UK Demands Sourcecode for Strike Fighters

An anonymous reader writes ""The UK has warned America that it will cancel its £12bn order for the Joint Strike Fighter if the US does not hand over full access to the computer software code that controls the jets" Lord Drayson, minister for defense procurement, told the The Daily Telegraph that the planes were useless without control of the software as they could effectively be "switched off" by the Americans without warning."

Comments

Is that for real?

[those.numbers]

Well, that's completely reasonable (note the sarcasm). It's insane to believe that we're even trying to withhold the code. I mean, would you buy a tv from a neighbor if they kept the remote? Chances are they'd hit the mute halfway through a Farscape rerun.

Re:Is that for real?

[Austerity Empowers]

You can use them against anyone but us. And uh, anyone else we don't want you dicking with.

This is a good reason not to offshore defense technology.

Re:Is that for real?

[w42w42]

The best explanation I've read is that they cannot adapt their weapons for use on the JSF w/o Lockheed/US Govt help. It has nothing to do with the US being able to *turn off* their JSF's.

I've also read that the French giving the Brits more than they were asking for with the design of their new carriers notes a possible side deal, that being them buying French Rafale's. If this is the case, the JSF issue has already been decided, and what we're seeing here is simply public posturing. Never seen a politician do that before :-)

Re:Is that for real?

[Stephen Samuel]

I'd say it's more like buying a car from your neighbour, and his crackhead son gets to keep the alarm control that runs a kill switch for the motor and can pop the locks on demand.

I mean, it's not like there's any real proof he'll use it (besides, he's in rehab right now and he's got a crush on your daughter), but....

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is for real. Unfortunately, the current administration seems to feel that it does not have to abide by its agreements in letter or in spirit. It's kind of the Darth Vader thing: "I'm altering our deal ... pray I do not alter it further."

This arguement with the UK has been stewing for sometime, and I think the UK is right to pull out. Canada is the only country with an ITAR waiver at present -- to the best of my knowledge. Since you can't *give* the Canadians weapons, it is a largely meaningless agreement in their case. And the Bush administration probably wouldn't give the software to the Canadians either (although they might hire them to help write it).

Re:Is that for real?

[drgonzo59]

Or, would I buy something as critical as an operating system without having access to its source code...oh...wait, nevermind.

Re:Is that for real?

[modecx]

If that's the deal, this ordeal has got to be mostly bullshit. All US/Europe/Japan fighters use NATO armaments, and it's my understanding that most every US armament that's designed to be carried by a fighter should also be compatible with any NATO fighter that has the avionics to support it, be they Gripens, Rafales, Eurofighters, Mirages, whatever. JDAMs, AMRAAMs, and AIM-9 missiles were all developed with NATO cooperation, it would be surprising to me if each weapon was built to support only one aircraft. And then in another way it wouldn't be very surprising to me, what with all the polotics.

The UK is an ally--since they're bringing so much money to our (remarkably depressive) economy, we should give them the code for any auditing or modifications they wish to undertake, AND we should help them solve any problems they perceive with the deployment of these aircraft, and just be done with it.

Re:Is that for real?

[NecroPuppy]

It may in fact be reasonable.

When a military branch funds any program, especially an ACAT I, ACAT II, or ACAT IA program, it has to decide what data rights it needs.

The data rights it is allowed by law to purchase depends, in large part, on how the program was funded.

For Unlimited Rights, the government must have funded the entire development effort of the item, and then they can do whatever they want with it, including give it to other contributing nations.

Under Limited Rights, where the contractor has funded the effort entirely, the Government is prohibited from sharing the information with anyone outside the US Government.

With Restricted Rights, which are similar to Limited Rights, the software may have even further restrictions, such as a limited number of systems it may be installed on.

And finally, there is Government Purpose Rights, which happens when the contracted firm and the Government have jointed funded the development of a program. Under this data rights type, the Government is allowed to use the technical data for Government purposes as described in limited rights and for other purposes such as competition, but not for commercial applications. Government purpose rights are automatically effective for five years and revert to Unlimited Rights upon expiration of the five-year period.

There have been multiple programs where the wrong type of rights were purchased, sometimes because the contract was written badly, sometimes because there were mistakes made about what rights were needed.

This article doesn't go into that kind of depth, so it may be a case where the lead contracting authority (Again, the article doesn't go into who that is. It could be the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines) messed up, or it could be JITC issue.

Yes, I work for the government these days. Can't you tell?

Re:Is that for real?

[s4m7]

Chances are they'd hit the mute halfway through a Farscape rerun. I probably would thank them, especially if it was that episode with the noises and color filters.

Re:Is that for real?

[billoukos]

"It's insane to believe that we're even trying to withhold the code"

"WE"? Who is really "we"? I don't think you or anyone else should address these matters in terms of ownership. It's not you, or me, or anyone of us who decides how much money is to be spent on weapons. On the bottom line it's all about governments and corporations. Just think of how many hospitals or schools they could build with all that money. I would say it's far better not to give the code. Perhaps all that money will find a better use then..("we" should claim it!)

Re:Is that for real?

[Wyatt Earp]

They would need the code to change the aircraft's envelope for various weapons. I was reading in an industry magazine about the software for the F-22. It's about to be upgraded so that the Small Diameter Bombs and 500 pound JDAMs can be dropped from the internal weapon bays in supersonic flight. Right now they can drop them both, but only at subsonic speeds.

So if the RAF had JSFs and say down the road wanted to use some new anti-armor weapon like the sucessor to Brimstone, they'd have to be able to change the fight software for them.

Re:Is that for real?

[eericson]

Defenseindustrydaily.com had a pretty good article on the situation with the UK involvement on the JSF B variant and how it ties into their carrier project. The real driving force behind the Rafael deal is the French military. The short version is that since Dassault hasn't been able to find any export customers for the Rafael, the incremental cost has been driven up. As such, they want to find another customer in order to keep the production lines open longer. (Plus it means additional commonality between their carriers)

I don't see the RAAF or Royal Navy choosing the Rafael, it's half a generation behind the JSF and it also means having to add catapult and arrestor gear to their next gen flatop.

Re:Is that for real?

[mikearthur]

Is it just me, or does it feel like the UK DoD just read yesterday's "Deploying Linux: Should You Pre-Compile Binaries or Roll Your Own?" It's nice to see that someone finally respects Gentoo enough to run it on a crucial system! -funroll-loop-the-loops all the way! Tony Blair, PM me, I have some other optimisations that will make your plane go up to 40% faster!

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is Slashdot, where FOSS is worshipped, but I somehow doubt that anything you're doing with an operating system is 'mission critical'. If you are, then you probably shouldn't be using Windows (or Linux for that matter) anyway. Controlling a Fighter Jet, on the other hand, is 'mission critical'.

Re:Is that for real?

[WindBourne]

you are trying to tell me that software is limiting a fighter so it can drop at subsonic, but not at supersonic speeds????? I am not an engineer, but somehow I doubt that.

Re:Is that for real?

[Hrshgn]

It's Rafale, not Rafael.

Re:Is that for real?

[Ginger Unicorn]

Perhaps it's software and hardware. In which case the software would be one of the limiting factors.

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not you, or me, or anyone of us who decides how much money is to be spent on weapons
perhaps in your native Crapistan your King decides what to do with your money, but in OUR country, the United States of America, WE THE PEOPLE are in control. Here we get to VOTE on how we like to run things. This is what Democracy IS.

And then assholes like you go on and flame us for trying to bring democracy to Iraq, Iran, and Europe. Your heads are so far up your asses you just can't see what Democracy is!

Re:Is that for real?

[slashbart]

Hi our little Space Station project. Maybe your project isn't mission critical, but mine is at least pretty high on the list.
:-)
Bart

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

For info the OS for the JSF is embeded NT4

Re:Is that for real?

[Confuzzled]

Or, would I buy something as critical as an operating system

Ya imagine that, my computer might not let me check my email! oh no! Seriously, we're talking about fighter planes, don't really think it's as critical as your home PC. Servers though...

c

Re:Is that for real?

[Runefox]

Actually, the British Royal Air Force is probably planning to use the same armaments as the EF-2000 is primarily going to use - The MBDA Meteor for BVR combat, and the AIM-132 ASRAAM for short. It would only make sense to use a common armament across all operational aircraft, and having the F-35 carry Sidewinders while the EF-2000 carries ASRAAMs would be fairly costly. However, I can see both the JSF and the Typhoon using Sidewinders and AMRAAMs during the early introductory stages, as they're "tried and tested" weapons. As more Meteors and ASRAAMs are put into production, Europe as a whole will see the Sidewinder and AMRAAM/Sparrow phased out.

So, again, it would be costly for the RAF to stock both ASRAAMs and Sidewinders, or both AMRAAMs and Meteors when they only really need one from each category - More likely the ASRAAM and Meteor. If they're not given the source code to the systems on the JSF, they won't be able to adapt newer versions of the missiles to the weapons system.

Mind you, work is supposedly underway (as it's still in development anyway) with regard to fitting the Meteor into the weapons bay, since it's supposed to work out of the box, and I believe that the ASRAAM is already programmed to work. Problem is, if any new armaments or radically different variants come along (think AIM-9B versus AIM-9X and you get the picture), the RAF has to call on Lockheed Martin / US. Govm't to program it. Either that or contract with Microsoft for Automatic Windows Update for the JSF's OS.

So they're really getting a raw deal the way things are, and asking for the source is definitely within reason. It's not as though the source code would then be leaked onto the internet for script kiddies to make their own next-gen fighter jets out of or anything.

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think of how many hospitals or schools could be bombarded, or blown up, or shelled if you didn't have a "bigger stick". There are many nations around world who wish THEY had it.

Oh, you mean built in OTHER nations in order to help them? Well, I agree with you that using money differently can achieve long term political goals better and at far smaller expenses, but sometime buttering someone with money (schools, hospitals) just doesn't work for you. Besides, then your military capabilities would rust and rot and you would not have them on time if you are ever going to need them again. Remember, some of the recently busted countries were just a little bit behind with their military assets. Someone may start getting ideas about YOUR land if you neglect your military (Canada, Australia, I am looking in your directions! Russia, you too, ... oh, well.). Remember Folklands/Malvines? That was close call for UK.

Re:Is that for real?

[cablepokerface]

So the crackhead son in this example actually build a $12bn fighter? He must have some good shit.

Re:Is that for real?

[blane.bramble]

you are trying to tell me that software is limiting a fighter so it can drop at subsonic, but not at supersonic speeds????? I am not an engineer, but somehow I doubt that.

Maybe the targetting algorithms cannot calculate the correct path for a supersonic launch. Maybe the ordinance has been upgraded for supersonic launch and this has lead to different parameters and so the software needs updating. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Re:Is that for real?

[Keebler71]

Dude, I'm already in DAWAII hell this week (taking SYS-201B)... what...are you trying to kill me this morning?!

Re:Is that for real?

[Bloke down the pub]

If the security at the manufacturer is as good as the Department of Homeland Security's, I guess it will be all over teh intarwenbs within a week or so anyway.

For the third straight year, the Department of Homeland Security -- which is charged with charting the federal government's cyber security agenda -- earned a grade of "F" for computer security

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they want to change the date format.

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting article, thanks for the link. By the way:

> Taco Walstra is a software engineer at the University of Amsterdam. He enjoys rock
> climbing and playing different types of lutes.

Does that include the skin lute?

Re:Is that for real?

[kwoff]

I'd say it's more like buying a car from your neighbour, and his crackhead son gets to keep the alarm control that runs a kill switch for the motor and can pop the locks on demand.

So the neighbor, knowing that you're the kind of person who considers buying into deals like that, is supposed to trust you with his valuables?

Re:Is that for real?

[Mutatis Mutandis]

Weapons are by no means that standardized. Britain, France, Germany and some other NATO countries still develop their own missiles, and also various electronic and intelligence-gathering equipment, which is equally important.

The USA doesn't really like NATO weapons programs unless it can supply the weapons itself; its attitude is fundamentally protectionist and contains a lot of "NIH" syndrome. It has, for example, pulled out of the development of the ASRAAM missile and substituted its own AIM-9X.

For the UK, not having the source code might not only mean that it cannot integrate its own weapons, but also that it cannot sell its products to other JSF users. For example, ASRAAM has been sold to Australia for use on the F-18E. If JSF is a closed system, the USA could lock out any such competition and force buyers to purchase everything from US suppliers.

If that sounds paranoid... US officials have occasionally admitted that one of the goals of the JSF programme, at least it multinational aspect, is to drive other suppliers of combat aircraft out of business and ensure for the USA a monopoly on the supply of advanced defence equipment.

Of course one of the other reasons is to make foreigners pay some of the bills for US weapons development. The system is charming: participating nations have to pay a large fee upfront for allowing their industry to compete for JSF contracts. Then they are sold downrated equipment that is not as capable as the F-35 as operated by the USAF, USN and USMC (if it ever gets that far). One of the reasons the UK wants the source code, I assume, is that it wants to ensure that its aircraft will not be downgraded too much. (Nobody would take Washington's word for it... not any more.)

For the UK, JSF will be a bad deal. If the two planned RN large carriers are indeed completed, there is no real reason left to buy the F-35, and the British government may indeed be looking for a way to cancel its commitment to JSF.

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have GPS? I hope you don't rely on it for navigation. It has been deliberately made inaccurate for non authorized users. And it too, can be turned off on a whim.
Hence GLONASS and Galileo. See, this issue is not new.

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.myfirstsexteachergallery.com/fh/040/ind ex.php?1107

Re:Is that for real?

[sanman2]

Bah, the buyer can exercise their power of choice if they don't like the situation. Buy elsewhere.

Maybe the Russians have a better aircraft to sell? (note... sarcasm...)

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

could have been a donnatello!

Re:Is that for real?

[stinky wizzleteats]

Yeah, it would be like trying to run your business using secret, black box code for your information and decision support systems. Who would allow their company's critical data to be held hostage in this sort of way?

Re:Is that for real?

[Mr. Underbridge]

The UK is an ally--since they're bringing so much money to our (remarkably depressive) economy, we should give them the code for any auditing or modifications they wish to undertake, AND we should help them solve any problems they perceive with the deployment of these aircraft, and just be done with it.

Maybe. But realistically, now is NOT the time to be bringing this up. Maybe I'm old school, but if a deal was made, you stick to it. If you wanted the source then, you should have asked for it. I might be willing to give them the API, but the full source, I dunno.

Re:Is that for real?

[Jesus_666]

The UK can always ditch the JSF in favor of the Eurofighter. Maybe it won't work as well for them as the JSF would have, but OTOH the Eurofighter is not a security risk capable of crippling the RAF.

Re:Is that for real?

[Azghoul]

It's entirely bullshit. It's entirely political posturing so the Brits can get as much US tech as possible. They will be getting plenty from us, they're just bitching because they want it all. You know the way it goes: Beg for $20 from dad when you only really want $10...

Disclaimer: I know wayyyy too much about the JSF program.

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry dude, but I don't think you're right about the issue here. The phrase I see quoted about this is "operational sovereignty." Were it simply a matter of adapting things for weapons, the UK could ask the US to do coding work for them. The UK wants this code because they need to see what's in it, and be certain it is entirely trusted. It's not that this is a big deal - the US would no doubt have been expecting this demand at some point, because if the tables were turned, the US would be demanding the same thing.

Similarly, this isn't a matter of an exceptional lack of trust on the part of the UK - in matters of national security, you shouldn't be trusting anyone to this level.

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

An Americanized Su-27 Flanker would be a damned good aircraft (agile fighter, low-radar signature, long range, can carry a massive bomb-load), and the Russians will sell them very, very cheap (about 8 million each if I recall). Don't underestimate Russian aircraft. As fighters go, only the F-22 is ahead them, mostly due to stealth technology (at like 190 million each!).

Re:Is that for real?

[PC-PHIX]

So let's assume that the US does cough up the source code rather than risk losing the sale.

Just like if I gave you the code behind my website or program so that you could have peace of mind and/or integrate other systems with mine.
Check it, recompile it and compare it... Satisfied? Good. Sale goes ahead.

Sure, it does everything that it is supposed to according the owner's manual...

.....It also has several undocumented features that allow me backdoor access, remote control and /or streaming statistics, GPS co-ordinates. You get the idea.

The key here is trust. Can they trust the US to document the complete inner workings of the aircraft they are buying? Maybe.

If it is a matter of national security, should you be buying your weaponary and vehicles from another country as opposed to developing everything domestically? The answer of course is yes - if you want to share in a good concept and for your defences to be as good as theirs.

But unless they can be absolutely sure the source code provided is complete or unless they plan to recompile the known code that they can trust and overwrite the current version installed on every piece of equipment, they are going to end up having to trust them (the US) just as much as if the source code isn't given up to begin with.

This is one of the ultimate privileges and power of being the creator or programmer of a piece of technology. Lawsuits for contradicting a disclosure agreement of some sort are nothing against what that control is worth.

If you can't live with that, then I agree, "This is a good reason not to offshore defense technology.".

Re:Is that for real?

[Random832]

Huh? There weren't any valuables belonging to the neighbor in the original metaphor - if you're going to add to the metaphor you have to point out what it's analogous to in the real-world situation you're claiming it models.

Re:Is that for real?

[Beached]

It's more like building the tv with the neighbour, buying it off him, and then he withholds the remote for 20 days when you need to change the channel.

Re:Is that for real?

[JerkBoB]

Does that include the skin lute?

*ka-thud*

That was your lame joke falling flat on its face. A lute is a stringed instrument, dumbass.

Re:Is that for real?

[SatanicPuppy]

_I_ compile from source and compare the binaries. I can't imagine there is no one in the whole British airforce who isn't equally paranoid.

By the way military equipment usually works (which is to say it is factory configured for about 20 seconds, then continually tweaked for about 40 years), I can't see any way in which an educated consumer (e.g. the Brits, who are capable of doing upgrades, etc, rather than some tinpot dictator out of S.America who is lucky if he has pilots who can fly them) could get by without having the source code. That's like selling them without an owners manual, and technical documentation.

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Source code? Why not? Tivo anyone?

Re:Is that for real?

[darkmeridian]

The Brits have come up with their own version of a scramjet powered air-to-air missile instead of buying the American version. With the F-35, the weapons are carried internally and having the source that runs everything may be useful because they can modify it to fit their missile. Also, the US is pretty much the only place to go for stealth. The Eurofighter 2K is not as good as the F-35 stealth.

Re:Is that for real?

[orderb13]

Does the Eurofighter have VTOL? I'm pretty sure that is one of the things that the UK wants.

Re:Is that for real?

[MechaStreisand]

HIGH radar signature, sir. It wasn't designed with any LO requirements in mind, seeing as it was designed back in the 80's. Other than that, yes, it is a great aircraft, if it is equipped with decent avionics. It's worth pointing out, though, that the EF Typhoon is also a superior fighter, as it is LO and simply a much more advanced design.

Re:Is that for real?

[tb()ne]

What you are describing applies to aquisitions under the DFAR (Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation). However, the military can also make aquisitions through the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation), which uses the "source of funds" test in a different way. Under the FAR, the government has unlimited rights to software (including source code) that is developed with mixed funds. So under the FAR, if your private company funded 70% of a software program and the government funded remaining 30%, the government still gets unlimited rights to the whole thing.

