, we believe that
the Short Take Off and Landing aircraft, given its vital importance
to the US Marine Corps, is not under threat, but we are watching
it very carefully indeed.[167]
117. Defense News of 8 November 2005 reported
that 'although the JSF programme has been mentioned as a potential
candidate for termination or deep cuts due to US budget constraints,
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld predicted at a Pentagon briefing
that the JSF will be funded robustly in the Bush administration's
fiscal 2007 budget request, due for release in early February
[2006]'.
118. If the STOVL variant of the JSF did not go ahead
in the US, it would cast serious doubts on the UK JSF programme.
We asked the Minister whether there were alternatives to the STOVL
version of the JSF for the UK. He told us that it is:
important to us that this programme continues.
In terms of a plan B, if there is a decision taken not to go forward
with this aircraft which we require i.e. the STOVL aircraft, then
we will have to look at those plan B alternatives. I do not think
it is appropriate for me to go into what plan B is. We do not
believe that we need to do that.[168]
119. This suggests that MoD has contingency plans,
but remain confident in the JSF programme. However, press reports
in early December 2005[169]
claimed that the US would not do a deal on information sharing
and access to technology unless it knew that the UK had a serious
alternative to the JSF. The press reports also claimed that the
plan B being worked on in the UK was a navalised version of the
Eurofighter / Typhoon aircraft.
120. We are concerned by press reports suggesting
that the US might cut back on the STOVL variant of the JSF as
this could have serious implications for the UK JSF programme.
While we note the recent assurance given by the US Defense Secretary
that the US JSF programme would be 'funded robustly', we expect
MoD to keep a close watch on this issue and to assess the likely
impact on the UK JSF programme.
124 National Audit Office, Major Projects Report 2005
Project Summary Sheets, HC 595-II, Session 2005-2006, p 49 Back
125
Ev 40 Back
126
Cm 6269, p 7 Back
127
National Audit Office, Major Projects Report 2005 Project Summary
Sheets, HC 595-II, Session 2005-2006, p 49 and Ev 40 Back
128
Ev 45 Back
129
Ev 40-41 Back
130
Ev 41 Back
131
The National Audit Office, in its Major Projects Report 2005
(HC 595-II, Session 2005-2006, p 50) reports the current forecast
cost as £1,914 million against an approval (highest) of £2,236
million (a forecast cost underrun of £322 million) Back
132
Ev 41 Back
133
Defence Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2003-04, Defence
Procurement, HC 572-II, Ev 100 Back
134
Ev 41 Back
135
Ev 42 Back
136
Ev 41 Back
137
Ibid Back
138
National Audit Office, Major Projects Report 2004 Project Summary
Sheets, HC 1159-II, Session 2003-2004, p 49 Back
139
Ev 41 Back
140
Defence Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2003-04, Defence
Procurement, HC 572-I, para 82 Back
141
Future Capabilities: Government Response to The House of Commons
Defence Committee's Fourth Report of Session 2004-05, Cm 6616,
p 12, recommendation 26 Back
142
Ev 42 Back
143
Ibid Back
144
Q 143 Back
145
Q 107 Back
146
Ibid Back
147
Q 114 Back
148
Q 109 Back
149
Q 120 Back
150
Q 118 Back
151
Ev 41 Back
152
Q 138 Back
153
Q 139 Back
154
Ibid Back
155
Q 139 Back
156
Defence Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2003-04, Defence
Procurement, HC 572-I, para 145 Back
157
Defence Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2003-04, Defence
Procurement, HC 572-II, Q 16 Back
158
HL Deb, 10 June 2004, cols 49-50WA [Lords written answer] Back
159
Q 121 Back
160
Q 131 Back
161
Q 228 Back
162
Q 131 Back
163
Q 128 Back
164
Q 219 Back
165
Q 107 Back
166
Q 108 Back
167
Q 210 Back
168
Q 211 Back
169
Britain in battle with US over fighter plane, Sunday Times, 4
December 2005 Back
