http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007145
For an operation like Iraqi Freedom, General Moseley told committee
members that the Air Force's ability to strike was in part because of
American presence in the region for nearly 12 years and U.S. access to
nearby bases. In testimony submitted for the record, the general said
that type of access might not always be available to the U.S. military...

Darn permission slips. Never around when you need them.

....One concern of the committee was the possibility of U.S. technology
being leaked to adversaries because of liberal licensing of Joint Strike
Fighter technology to subcontractors. General Moseley said the JSF
program office is aware of the issue.

So the F/A-22 is safer because nobody wants it?

-HJC

> So the F/A-22 is safer because nobody wants it?

Yes, nobody "wants" it. That's the reason. Just like China doesn't "want"
an aircraft carrier.

Henry J Cobb wrote:

> ...One concern of the committee was the possibility of U.S. technology
> being leaked to adversaries because of liberal licensing of Joint
> Strike Fighter technology to subcontractors. General Moseley said the
> JSF program office is aware of the issue.
>
> So the F/A-22 is safer because nobody wants it?

No, it means the JSF program has to worry about firewalling its key
technology. This is nothing new; we've been worrying about this ever since
the F-16 (if not earlier). It has little to do with F/A-22, except that JSF
uses technology from the older design (such as radar) that has to be
protected.

BTW: Congress's main conern on this is really industry not adversaries. The
main reasons they raise these concerns are pressures form certain suppliers
who want to be protected form foreign second-sourcing. That's why we get
idiotic stuff like the sweeping restrictions on foreign technology
acquisition (under the "buy America" guise) that Congress tried to impose
recently.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

In article <EJn2c.17177$Pc.6782@okepread02>, "t_mark" >
wrote:

> > So the F/A-22 is safer because nobody wants it?
>
> Yes, nobody "wants" it. That's the reason. Just like China doesn't "want"
> an aircraft carrier.

....or four.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Thomas Schoene wrote:
> Henry J Cobb wrote:
>>...One concern of the committee was the possibility of U.S. technology
>>being leaked to adversaries because of liberal licensing of Joint
>>Strike Fighter technology to subcontractors. General Moseley said the
>>JSF program office is aware of the issue.
>>
>>So the F/A-22 is safer because nobody wants it?
>
>
> No, it means the JSF program has to worry about firewalling its key
> technology. This is nothing new; we've been worrying about this ever since
> the F-16 (if not earlier). It has little to do with F/A-22, except that JSF
> uses technology from the older design (such as radar) that has to be
> protected.
>
> BTW: Congress's main conern on this is really industry not adversaries. The
> main reasons they raise these concerns are pressures form certain suppliers
> who want to be protected form foreign second-sourcing. That's why we get
> idiotic stuff like the sweeping restrictions on foreign technology
> acquisition (under the "buy America" guise) that Congress tried to impose
> recently.

http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/P-38.htm
In March 1940 the British Purchasing Commission ordered 143 of the first
production model of the P-38, but the State Department prohibited export
of the F2 Allison engine. The British aircraft - designated the
"Lightning 1" - was therefore given early C15 engines lacking
turbochargers, and was a failure - the RAF eventually rejecting it.

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Schoene wrote:
> > Henry J Cobb wrote:
> >>...One concern of the committee was the possibility of U.S. technology
> >>being leaked to adversaries because of liberal licensing of Joint
> >>Strike Fighter technology to subcontractors. General Moseley said the
> >>JSF program office is aware of the issue.
> >>
> >>So the F/A-22 is safer because nobody wants it?
> >
> >
> > No, it means the JSF program has to worry about firewalling its key
> > technology. This is nothing new; we've been worrying about this ever
since
> > the F-16 (if not earlier). It has little to do with F/A-22, except that
JSF
> > uses technology from the older design (such as radar) that has to be
> > protected.
> >
> > BTW: Congress's main conern on this is really industry not adversaries.
The
> > main reasons they raise these concerns are pressures form certain
suppliers
> > who want to be protected form foreign second-sourcing. That's why we
get
> > idiotic stuff like the sweeping restrictions on foreign technology
> > acquisition (under the "buy America" guise) that Congress tried to
impose
> > recently.
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/P-38.htm
> In March 1940 the British Purchasing Commission ordered 143 of the first
> production model of the P-38, but the State Department prohibited export
> of the F2 Allison engine. The British aircraft - designated the
> "Lightning 1" - was therefore given early C15 engines lacking
> turbochargers, and was a failure - the RAF eventually rejecting it.
>

An urban legend. The BPC requested that it be supplied with the
same engine as the P-40 so as to allow a single source of spares.

It failed to meet Lockheed's promised perfomance with that
engine which is why it was rejected.

Keith

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 07:30:40 -0800, Henry J Cobb > wrote:

>http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007145
>For an operation like Iraqi Freedom, General Moseley told committee
>members that the Air Force's ability to strike was in part because of
>American presence in the region for nearly 12 years and U.S. access to
>nearby bases. In testimony submitted for the record, the general said
>that type of access might not always be available to the U.S. military...
>
>Darn permission slips. Never around when you need them.
>
>...One concern of the committee was the possibility of U.S. technology
>being leaked to adversaries because of liberal licensing of Joint Strike
>Fighter technology to subcontractors. General Moseley said the JSF
>program office is aware of the issue.
>
>So the F/A-22 is safer because nobody wants it?
>
>-HJC
>
No, a lot of countries want it, we will not sell it to them. The technologies
involved are highly secret . The few countries that we could trust with the
F-22 can not afford it.

Al Minyard