With both the FAR and the DFAR, there are subtleties regarding what constitutes a "minor modification", how you can segregate your code down to the "smallest practicable level", etc. If you ever develop software that may at some time in the future be modified with government funding, software rights issues should be considered when deciding how to segregate various components of the software. You may also want to consider being able to trace individual software mods to contracts (e.g., through tags in CVS commit messages).

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Source Code? I don't see why not. Tivo anyone?

Re:Is that for real?

[JediTrainer]

Since you can't *give* the Canadians weapons

Right. And when Canada buys weapons from another country we get used pieces of crap that nobody else wants. We don't buy new - we take the mothballed junk.

Re:Is that for real?

[jedidiah]

I do mission critical work on Debian and SLES8 just fine. Both are perfectly up to this.

Linux has been doing mission critical work for a LONG time.

Re:Is that for real?

[samkass]

Canada is the only country with an ITAR waiver at present -- to the best of my knowledge. Since you can't *give* the Canadians weapons, it is a largely meaningless agreement in their case. And the Bush administration probably wouldn't give the software to the Canadians either (although they might hire them to help write it).

Actually the last sentence is why the ITAR thing exists in the first place. Even between the US and Canada writing military software is a pain in the butt with ITAR.

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Supposed to be over 2 million of these nutters here now.... :(

Re:Is that for real?

[NecroPuppy]

ACQ 201-A here. God, it's dull. But I need it for that magic GS-11.

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure - when you open the doors to the weapons bay, you change the avionics. If your software model doesn't know how to fly the plane supersonic with the bay doors open, it's going to do the wrong thing. Modern fighters are all fly-by-insanely complicated computer...

Re:Is that for real?

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

I don't have the sourcecode to the firmware cablebox, dvd player, OR tv.

My cablebox can be 'upgraded' to stop working at any time by time warner. They've even crippled it in the past -- You used to be able to disable video output on the music channel s before they 'upgraded' it to show ads. Then they added some games for a month or two, then removed them and started promoting it as a new feature for the next model up.

Last I checked, time warner still has millions/billions of subscribers.

Re:Is that for real?

[Politburo]

Who mods up these ridiculous analogies? Does this make any fucking sense? Analogies are supposed to make things clearer by comparing them to a scenario the audience is familiar with. Is anyone here familiar with a neighbor with a crackhead son and an engine killswitch? Anyone?

Re:Is that for real?

[SubTexel]

And the F-15... Remember dog fighting doesn't do you any good when you get picked off at 200 miles off.... ;) Avionics is what wins air battles, not dog fighting (not anymore at least). And anywho, the export versions of all aircraft for military purposes are neutered, don't like it build your own damn aircraft. Simple as that.

Re:Is that for real?

[hachiman]

Didn't the Russians used to do a similar deal with all their export weapons systems and especially the avionics of the aircraft?

I seem to remember reading something about the export versions of the Mig 29 avionics software being deliberately downgraded for export so that the Russian/Soviet pilots would have the edge if the customer suddenly turned into an enemy.

I appreciate that this makes a lot of sense from the point of view of being suspicious of your clients when selling weapons, but it is interesting to see the US military/industrial/political complex doing something similar for, what one could argue as, capitalist reasons. It would require a real stretch of imagination to believe that the US did not trust it's biggest ally enough in this respect to give us the source code. We are about the only ones supporting them properly right now and I would hate to think that all that support went one way.

Oh, hang on...

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not as though the source code would then be leaked onto the internet for script kiddies to make their own next-gen fighter jets out of or anything.

I too believe this to be the case, but how can you ensure this? As someone who has exported software solutions to the UK and dealt with the export license restrictions, you can only guarantee what is in your control. Our delivered solution is nothing compared to that of JSF but the regulations are still quite stiff. One of the requirements in our case is that only a particular customer set can view the software but the UK folks running the lab are already trying to work to bring in additional customers. They've been reminded of their obligation, but who's to say that an eager sales person won't side step the requirement? Basically I'm just saying that once the information is out of the US government's control, they can't guarantee it won't get to anyone else. Also remember that even though countries are on good terms with each other, the countries have spies working within the friendly country so control of the information is always at risk and greater so, if not only within the host country (US in this case).

Re:Is that for real?

[notea42]

They also say they will absolutely not add a catapult and arrestor gear to the new carriers. They might add arrestor gear, but word is no chance on the catapult.

Re:Is that for real?

[hevenor]

If that sounds paranoid... US officials have occasionally admitted that one of the goals of the JSF programme, at least it multinational aspect, is to drive other suppliers of combat aircraft out of business and ensure for the USA a monopoly on the supply of advanced defence equipment.

It's funny that you use the term 'defense' equipment since I don't think that these machine have ever or will ever be used to stop an offense. I also think that the US is hesitant to release code that also controls the US machines so that no figures our how to shut them off.

Re:Is that for real?

[Jesus_666]

Apparently not, but there are plans for optional thrust vectoring, which might give the Eurofighters STOL support.

Re:Is that for real?

[HTH NE1]

But unless they can be absolutely sure the source code provided is complete or unless they plan to recompile the known code that they can trust and overwrite the current version installed on every piece of equipment, they are going to end up having to trust them (the US) just as much as if the source code isn't given up to begin with.

They'd have to be sure that they can trust their own compiler not to have self-replicating code injecting a backdoorf into the binaries just as they can't trust a US-provided compiler that may do the same.

And then there's also whether you trust the hardware the code runs on not to do the same with creative interpretation of the object code regardless of the compiler used, which could be hidden in a number of locations.

If it is a matter of trust, then they need to ask for more than just software; they need the fabrication details of every component to allow them to manufacture the entire system, giving them end-to-end security, even to the point of fabbing every chip themselves in facilities they also control from beginning to end.

It's easier just to trust and be ready to exact consequences for any breach.

Re:Is that for real?

[tremor_tj]

That's what they thought when they took the gun off of the F-4 as well.

Re:Is that for real?

[cmdr_beeftaco]

They should do more than give the software to the Brits they should open source it. I want a flight simulator running the exact same code the actually fighter runs. When the aliens come I will drive my RV to a desert airbase, jump in one of these bad boys and use it to inject a virus into the aliens mainframe causing it to self-destruct. That is the power of open source.

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask yourself why any company working on the JSF especially Boeing would want to release their source code. Vendor lock is big business in the government, pay a huge sum of money now and pay even more when you want to change the code. Forget about Britain for a sec. Even in the US the company that makes the flight simulator you are talking about doesn't run the same code that is on the LSF. There are many people in the government who should love to put an open source clause in the contract but that will never happen.

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

"My cablebox can be 'upgraded' to stop working at any time by time warner. "

If its really *your* cable box, then you are highly negligent in not reporting this to the authorities.

Re:Is that for real?

[TomRitchford]

Your reasoning appears to be "because there are various risks, we should ignore all of them."

However, the chances that the US has put application-specific backdoors into their program are quite large. The chances that your compiler has a backdoor deliberately designed to alter specific code for specific jet fighters is incredibly low; the chances your hardware is hacked that way is far far lower.

Re:Is that for real?

[TigerPlish]

That's the kinda thinking which almost killed us in Vietnam -- "The Dogfighter Is Obsolete"

What rubbish. There's always a time when it comes down to a knife-fight.

And if it comes down to that, better to have a light, quick, agile platform with a big fast gun, and not some porcine, overweight "missle fighter".

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

In spite of the problems, the Upholders were a bargain. Canada sat right at the edge of completely loosing submarine service in its armed forces forever (once those skills were lost -- it would aways be too expensive and difficult to start again. Remember when Canada had a carrier battle group?)

The Canadian government hasn't been interested in anything but tokenism when it comes military concerns for a long, long, time. Canada is in the Joint Strike Fighter program. Why aren't they complaining about the software? Because they will never actually buy a single fighter ... not one ... ever. They just want a chance to bid for the contracts.

Little known fact: Canada is the fifth or six largest military contracter in the world -- almost all of it done for the USA. If they depended on domestic contracts, that industry would have been stone cold dead long ago.

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

From flightjournal magazine:

www.flightjournal.com/articles/su27/su27_2.asp

"The Su-27 is already known as a premier highly maneuverable fighter. ... results in a naturally low radar signature without compromising its performance."

That is to say it has a low signature for a non-stealth aircraft, and relative to its size (the Flanker is a big fighter .. a bit bigger than a Tomcat or an F15). But if you mean its signature is high compared to an F-22, you are absolutely beyond right ... I should have been more clear.

Re:Is that for real?

[pezzonovante1]

Then they are sold downrated equipment that is not as capable as the F-35 as operated by the USAF, USN and USMC (if it ever gets that far). One of the reasons the UK wants the source code, I assume, is that it wants to ensure that its aircraft will not be downgraded too much. (Nobody would take Washington's word for it... not any more.)

This is nothing new, bottom line is the U.S. will not allow a U.S. company to develop products for export that are on par with the version made for the U.S. No matter no close we may be with another country, this just will not happen. To be a world power we must stay on top techinically, other countries do the same if they have technology ahead of us in certain fields.

Re:Is that for real?

[Crizp]

However the JSF would be able to replace not only their Tornados but also their Harriers. When you already have VTOL-capable planes on your aircraft carrier, why downgrade?

Re:Is that for real?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Also, the US is pretty much the only place to go for stealth."

The Brits are working on at least one, possible more, stealthy UAVs as we speak. The Russians are known to be working on stealth as well. Where do you think the remains of that F-117 that got shot down in the Balkans ended up?

Re:Is that for real?

[Black Copter Control]

Obviously there are a lot more crackhead sons out there with their finger on the button than you're willing to admit.

Re:Is that for real?

[dajak]

If that sounds paranoid... US officials have occasionally admitted that one of the goals of the JSF programme, at least it multinational aspect, is to drive other suppliers of combat aircraft out of business and ensure for the USA a monopoly on the supply of advanced defence equipment.

And Europe is perfectly willing to go along with that, as long as the European defence industry can build all parts of the JSF themselves...

Re:Is that for real?

[vishbar]

Well, it's served Canada's military well. They don't have any need of futuristic uber-weapons. Since when has Canada needed global projection of power?

I am not criticising Canada, by the way--the USA shouldn't need such a huge military. We are in such a quagmire now, with the Iraq debacle and all, that it's nearly unavoidable.

Re:Is that for real?

[KarmaMB84]

We'd had to stop Europeans from selling our military technology along with their naval ships before...

Re:Is that for real?

[GmAz]

Dogfights are obsolete as long as missles are infinite, and you have god mode on.

Re:Is that for real?

[VagaStorm]

First off all; I dont think parent tries to be funny, so stop the mad moding.

Second; I think many /. readers relate better to cars, remote controled alarms and crack heads than they do to high level politics and advanced military equipment.

Third; Even I find it rather rude comparing the us military to a crackhead. In some contries embasies are tourtched over cartoons, good knows what this could result in :p

Re:Is that for real?

[Mutatis Mutandis]

Yes, the Soviets routinely did this as well. Strategy aside, they were always paranoid about espionage and unwilling to export their latest equipment for fear that it would fall in the wrong hands. Besides, they would also sell on a large scale to third world nations, who would find it difficult to maintain the most advanced equipment.

Selling high-tech defence equipment has always been as much about creating a dependency relation as about making money. (This much fighter jets have in common with cheap inkjet printers.) When you sell someone an expensive jet fighter, that country becomes dependent on you for training, spare parts, maintenance, and upgrades. Not just until the next version of Windows comes out, but for the lifetime of the aircraft, which is now as much as 30 to 40 years. A $25 million jet fighter without appropriate support is almost scrap metal.

Of course it is possible to go without support for some time. When Sadat kicked his Russian advisors out of Egypt, the Egyptians briefly considered fitting their MiG-21s with Rolls-Royce engines (would have been nice) before they bought Western equipment. More recently, Iran has been able to maintain US jet fighters in an acceptably operational condition without (officially admitted!) US support, but it clearly has not been easy and no doubt cost a frightening amount of money.

Re:Is that for real?

[drgonzo59]

And the fighter planes don't need operating systems... right...

Re:Is that for real?

[drgonzo59]

Heart monitoring systems I think are more mission critical than "a little" ;) space station project. The station falls from the sky: 0 to 3 people die. Heart monitoring devices fail : everybody's grandmas, grandpas, baby sisters in the hospital kick the bucket.

Re:Is that for real?

[drgonzo59]

Let me ask you this then: "Would you get on a plane if you knew that Debian was flying it?". I don't think I would...

Re:Is that for real?

[Wolvie MkM]

Well said! Thank you!

I don't believe my country is in need to have a military that rivals the size of the US or any other power. I am an advocate of having a strong defence force, I think it's a shame that we've let our equipment become as broken down as it is.

While I may not be a fan of our new administration they have promised to upgrade our men and women in the forces!

Re:Is that for real?

[tengwar]

As far as I know, the only scramjet to develop enough power to sustain speed was a US experimental model which ran for 7s after a rocket launch. While UK military programmes are normally more secret than US ones, I'm pretty sure we don't have a scramjet missile.

Re:Is that for real?

[Jesus_666]

Political reasons. I'm not implying that there are such reasons now (there might be but I don't know), but if some problems with the USA should crop up that would be a good reason to ignore the JSF even if it suits their need best.

Re:Is that for real?

[modecx]

That's the thing though, the Meteor, while sounding very cool, is basically at a glance a ram-jet powered, improved version of the age old AIM-54 Phoenix, with more advanced sensors and avionics. I mean, that thing was making 100km+ kills almost 30 years ago, and its max speed was mach 4, just like the Meteor! Obviously the Meteor is intended to stay at max speed for a bit longer, but really, it's still a capable missile, and it might have been very easy to simply put more advanced AMRAAM style avionics and remote radar guidance in it. That would go a long way in making a long range fire and forget missile that could be flown on pretty much anything... Anyway, with a stealthy craft like the F-35 it should be possible to safely close within AMRAAM firing range when using a third party ground or AWACS radar to direct the two. Meteor only makes sense to use on less stealthy stand-off craft...

The Phoenix was retired from service 2 years ago, and not only because they are planning to retire the F-14--the only vehicle capable of firing it--it just wasn't needed that much! Iran made more use if it than we ever did, and look at how many wars we've been in since then! As far as I know, there are no plans to replace it... The AMRAAM is intended to fill most of that void the retirement of the Phoenix left, and maybe an AMRAAM with a longer range will supercede it in the future, but, the Phoenix went twice as fast... It seems like any ambitious long-range ramjet or conventional rocket propelled air to air missile project at this time is mostly a boondoggle. I mean, unless we expect China to pose a threat in the future, or North Korea to obtain advanced fighter technology, it's pretty much useless!

Anyway, I understand that the ASRAAM and the AIM-9X share the same seeker, and because of that they're pretty much equivalent, excepting the outside. The 9X also inherited the ETOS optical tracker of the 9M, and because of that it makes a much better match for the F-35, which has ETOS support built in, not to mention the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System... I believe the 9X would have better anti countermeasure support and better kill stats because of it, too. You're right that they need to be able to support new arms when they come out, but there's almost 40 years between the deployments of the 9B and 9X, I would expect a radical difference! A more apt comparison would be between the 9B and the Sidearm, basically an early passive radar version of the Sidewinder, which could be carried on a Cobra helix.

The thought of Windows 95 running on a missile, though, that's a goodie! :)

Re:Is that for real?

[dajak]

And anywho, the export versions of all aircraft for military purposes are neutered, don't like it build your own damn aircraft. Simple as that.

That's not how the market works IMO. The US really wants allies to use its platforms. European countries want to buy a good generic airframe that is produced in large numbers and get upgrades from their own or allied defence industry when they become available. They will be available if there are enough potential customers. It worked well for the F-16. Economy of scale.

The problem is picking the right horse. The JSF is only good if at least several thousands are around outside the US. If the UK walks out, the JSF is probably dead as far as Europe is concerned. If Europe then starts defining its own generic fighter/bomber, the US will turn very generous again.

Buying a 'black box' aircraft is actually worse than buying a stripped down or 'neutered' aircraft you can have upgraded later outside the US.

Re:Is that for real?

[apoc.famine]

This is one of those times where I really, REALLY would like a "dumbass" mod. I was about to mod you "funny", but if there was a "+1, dumbass" mod for the parent, this would have been the time to use it. And I do mean +1, since there's nothing like stamping "dumbass" on someone's forehead for the world to see.

Re:Is that for real?

[David Gould]

You're thinking of this kind of backdoor? You're right: in order to be able to really (i.e., to a level adequate for an organization like the US or UK military) "trust" any software, of course the org would have to bootstrap their entire computing platform, including writing their own compilers. [*1] It's not really that hard (again, for that sort of org). I'd be surprised and alarmed if I were to learn that they haven't been doing so as a matter of course.

As for the JSF software, if US refuses to turn over the code (sort of understandable why they'd want to), I suppose they could knock a bit off the price and sell the planes with blank computers, leaving UK to write their own software from scratch/specs.

--
[1] Yes, in assembly (or some intermediate language whose compiler they've written in assembly), with an assembler they've written in machine code, on hardware they've designed and built themselves (or audited the design and fabrication closely enough), etc., etc.

Re:Is that for real?

[Keebler71]

I still have nightmares about the firescout (was that what it was called?) I'm assuming you know this already but for ACQ-201, I think you can skip through all the slides, open the summary in a new window and take the test while searching for the keywords in the lesson summary to find the answers. ACQ-201B actually isn't that bad.

Re:Is that for real?

[darkmeridian]

Google the MBDA Meteor. Okay, so it isn't in production yet, but it seems firm.

Re:Is that for real?

[SubTexel]

Which, as stated is your opinion and not fact. FACT: We sell stripped down and neautered aircraft to many allies (you think we are actually going to put the same software / hardware capabilities on potential enemy aircraft? ha!) FACT: Dog fighting is obsolete, and this is NOT Vietnam anymore. Sorry guys, the good old days of dog fighting is long gone. Hence the ending of the Top Gun, etc... The basics are still taught, but in a very limited fasion. I.E: If you can't hit them with your AIM-9s, 120s, etc... your wingman will. (look up the hit probabilites on these weapons systems...) RWR and the such make up for the pilots lack of abilities as well. RADAR is awesome. So, sorry to bust up your keyboard commando fantasies of America (and Russia)selling fully capable aircraft to allies. It's quite laughable and I'll have to show some of the guys, and get some kicks.

Re:Is that for real?

[sumdumass]

I dunno, you buy the car without the software that runs it. A computer code because of a lose gas cap can triger a fault and make it run in reduced power mode. The car manufacturers are even placing wireless comunications in them that could tecnicaly allow them to switch it off when they feel like it.

There are alot of secretes that can be gained by viewing the source code on a system like this. I think the real reason they want the code is to deconstruct the weapons systems and any other stratigic interface they feel the need to update thier technoligy on. This is why hardware manufacturers ar so shy about releasing open source drivers, thier competitors can find out thir trick being done with the hardware.

I say if they want the source code, then dumb the plane down and seel it with somethign note as sensitive. who knows what those crazy brits will do with the source code or who they will let have it. (intentionaly or not(spys))

Re:Is that for real?

