SECRET

Page 234

An

about £15 million. Provision had been made in the current long-term

costing. On reasonable assumptions about our share in the development and production of Mallard, we should secure a net benefit to the balance of payments, while if we were to adopt a national system the need to purchase interface equipment would require a net outlay of dollars.

early decision on United Kingdom participation in Mallard was necessary so

that we could have a share in the definition of the sub-systems and obtain

our quota of development contracts. The next step would be detailed

negotiations with the United Stated with a view to drawing up a

Memorandum of Understanding; expenditure would be committed gradually

over a number of years.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY said that there were no

clear industrial advantages in a purely national system, provided that

British industry secured a fair share of Mallard production. However,

the views of industry were divided: of the four major firms so far consulted, two (including Plessey's) had doubts about obtaining a worthwhile

share of production; the other two firms (including the General Electric Company) preferred opportunities to exploit the American market to the

prospects of trying to export a purely national system. The firms were also

divided on the question of the indirect return from the project into

civil technology. The Head of Defence Sales, Mr. Ray Brom, believed that

United Kingdom firms stood a good chance of obtaining a substantial share of

the production contracts. The negotiation of a collaborative European

system would take some years; there had been no formal approach to our

European allies, although officials had taken informal soundings. Although

Figaro would be available some two years before Mallard, the Services would

not require it by then, nor would the defence budget permit an earlier completion date.

Discussion showed general agreement that the United Kingdom should participate in Project Mallard on the terms outlined in OPD (67) 59.

In view,

however, of the uncertainty about the cost of the project it should be

reviewed periodically as it became necessary to commit funds. Some concern

was expressed lest the United States would seek to apply restrictions on the

use which British firms could make of the information derived from their

participation in the project; this would depend on the detailed arrangements

made by the firms concerned, but American restrictions would probably be

confined to the cryptographic information. We had accepted the need for

-2-

Page 234

SECRET

Page 234

Share This Page