US data transfer rules are hindering the UK's JSF effort
The UK has enormous advantages over other countries in the JSF programme. As the only Level 1 partner, it has a direct say in the configuration of the new fighter, and its industry is deeply integrated into the global supplier network. Plans are also afoot to push for the establishment of a JSF final assembly line in the UK.
Despite this, challenges remain for UK companies seeking work on the programme, thanks to continuing battles with the USA over its information release and technology transfer policy. Even BAE Systems, a core member of the Lockheed Martin JSF team, is experiencing problems.
The UK joined the JSF system development and demonstration (SDD) phase in January 2001, with around £1.4 billion ($2.36 billion) already committed, and a further £600 million expected for later work. In September 2002, it selected the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B variant, rather than the F-35C carrier variant (CV), as a replacement for its BAE Systems Harriers.
The UK Ministry of Defence estimates the 150 aircraft specified will cost around £10 billion, ranking it with the Eurofighter as the most significant aircraft procurement to be carried out by the UK over the next 20 years.
On current projections, the UK is well ahead of other partner nations in recouping its development investment, BAE Systems being the only foreign company to form part of the integrated product teams (IPTs) in Fort Worth, Texas and El Segundo, California.
Tom Fillingham, JSF vice-president and deputy programme manager for BAE Systems, says the major issue at the beginning of the project was deciding which team to join. "BAE brings both STOVL capability from the Harrier, and fourth- generation fighter manufacturing capability from the Eurofighter Typhoon programme, so both Boeing and Lockheed Martin were pursuing us."
Since the downselect, BAE has gained considerable authority in programme decision-making. It has been designated the aircraft integration lieutenant by Lockheed Martin, and as such is playing a direct role in resolving weight conflicts.
"Everyone is reducing weight", says Fillingham, "but some suppliers were not thinking on an aircraft level," he says. BAE believes the SDD schedule is still achievable, "but with only six months until the critical design review, there's not much room for manoeuvre". The company expects to ship its first subassemblies by November 2004 ready for final assembly in early 2005 before the flight test programme, beginning in October 2005.
Rolls-Royce, as well as developing the lift-fan elements of the STOVL variant, is also involved in the F136 engine, with General Electric as its partner, to offer from 2009 as an interchangeable alternative for the Pratt & Whitney F135.
R-R estimates revenues of around $3 billion from the STOVL production programme. The company says: "This will keep Rolls-Royce at the forefront of advanced propulsion development, and maintain our leadership in this market."
Chris Cholerton, director of the F135 STOVL programme at R-R, says it is concentrating on component trials before first tests early next year. It has invested $20 million in a new final assembly line for the STOVL components at its Indianapolis, Indiana, facility.
There is also a host of smaller UK companies contracted to work on the programme. GKN Aerospace is designing and producing elements of the airframe and has, in turn, become a supplier of third-tier work packages to other JSF partner nations.
Smiths Aerospace has won around $9 billion-worth of contracts for systems and electronics. Goodrich Aerospace is working on the weapons bay door drive, Martin Barker the JSF ejection seat, and Aircraft Research Associates is part of the windtunnel testing programme. But despite this success, UK companies still see clouds hanging over the JSF. There are concerns, for instance, that future work packages may be hindered by the US Congressional drive for "Buy American" provisions in future defence spending deals.
Exclusion fearWhat the UK MoD fears most is the lack of technology transfer, this being seen as essential to sustaining key national defence industry players such as BAE Systems. While it may be included in the studies and design of the most sophisticated aspects of JSF, BAEcould be excluded if the US Congress approves proposals under which sole responsibility for the technological core of the JSF programme remains with US companies.
The MoD says it has advised the USA that it has serious concerns regarding any form of Buy American defence acquisition policy. "Introduction of these provisions would potentially have a significant and detrimental effect on the JSF programme, and we are therefore working very hard to ensure that co-operation among allies is enhanced," it says.
BAE Systems and Smiths Aerospace, like many companies operating on both sides of the Atlantic, also supported the lobbying of the US Congress undertaken during the third quarter of this year by the Aerospace Industries' Association (AIA).
But "Buy American" concerns mask a deeper and longer-running issue faced by all JSF partner nations. The fact they are not part of the US industrial base means they have to deal with an extraordinary raft of inconveniences thanks to the complex US export controls system.
Access to JSF information, for example, should have been readily available under the provisions of defence equipment co-operation agreements signed with the USA in the 1990s by the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden, as well as the UK. Instead, that flow has been restricted as part of the current US administration's strengthened International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).
The replacement global project authorisation (GPA) system was meant to speed up ITAR authorisation for foreign manufacturers working on programmes such as JSF. Instead, the initiative has been slow in execution and many outside the USA complain it is badly drafted.
The MoD acknowledges industry concerns over information access, but says recent improvements in the GPA and ITAR evaluation process run by the US Defense Technology and Security Agency are starting to speed approvals. Despite that position, an amendment to the GPA act, (known as Amendment 8), requiring case-by-case authorisation for foreign companies to view design requirement documents, is raising UK eyebrows, particularly at BAE Systems.
Fillingham says the company expects to receive its technical assistance agreement this month. He adds that BAE has thus far experienced few delays due to its long-term relationship with the other partners.
"GPA amendment eight could give us problems," Fillingham says. The company has an alternative plan under which it would give any work covered under the amendment back to Lockheed Martin and look for other work. But that is "the worst case scenario in terms of sticking to the schedule", he adds.
The MoD says: "The US government has taken an incremental approach to releasing the data to BAE Systems, but as currently written, Amendment 8 does not meet the requirements. A step change is now sought to provide the full range of information required to perform SDD duties."
Source: Flight International