[Runefox]

The thought of Windows 95 running on a missile, though, that's a goodie! :)

Pilot: Joint-two to Mike Sierra niner five, come in Mike Sierra niner five. ......
Pilot: Joint-two to Mike Sierra niner five, I'm having trouble tracking what AWACS says is a Mig-27. Request instruction.
MS95: Sorry, pilot, Mike Sierra niner five isn't supported any more. Push frequency to Mike Sierra X-ray Papa.
Pilot: ... Mike Sierra X-ray Papa, this is Joint-two, I'm having trouble with my aircraft, respond.
MSXP: Turn on automatic updates.
Pilot: ... Say again?
MSXP: Turn on automatic updates.
Pilot: I can't lock my missiles onto this MiG-27!
MSXP: Oh, that. MiG-27's are old hardware, not supported any more. You'll have to go to Mikoyan-Gurevich for support. Also, you might want to upgrade to AMRAAM XP. It provides the easiest user interface yet so that you can be more productive and have more fun. Mike Sierra X-ray Papa out.

Re:Is that for real?

[Kaychsea]

How about a recovering alcoholic president with borderline alcoholic daughters?

Re:Is that for real?

[don_oles]

You get the point!
_Can_ _anybody_ _trust_ _US_ _goverment_???
After watching "911 - Loose Change" nobody will... except for some of Saudians...

Re:Is that for real?

[bbc]

Mission critical is cool, but if you cannot get it, are you going to leave out the OS altogether?

Also, these things are signed off by politicians, to whom mission critical means nothing, and preferred vendor everything. It wouldn't be the first time, you know.

""The simple root of the problem on Yorktown was that politics were played in the assigning of the contract -- there was not a discussion of engineers, it was just a very small group of people pitching for it," said an engineer close to the project, who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

Re:Is that for real?

[dajak]

My point was that buying an airframe is not primarily about avionics or weapon systems, but only about the flexibility of use of the airframe in the long run. The JSF was intended as a flexible platform for further development: it's OK to deliver them with alternative 'proof of concept' code as long as it isn't a black box and it flies.

The avionics and weapon systems are going to be replaced every few years anyway, with European stuff unless the US can and wants to sell anything better. The Russians have little to offer in this area for the future: the only wealthy customer they have is India. They must share the advanced stuff with a wealthy customer, because it is the only chance they have at affording it for themselves.

If you are right that it is only about BVR, then Europe has no problem anyway. The development pipeline of Europe is as good as the US at weapons and detection stuff. The UK was/is planning on fitting its JSFs with Meteor missiles (just like its new Eurofighter Typhoons). The US is ahead in stealth. Stealth is what sells the JSF airframe for Europe (and of course the promise of large volume of production). Without the stealth it's just another general purpose F-16, and we are better of buying Gripen, Rafale, or Su-30 as a workhorse. You can't take away stealth without Europe knowing: it's something that can be measured and compared without actual access to the platform and Europe does have plenty of opportunity to try to improve its detection of US stealth aircraft.

I would scrap the JSF requirement anyway, and go for only a limited number of Eurofighter Typhoons (1000 for the EU as a whole) for visual range interception only (because you never know how the systems are going to fail you) and a large number of cheap UCAV based on the EADS demonstrator for BVR and air to surface. Part of Europe was thinking along those lines a few years ago, but the bombers of the 21st century apparently do need pilots after all for some reason.

Re:Is that for real?

[ssimontis]

You buy Windows without the source code, but no one is complaining. While there is some argument as to whether this is okay for the British, or if they are getting cheated, they don't have to buy anything. It is there choice, they must agree to the terms. They have no right to buy the planes. They are free to buy from someone else if they don't like the terms.

Re:Is that for real?

[kwoff]

The code the US was withholding.

Re:Is that for real?

[Jezter!* $nothername]

France isn't a NATO member but is a fellow (?) EU state. We (in the UK) have a strong interest in protecting ourselves from our oldest enemies ... and France tops the list. I presume the ultimate reason for needing the full code is to make sure that we can blast anything French out of the seas and skies ('specially as they've been so helpful with their carrier details) should they, a) make any disturbing noises our way (Les Farmers dit "NON", "Subsidy? Quell subsidy?" etc.) or, b) offer to support us in any military endeavour especially in any back-up position :)

Australia wants it too!

[narkotix]

linky

Re:Australia wants it too!

[alchemy101]

This is because Australia is now extra wary of buying military equipment from the US as they've been pretty much screwed over with every single purchase that they have made from them. I don't see why we (I'm an australian) should be locked into maintenance contracts with the US defence industry when Australia has as much (physical) capability and we have partially paid for the development for the JSF.

We can fix it!

[SEWilco]

Gee, give us a few jets and we'll get right on writing Open Source Software for them...

Re:We can fix it!

[Jason Earl]

I realize that you mean this as a joke, but that is almost precisely what the U.S. is worried about. Right now the U.S. has the high end defense industry locked up tight. If the U.S. can guarantee that these fighters remain black boxes then not only will they get the bulk of the manufacturing business but they will get all of the service, support, and modification business as well. Maintaining control of the software is key to maintaining control of the entire project.

Re:We can fix it!

[Comatose51]

I hate to be around when the emacs vs. vi and/or KDE vs. Gnome flame wars erupt. This time, it's going to be a literal flame war.

Re:We can fix it!

[Moofie]

If you think a couple open source grognards are going to be able to write the flight control rules that will keep a modern combat jet's pointy end into the wind, you haven't the first idea what you're talking about.

Fly by wire software for relaxed static stability aircraft is really, really hard, and it has to be perfect. Not pretty good, not 99.44% bug free, PERFECT.

Re:We can fix it!

[general_re]

Even with a whole team of experienced avionics programmers, which you can find readily enough in Europe if the price is right, if they really had to reverse-engineer the whole wad from the ground up, the dang thing would be obsolete by the time they got into something resembling combat readiness.

Re:We can fix it!

[Moofie]

I completely understand Great Britain's demand for access to the source code. I'd want the same thing if I was going to drop a pile o' cash on complicated jets. But the notion that Lockheed has given any thought to competition from open source programmers is absolutely laughable.

UAVs are going to replace combat jets long before you see them running Linux on their flight controls.

Re:We can fix it!

[general_re]

Yeah. I suspect the set of open-source programmers with avionics experience is rather small ;)

Re:We can fix it!

[Jason Earl]

I am not suggesting that Great Brittain hand out sample hardware to various Free Software hackers and expect to get a working fly by wire system, if that's what you mean. I am not expecting to see a fly-by-wire project on sourceforge or anything like that. What I am saying is that there are a lot of systems that the British might want to upgrade themselves over time, and they would probably want to be able to hire their own software teams to make any modifications that they might deem necessary.

For this to be effective they will need access to the source code. Otherwise they are stuck with whatever options we Americans give them.

I piggybacked on the humurous comment because A) I thought it was funny, and B) because it demonstrated precisely the problem that Brittain would face if it allowed the U.S. to sell it a weapons system without source code. As you pointed out you can't expect "open source grognards" to write flight controls for a modern combat aircraft. If Brittain doesn't get source, it is screwed.

Re:We can fix it!

[Y-Crate]

"Gee, give us a few jets and we'll get right on writing Open Source Software for them..."

And the first time a pilot requests a feature, you guys will sigh heavily, roll your eyes and tell him there is a free terminal running emacs that he can get to work on immediately if it's so important. ;)

Re:We can fix it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bring popcorn: garbage collection of LISP based tools like Emacs is not pretty in a military grade piece of hardware. I remember seeing a film of an M1 tank demo, using a TI built LISP based control system. It was downright embarassing for the contractor when the darned thing *stopped* on a flat-out run because the core system had to do garbage collection, despite all the claims of the contractor that they'd solved that old problem of LISP.

There's nothing like watching the world's fastest tank grind to a halt because some foolish designer thinks real-time hardware doesn't need real-time operating systems.

Re:We can fix it!

[hritcu]

Why even go through all the pain of rewriting everything the Americans already wrote. Just ask them to open source their plane software :)

Re:We can fix it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that many modern avionics systems are actually running Linux, I'd bet you're wrong.

Re:We can fix it!

[Don_dumb]

For this to be effective they will need access to the source code. Otherwise they are stuck with whatever options we Americans give them.

Let me add that it is also good forward thinking to have the manuals for the £12b fighers you are getting, 1. To ensure that the code is up to scratch on the £12b of taxpayers money you are spending. 2. Also when in 30+ years of the fighers life you could go through many different maintenance contracts. The software owners could 'have you over a barrel' if they are the only people able to fix your planes.

It would be reckless for any government (in this case mine) to spend this much on something Lord Drayson can't even guarantee will be servicable and fit to fly. After all it wouldn't be the first US built military aircraft to get grounded.

Re:We can fix it!

[Moofie]

I seriously doubt that there's any substantial marketshare for Linux in military avionics, and I'm certain that Linux has nothing to do with flight control software.

Re:We can fix it!

[hawk]

"And here they come, guns blazing. It looks bad for emacs; it just can't keep up with the more agile vi. Oh, wait! Emacs just dumped core! the vi figher has been crushed by the falling debris!

hawk, noting that this should be read with a LISP

Come on

[Anonymous Coward]

Well after 1776 and 1812, can ya blame America for a little fail-safe? /tongue_in_cheek

Re:Come on

[eclectro]

FTA "...as [the planes] could effectively be "switched off" by the Americans without warning."

Actually it's not that the British doesn't trust us or that there is a failsafe, it's that we would accidently turn off their planes.

Personally, I don't think we should turn over the source code, because then the British would see that it runs on a Playstation 3.

Re:Come on

[H0p313ss]

Yes... first you revolted, then the Canadians kicked your butts and sacked the Whitehouse... thus paranoia is born! :-)

Re:Come on

[general_re]

You posted to let everyone know how much you don't care?

Re:Come on

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Leaving people ignorant means I'am to blame for their ignorance. Pointing out the facts so in the future people understand (and choose to ignore it if they like), means I did all I could to educate them.

If we ignore stupid comments then we should expect these stupid comments to be the basis of ideas because no one shot them down.

Re:Come on

[hamfactorial]

The lad doth protest too much, methinks.

Re:Come on

[Isotopian]

I'm sorry, I just can't understand you through the accent. Or perhaps the teeth? Go to a dentist ;) (just playin man)

Re:Come on

[general_re]

Err, which facts did you bring to light, exactly? Aside from the fact that you don't care, that is.

Well, okay. As long as we're sharing facts, I should inform you - lest I be held responsible for your ongoing ignorance, naturally - that I'm a bit mystified as to why such a silly joke by the original poster has triggered such a rant on your part. I'll wager I'm not alone in that either ;)

Re:Come on

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Wasn't a rant. :/

I always see people bring up the revolutionary war and some how act proud of it. But the "problem" is none of them were even born and any ideals they fought for have now died (on both sides). No one here even knows the dates unless they are researching it, so I pointed that out.

If I had ranted it would of been much much longer.. Plus hey it's 6am, who gives a fuck about anything? Random posts away!

Re:Come on

[Anonymous Coward]

The US started both these conflicts.

Re:Come on

[Funkmaster_G]

You may act like you're all superior because a few hundred years ago your dead people beat our dead people

The original poster should have known not to mention the American Revolution in the presence of the British. For some reason, they are still sore about it, as the above post hilariously illustrates.

Re:Come on

[general_re]

Plus hey it's 6am

No it isn't. Don't be pulling that GMT bullshit on me, mister ;)

Re:Come on

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I'd challenge you to a duel at dawn like a real gentleman.. but it's already past dawn and I can't be bothered to wait a full day. So I'll goto sleep and troll you when I wake up.

It's Slashdot dueling, who can keep the most karma while insulting others.

Re:Come on

[general_re]

Very well. I shall bring my rapier-like wit, and you shall arm yourself with...well, whatever it is you have lying around, I guess...

:^)

Re:Come on

[zippthorne]

the US didn't exist in 1776.

Re:Come on

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Lol. Check the original post.. ever get the feeling you hurt someones pride? XD

Your rapier like wit is nothing compared to my point stick like hatred of mankind. ;D

Re:Come on

[shobadobs]

Illegal war? What the heck is an 'illegal war'?

Re:Come on

[Anonymous Coward]

George W., is that you? :-)

Re:Come on

[ocelotbob]

It was a British fleet that burned Washington, not Canadian. Also, remember, before Washington was burned, we burned Toronto to the ground, and we'll do it again if y'all aren't careful.

Re:Come on

[Anonymous Coward]

The British are always take it badly when they lose to the French.

Re:Come on

[Goth Biker Babe]

Of course we are sore. We lost a colony while fighting a war in Europe and ruling large parts of the world at the same time. We were juggling plates and dropped one. It was careless of us and we hate carelessness.

Re:Come on

[Anonymous Coward]

heheh, no, our dead people killed your dead people, and then had offspring and grandchildren, lived a good long life, then died. Leaving even less gene pool for you inbred island folk. From empire to little backwater island whose PM follows our president, how sad.

Re:Come on

[CaptainCheese]

both wars started by the USA!

Is someone in the DoD thinking of trying again?

(yes I know the US was founded as a result of the 1776 fracas)

Re:Come on

[Gleemonex]

It was a British fleet that burned Washington, not Canadian.

Actually, the fleet didn't do any burning. It was the soldiers who did the burning. British and Canadian soldiers. Oops.

Not that that's really an insult anyways. With very few exceptions, Canada and Britain have always been good friends. I just wanted to correct your mistake.

Also, remember, before Washington was burned, we burned Toronto to the ground, and we'll do it again if y'all aren't careful.

So, being the terrorist aggressors and then getting smacked down in kind improves your situation.... how, precisely? You thought you could come up here and torch what you like, and we came down there and kicked your asses for it. Isn't payback a bitch.

By all means, try it again ;)

-Glee

Plan B

[BadAnalogyGuy]

If the JSF deal falls through, Lord Drayson (any relation to Victor?) says that a Plan B is available.

I wonder what that Plan B could B.

More Harriers? LOL

Re:Plan B

[w42w42]

Plan B is Rafale's, and there's speculation it's actually Plan A.

Re:Plan B

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Plan B is Rafale's, and there's speculation it's actually Plan A.

That wouldn't be good for NATO, would it? No... I think they'll get the code... Or maybe they will what they think is all of the code... Too big a deal not just in money but relationships as well.

Re:Plan B

[Reverend528]

Plan B involves raising the dead and having them attack the living.

...or is that Plan 9?

Re:Plan B

[El Cabri]

Plan B is naval version of the Typhoon, which is yet to be developped.

Plan C is the Rafale, whose naval version is already operationnal.

Re:Plan B

[aussie_a]

If they get the code, surely they could then create their own versions, implementing the code (after satisfying themselves there's no backdoors in the code). So while they might not be able to assure themselves the American copies are completely safe, they will have been given the ability to make their own safe versions.

Re:Plan B

[magefile]

Or maybe they will what they think is all of the code...

They'd have to be fools not to compile and install themselves - or at least compile and compare checksums. I mean, I do that with software I put on my home PC - you think my security standards are better than the RAF's?

Re:Plan B

[jasondlee]

I wonder what that Plan B could B.

Wicket

Re:Plan B

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Yes, but it is unlikely the Brits would break an agreement with us.

Re:Plan B

[w42w42]

That wouldn't be good for NATO, would it? No... I think they'll get the code... Or maybe they will what they think is all of the code... Too big a deal not just in money but relationships as well.

As to NATO, you're right. The probable irritant here from the US side though is that the EU is increasingly close to Russia with regards to defense deals (co-development items). The US is worried about its technology walking away, and someday having to fight against that tech in the form of Russian or Chinese equipment.

Re:Plan B

[Darby]

I wonder what that Plan B could B.

More Harriers? LOL

Well, if by "Harriers" you mean "Cowbell", then sign me up!

Re:Plan B

[Nutria]

compare checksums.

To what? The (possibly) fraudulent checksums that Lockheed Martin gives it?

Re:Plan B

[magefile]

I would assume they're able to pull the images off the fighters. Otherwise, the whole issue is moot. But they can compile and reinstall, or compile, and compare those binaries' sums to the sums of the images they pull off the fighters.

Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes sense to me, I can only see one argument and that is that we are using the same source code and in that case, we are the idiots?

-Ryan

Loss of service

[Sduic]

"...as [the planes] could effectively be "switched off" by the Americans without warning."

I wouldn't want to be the pilot when that happens. :-)

Re:Loss of service

[jci]

In the software lab I work in, we have this image as a poster.

Re:Loss of service

[Xamien]

From reading the article, it sounds like they fear outside control of the aircraft, and if that's even remotely possible, it's easy to understand why they want the source code -- and not just to check for intentional backdoors. "Switching off the plane" would be the least of my worries. I'm no airplane or military nut, but I can imagine Bad Things(tm): changing targets, recording or disabling communication systems, faking radar or other data, activating or deactivating weapon systems, using the surveillance capabilities, etc. Heck, you should get the code when buying something like this without having to ask for it.

Of course, from the US military's viewpoint, the ability to "switch them off" would be nice if the planes were being used against the US or their allies or by one customer against another. Not to mention that by handing over the source code, just like with normal, everyday open-source programs, there is always the possibility of "them" finding an exploitable problem, quietly fixing it in their own planes, and storing the tidbit away for future use.

The real reason.

[gklinger]

America's reticence to hand over the source code has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with embarrassment. Why? The plane's control software in Visual Basic.

Re:The real reason.

[jd]

You sure? I thought it was in C#, with the GUI in BASICA.

Re:The real reason.

[x2A]

Nah, it's cuz it's where the REAL stolen SCO code is!

Re:The real reason.

[juan2074]

Sir, waiting for a reboot, sir!

The F-22 Under GPL!

[flyingrobots]

Maybe they'll post it on Sourceforge ;)

Re:The F-22 Under GPL!

[Anonymous Coward]

F-22A Raptor != F-35 JSF

Re:The F-22 Under GPL!

[H0p313ss]

(cough)F-35(cough)

Re:The F-22 Under GPL!

[flyingrobots]

Ok! OK! So I got confused :) It happens a lot you, too many @#$! designators!

Re:The F-22 Under GPL!

[Sartak]

You must have misunderstood. The F-22 is licensed to the JPL.

Not quite an alarmist reason for the software

[Anonymous Coward]

With all that code, they don't want to buy this plane and then find out that it'll cost them a SIGNIFICANT amount of money later down the road to integrate a new weapons system or sensor onto the aircraft. The US can't 'turn off the software', the software doesn't have a 'Windows Activation'-style system to tell it whether it can run the aircraft or not!

Re:Not quite an alarmist reason for the software

[iphayd]

The US could have written code to accept an encrypted command over the radio. This command could potentially be programmed to shut down the plane or some other sort of operation. This is why they want the source. They want their weapons to be usable during any operation, including ones potentially against the US.

Re:Not quite an alarmist reason for the software

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

Possible.... but not very likely. More likely is simply that if the product needs ongoing support (e.g. bug fixes) and thus would mean the UK is dependant on the US, unless of course the UK has a copy of the source-code.

The "switching off" thing is (I think) really just not providing support, since an unsupported aircraft would be rather risky to use in combat; the enemy could potentially be aware of the bugs that exist and could potentially exploit them.

Re:Not quite an alarmist reason for the software

[Anonymous Coward]

This is very true. My country, a while back has considered buying a bunch of f-15s but the US would not provide any weapons for it, rendering them completely useless. IIRC no one else could develop weapons for it. The military market is a very "locked-in" one. It is also one, contrary to what us fighter-geeks belive, that the decisions made are more politically related than based upon the merits of the product. This is one of the reasons our air force is packed with f16s, instead of the superior sukhoi. I wouldn't be surprised if the US was selling rigged planes to the world though. If I had the power, I would probably do the same.

