>I have to disagree with your assessment for reasons too numerous to point out here.
>
>The Harrier technology was/is of limited value in limited situations and was not pursued greatly by the US. I don't know the terms of the technology transfer but I hardly think it was a giveaway.

I didn't say it was given away. But it's a marvellous piece of technology and we farmed it off, no longer able to take advantage of it. Why the f---? Did you ever see the Terminator series? Well there are several examples of futuristic hovering aircraft that look like they've been developed directly from the Harrier. The US already has SF looking craft and I wouldn't be surprised if such the technology is being progressed as we speak.

>
>OTOH, Britain can be it's own worst enemy on emergent technologies.

TOTALLY agree with you. Innovation is seldom backed by investment and ends up in US hands. Remember the so-called "brain drain" of our scientists in the 60s-70s? They couldn't get any decent meaty work here so went where the money and opportunities are.

>I don't recall the details but someone in England came up with a great HOTOL / SSTO plan in the 1980's and then was forced from developing it because of the British bureaucracy who stamped it Most Secret and refused to allow the technology to be developed.

Typical!

Look at the following:

http://www.answers.com/topic/british-space-program
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3388535.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A430903
The first Black Knight was launched into space on 7 September, 1958. After the ninth launch, the remainder were built as two-stage rockets. In the end, 22 Black Knights were launched between 1958 and 1965, all of which were successful, making the British Space Programme the most efficient in the world.

The British government had financed all of these launches. In 1971, it decided to stop all research into this extremely profitable business. This decision was made despite the fact that demand for satellite technology was on the verge of rapid expansion, especially within the realm of international telecommunications satellites.
There is at least ONE satellite still in orbit from the 1950s project.

Now do you see why I weep! ?

>
>Dunno on the rest.
>
>>>OK, I'll bite.....
>>>
>>>Why weep?
>>
>>Because Britain was so forced to go cap-in-hand to the US during WW II that they gave away secrets like these. I seem to recall, hearing from other sources, but I can't be arsed looking it up now, that Britain didn't receive any commercial benefit from such give-aways but watched the US "take off" in these areas.
>>
>>It makes me weep to think of the world-beating Harrier technology, not given, but just thrown away in transfering the whole operation to the US. I can't think why. (sure, I could google it).
>>
>>>
>>>The USA has shared a phenomenal amount of technology and materials with Britain since WWI so why is this one case special?
>>
>>Shared? Sold more like, or lend-leased, at a price (WWI battleships in WWII - some technology).
>>So the US shares Trident technology with us? We're independent of the US. What technology has been freely shared?
>>
>>Why do you say one case? The article points out that there were many secrets in the case, including rocket science.
>>
>>>
>>>The US became the most advanced society in the world because the framework of the country turbocharged invention and innovation, that's why.
>>
>>Well duh-uh! I hadn't realised that the US was so dynamic!
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You wanna know why the US became the most technologically advanced country in the world?
>>
>>Have you heard of the expression "tongue in cheek"?
>>
>>>>
>>>>Along with our selling the Harrier VSTOL techology to you lock, stock and barrel, this is enough to make me weep:
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6331897.stm