Speaking to an audience at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Washington, DC, Dick Olver, highlighted concerns over US export controls that apply to unclassified, as well as classified, technology used for defence purposes. They can prevent engineers working on the same project, even those who work for the same company, from sharing technology details.

He said: "There are many areas in which the UK has not been able to make its most effective contribution because of US control mechanisms such as the need to gain export licences and arrange Technical Assistance Agreements.

"These hinder technology-sharing among the US and its closest allies by requiring lengthy approval processes, even for unclassified technology.

"In the context of the close and multi-faceted US-UK partnership, such controls are particularly burdensome. For example, they can prevent US colleagues sharing technology details that are required if the UK team is to make its contribution. To put it simply, we can't provide a solution if we don't know what the problem is."

Mr Olver said: "Failure to share technology has potentially far-reaching consequences because it threatens interoperability between UK and US forces. This increases the dangers of blue-on-blue incidents and diminishes our collective national security capabilities.

"Our forces risk their lives for us and we owe them the very best our innovators can provide. I believe we can do better � that we can deepen this partnership and provide a better service to the people at the front-line."

Referring specifically to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter project, Mr Olver said the UK had already contributed advanced manufacturing technology and was ready to share expertise in modelling of short-take-off and conventional take-off operations. But here, too, export control problems had arisen. He quoted the US Department of Defense (DoD) study on international industrial participation which observed: "Export control issues have plagued virtually all of the JSF international partners."

Mr Olver said that the UK should have access to the technology it needed to maintain and upgrade the aircraft under its sovereign control. "To work, the partnership has to be one that respects the UK's security needs and the British government's sovereign responsibility."

While acknowledging the global dominance of the US in the area of defence, Mr Olver reminded his audience that there were several UK innovations which had benefited the US armed forces. These include the Harrier vertical/short take-off and landing fighter, the BROACH warhead and technology for the M777 lightweight howitzer.

Despite this, he added that design and production engineers were often frustrated by export controls when they tried to contribute to joint projects, such as the current F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

Mr Olver suggested that one possible solution would be to create a �technology passport' that could enable engineers who have been cleared by their respective governments to share classified information. The �technology passport' approach would enable UK engineers to contribute more of their expertise to joint US-UK projects and vice-versa.

He stated: "The individuals concerned would be those who have already been through security clearances at a national level. A technology �passport' would authorise them to make use of each other's technologies within arrangements that had been agreed between governments to prevent unauthorised end use and re-transfer.

"It is important to note that the UK has its own rigorous technology export protections and that these have recently been updated in the form of the Export Control Act of 2002," he added. The UK export control regime is among the most comprehensive in the world, comparable to that of the US. UK based operations such as ours have to be fully compliant with these provisions and we face criminal action if we fail."

For unclassified information, Mr Olver proposed that there should be no impediments of technology-sharing or moving experts between the US and UK. He said this would give both nations access to tens of thousands of skilled engineers and scientists and the technology of NATO's second largest defence budget.

Mr Olver, former Deputy Chief Executive of BP plc, also criticised the �Buy America' campaign relating to defence products, saying that while there was a need to protect sensitive technologies, such an approach would prevent the US taking full advantage of the global market when appropriate.

He reminded his audience that the US had benefited from many innovations produced in other countries. These included Swedish design on Excalibur ammunition for 155mm howitzer guns, British and Italian components in the Tomahawk missile and parts from the UK, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland and Japan used in the Predator unmanned aerial reconnaissance system

In closing, Dick Olver quoted a study by the US DoD which looked at the impact of foreign sourcing of systems. This said that using foreign sources had provided positive benefits for the US, including access to state-of-the-art technologies and interoperable systems, as well as exposing its industry to international competition and helping to ensure that US companies remained both innovative and efficient.

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express
The Military Industrial Complex at SpaceWar.com
Learn about the Superpowers of the 21st Century at SpaceWar.com

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News