Having said all this, let me just say: As impressive modern fighters are technologically, I hope one day we would get rid of them. There is nothing good about technology made to kill and there is nothing fun about arm races in countries around the world. They just cut the coutries' budgets on usefull stuff like healthcare and education. My country and our neighboring one is in this situation. The only ones winning are the international arms industry. Fuck them.

Nuclear reactors

[ghoul]

I wonder if India is insisting on the source code for the control software for the new nuclear reactors to be sold under the new nuke deal. If not America could switch off the reactor control at any time and nuke India without even having to launch missiles

Re:Nuclear reactors

[nick1000]

Sir,
We will try to implement your noteworthy ideas soon.
As you may be aware the software used by US nuke companies is already coded in India.

Director
Indian Secret Service
P.S. By the way is their a nuclear plant near wherever you live ??

Re:Nuclear reactors

[StandardDeviant]

There's huge, huge, huge differences between a nuclear power plant and a nuclear weapon. Nuke plants are not and will never be capable of the same level of destructiveness as a bomb. This is not to say that a meltdown doesn't release very crappy pollution, but it's not an explosive on the same level as a designed weapon.

(The specifics of why X != Y far overflows the capacity of the /. comment system. Suffice to say that even if the isotopic mix was right [it isn't, not by a loooooooooong shot], the configuration of a plant is all wrong in an area where tolerances are quite intolerant. [More info than you could ever want to know here.])

Probably the absolute worst that could be done with remote software would be a chernobyl-type event. And that assumes the target country's engineers blithly accept any plans given to them without taking a single look at fail-off safety measures (i.e. plant shuts down when critical failures occur rather than heating up further like the soviet design did). More likely you'd have either a minor three-mile-island type thing or a passive shutdown (no lights, but no harmful releases either).

Re:Nuclear reactors

[pkphilip]

India has its own nuclear reactors - including indigneously developed ones. The nuclear deal is primarily intended to allow India to purchase nuclear fuel including the rights to reprocess fuel.

Re:Nuclear reactors

[Anonymous Coward]

Having spent some time working in the nuclear industry, the control of safety critical nuclear systems rarely (if ever) relies on software. The nuclear industry is very, very cautious will usually stick with old, proven technology and techniques where possible. Hence the most nuclear reactor likely still use techniques developed before computer control was available.

Re:Nuclear reactors

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The specifics of why X != Y far overflows the capacity of the /. comment system.

Basically, it's like the difference between fertiliser and semtex.

Re:Nuclear reactors

[ghoul]

The main reason for signing the deal is scale. India has nuclear reactors and nuclear scientists but they are very few in number. At the same time India wants to raise the proportion of electricity from nukes from 3% currently to 20% in 10 years. Thats why the deal is being signed with the assumption the Americans will come in and install hundreds of reactors . Given the serious shortage of trained Indian nuclear personnel I doubt it would be possible to thoroughly check the installations and it would mostly be on trust. It basically comes down to the fact that India needs a lot of nuclear scientists and technicians but not enough come out of Indian colleges so they are outsourcing to the US where there are huge numbers of out of work trained nuclear professionals . The reason for this is twofold In India because of the software boom almost all students study software nowadays and there is a serious shortage of Engineers in all other fields. In the US a huge core of nuclear professionals was created during the cold war but they dont have work as no new nuke plants have been built since 3 Mile Island and even most military nuke projects have been cut.
Also while a nuke plant cant go critical like a bomb being able to shutdown 20% of electirc power and have 100s of 3 mile Islands at the command of software is still frightening unless the software can be trusted completely.

Yeah right.....

[warrior_s]

Go ahead and cancel the order...
It seems that europeans are threatening everybody lately... ahem... but microsoft deserves it ;)

Re:Yeah right.....

[l3v1]

europeans are threatening everybody lately

A very interesting point of view... Not.

An analogy to Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how the world's going. Users begin to demand open products. Vendors must comply, and prove to the satisfaction of users that there are no backdoors.

Re:An analogy to Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider this is a fighter jet not a networked router, I don't think they're worried about 'backdoors' as much as they are concerned about future upgrades to the software being controlled by one vendor.

Command Navigation Program

[Swifti]

More info about the Joint Strike Fighter's navigation software here.

No order yet

[El Cabri]

I don't think that the UK has ordered any JSF yet. What they did is pay part of the development costs, in return for the promise of a share of the industrial pie when the plane enters production. Their high level of financial participation was also supposed to buy them some input in the specification and some sharing of classified technologies, but the Americans largely didn't carry out that part of the deal, which has provoked transatlantic tension lately.

The JSF is supposed to equip the RNs future carrier ships around around 2015. However as a response to the US Congress looking at cancelation of plans for a Rolls-Royce engine equiped version of the JSF, the British have hinted that they could very well start developing a naval version of the Eurofighter Typhoon, or even consider the already operationnal naval version of the French Rafale.

Re:No order yet

[gurudyne]

"US Congress looking at cancelation(sic) of plans for a Rolls-Royce engine equiped(sic) version"

Not quite. There are two engine versions right now. The primary version, F135, is by Pratt-Whitney. It uses Rolls-Royce LiftFan (c) components for the F-35B STOVL. After the first several dozen engine/fan sets, GE was supposed to be able to bid with its F136, which has slightly greater RR partnership with the core turbojet and still uses RR LiftFan components. In other words ALL F-35B aircraft will use the LiftFan components.

RR gets a large slice of the engine pie regardless. It is just slightly larger with the possible GE participation. One of the ideas here is with a competitor's version as an option, there can be a bidding war in the taxpayers' favor.

And, until they mount bayonet lugs on the F-35B pitot tube, it won't really be a close ground support aircraft.

Re:No order yet

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition to the F136 engine cancellation by the Pentagon (Congress may yet reinstate funding for development), the UK is concerned about the US' stance on technology transfer. The US doesn't want to release technology, source code, methods, etc to them. The British contend that they've paid for some of the development of said technology and are also themselves competent of developing similarly capable technolgies.

Re: No order yet

[Black Parrot]

> the British have hinted that they could very well start developing a naval version of the Eurofighter Typhoon, or even consider the already operationnal naval version of the French Rafale.

When they start talking about buying from the French, they're probably just trying to get out panties in a bunch.

Re: No order yet

[El Cabri]

Well they already have contracted out the design of the aforementionned carrier ships to a French company.

Re:No order yet

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition to having competition to control pricing, it also allows for the fleet to fly if there is some critical problem with either engine. The entire fleet isn't grounded in that case. When it's your front-line fighter, that's a pretty significant consideration. However, in today's budget environment, I'd say they're hoping for no problems in the future or simply delaying development until for money is available.

Re:No order yet

[Darth_brooks]

Like there's ever been a decent US built aircraft powered by a Rolls-Royce engine.....

(unless you wanna count this)

Re:No order yet

[Azghoul]

The Brits are already getting (or will get with agreements already in place) more than we wanted to give 'em.

This is like any major deal - you try to work the other side to get as much as you can, then settle for somewhat less. No big deal.

Re:No order yet

[tengwar]

Nah, definitely not, unless you want to count this.

Folks, the Cold War is over

[ross.w]

If the USians are going to play this type of game, maybe we should buy from the Russians instead?

Australia bought French at least once (Mirage III) and the last two times we bought US (F111 and F18) we got totally done over. I don't know why we keep going back.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[aussie_a]

the last two times we bought US (F111 and F18) we got totally done over. I don't know why we keep going back.

Probably part of the FTA. Wouldn't surprise me.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[ross.w]

Well I can't call you an American 'cause then I'd offend the people in Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, etc.

They're part of America too you know.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[j. andrew rogers]

I don't know why we keep going back.

Probably because the US has an aggressive R&D program that routinely produces superior combat aircraft systems. In the case of Australia specifically, they also get access (being old steady allies) to really fancy avionics and electronics packages which have no peer in the world of weaponry. The airframes and powerplants are extremely good too.

The airframe and powerplant is only modestly important in modern combat aircraft, though the US is very good at this type of design. The real selling point to countries like Australia is that they get more advanced versions of the software, electronics, and sensors -- the parts responsible for lethality and survivability to a very large extent -- which are one of the real strengths of US military R&D. The US will sell stripped down fighter jets to just about anyone, but they are very selective about the avionics as that is where the real capability lies in modern combat aviation. JSF is being sold with some very slick capabilities built-in; not quite F-22 level, but pretty close in many respects. Nobody else is selling anything comparable, and the closest competitor is the Eurofighter.

Australia buys US aircraft because the US is willing to sell it very advanced avionics and electronics for those aircraft. The US has no competitor at the very high-end of the quality/effectiveness market, which for military purposes is pretty important, particularly if you are a non-populous country like Australia that cannot rely on quantity to make up the difference.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[really?]

People put up with a snotty maitre d' for the same reason: value. In this case avionics.
The Russians have often made equally good, and sometimes better airframes, but, it's the avionics that matter most.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[dorkygeek]

Hehe, USian fits you damn well. You don't seem to know the slightest bit outside your little world, do you?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29:

Many pundits such as the Federation of American Scientists recognize that in an individual match-up, the MiG-29 is potentially better than the F-15 Eagle or F-16 Falcon.

Russian fighters are indeed pretty good!

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would North Americans and South Americans be offended at that? They're part of the Americas, not part of "America," the common name for the country known as the United States of America.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

They're part of America too you know.

There is no geographical feature called "America". Maybe you meant to say "Western Hemisphere"?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[dorkygeek]

We got there first. "We" were the United States for 34 years before Mexico was. So, in the spirit of "first come, first served"

So how comes that the name "America" was coined long before you even had enough land to unite?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Moofie]

Russian AIRFRAMES are superb. Russian engines are pretty OK, but not as reliable, and much more labor intensive to maintain. Russian avionics are crap. If you don't know how these facts impact an air battle, you don't have an educated opinion on the subject.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[c6gunner]

Heh, sure, if by "individual matchup" you mean what the indian airforce did when they "won" a competition against US fighters: basicaly designing the exercise to prohibit the use of advanced avionics or missiles with a range in excess of the ones available to the Indian airforce.

What your highly vaunted "pundits" are refering to is the fact that the MiG-29 has flight characteristics and capabilities which meet or exceed those of comparale US fighters. What they fail to mention is that fighters are these days simply platforms for electronics suites and a payload. The days of fighters swooping around locked in a dog-fight-to-the-death are long gone. Anyone who attempts to engage the US ariforce in that type of combat will survive just long enough to realize just how stupid they really are.

Ofcourse, the other important consideration for any NATO country looking to buy a fighter is interoperability. Buy an F-18, or the new JSF, and you're gauranteed to be able to work side by side with the major players. Buy a MiG and you'll be relegated to the airforces version of KP duty.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Lord Pillage]

To be honest, none of us are proud to be Americans though.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another example of the great work of the the American state sector of the economy. More productive than any private sector ever.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[killjoe]

Why does Australia need such high power weaponry anyway? When was the last time they were attacked by anybody? Are the kiwis that much of a threat they AU has to arm itself with the latest in sophisticated weaponry?

It seems to me that all this expensive aircraft is nothing but a transfer of funds from the pockets of the AU taxpayers into the pocket of the military industrial complex.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[TubeSteak]

The US has no competitor at the very high-end of the quality/effectiveness market,

Ummm... the Ruskies?

I'm sure they'll get around to developing a stealthy aircraft one of these days. And when they do, it'll be able to land on a dirt strip w/gear up not destroy itself.

The F-35 just got downrated in it's stealth capabilities & now countries (UK, Aussies and others) are saying "WTF, why should we buy that when it can't even compete with the Sukhoi Flankers.

Here's the article I read a few days ago It's on the end of page 1 & beginning of page 2 that they explain why exactly the JSF is going to suck.

The airframe and powerplant is only modestly important in modern combat aircraft, though the US is very good at this type of design.

Actually, everyone and their cousin is worried about the sole engine design for the new F-22 and F-35. The military types think it'd be a disaster if Pratt & Whitney is the only company that sells a suitable engine. GE & Rolls Royce have a joint program to design an alternate turbojet and they're lobbying hard to maintain their funding.

So, I'm sorry to directly contradict you, but the powerplant is absolutely critical. So critical, that the DoD is willing to pump billions into making sure there is a completely separate engine design that can be used. Not to mention that if you read the linked articles above, the F35 got downrated because the airframe design is less stealthy when you're looking up the exhaust.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

'The airframe and powerplant is only modestly important in modern combat aircraft, though the US is very good at this type of design.'

If they are very good at this type of thing, how come they tried for ages to make a VTOL aircraft and failed?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Give yourself to the dork side!

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[killjoe]

"The days of fighters swooping around locked in a dog-fight-to-the-death are long gone. Anyone who attempts to engage the US ariforce in that type of combat will survive just long enough to realize just how stupid they really are. "

Isn't it funny that the only people who realize this are Al Quada? Osama is waging a long term war of attrition by making america spend as much money as possible while spending very little on his part (he has publicly said this is his strategy). Osama is waging a long term war like the one he waged in Afghanistan against russia.

I guess the whole idea of missilies, fighter jets etc have become moot hasn't it. The next bomb that explodes in the US will not come from a missile or a fighter jet. It will simply be in the trunk of a car or planted in the basement of an important building.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[cerberus4696]

Why do you need fire insurance for your house? When was the last time your house burned down?

Just because something is unlikely, doesn't make it stupid to prepare for it.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[TubeSteak]

The days of fighters swooping around locked in a dog-fight-to-the-death are long gone.

People are pissing all over the F-35 (another JSF stealth fighter/bomber/everything) because it can't go toe to toe with the SU-35.

People are also worried that these planes won't be able to win against 'new' planes. The Ruskies have been sitting on the designs for the SU37 and SU47 because they haven't been able to find anyone to buy it from them.

The next Gen of Sukhoi fighters are going to be every bit as mean as anything the West turns out, and they'll probably have better flight characteristics too.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[killjoe]

Houses burn all the time, lots of houses burned down in my city, two in my neighborhood alone.

If I lived in a country in which no house had ever burned down since it's founding then I would not buy fire insurance.

So tell me, who is going to be attacking Australia? Who is going to attack them from the air so that the aussies break out their new shiny fighter jets and smite them. The kiwis? the philipinas? the south koreans? the balinese? The fighting fijians?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'd really appreciate it if they'd change their name to "Old Mexico", thanx.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[j. andrew rogers]

The F-35 just got downrated in it's stealth capabilities [google.com] & now countries (UK, Aussies and others) are saying "WTF, why should we buy that when it can't even compete with the Sukhoi Flankers.

The F-35 was designed from inception as an exportable combat aircraft. It is the replacement for the F16/F18, does not have all the features and capabilities of the F-22, and is intended to be "strippable". On the other hand, it is a lot cheaper than the F-22. It can properly be placed somewhere in between Cold War era combat jets (F14/F15/F16/F18) and the current state-of-the-art (F22).

As for the Russians, they can produce good airframes and decent powerplants, but they lack sophistication in the high-end electronics/software/sensors that pretty much make or break a combat aircraft today. The Russians are not producing anything better than western Europe these days, and are slipping further behind because they cannot afford to spend the kind of money required to keep up. A Sukhoi Flanker would be dead right around the time it even knew it was being engaged. The only comparable jet to the F-35 is the Eurofighter platform, though the capability mix is different.

While I understand why the F-35 was developed, it is kind of an ugly and unremarkable jet. It is still very capable, particularly with the smashing avionics/software the US can put in the thing, but was never designed to be the "ultimate" anything. Of course, the F16 has a similar history but turned out to be an extremely successful combat aircraft.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia is a western country. Right on our northern shore lies Indonesia, the most populist muslim country in the world. Join the dots for a surprising picture! Indonesia has been complicit in sending bucketloads of 'refugees' to our country (bad for us, and for the boat people), and their terrorists (home grown, not imported like in Iraq) have on several occasions targeted Australia/western interests.

Just to make matters worse, Indonesia has some pretty spiffy aircraft themselves (Su-27s and F-16s). Since the crisis in East Timor the US had stopped the supply of spare parts (which is why they bought the Sukhois) but last year resumed the sales. Thanks, Jackasses.

Instead of screwing your allies on their arms purchases, why don't you actually help us and stop selling stuff to our enemy.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[lbrandy]

Here's the article I read a few days ago It's on the end of page 1 & beginning of page 2 that they explain why exactly the JSF is going to suck.

The airframe and powerplant is only modestly important in modern combat aircraft, though the US is very good at this type of design.

Don't believe the hype. Time after time in aviation history has shown that every time "dogfighting" was supposed to be dead, and designs were advanced, that it wasn't quite as dead as they thought, and people died because of the mistake.

There is a reason that the F15 and the F22 were designed the way they were... to learn the lessons from Korea and Vietnam with the sabres and phantoms. Never underestimate the importance of speed, either. When you are faster, you control the engagement. You can run at any time, and they cannot.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[forgotten_my_nick]

>Buy Russian, go ahead.

Some of the russian stuff I have seen is far ahead of the US in some areas and the US stole the ideas after seeing them.

I remember seeing the Su-37 at an airshow where nothing any other country had could match it for maneuverability at that time. Meanwhile the stealth fighter brought in by the US got tracked by one of the EU missile tracking systems that was at the show.

Or another article I saw on Russians inventing torpedos that could move at incredible speeds by the use of Supercavitation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[shutdown -p now]

When comparing Russian and Western developments in military technology, one should always bear in mind the following two sayings:

Quantity has a quality all its own
- attributed to Joseph Stalin

You need five of your tanks to destroy a single German one, but you always have six
- attributed to an anonymous German tank soldier

Regardless of their dubious historical accuracy, they pretty much sum up the way Soviet, and later Russian military approach things. This is immediately evident when you include the cost per unit in the comparison table. Russian offerings usually cost 2 to 4 times less than the Western aircraft they are designed to combat.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[digitalchinky]

I'm not saying they would invade, but two countries that come to mind with the potential to attack are Singapore and Indonesia. Within Australian defence circles, Indonesia is looked at on a daily basis. Also Singapore has a defence budget that makes our GDP look like pocket change.

The Philippines are largely allied and not a threat militarily - though economically there is huge wealth in the country, they are a peaceful bunch of islands anyway, with no need to invade.

The South Korean military is aided by the US, they have no reason to attack anyone to the south.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

you are an idiot. if a world war broke out with a major superpower (read china) you would be thanking your lucky stars for every country that bought advanced military equipment that the 'have never needed before'

are you aware that australia has fought alongside the americans in nearly every war we have been in? maybe these fighter jets won't be used in a defensive war inside their territory, but the australians might need them anyway.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Don_dumb]

I guess the whole idea of missilies, fighter jets etc have become moot hasn't it.

My guess is, that isn't the marketing line Lockheed Martin, Boeing and BAE Systems are going for right now.
These big deals are as much to do with employment as they are, defence.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[kfg]

When was the last time they were attacked by anybody?

The mainland within living memory. If you include attacks on its embassies, Sep. 9, 2004.

When was the last time Australia attacked anyone (military equipment gets used both ways)?

Now.

KFG

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[lendude]

So the next time George starts a fight somewhere North of us we can hitch along for the ride with the US (as befits our yes-sir role in the 'war-on-terror') with some useful equipment?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[killjoe]

"I'm not saying they would invade, but two countries that come to mind with the potential to attack are Singapore and Indonesia."

Are you an aussie? Let me presume for a while that you are.

You are paying taxes, if it's like most other european countries you are paying hefty taxes. So is it worth paying all these taxes to get new fighter planes just on the off, off, off, off, off chance that singapore will attack you in a manner which will neccesitate the use of fighter planes to defend yourself?

In the US we spend money on the military because we wage war every election or so. We love war, we engage in it constantly, and as a result lots of people hate us and want to kill us. Australia is not like that as far as I can see. Sure howard has his nose up GWs butt like blair does but that's more of an exception then a rule.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[digitalchinky]

I wouldn't be so quick to say the russians are not producing good product, one example is the slotback radar in the Mig 29 - it is easily as good as anything built in recent times by any other country. (I'm an ex ELINT weenie so I can speak with some knowledge on the subject)

The Russians are as good as anyone else. This whole stealth thing is rendered fairly useless by using multiple ground receivers in ones radar system anyway.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[j. andrew rogers]

Time after time in aviation history has shown that every time "dogfighting" was supposed to be dead, and designs were advanced, that it wasn't quite as dead as they thought, and people died because of the mistake.

I do not disagree with this in general; the demise of many things have been prematurely anticipated. However, most of those things *did* eventually meet their demise, albeit not on the timelines of the prognosticators. The analog to this is armor. The US is field-testing several weapon systems now that will obsolete all types of mobile armor for the foreseeable future -- the operating parameters are such that no normal molecular material of any type can withstand the weapons as a matter of physics. Armor/anti-armor has been an arms race for a very long time, but it looks like it will be settled shortly. The US military research is dealing with the situation by switching strategies: rather than carrying armor that is worthless anyway, develop active defenses that can intercept incoming weapons so that you do not get touched. And so it goes on.

The reality for combat aircraft is that beyond-visual-range (BVR) weapon systems have become so advanced and so effective today that dogfighting really is largely dead when using these systems. Note that the US has very advanced BVR capability, most other countries are still seriously limited in this regard and so would be dogfighting quite a bit in their conflicts. The US saw the future as it developed the first effective BVR guided missile systems, but the platforms at the time could in no way deliver the future that they were seeing. Several decades later that future is actually here as originally envisioned, as the lethality and effectiveness have incrementally improved. Slow evolutionary steps.

Speed, range, situational awareness, and seeing the other guy before he sees you are crucial capabilities. The F-35 primarily exploits US capabilities in the last two categories for its advantage, which provides a huge amount of bang for the buck in modern warfare. Systems like the F-22 have a remarkable array of really excellent capabilities, but it costs a lot of money to produce a combat aircraft that is that good in so many dimensions that may be effectively preempted by other capabilities in practice.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[10Ghz]

The real selling point to countries like Australia is that they get more advanced versions of the software, electronics, and sensors -- the parts responsible for lethality and survivability to a very large extent -- which are one of the real strengths of US military R&D.

When Finland bought F/A-18's from USA they were the top-of-the-line planes back then (and they are very, very good even today). Now, fighter-aircraft have a system which transmits data between the plane and the ground and integrates the plane in to the greater whole, and the Hornet is no exception. One of the first things we did was to rip the US-designed system out, and replaced it with a Finnish design, for the sole reason that the US system was just plain inferior.

The US has no competitor at the very high-end of the quality/effectiveness market

Europe and their Eurofighter Typhoon? Like it or not, that is a VERY capable aircraft. F-22 might be a bit better, but F-22 also costs a lot more. And according to the only pilot that has actually flown both, they are neck and neck. He does say that F-22 has supercruise, but The Typhoon has it as well.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[mpe]

So tell me, who is going to be attacking Australia? Who is going to attack them from the air so that the aussies break out their new shiny fighter jets and smite them.

Which they couldn't do with the fighters the RAAF currentlty has...

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[JJSpreij]

they also get access (being old steady allies) to really fancy avionics and electronics packages which have no peer in the world of weaponry

But which do not manage to intercept 4 big planes flying around for over an hour. There may of course be other explanations for this.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[j. andrew rogers]

This whole stealth thing is rendered fairly useless by using multiple ground receivers in ones radar system anyway.

Very true, for first generation stealth technologies. By most accounts, the US is currently using a third generation stealth technology that bears little resemblance to early capabilities and shares little engineering -- arguably apples and oranges. It is easy to dismiss US stealth capability, but the US has an unparalleled amount of (highly classified) institutional knowledge on stealthy design that spans many decades which continues to evolve rapidly. In practice, US military design tends to prove competent and with very few weaknesses that did not occur to the designers.

A few different countries are producing UWB radars of a type similar to current versions common on existing US aircraft, which have a lot of really nice characteristics. I expect the F-35 will use a similar type of radar, at least on the export versions, and I would assume the US has a lot of capability for dealing with this type of radar given their experience with it. The F-22 is rumored to have a radar that is a generation ahead of these systems which has some spectacular properties, a nearly ideal implementation of the concept.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[dynamic_cast]

Don't even speak for me with those words.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[10Ghz]

Your way of thinking is naive way of thinking. Remember the "peace in our lifetime"-bullshit? No-one thought back then that war was imminent. Had you asked Finns in 1938 or early 1939 that "would you believe that USSR is going to attack Finland?", the typical answer would have been "No fucking way!". And look what happened. Hell, before the war people and politicians believed that there is no way there could be a war, and military received very little funding since it was thought to be useless. And when the war did start, they didn't even have uniforms for everyone, and air-force consisted of handful of obsolete planes, and artillery was basically out of ammo right from the start. And still, we have people saying "There is no way there's going to be a war, so why spend money on preparing for one?", when history clearly shows that such thinking is very short-sighted.

And besides: building a military takes a long time. You can't simply not spend any money or resources on it, and then re-build it from scratch in a short period of time. What if Australia dismantled their military, and few years from now they noticed that "Shit, China/Indonesia is about to invade us in just few months time!". They couldn't build an effective defence against it. They might draft handful of people, give them some training and assault-rifles and that's it. No advanced weapons-systems, no airforce, no effective navy, and no effective defence.

A wise man once said: "There will always be an army inside the country. Either your own, or someone elses."

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Why does Australia need such high power weaponry anyway?

Have you SEEN the size of those cane toads?!

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[dbIII]

Australia buys US aircraft because the US is willing to sell it very advanced avionics and electronics for those aircraft

It's a lot simpler than that - as the obsolete and no longer manufactured submarine torpedo deal which required the Australian submarines to be modified showed. In a lot of cases it's just simple political pressure from elements of the US government to buy things from specific US companies even when some of the competition are other US companies.

As for the UK wanting the software - there's a story purported to be true that the US radar system used in a destroyer in the Falklands war tagged an incoming missile as friendly because it was made in France and it didn't show up on the radar display. Useful feature in an exercise - but not when Argentinians are sinking your destroyers with them.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[j. andrew rogers]

When Finland bought F/A-18's from USA they were the top-of-the-line planes back then (and they are very, very good even today). Now, fighter-aircraft have a system which transmits data between the plane and the ground and integrates the plane in to the greater whole, and the Hornet is no exception. One of the first things we did was to rip the US-designed system out, and replaced it with a Finnish design, for the sole reason that the US system was just plain inferior.

Not suprising at all. There is a thriving vibrant market in aftermarket avionics for US warplanes, primarily because the US is rarely willing to sell really capable avionics with their aircraft. The US sells really nice combat jets with somewhat substandard avionics, which are then replaced with third-party avionics immediately after the sale. It is a very, very common story. It is also why we will happily sell combat aircraft to unfriendly countries; they may get something that looks like a US warplane, but the avionics are likely obsolete and grossly inferior.

I think few people doubt the quality and capability of US avionics, it is just that those systems almost never leave the US military. In fact, there are several different tiers of avionics that the US will sell with its aircraft depending on the buyer, none of which have the full capabilities of a top-line US military avionics. In this day and age, avionics are the soul of a combat aircraft.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[olman]

People are pissing all over the F-35 (another JSF stealth fighter/bomber/everything) because it can't go toe to toe with the SU-35.

Reasonable enough attitude considering Sukhoi makes nice sales in India/China/Insert-Rising-Industrial-country-here.

People are also worried that these planes won't be able to win against 'new' planes. The Ruskies have been sitting on the designs for the SU37 and SU47 because they haven't been able to find anyone to buy it from them.

I'd take Sukhoi marketing material with an unhealthy dose of salt. They know about "marketing B$==Sales", after all. Same as people taking Lockheed sales pitch about outdated air combat as gospel.. That's the attitude which lead into removing cannon from the Phantom. And what a great decision that was!

Sukhoi planes have superior handling but "user interface" is a bit .. Russian. No glass cockpit there as drinking is not allowed while controlling a jet fighter!

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Though I got marked as a troll I spoke to the Russian battle tank. The damn thing dropped its transmission after 16 hours. 16 HOURS. As for planes, fine, Russia bests an F15 or an F16, what about the F22? What has your country produced? Sure, a mig would beat a mustang as well. What is your point other than I am an ignorant USian, you bigot?

And as for "You don't seem to know the slightest bit outside your little world, do you?" you have no idea what I know or what I do not know. You seem to have a prejudice against Americans (United States citizens). Does hating or having a prejudice against an entire group of people make you feel good? Do you like black people?

What do I know? Why don't you tell me since you seem to know? How many countries have I visited? How many degrees do I hold? How many companies have I owned? I'm just a stupid USian after all. It should be easy for some pompous non-USian such as you. How many children have I had? If you're European, with your negative birthrate, I can make guesses about you.

One thing that I need to know, if USians are so stupid and only know so little why does the USians have the largest economy in the world? How about the largest military? Why do we defeat all of your businesses in almost every front? If Bush is so stupid, why does this administration show the UN to be corrupts, France to be incompetent, and allowed to roll its war machine wherever it sees fit? If you are so smart why do you allow so many unassimilated immigrants into your countries? Why do political cartoonists and even elected politicians need to fear for their lives? Why did France experience almost a month of riots and a horrible attack on one of their trains on New Years? What about the rapes in Sweden? What's wrong with you people?

If a USian is so stupid, why are you constantly defeated, perhaps even humiliated? What do you lack that makes you such a failure given that all these USians beat you? Hell, you have to demand software from us for the planes THAT YOU BUY. You are pathetic.

If we're so stupid and have such a limited world view, what the fuck is your excuse? I have a small world view? You built a strawman and pointed to an old generation US war plane. Who exactly has a limited view here? Good lord our stupid late night hosts influence your elections. No wonder you hate us.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[10Ghz]

I think few people doubt the quality and capability of US avionics, it is just that those systems almost never leave the US military.

I don't think people are questioning the quality of US Engineering overall. What people are questioning is the claim that US Tech is superior, bar none. I think that USA just has shinier PowerPoint-presentations that some of the other countries do ;).

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[dunkelfalke]

soviet avionics were indeed crap, although mig-29 had already helmet targeting. newer soviet avionics are pretty much as good as the western ones.
the engines are also getting more reliable.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why we keep going back.

Because our illustrious PM has a deep and abiding man-lust for George W. Bush? Sell us rusty ex-USN boats that cost 3x as much to return to operational status as we paid for them? Great! Sell us jets with obsolete weapons systems that are falling apart? Wonderful!

I think it was all the "Thank you sir may I have another?" forced homoerotic beatings and psych programming that little Johnny got as a lad while in private boys-only boarding school.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[killjoe]

"The mainland within living memory. If you include attacks on its embassies, Sep. 9, 2004."

How would new fighter jets have helped in that case?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

I flew around in a MIG-29. One of the radar modes is way cool: say you want to track a target using the radar, because you're going to bang off a weapon at it that needs a radar lock. But it you track the target, it knows. And if you lock to the target, it really knows. Radar's like searching in a dark room with a flashlight and foghorn: everyone know's you're there and what you're looking at. So there's a mode with an IR eyeball which can be slaved to the pilot's helmet and the radar. Basically, the aircraft knows you want to use the radar, but if IR tracking works, it automagically uses that instead, only actually illuminating the target with radar when the target drops into cloud, or goes outside the IR tracking cone, or when the weapon is released. If I saw it in a MiG-29, I can only imagine it's got better since.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[daBass]

The days of fighters swooping around locked in a dog-fight-to-the-death are long gone

That's what they said in Vietname too and lowly old Mig 15s were blasting Phantoms out of the sky 1:1 until the navy started the Top Gun program, which changed the rate to something like 10:1 in favor of the US. The airforce didn't have a program like it and had to make do with a measly 2:1 ratio in air-to-air engagements until the end of the war.

The truth is that even in this day of "beyond visual range", in anything but an all-out war ("anything that crosses the line is a target"), visual ID still has to be made most of the time. In Gulf War one, most kills were done using Sidewinder misiles and guns at close range. Not that that gave the poorly trained and controled Iraqi pilots any chance, of course.

Anyone who attempts to engage the US ariforce in that type of combat will survive just long enough to realize just how stupid they really are

That is not entirely correct. You are right when comparing to the poorly trained Mig-toting airforces without proper command and control structures. (IE: AWACS and advanced data links)

But western european manufacturers (Eurofighter, Saab) are designing their own ("NATO compatible") systems and most western European airforces have excelent training and command and would do just fine. In fact, they do just fine during joint training excercises with all the gimmicks turned on on both sides. I don't think any US pilot would assume a war with, say, Britain to be a turkey shoot.

The Raptor is a different story altogether, though. Stealth works and one can race up to you and blast you out of the sky without you ever knowing it was there. As one F-15 pilot on the receiving end described it: "it's rather scary".

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Wyatt Earp]

Not so neck and neck.

Here is the quote by the only pilot who has flown both.
In March 2005, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper, then the only person to have flown both the Typhoon and the Raptor, talked to Air Force Print News about these two aircraft. He said that "the Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F/A-22 Raptor. They are different kinds of airplanes to start with; it's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula 1 car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance".

  Gen. John P. Jumper, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff, flew the Raptor faster than Mach 1.7 without afterburners on January 13, 2005. The absence of variable intake ramps may make speeds greater than Mach 2.0 unreachable, but there is no evidence to prove this. Such ramps would be used to prevent engine "flame-out", which is caused when too much air extinguishes the engine's "pilot light", but the intake itself may be designed to prevent such flame-outs. Former Lockheed Raptor chief test pilot Paul Metz says the Raptor has a fixed inlet. Paul Metz has also stated that the F-22 has a top speed greater than 1600 mph (Mach 2.42) and its climb rate is faster than the F-15 Eagle. This is due to the fact that the F-22 is one of the few western aircraft with a thrust to weight ratio significantly greater than 1:1. The true top speed of the F-22 is largely unknown, as engine power is only one factor. The ability of the airframe to withstand the stress and heat from friction is a key factor, especially in an aircraft using as many polymers as the F-22. However, while some aircraft are faster on paper, the internal carriage of its standard combat load allows the aircraft to reach comparatively higher performance with a heavy load than other modern aircraft due to its lack of drag from external stores.

Not "neck and neck" but different aircraft for different roles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_2000s_f ighter_aircraft#DERA_study
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

In March 2003, during a combat training flight, 1 F-22A went against 5 F-15C Eagles. During the exercise, the F-22A shot down all F-15's without being damaged

In addition, the F-22 has a superior radar to the Typhoon in the Raytheon and Northrop Grumman AN/APG-77 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar

Typhoon's powerplants - 2× Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofans, 60 kN dry, 90 kN with afterburner (13,500 lbf / 20,200 lbf) each
Raptor's powerplants - 2× Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofans, >35,000 lb (160 kN) each

Raptor's warload - It is estimated that internal bays can carry about 20,000 lb (10,000 kg) worth of bombs, and/or missiles. Four external hardpoints can be fitted to carry weapons or fuel tanks, each with a capacity of 5,000 lb (2,000 kg), albeit at the expense of stealth. Maximum gross takeoff weight: 80,000 lb (37,000 kg)

Typhoon's warload, all external, four BVRAAMs and two IR AAMs. Maximum gross takeoff weight: 21,000 kg (46,300 lb), "austere air-to-ground".

In early 2006, Lieutenant Colonel Jim Hecker, commander of the 27th Fighter Squadron (FS) at Langley commented to Jane's Defence Weekly (18th jan. 2006) that: "We killed 33 F-15Cs and didn't suffer a single loss," he said. "They didn't see us at all." after an exercise with 8 F-22's in Nevada in Nov. 2005. In that exercise, a group of 4 F-22s assaulted a simulated air-defence network of SA-10 and SA-12s, they opened a hole in the network so that B-2, B-52 and B-1s could come in, then another group of 4 F-22s engaged F-15Cs and defeated them 33 to 0.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

you are an idiot. if a world war broke out with a major superpower (read china) you would be thanking your lucky stars for every country that bought advanced military equipment that the 'have never needed before'

Actually, I think I'd be a bit too busy being fucked, along with the rest of the world. If the US and China get involved in a war, whoever loses is going to take everyone else with them.

You may think that's silly, but I don't doubt for one second that both sides are manned by fuckers crazy enough to do us all in if it becomes clear they aren't going to get what they want. You confident enough in the leadership of either country to say differently?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Fred_A]

French missiles are friendly, they all come standard with a bouquet of flowers and a bottle of champagne !

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[pimpimpim]

Now, fighter-aircraft have a system which transmits data between the plane and the ground and integrates the plane in to the greater whole, and the Hornet is no exception. One of the first things we did was to rip the US-designed system out, and replaced it with a Finnish design, for the sole reason that the US system was just plain inferior.

Yeah, I guess they weren't so advanced in the days, and I understand you didn't want to do less than a 60.000 color display, polyphonic ringtones, and a camera with flash of course! Gotta love that nokia thechnology ;)

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Netsnipe]

> When was the last time Australia attacked anyone (military equipment gets used both ways)?

Iraq: March 20, 2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Will ing

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Martigan80]

Well just a note about the F-22...where is it? I mean we have 2 whole squadrons of them after how many years? And what of their fighting capabilities? We will never know unless we go to another war; come to think of it Iran still has those F-15's we gave them in the 70's so maybe we can test them there.

But drones and "war games' will never truly test the planes and the pilots. We can have all this speculative data the companies' sell the government but it comes to real world applications. Not lets see, the B-1 useless, B-2 useless, F-117 useless; now let see here the C-130 can't beat it, B-52 still working after all these years, A-10 still the best ground support out there. The F-16 and F-15 are still good planes and yet have plenty of life left in them and have many working modifications out there. Are military is just stuck in too much tape. I hope the F-22 won't flop like the other great planes we have invested so much money into.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Alioth]

If the days of dogfighting are gone - why even bother building fighters? Just build bombers with all the fancy beyond visual range combat abilities, and load them with hundreds of missiles. Why bother training fighter pilots in aerobatics?

I think it's because the US still knows that dogfighting is still a reality in air to air combat.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, nice comment. Lets compare 30 year old designs. Hell, while we're at it, did you know the T-34 was the best tank of WWII? What exactly that has to do with modern fighter designs I don't know, but apparently you do.

BTW the Soviet Union collapsed. FYI.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[10Ghz]

Not so neck and neck.

Well, yes:

"One advantage of having flown the Eurofighter, General Jumper said, is that it allows him to get first-hand knowledge of technology U.S. allies use and to see how America's handiwork stacks up. He said he believes the two aircraft are running neck-and-neck, but America must always be vigilant to ensure it stays on the cutting edge of aviation technology."

So he clearly disputes your claim of "they are not neck and neck". What you are doing is that you are looking at some paper-specs. He has actually flown both. Have you flown either of them? No? Then what makes you the expert on this field?

Here is the quote by the only pilot who has flown both.

I don't see any indication of "F-22 is better than Typhoon" in that quite. I see him saying that they are two different planes with different design-goals, so comparing them is difficult.

In March 2003, during a combat training flight, 1 F-22A went against 5 F-15C Eagles. During the exercise, the F-22A shot down all F-15's without being damaged

Two F-15's tried to ambush Typhoon during joint exercises. The Typhoon outmanouvered them both and shot them down. Of course, it wasn't 5:1 engagement, but it was an engagement where the F-15's started from behind the Typhoon, and the Typhoon-pilot didn't even know that they were planning to ambush him.

In addition, the F-22 has a superior radar to the Typhoon in the Raytheon and Northrop Grumman AN/APG-77 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar

Of course you can find individual mareas where F-22 is better than the Typhoon, and vice versa. Typhoon has superior man-machine interface and the AA-missile being developed for it is clearly superior (faster, longer range, more agile) to the AMRAAM that is used in the F-22.

What is this, a pissing-match? I quoted a pilot that has flown both. And he said that they are "neck and neck" (of course there are differences, since they have different design-goals). Then some Random slashdotter pulls some specs and claims "no, he's wrong. Just look at the specs!". While F-22 is usually placed before the Typhoon in AA-effectiveness, it should also be noted that F-22 costs over twice as much as the Typhoon does (F-22: $152M, Typhoon: $74M)

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[AGMW]

When you are faster, you control the engagement. You can run at any time, and they cannot.

Usually/Often true yes, but not always true. In the Falklands conflict the Argentinian fighter pilots in their supersonic jets couldn't use their afterburners during the dogfights with the British subsonic Harriers because they were right on the edge of their range, and using the afterburners meant they didn't have enough fuel to get back to Argentina!

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[ozmanjusri]

last two times we bought US (F111 and F18) we got totally done over.

Last two times? We've been done over EVERY time we've bought American. What about our museum-grade Seasprite helicopters? What about the clapped out, DU contaminated Abrams M-1 tanks? We don't even have the equipment for transporting the bloody things, but we're still paying top dollar.

Frankly, our defence procurement people are so inept its embarrasing.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[3.14159265]

Cue that scene in Dumb & Dumber, when Lloyd reads about Man landing on the moon:

"No Way! WE LANDED ON THE MOON!"

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[AGMW]

visual ID still has to be made most of the time. In Gulf War one, most kills were done using Sidewinder misiles and guns at close range.

... and they often killed the enemy too.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[x2A]

How would new fighter jets have helped in that case?

Nothing like jumping in a shiny new jet and blowing s**t up to take the stress off ;-)

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

>As for the Russians, they can produce good airframes and decent powerplants, but they lack sophistication

Just for the record, the F-35 is essentially a licence produced version of the russian Yakovlev Yak-141 fighter plane!

The original Yak-41 supersonic VTOL fighter interceptor plane had two prototypes that broke all world records for VTOL jet aircraft in 1988 with Mach 1.8 speed, but the demise of USSR stopped its funding for series production for small aircraft carrier ship use. In circa 1992-1994 the plane was redesigned by Yakovlev bureau as Yak-43 to feature land-based fighter-bomber functionality and dihedral sides for almost stealth level low radar-observability to compete in a state tender for the next-gen russian military aircraft. This is its outline of the Yak-43:
http://www.aviation.ru/Yak/Yak-43.jpg

It was disqualified for higher costs compared to traditional runway-based derivants of the Sukhoi-27 family and so only a static prototype mock was made of the Yak-43.

In 1995-1996 the Lockhead company purchased for several hundred million dollars of cash the blueprints, parts and technology of the Yak-41/43, including the revolutionary swivel afterburner turbojet engine.

They reworked the plane somewhat (replaced the vertical lift-only turbojets with a huge cardan-driven lifting fan), added more stealth and started to call it the USAF X-35 prototype. It won in comparison against the fat Boeing X-32 Mantaray plane and became designated as the F-35, but it is still essentially the russian plane. Credit is due where it is due.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[CAIMLAS]

And yet, they won't be worth a damn bit more than a Mig-17 or similar antiquated piece of junk given the training required. The big expense on all planes isn't so much the up front cost, but the individual pilot training and flight costs - much of which can be marginally deferred with flight simulators.

USAAF is still #1 on the global scene, and will be for quite some time... though Israel is #1 on a pilot-to-pilot basis. Russia isn't even in the running anymore.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

>The F-35 was designed from inception as an exportable combat aircraft.

If this were the truth then why on earth would the US allies have to pay extra to have various features removed??

Only two countries will have the real thing: the US and Israel.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Profound]

>> Instead of screwing your allies on their arms purchases, why don't you actually help us and stop selling stuff to our enemy.

Because it's more profitable that way? There are heaps of historical conflicts where the US has sold weapons to both sides (not going to mention one group because it would invoke Goodwins law)

Look at the recent history of the middle east:

-Reagan sells weapons to Iran
-Bush Sr sells weapons to Iraq
-Iran & Iraq blow each others weapons up (damn, we need more!)
-Bush Sr blows up old US weapons in Gulf 1 (obsolete losers, should have keep buying the latest shit!)
-Bush Jr invades Iraq, soon they'll need some cool new toys. I think Cheney might be able to hook them up with some dealers....

It's all about the money, what, do you think it is about "freedom"? China is as totalitarian as the Russians ever were, but the US love them because they sell cheap crap & loan cheap money. They don't see opressed masses, they see 1 billion extra consumers to sell coke to.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[1u3hr]

So tell me, who is going to be attacking Australia? Who is going to attack them from the air

Look at a map for God's sake. Do you notice a large archipelago just over a narrow strait? A nation with 10 times the population of Australia that has invaded neighbours several times in my memory. They could ship troops over by the million without a strong air and naval capacity to stop them. If Muslim fundamentalists came into power it could get very hostile overnight, considering our PM has sent out trops into Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention putting tropps in East Timor when it seceded from Indonesia (that was the right thing to do, though it pissed off the Indonesians).

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[xtracto]

No, they are part of North America.
The United States of America has America in it's name. Canada doesn't, Mexico doesn't, Brazil doesn't, Argentina doesn't. TTBOMK, no other country has "America" in it.
Mexico has a definite claim to be aggrivated when "we" simply call ourselves the "United States". But, guess what?
We got there first. "We" were the United States for 34 years before Mexico was. So, in the spirit of "first come, first served": stuff it, Mexico. As a gesture of friendship, though: how about we rename That State which bears a part of your name?

MMmm that depends where you live I guess.
I am from Mexico and America is and always have been a continent, no, we do not feel aggrivated when you call youserlves the "United States", as it just describes a property of your country.

Sadly, I have to tell you that the problem with your country is that it does not have a name, see, the name United States of America comes from as you said being one of the first countries formed by "uniting states" and it was made in America (the continent).

The North Amercia and South America split was just made up by the USA, in a kind of elitist way but, again North and South are just properties (in the north emisphere and south emisphere.

So you are right, America is a name, it is a name of the continent, that is why (living in the UK) I usually refer to people from the USA as darn... as that as "people from the usa", usually I would call them "gringos" but a lot of people do not understand.

Of course it all ends in how your government wants you to know, as, you will swear that North America and South America are two different continents because you saw it in your basic school but then again who do you thing is in control of that?.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[1u3hr]

I'm not saying they would invade, but two countries that come to mind with the potential to attack are Singapore and Indonesia.

Singapore? That's ridiculous. Their air force is to defend themselves from Malaysia or Indonesia, which could roll over them in a minute otherwise. If their prime minister went insane he could order an airstrike, as could half the countries in the world, but they have no capacity to actually "invade". Indonesia is a whole other story, of course. It could become a huge threat in a short time.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[rtechie]

I'm not saying they would invade, but two countries that come to mind with the potential to attack are Singapore and Indonesia. Within Australian defence circles, Indonesia is looked at on a daily basis. Also Singapore has a defence budget that makes our GDP look like pocket change

Indonesia, in addition to being battered by natural disasters, in currently fighting 2 (or is it 3?) civil wars. In fact, Australia recently invanded East Timor. Singapore is effectively a city-state that spends 1/4th as much money on defense and has 1/6th the GDP of Australia. The Singapore enonomy is totally dependent on trade and would collapse after a FEW MONTHS of blockade. Really, this is ridiclous. It's like claiming Hong Kong is going to invade Japan.

Australia (like Europe and the United States) faces little real threat from foreign agressors, and that includes China. The real threat is internal instability.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Russians may give you source code as well, but would you understand heavy use of acronyms in variables' and function's names, accompanied with comments in "latinized" russian? Besides, "old school" Russian engineers tend to prefer heavy math calculations over more comprehensable simple iterative algorythms. Unique, very optimized for a given data set, solutions are held in high regard (more done with less, greater the wizard). And, as a very special treat... latin as cyrilic: (B is V, C is S, P is R, X is H, Y is U) generates loads of fun!

Don't get me wrong, whatever jaleous Americans may say about Russian military technique, it works reliably and performs well, especially in terms of bang per buck, it is just that it is so uncomprehensible and ackward. If you've seen one system, you've seen ... one system.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[candiman]

Australia maintains its current fleet of F-111s because they are the only things around with the legs to fly from Aus, bomb Jakarta and return without refueling.

We buy American hardware because they are our number one military ally and it is all about standardised hardware in the field. If our allies are flying/driving/firing apples we don't want to be flying/driving/firing oranges.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Profound]

What if Australia dismantled their military, and few years from now they noticed that "Shit, China/Indonesia is about to invade us in just few months time!". They couldn't build an effective defence against it.

If China invaded, I think we'd all have to learn to say "Ni Hao".

The CIA World Fact Book

Manpower available for military service:

Australia: 4,943,676 (2005 est.)
China: 342,956,265 (2005 est.)

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

I am curious to know how much anger you have towards Europe and Asia being different continents. If you feel like talking down, at least treat everyone equally. Any excuse to berate the USA gets boring to me, and eventually makes alot of US citizens who may be on the side of your cause bored also.

C'mon world. Everything we do and every action we take is hated and deemed wrong. If we are always wrong, why bother trying to be right? Why should we care what you might think? Might as well just fuck 'em all, they are gonna bitch anyway.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[mcvos]

The Netherlands usually use US fighters (F104, a slightly adapted F5, and currently the F16), and it has always worked out quite well. So, looking for the next fighter jet, the JSF seemed to be the obvious choice, although a lot of politicians actually prefered the Eurofighter, because it's good enough and probably cheaper. But we paid $800 million for the right to help develop some parts of JSF, and now it turns out the JSF is going to be more expensive and sell less. I suspect we'll end up with the Eurofighter anyway, and the $800 million will have been mostly wasted.

But if you ask me, I don't know why we even need jet fighters at all. It's not like our neighbours are ever going to attack us, and we'll never be going to war without them and/or the US anyway. And compared to them, I doubt our tiny airforce helps much. If you ask me, we'd better concentrate on what we're good at: submarines, frigates and special forces that can operate without killing everybody in sight and upsetting the local population.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there an American 'phone company that even APPROACHES what Nokia do?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

The right to use, and access are two entirely different concepts. The US is strong arming Israel and Canada not to compete. The French will sell to anyone with the cash, and their stuff is not bad. China and Russia offer stuff that gets airborne. Add missiles and the difference is minimal.

Why Australia actually needs planes is a mystery, other than ceremonial crowd pleaser flyovers. No need for stealth, those pilotless overpriced toy planes we bought will suffice.

The US's only real edge is the implied threat - we shoot at everything that is not ours, and sometimes even our own.

Like jousting and cavarly charges, dogfights are as dead as the dodo. If money must be wasted, better to buy cheaper stuff. Let the US enjoy their RD&M program, whilst foreign countries suck the current account deficit to new highs.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Though I got marked as a troll I spoke to the Russian battle tank. The damn thing dropped its transmission after 16 hours. 16 HOURS.

No point in lasting any longer, with Russian tactics. I doubt soviet infantrymen in WW2 were issued with more than a day's rations, as they weren't going to live long enough to eat them. Heck, some didn't even have rifles - they were expected to pick one up from a fallen comrade.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[S3D]

Russian AIRFRAMES are superb. Russian engines are pretty OK, but not as reliable, and much more labor intensive to maintain. Russian avionics are crap.

Isreal avionics are superb from the other hand. Isreal avionics used in the export version of the russian K-52 Alligator gunship. Israel also won several contracts on the upgrade of the old russian fighters around the world.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats ok, we also help train their army.

So by that logic, we're also screwing ourselves.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[stinky wizzleteats]

Why does Australia need such high power weaponry anyway? When was the last time they were attacked by anybody? Are the kiwis that much of a threat they AU has to arm itself with the latest in sophisticated weaponry?

WTF? You ever hear of WWII?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[jo7hs2]

I believe only the F-35 has a single engine design (still stupid for Navy, but worked fine for F-16), while the F-22 is equipped with twin engines.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[10Ghz]

"manpower" means jack shit. How does China get those 342 million men in to Australia? On boats made of bamboo? What kind of weapons would they have? Sticks and spears? Yes, they could send wave after wave of men at their enemies in the battlefield. But what good does it do if they are wiped out before they can even see their foe? What good does it do if they starve to death because they have no means to supply them?

Besides, your figures merely show the number of men that are of right age to serve in the military. If they all went to war right now, they would be nothing more than an untrained mob with few weapons. What you need to look at is the actual number of trained soldiers in each countrys military. For Chinas Peoples Liberation Army that number is 2.25 million. A huge number, true. But there's more to the effectiveness of the military than raw manpower. just ebout everyone agrees that USA has the strongest military at the moment. How can that be since the Chinese clearly outman them? It's because the Chinese do not outgun them.

According to the World Factbook, Finland has over 1 million men available for military service. And that number sounds right. But still the actual number of soldiers in wartime army is around 250.000 (IIRC). So the "manpower"-figures that the World Factbook quotes are next to meaningless.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Azghoul]

The Ruskies? HAHAHAHAHAHA

They were amazed by the slide-down ladder to get in and out of the B-1.

No, I'm not worried about them any more.

That said, I'm in total agreement about the sole engine provider. But I blame Lockheed 100%. "We never forget who we're working _over_..." The US taxpayer.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[datan]

right...the only time we (Singapore) send our figher jets to Australia is to train not invade. Anyway, the point is that to launch an air attack you need to send fighter jets. The nearest land mass are hours away from any major Australian cities... Sure a potential enemy could bomb the wallabies...

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[infinite9]

They're part of America too you know.

Yeah, they just don't know it yet. How many states does that make now? ;-)

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Those two eagles were btw "mud-hen" version (F-15D), so not that much things can be derived from this scenario. I doesn't mean EF would not have advantage over F-15C though either.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[kfg]

One does not aquire fighter jets at the time of need. One aquires them in anticipation of need.

KFG

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[kfg]

From the article:

. . .and subsequent peacekeeping duties (see Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2006).

KFG

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Antiocheian]

the US [...] produces superior combat aircraft systems

I hope we will never be able to testify the validity of your claims (bombing defenseless countries does not validate them either) but Germany was the last country whose superiority on aircrafts was proven in war.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[bellers]

>>I wouldn't be so quick to say the russians are not producing good product, one example is the slotback
>> radar in the Mig 29 - it is easily as good as anything built in recent times by any other country.
>> (I'm an ex ELINT weenie so I can speak with some knowledge on the subject)

The slotback doesnt compete in the same league as the current generation of radar sets like the AESA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AESA

Sorry, it just doesnt.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Lumpy]

Probably because the US has an aggressive R&D program that routinely produces superior combat aircraft systems.

Oh get real.

The extremely old MIG-29 in the hands of a capable pilot will still easily wax any of our current high tech fighters. ALL of the current fihghters will not allow the pilot to kill himself by doing manuvers that will either destroy the aircraft or black him out to the point of death. The MIG-29 will happily let the pilot kill himself, destroy the aircraft, etc..

So the MIG can do manuvers that will outright frighten the US pilots and can do things to get behind the US plane faster than the US pilot can imagine. Hell they still train them against a couple of MIG29's we have and current american pilots are trained how this old thing can kick their arse easily in the hands of a pro.

Do not kid yourself. opur current fighters are big COWS designed more for ordinace delivery and dogfighting second.

We depend too much on smart missles and technology. good tactisc will kick our arse faster than you can say "what happened?"

Want proof? we are getting our asses kicked in IRAQ by people who basically have rocks, sticks, and 40 year old weapons.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Heard of the Challenger 2? Chobham armour, which the Brits invented, the same armour on the M1A2. 120mm armament, similar to the M1A2. The UK has good tanks. They invented tanks, so they have a good idea on how to make good ones.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[InfinityEdge]

Of course it all ends in how your government wants you to know, as, you will swear that North America and South America are two different continents because you saw it in your basic school but then again who do you thing is in control of that?.

Um, I swear that North and South America are seperate continents because THEY ARE DIFFERENT TECTONIC PLATES!

Do you not believe in tectonic plate theory? Even without tectonics, North and South America are seperated by water on all sides (with a little help from a canal), that alone should warrent seperate continent status. Maybe you think Africa and Eurasia are one continent. Maybe you think there is no such thing as continents. Tell us the truth, are you an Intelligent Drifting proponent? A flat earther? An anti-continental? How do you define "continent" such that North and South America are one?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[skribe]

Singapore has a defence budget that makes our GDP look like pocket change.

Oz Military expenditures - dollar figure: $16.65 billion (2004)
Sing Military expenditures - dollar figure: $4.47 billion (FY01 est.)

-- CIA Factbook

Must be the new math.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[korbin_dallas]

Agreed.

The Russians have a very strong aerospace tradition and a penchant for thinking outside the box. My thinking is that manned fighter/bomber aircraft will be obsolete in 10 years. A B2 costs like $2Billion + operating + training costs. Boeing has already demonstrated a remote piloted bomber for about $1million ... for the prototype. Thats 2000 remotes for the price of 1 B2.

Besides we don't give them the source, because, well we suk at writing avionics software, and QA is horrid. US companies wouldn't know how to give them the source code. I know I am there. Compilers for FPGAs are owned by the hardware manufacturers (and also horrid). If I were the Brits, I'd invest in engineers who know FPGAs and avionics and computer science and just buy the airframes. Then I'd put in my own avionics. The EU could easily standardize all this stuff.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[dajak]

JSF is being sold with some very slick capabilities built-in; not quite F-22 level, but pretty close in many respects. Nobody else is selling anything comparable, and the closest competitor is the Eurofighter.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is an interceptor. The JSF is to be a multipurpose fighter/bomber. The Eurofighter Typhoon exists and is being mass produced for customers. The JSF is vaporware. Comparisons of existing products with vaporware tend to favor the vaporware.

The UK is not the only European country with second thoughts about the JSF. Denmark and Norway are getting out, and Italy is reducing its participation from level 2 partner to level 3 partner. If the UK cancels, the Netherlands, also level 2, will also definitely get out because the volume to be produced becomes much too low and the projected volume of production was the major reason to choose participation in the JSF in the first place. JSF is becoming more and more expensive, and the US will probably kill it if it ever decides to aim for a balanced budget again. No UK (second biggest customer) probably means no JSF.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[TubeSteak]

What I meant, was that only one company designed and manufactured the engine. The military guys want more than one engine type available for their planes.

Kinda like saying "We have a car, now we want two engines: one from Toyota & one from Porsche."

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Azghoul]

It doesn't really matter since the JSF is the last manned fighter aircraft we'll bother to produce. WIll the SU37/47/whatever dream might show up be able to compete with a few dozen "predator-like" systems run by teenagers with itchy joystick fingers?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[rbanffy]

Mostly every second election. That seems to be a good bet for a president to be re-elected. Since they cannot serve three consecutive terms, they may want to limit beligerance on their second term to what is needed for the party to be able to elect the next president.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be so quick to say the russians are not producing good product, one example is the slotback radar in the Mig 29 - it is easily as good as anything built in recent times by any other country. (I'm an ex ELINT weenie so I can speak with some knowledge on the subject)

I'm ex-ELINT as well, and you're full of shit. Have you designed or tested a system up close and personal (and I'm talking R&D, NOT in a military only training environment)? Being ELINT means jack except when compared with Joe Blow off the street.

In addition, the Russians come up with "wunderweapons" about every third week. They're generally either vapor or not very effective (see: GPS jammers). By the time the so-called "Raptor Killer" makes it to production the F-22 will be in its second or third revision. Getting back OT about the Mig 29: I'm sure it was equivalent to an early block F-15, maybe even better. And wasn't the '29 the aircraft with the radar suspiciously "similiar" to the F-18? So much so that it appears to have been stolen?

Oddly at this juncture it's the low-tech Russian stuff the US has to worry about: RPGs, AK-47s, and Kornet anti-tank missiles all being used in Iraq.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[xtracto]

I am curious to know how much anger you have towards Europe and Asia being different continents. If you feel like talking down, at least treat everyone equally. Any excuse to berate the USA gets boring to me, and eventually makes alot of US citizens who may be on the side of your cause bored also.

C'mon world. Everything we do and every action we take is hated and deemed wrong. If we are always wrong, why bother trying to be right? Why should we care what you might think? Might as well just fuck 'em all, they are gonna bitch anyway.

You got me wrong, I do not hate people from USA, I have pretty nice friends over there and some of my relatives also live there (and have family). Really, people is not bad, similarly people from China or Sudan, India etc is not bad, I have a good friend (who just finished his PhD) that is from Sudan. My girlfriend boss is from Iran (and yes, he even teased her about the football game) and is really nice.

I repeat, what I have repeated again and again, I hate USA government. I really do, I really hate how are they pushing to [blo][fu]ck their immigrants when they do all the work that even black people do not like doing (apolgies go to Afroamerican people, these words are from the quite-less-than-lucid Mexican president... darn GWB and Fox are both cowboys, but that is another story).

If I am right there was a march some days ago in Chicago, darn even the employers of these people helped to drive them to the march place. Even the USA farmers are against these regulations because WE PROVIDE CHEAP HAND WORK.

Come on, some of you shurely have a latin or mexican maiden who cleans your house and washes your clothes every day no?,

You may get very angry at her because she did something wrong, but you should live in the UK for some time without that commodity and you will begin to appreciate that. I have lived in UK for almost 2 years and I miss to have a maiden that cleans all my disaster so I can just do what I like and forget washing plates/cleaning house etc.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Moofie]

Helmet targeting...for extreme close-range dogfights. Not the way to win an air superiority battle. First look first kill from 40 miles out grants you control of the airspace over the battlefield. Yankin' and bankin' in close range melees might be fun for the pilots (until they, like, be on fire and fall from the sky), but it's not the way to win wars.

And I absolutely do not agree that newer Soviet avionics are remotely as good as the American hardware. Where would the Russians be getting money to continue developing their hardware?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Moofie]

Of all of the geopolitical charlie foxtrots the US government has engaged in, giving Israel access to top-drawer warfighting systems for them to turn around and sell to whoever they deem rich enough has to be near the top.

Israel has proven time and again that they are NOT a US ally. I say let 'em fend for themselves.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[c6gunner]

Actualy Tom Clancy wrote a couple books on exactly that premise. I think it's a good point - a C-130 or a B-52 could be configured to carry enough weaponry to destroy a small airforce. Fighters are more useful now for reconnoisance roles, or maybe situations where you'd like to visualy identify the enemy before you blast him out of the sky.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[c6gunner]

Everyone realizes it, Al Qaeda just happen to be the only ones bothering to try and fight. Ofcourse, Al Qaeda style tactics don't win wars - they don't even really CONSTITUTE a war. So I'm sorry to tell you this, but your hero Osama is NOT a tactical genius. And if he beleives, as you do, that "a war of attrition" will negatively impact the US, I'd go so far as to call him a f-ing idiot. War of any type normaly boosts the economy, and improves science/technology, which in turn makes things better for society as a whole. This type of warfare especialy isn't likely to harm the US - it produces minimal casualties, and the US has complete control over just how much money to expend.

Anyway that's way off topic. Just wanted to point that, while no military is likely to defeat the US using conventional tactics, terrorist tactics are even more regressive, and are much less likely to garner an offensive win. They CAN be used to win a war fought on foreign soil, but that's entirely due to the lack of "staying power". In other words, due to the idiots in the peanut gallery who start screaming "quagmire" at the drop of a casing. Staying power is never an issue for a military on it's home soil though, which is why terrorism can't win an offensive war.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

We were blowing up Russian and French weapons in Gulf War I you nitwit. Those were T-38 tanks getting topped on CNN and Mirage jets bugging out for the border.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Motorola. You know- the RAZR.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

uhm... werent the aussies threatened by japanese Imperial expansion during WW2? Didnt they fight the japanese in indonesia? didnt they rely heavily on american and british air-bases for air superiority?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[TheRaven64]

It is also worth noting that the largest research organisation in Europe is QinetiQ, the privatised branch of DERA (the UK equivalent of DARPA). It's not like the UK doesn't have a significant military research capability. What we lack, I suspect, is the manufacturing capability.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[RestartLater]

Wow. Spot on. A tad on the cynical side. But spot on... Seen the movie Lord of War? Wish I had modpoints.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, wasnt the mig 29 the first strike fighter to employ a helmet mounted missle lock reticle that allowed the pilot to fire a missle while his aircraft nose was not nessisarely pointed at its target? thats a pretty cool idea. I dont think the US has a response to that even yet.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The reality for combat aircraft is that beyond-visual-range (BVR) weapon systems have become so advanced and so effective today that dogfighting really is largely dead when using these systems.

Where have we heard that one before?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[algae]

People from the Peoples' Republic of China are called Chinese
People from the Federal Republic of Germany are called Germans
For that matter, people from the Estados Unidos Mexicanos are called Mexicans.

So why shouldn't people from the United States of America be called Americans?

Are there any other countries with the word "America" in their name?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[digitalchinky]

Royal Australian Navy Tactical Electronic Warfare Support Section (RANTEWSS)

That is my claim to profession, as well as 10 years or so with the defence signals directorate (DSD).

Malaysian Mig 29 up close, to name one example.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[fbjon]

No, what's that? World Wide Illuminati Intifada?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[killjoe]

I don't think any of that is true. If it was then Russia would be more technologially advanced then the us due to their long occupation of Afghanistan.

COnventional wars are good for the economy because they make your enemy produce more weaponry. What Osama is doing is getting the US to chase it's tail and spend billions invading iraq (and soon iran).

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Castar]

Ummm... the Ruskies?

I'm sure they'll get around to developing a stealthy aircraft one of these days. And when they do, it'll be able to land on a dirt strip w/gear up not destroy itself.

They already have one! You can fly it with only your thoughts. Unfortunately, you have to think in Russian...

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[c6gunner]

I don't think any of that is true. If it was then Russia would be more technologially advanced then the us due to their long occupation of Afghanistan.

That would, ofcourse, assume that the USSR didn't have all sorts of other problems. Communist and capitalist economies are two totaly different animals. It would also assume that the ruskies cared enuogh about their foot-soldiers to try and devise technological solutions to the threat of insurgent warfare. Which, in what is sure to be the understatement of the year, was not the case.

COnventional wars are good for the economy because they make your enemy produce more weaponry.

Eh? How does "the enemy" producing weaponry improve YOUR economy? I think one of us hasn't had enough coffee today; your statement seems like a total non-sequitor.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[RestartLater]

What if a country decided to use different avionics package instead of the Russian one? Say one with a glass cockpit?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[RestartLater]

China, and to a lesser extent, India... Although one wonders if the orders they get from those two countries are sufficient to develop hardware comparable to US/wester hardware.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[dunkelfalke]

this wrong assumption has already been made a while ago - f-4 had no cannon first.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, Australia isn't a European country, as a quick look at any terrestrial globe would tell you.
Second, Indonesia is our near neighbour, and Indonesia happens to be the largest Muslim country in the world. Not far from Indonesia is Pakistan, another Muslim super power, this one almost certainly with access to nuvlear edevices. Alongside Pakistan is India, with one of the largers military forces in the world - not Muslim, but also expansionist by nature.
Third, a lot of our hardware (and wetware) is employed in Dubya's crusade against the Muslims in the Middle East (notice the similarity betweeen the beliefs of our near neighbours and the people our boys are shooting at?), and that hardware is largely sourced from the good ol' US of A.
Fourth, and most importantly - how dare you, presumably a citizen of the most heavily armed country in the world, tell me, a citizen of one of the most lightly armed countries in the world, that my tax dollars shouldn't be spent on defence equipment? I tell you what. You ditch all your weaponry, and THEN you will have the right to tell me that we don't need weapons. Until then, you stick to your knitting, and I'll stick to mine!

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

"Russian offerings usually cost 2 to 4 times less than the Western aircraft they are designed to combat."

So you are saying that if a Western aircraft costs, say, $50M, that the Russian aircraft costs somewhere between -$100M to -$200M to build?

Meaning that building a Russian aircraft actually generates up to $200M in cash? Wow!

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Indonesia, you moron.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Moofie]

But if a single American fighter can engage and destroy eight Russian aircraft, from beyond visual range, the US still wins.

Air wars are not like land wars.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[Moofie]

Compare the performance of Sparrow to AMRAAM and get back to me.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[glowworm]

If I lived in a country in which no house had ever burned down since it's founding then I would not buy fire insurance.

You are aware that Japan bombed Australia during WWII aren't you?

So tell me, who is going to be attacking Australia?

Indonesia is a prime candidate if not for Australia's role in East Timor then for some other cultural difference. Hell, maybe Costello will finally convince everyone that Islam really is to be feared as much as he incites and we go to war on that basis.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[BgJonson79]

Ok so Russian fighters from the '70s match up with American fighters from the '70s. Now add 30 years. Is it still the case? After all, what's past is past :-)

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[BgJonson79]

Of course they're two separate continents. You have to cross water to get from one to the other, don't you? :-P Isn't that like saying Europe and Asia aren't separate?

You can bitch and moan all you want, but the proper term for a citizen of the USA is an American, like a citizen of Mexico is a Mexican and a citizen of Soviet Canuckistan is a Candian.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[NORGCO]

Actually the reason given for not seriously considering non-US designs has to do with the Vietnam war. When followed the USA into that one the Swedes cut off our ammo - 84mm Carl Gustav, damn useful against the sort of Bunkers the VC used extensively - and the French threatened to cut off the spares for our Mirage fighters if we sent them. Both countries are now permanently out of contention for any significant purchase. The Russians have major beefs with ammerican foreign policy and it is assumed they would cut off our spares too if we follow standard practice and follow our 'great and powerful allies' into something. like we always bloody do. Not that I don't agree about the planes themselves probably being hot and all.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[mabhatter654]

Exactly, they aren't fighting to win, just to keep fighting. There will always be somebody they can recruit to drive a car bomb, or ambush a supply convoy. After all, if they ambush 1 convoy our troops demand we reinforce EVERY convoy or they won't be safe. If they drop 1 bomb in a subway, we shutdown the ENTIRE subway until we're sure it's "safe". It's a game they can play all day. We'll never find all of them and as long as we keep sending in more troops they will get enough supporters to fill the small ranks they need. Like other posters said, we taught Bin Laden to fight this way... he's drawing more and more of our troops in to the theater. That by itself causes new independant groups to rise up and oppose our troops "just because". All the while here at home spending goes up, more boys come back in coffins and we generally get sick of fighting something that's obviously not going to stop.

On top of all that, our prez is already making plans to start the NEXT war with Iran. I don't envy them at all. Keep pumping up their forces to make a war at least messy and we try to "pre-emptively" attack. Quit nuclear activities and the prez pumps out false info to gain support for an attack anyway. One thing we should be wary of is that Iran will not be a "policing" action. Their govenrment is legit, elected and above board. The guy in charge is very similar to early US presidents... He's put down gun and worked for politics now. But he's been in the trenches steping over the dead comrades. He's got a good following of citizens willing to defend their country. we need to make our leaders aware that Iran will be a real War against the entire country, not just a petty dictator.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[dunkelfalke]

this pissing contest is boring
there are lots of beyond visual range air to air missiles and amraam isn't even nearly the best one or the one with the highest range.
anyway, a russian r-77 (or aa-12 as you call it) is pretty much the same but with a more modern design, amraam has yet to be upgraded. the countermeasures are also a bit better than back then.

so, modern russian avionics are not worse (check those new radars of fazotron niir) than modern european radars. modern russian missiles are somewhat better than modern us missiles. the training of american pilots is better though. the countermeasures are also got better and where we end? yep, still a dogfight which can start faster than you think.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[ArtStone]

The figures are -not- meaningless.

You cannot grow an 18 year old soldier in less than 19 years. The demographics of people available for military service in some future conflict are already fixed in place for the next 20 years. The ability to change the future out 40 years is constrained by the number of females of child bearing age over the next 20 years. Wars are fought based on constraints based on reality, not on ivory tower "would't it be nice if..."

Knowing that some "advanced" countries (Japan, Russia, most of Europe, and the US) have been producing children at a rate to not even replace the current population would be very important strategic considerations if one is planning a campaign for world domination. Not every country and culture is focused on "the next election". China plans in terms of centuries, not years.

The US response to this reality of force imbalances in future potential conflicts is two basic concepts... find ways to inflict large human casualties with advanced technologies that do not create high risk to US soliders... if you are fighting an enemy with 100:1 advantage in soldiers, you need a weapon that kills 200 for each fatality you take. That's why you see the military thinking in terms of robot soldiers, and more reliance on drone aircraft and long range missiles.

Look no further than the difference between the Iran/Iraq war and the first Gulf War. The Iran/Iraq war was an ineffective slugfest with poorly trained, low tech weapons that degraded into children being sent into minefields to "find" the mines. One important turning event in the war was when Oliver North provided anti-tank missiles to Iran in the "Iran Contra" episode. (Where is the disinformation coming from that the US was on Iraq's side and provided Iraq with arms?)... but I digress.

The total US death count from combat in the first Gulf War was 148. Iraq suffered an estimated 100,000 dead soldiers...
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gu lfwar/

The second way to deal with a large deficit in fighting age military populations is by finding ways to get others into the available military pool... women and immigrants are two of the current groups being tapped.

Incorporating recent immigrants into your military invites a risk should the country go to war with that immigrant's home country. Germans and Italians are a large percentage of the US population, yet fought Germany and Italy during WW2. The WW2 soliders self-identified as Americans, not "temporary workers" spending time in the U.S. National identity was much stronger than ethnic identity.

But as is becoming clearer, winning a military campaign by destroying the organized military and its military assets is quite a different thing from controlling the country after you "win". Time will tell if there is a solution to that.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[10Ghz]

The figures are -not- meaningless.

For the subject at hand, they are. We are talking about the strength and capabilities of the military, period. The 300+ million men in China are next to irrelevant if there was to be a armed conflict involving China. Of course it has long-term benefits for the military and the country as a whole. But to me it seems that some people are reading the World Factbook and start to think "OMG! China has over 300 million soldiers!".

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[The Cydonian]

You missed the slightly unimportant point that Singapore actually has training bases in Australia for its conscripted army. Remove that, and you've already significantly halved the army's strike capability.

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[boule75]

My guess is, that isn't the marketing line Lockheed Martin, Boeing and BAE Systems are going for right now. These big deals are as much to do with employment as they are, defence.

And profit perhaps?

Re:Folks, the Cold War is over

[olman]

Said avionics package is anything but trivial to implement, of course. Esp considering it's supposed not to keel over if there are couple of unseemly 20mm grenade impact craters in the motherboard..

Maybe Ballmer was right

[rsborg]

When he said that the Microsoft way was the "American way"... I mean, lets look at the facts:

• The US always says "trust us", and then acts in a manner to prove why you shouldn't... just like some folks from Redmond.
• The US is all about coercive power... kind of like a coercive monopoly we all know.
• The US built it's fortune from land stolen from the Native Americans... just like Microsoft built their fortune on someone else's code.
• The US spends a vast fortune spinning each bad thing that comes their way, and never admitting they did any wrong... because to do so would look weak. Sounds very familiar indeed.

Ultimately, this proves one point... you should never trust any group to do the right thing... not the US, not Google, or Microsoft, and it was foolish in this case that the UK trusted a US company (part of the US military industrial complex)... there should have been a demand for this openness in the contract and at the first sign of secrecy the UK should have threatened to stop payment.

Re:Maybe Ballmer was right

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I'm sorry, what does this story have to do with Microsoft?

Re:Maybe Ballmer was right

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I don't think you can compare the two honestly. MS maybe evil, but they haven't started illegal wars and brought in laws which are 1984 in the real world.

Re:Maybe Ballmer was right

[Anonymous Coward]

stolen? what the fuck are you talking about? you can't steal something from someone who makes no claim of ownership(remember "people don't own land we live in harmony with nature etc"). not to mention if you fight someone over something and you win, you get that something. that's the whole point of fighting. to win. every nation is a nation because the borders were formed by taking land from someone else and making it there own. don't act like the usa is the only country to be born with blood, fucker

and i assume that you think we should trust the UK, and of course the EU, and companies as long as they're not american?

Re:Maybe Ballmer was right

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically Microsoft does license the source of it's operating system to other countries manufacturers of advanced control systems.

Re:Maybe Ballmer was right

[Corbets]

The US built it's fortune from land stolen from the Native Americans.

You know, it's hard (and awfully tiring) to try to counter all the anti-US bigots in the world, but I couldn't let this one slide. You do realize that the first people to "steal land" from the natives were actually Europeans, right? Sure, we continued the trend once we "stole" the land from the British, French, and Spanish, but we were by no means first.

Get off the horse, already.

Re:Maybe Ballmer was right

[Jesus_666]

I think tat the UK can trust the UK and the EU can trust the EU. Especially since both aren't committed to being the world's number one everything.

Besides, the fact that you've won land in a war doesn't justify the taking. Maybe people can't do anything about it, but it's still wrong.

Re:Maybe Ballmer was right

[Jesus_666]

The point was not "omg j00 stole land u r so evil!11", it was "you somehow obtained someone else's land and used that to build your nation on, just like Microsoft obtained someone else's source code and used tht to build its products on". The parallel between the USA and Microsoft is merely that both internalized external resources and used that as their foundation. The statement doesn't say that Microsoft stole that source code (they didn't) and it contains no judgement on how the USA were built.

America?

[The Bungi]

Surely they meant the United States. America is a continent.

Re:America?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, its two contintents.

Re:America?

[Gryle]

tongue-in-cheek

We are the US
Canada is our attic
Mexico is our basement
South America is our backyard

/tongue-in-cheek

Re:America?

[Anonymous Coward]

actually it's two continents. :P

Re:America?

[aussie_a]

Actually it isn't any continent at all. There are two continents, North America and South America, but no single continent called "America".

Re:America?

[Eagle5596]

For goodness sake, just shut up! I'm sick and tired of this crap. America is both part of a name for two continents (North America and South America), and the short form of a country's name.

People in the Republic of South Africa call their country simply "South Africa" even though "South Africa" is part of a continent, not a country.

Limey's call their country the "United Kingdom" even though it is really the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

In short, get over your self. America is a VERY common short form for the "United States of America".

FYI, if I were to be as damn anal as you, I'd point out that "United States" is just as bad, as there are many Unions of states in this world.

Re:America?

[aussie_a]

No Americas refers to North and South America, unless you want to bring "common usage" as an acceptable way to determine what America can be reffer to, in which case, it can also refer to the US of A (which was the original bone of contention).

If you rule out "common usage" as an acceptable criteria, then the only places America can only refer to are a small town in Limburg or "a part of the parish of Sutton-in-the-Isle in Cambridgeshire, England" - Wikipedia.

Re:America?

[The Bungi]

And if I were as obviously hysterical as you seem to be, I'd agree with you. Thankfuly stupidity is not contagious.

Re:America?

[Eagle5596]

There is a stark difference between hysterical and tired of the same old anti-American bull shit. I suggest you go and learn the difference. But I will agree, thankfully stupidity is not contagious. Otherwise your mere presence here would doom Slashdot.

Re:America?

[The Bungi]

Oh, that's what you thought? Hmmmm. Whatever else, I can assure you that wasn't my point or intention. In fact, I apologize for my snap reply, since I didn't realize you had replied to me because of that.

I didn't mean it as the classic "OMFG teh amerikanz teh think they 0wn teh continent" crap that I'm starting to realize it sounds like - rather more like a "is that what they call it in normal conversation over there?" kind of "duh" moment. I thought the brits called us "yanks" all the time =)

Stealth

[s-twig]

They will need the ability to switch them off at any time without warning. Haven't you seen "Stealth"?

Re:Stealth

[enrgeeman]

yes, but afaik, these planes still need a human flying them. you really think we'd sell the really cool toys?

Source Code Won't Help

[KidSock]

If there was a backdoor in the flight control software, I doubt it would help the UK if we gave them the source code because the backdoor would almost certainly be hidden very well. In fact, the backdoor could be in the compiler in which case they would not find anything in the source code. And they can't recompile the sourcecode with their own compiler because they would have to retest everything.

Re:Source Code Won't Help

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Something tells me when you buy new military gear you do test everything. Why wouldn't you test the entire systems quite often to make sure everything works correctly?

Re:Source Code Won't Help

[stonefoz]

Bootstraping the compiler first is a must for any security, at least if you don't trust it. if you don't know what your compiler is doing, you don't know much. I'm thankful gentoo makes it much easier that by hand, but cross compiling would almost be a given, so anything that reads the source should work. I'd trust gcc from the original site. I don't know of any "real" crosscompilers that are not opensource. But, the only problem is if it runs wince, I'd ask for my money back.

Re:Source Code Won't Help

[agentofchange]

You would just get the source for the compiler, and the compiler's compiler, and the compiler that compiled the compiler's compiler.

Re:Source Code Won't Help

[m50d]

And they can't recompile the sourcecode with their own compiler because they would have to retest everything.

Recompile and run a binary diff. If it's not the same, something fishy's going on. We've been in exactly this situation with PGP for some time.

Re:Source Code Won't Help

[MichaelSmith]

If there was a backdoor in the flight control software, I doubt it would help the UK if we gave them the source code because the backdoor would almost certainly be hidden very well.

They may have to pay a lot of smart guys to go into the code and find out what it does. Happens all the time, I assure you.

In fact, the backdoor could be in the compiler in which case they would not find anything in the source code. And they can't recompile the sourcecode with their own compiler because they would have to retest everything.

A full validation of the system is a good idea every couple of years anyway. I don't see why this shouldn't happen.

A quick test would be to compile the software and compare your executables with binaries from the distribution. It will at least tell you where there are issues.

Re:Source Code Won't Help

[x2A]

The backdoor wouldn't even need to be in the main system/code, but could be on a seperate rom hidden or disguised somewhere along the control lines... maybe, probably easier to do that than it would be to hide it in the main system/code.

Don't know why Australia keeps going back...

[inflex]

After the disasters that came with the F1-11 and the F-18, I'm astounded that Australia is -still- going back for another beating. I've got a brother-in-law who works with the F-18's and there's absolutely no end to the 'critical failures' that they're seeing. Given the technical 'superiority' of these JSF's, I'm expecting they'll barely get out of the maintainance hangers. I can't even see a tactical purpose for the JSF in this sun charred, massively open country.

To be fair, after a lot of overhauls and modifications the F1-11 actually turned out to be a good plane, the F-18 on the other hand...

Re:Don't know why Australia keeps going back...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mainly political reasons, those in charge want the JSF to replace both the F-111 and the F-18 (since the JSF will be a new, shiny toy to play with).

A more in depth look at the issue is covered here http://www.ausairpower.net/.

Re:Don't know why Australia keeps going back...

[Mahou]

australia doesn't strike me as the 'military' type. even without the "disasters" of which you speak, why would they want some new spiffy fighter jets?

Re:Don't know why Australia keeps going back...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know their circumstances, but you don't need to be a "military type" to have an interest in your own self defense. How about intercepting hijacked planes, for one example (SAMs could do the same thing... but you'd need a network of them)? It's better to maintain a modest but functional military and risk not ever needing it than have a non-functional military and risk something happening...

Probably also helps to have the equipment in order to keep the people up to date, in case a large scale military is needed in the future.

Re:Don't know why Australia keeps going back...

[lbrandy]

I've got a brother-in-law who works with the F-18's and there's absolutely no end to the 'critical failures' that they're seeing. Given the technical 'superiority' of these JSF's, I'm expecting they'll barely get out of the maintainance hangers.

To be fair, after a lot of overhauls and modifications the F1-11 actually turned out to be a good plane, the F-18 on the other hand...

Oh, please. I was an engineer who worked mostly on F15s, but I still have enough expertise to call bullshit. You have it completely backwards. The F-111 was a maintence mess and it became obselete reasonably quickly given the changing dynamic.. by the time they finally got their acts together, it was on its way out the door... but the F18? Are you crazy? It's one of the very few examples of major acquisition programs that went off relatively cleanly. The first 18Es delivered met all the specs, on schedule, and on budget. It has a reputation, in the navy, as being the most dependable plane they have. I've heard it quoted that the Hornet has 3x the mean-time-to-failure of any other aircraft they have. The plane was designed to replace the 14 Tomcat and has, as far as I know, exceeded all expectations. It's better, stronger, cheaper to operate, and is less failure prone.

I don't know who your "brother in law" is, but all planes have problems. All planes need to be fixed. They are not simple. They get old, and things go bad. It happens. Considering the F18 anything but a resounding success, however, is incredibly ill-informed.

I can't even see a tactical purpose for the JSF in this sun charred, massively open country.

You can't? How about the fact that the F18E is one the best anti-ship attack aircraft in the world? Do I need to explain to you the tactical advantage of Australia having that capability? How about the fact that it's far superior air-to-air compared with any of the cold-war era relic airplanes that every rogue nation on that side of the globe has? Even China.

Re:Don't know why Australia keeps going back...

[inflex]

The F18's here are having to have total center barrel replacements - mostly because we've used them for roles where the US uses F16/15's. Good case of using the wrong tool for the job.

The F18's precision bombing ability has only been a recent addition in -our- fleet. Perhaps you guys got some better stuff first up.

The F18 has insufficient range, speed or strike power to make it ideally practical here in AUSTRALIA. A little different no doubt in the US.

The F18 isn't really suited for independent action across our gulf to areas such as Indonesia, even more so now with our "opponents" having purchased the Sukhoi's

The JSF, with about 2000km (vs F111's 6000km) range falls a bit short too. We're a big and SPARSELY populated country here and we don't have the budget to realistically put a nice squadron of JSF's at every bay.

Basically, Australia is trading its independence ability in and leaning more on the US to support us in the military role.

Mostly, I'd say it's more a case perhaps of politics causing poor choices, than the planes themselves being implicitly bad.

Feel free to browse over - http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-FAQ-2005.html

Re:Don't know why Australia keeps going back...

[lbrandy]

The F18's here are having to have total center barrel replacements - mostly because we've used them for roles where the US uses F16/15's. Good case of using the wrong tool for the job.

The F18's precision bombing ability has only been a recent addition in -our- fleet. Perhaps you guys got some better stuff first up.

The F18 has insufficient range, speed or strike power to make it ideally practical here in AUSTRALIA. A little different no doubt in the US.

The F18 isn't really suited for independent action across our gulf to areas such as Indonesia, even more so now with our "opponents" having purchased the Sukhoi's

The F18 wasn't designed to do any of those things. Coming on to Slashdot and complaining about the capabilities of the F18 and how it's a terrible aircraft because it doesn't do what you want is a bit strange -- especially when it's capabilities were well defined when they were bought. It's a matter of having the right tool for the job... It's not the F18s fault that Australia wants to use it outside of it's ideal mission. It's an extremely capable and powerful airplane that serves it's mission excellent. Don't blame the jet because the people acquiring and planning with it are using it in roles it doesn't excel.

You don't buy a fork and then bitch it doesn't cut steak very well. These jets are designed to be "jacks of all trade" that are medium in all respects and easy to maintain. It fits that description perfectly. The "center barrel replacement" is because Australia is using pre-E model hornets for E-model roles. Like I said, considering the F18 as a weapon system anything other than a resounding success is just plain wrong and just a shows a severe lack of information. I understand that you think you need an airplane with XYZ capabilites and got ABC. Unfortunately, you knew you were getting ABC from the getgo and chose to forgo your requirements of XYZ. That doesn't make it a bad airplane. It makes it bad decision making.

Re:Don't know why Australia keeps going back...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny, I'll admit that from a peace time point of view and from maintenance crews the F18 gets a great rep, and its specs make it a great plane; but if you look at history you see that the F14 has done most of the killing and was the most advantageous plane to have in both the standoff against Libya and the first conflict with Iraq. Obviously the F18 isn't as important if the F14 is just the right platform to get the job done, weaknesses aside.

This could be seen as an indication of how war really works, numbers and figures aren't important, results are really important. For that reason strategies have to be understood and focused on.

Re:Don't know why Australia keeps going back...

[drew]

It didn't look to me like he was complaining that the F-18 was a bad plane. It looks to me that his comments were more along the lines of "Why does my government keep buying planes that aren't capable of doing the jobs we need to do?" And while I'm not too familiar with the US/AUS weapons deals, I would say that if I went to buy a car from a car dealer, and he sold me completely the wrong car for the job I told him I needed to do, then I would think twice about going back to the same dealer the second time. (On the other hand, if I didn't tell him what I needed the car for, or told him the wrong thing, then I suppose I have no one but myself to blame.)

Re:Don't know why Australia keeps going back...

[lbrandy]

You said: It didn't look to me like he was complaining that the F-18 was a bad plane.

He said: To be fair, after a lot of overhauls and modifications the F1-11 actually turned out to be a good plane, the F-18 on the other hand...

As for your other point, the Aussies were well aware of the capabilities of the F18. The spec had been long determined and tested. They knew exactly what they were buying.. there was no bait & switch here. They've tried using A/B/C/D Model F18s for things they were not designed for. The main missions that they are trying to use them for required the US to redesign the F18 into the superhornet models E/F. There was a reason the US redesigned and built new planes...

The root(kit) of the problem

[docyahoo]

If America can so easily *switch off* the software, why should we worry about any further 3rd party transfers? google cache

Re:The root(kit) of the problem

[docyahoo]

Self-mod: -1 finish making your point, stupid.
Just wanted to point out that military hardware deals are as much politics as anything else, with posturing on both sides of the aisle.
Obviously, this is not a *new* issue.

Hey, Harriers wouldn't be a bad option.

[jd]

More likely, they've found where Westland dumped all the helicopters after Mrs T. and Michael "Tarzan" Hestletine had it out in the boxing ring.

Oh, what's the worry?

[jd]

You can always hit ctrl-alt-del and reboot it. It'll only take a couple of minutes, but you only get 3 tries at guessing the root password.

Who Remembers . . .

[edward.virtually@pob]

which semi-recent historical event made them aware of this possibility (the planes being switched off)?

Re:Who Remembers . . .

[vaporakula]

Hmmm, Falklands perchance?

Do I get a cookie?

Re:Who Remembers . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

The use of logic bombs during the Cylon attack on the 12 colonies?

Re:Who Remembers . . .

[slashdotmsiriv]

Disabling the French Exocet anti-ship missiles ? I don't think they were too succesful doing that since they lost at least too ships from them ...

Re:Who Remembers . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say the Suez crisis, where Eisenhower successfully disabled MacMillian and Eden's spines.

Re:Who Remembers . . .

[edward.virtually@pob]

I think we're talking about the same thing. The disabling (reportedly at the time, anyway) of some of Saddam's military hardware because the French maker wouldn't give him the secret password needed to launch them. Something you'd think he'd have tested ahead of time. But at any rate the British seem to have learned from the example, as one would expect.

Re:Who Remembers . . .

[slashdotmsiriv]

Yes that's it. They argentinian exocet's were not disabled and inflicted serious damage to the Brit navy. Saddams exocets though were disabled.

what are they gonna do with it?

[penguin-collective]

Realistically, the source code isn't going to do them much good without any means of verifying that the code that's actually loaded into each of the embedded systems on that fighter corresponds to the source code they have. And that's a really hard problem.

Re:what are they gonna do with it?

[nicolas.kassis]

How about rebuilding it and putting it on the chips. But then again what is to say there are no hardwire device to shut off the planes

Nice to see...

[Black Parrot]

Nice to see how much confidence we inspire in our closest allies.

Small wonder our enemies don't trust us.

Re:Nice to see...

[tmancer]

Yeah, there's trust and then there's TRUST. Do you really think that the US trusts the UK that much, or even Australia?

Re:Nice to see...

[jimicus]

Small wonder our enemies don't trust us.

If they trusted you they wouldn't be your enemy.

Re:Nice to see...

[Rinkhals]

Well, so who DOES trust you?

How many enemies do you think you have?

How many friends? (apart from Israel).

Do you consider the UK to be friends? Obviously not.

Re:Nice to see...

[caluml]

I seem to remember a stat that in the first Gulf War, more British troops were killed by US friendly fire, than by the "enemy". Too many trigger happy American troops, just wanting to shoot something.
Recently on UK TV as well, there was a report on Channel 4 news about the difference between the US and the UK in how they police a town.
The UK guys wear soft caps, walk around, talk to the locals, try and befriend the kids, and generally act like people you can get on with. Then towards the end of the report, the US came past. Speeding through in their Hummers which were bristling with guns, without stopping. Quite a difference.

Re:Nice to see...

[jimicus]

Do you consider the UK to be friends? Obviously not.

Too right! Why on earth should I trust my own government?

Re:Nice to see...

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

Nice to see how much confidence we inspire in our closest allies.

It wasn't too long ago that we reviewed our nuclear posture against other countries. One little fact that escaped as amusing is that we have a nuclear battle plan with Canada.

Do you really think we're going to exchange nukes with Canada?

When you prepare for war, you plan for all possible outcomes. That includes the possibility of being at odds with even your staunchest allies. To do otherwise is foolish.

Re:Nice to see...

[Rinkhals]

Alright then, as a UK citizen (I presume that is the point of your post) do you consider that the Americans are right not to trust the UK?

Re:Nice to see...

[jimicus]

Eh? The original point of my post was BlackPuma saying:

"Small wonder our enemies don't trust us." ... and I don't really understand what would cause someone to trust an enemy in the first place.

As regards the bigger issue: I think it's more a case of "do we as British trust America" rather than vice-versa. Frankly, no. America was partly responsible for putting Saddam in power and arming him to the teeth (though by the time Gulf War 2 came along, most of the weaponry he'd been sold was either used or looking decidedly old).

I am concerned that in 10 years time, we will no longer be allies with America yet we could have an airforce which America can remotely disable. It's all very well offering "assurances", but the technology exists to build a plane which could be remotely disabled and I think it would be foolish to be unable to see everything which went into it.

Re:Nice to see...

[Rinkhals]

"Small wonder our enemies don't trust us."

Yes, I know. Then there was al sorts of silliness about enemies not trusting the US and why the US doesn't care.

That's part of the problem, nobody trusts the US as they've proved themselves pretty untrustworthy in the past. And the US is probably right not trust anybody else, because everybody else is probably waiting for an oportunity to shaft them back.

Personally, I doubt that the US could remotely disable the systems through software alone, but maybe examination of the source could reveal whether the US had the duplicity to provide for disabling it through the hardware.

Re:Nice to see...

[jimicus]

It's not just the US here, though. History has taught us that any leader can lie through their teeth to their own ends - I'm perhaps skirting a bit close to Godwin's Law here, but Neville Chamberlain famously came back from Germany with a promise signed by a certain chap with a distinctive moustache not to invade Poland.

These planes cost several million dollars each - it's not like a PC where you expect to throw it out after 3-5 years. And it's all very well saying "They probably can't shut them down remotely" - I'm not an aviation expert so I'm not really qualified to comment. Even so, I am at a loss to understand why we should trust the lives of our air force and their ability to protect the country in what is essentially a black box we don't know the workings of. Providing a copy of the source code and a development kit (if such a thing even exists for an airplane - I suspect if it does it won't bear much resemblance to, say, Linux) so we can audit it and continue development ourselves if necessary isn't an issue of "do we trust each other" - it strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

You'd be insane not to allow for doing that!

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know? Is it impossible to believe that the US government might want a safety net for modern weapons that deactivates them if they don't receive a signal targeted to the plane's serial number every hour while in flight, with said signal broadcast by satellites with worldwide coverage....GPS perhaps?

I'm a US citizen but not particularly a fan of how our government does business, but if I was in charge of hardware with such potential damage in the wrong hands, I'd insist on some sort of controls like that, even on what stays under US control. What if one of those nutjobs Americans who fought alongside the Taliban instead enlisted and become a pilot, and then flew off course on a mission in the Middle East and handed the plane over to Al Qaeda? Even if it needed special codes to make the weapons work the plane itself would be a pretty dandy weapon flying at Mach 3 into a nuclear aircraft carrier or Saudi oil refinery.

Re:You'd be insane not to allow for doing that!

[Bombcar]

Even if it needed special codes to make the weapons work the plane itself would be a pretty dandy weapon flying at Mach 3 into a nuclear aircraft carrier or Saudi oil refinery.

Uh, our enemies will be launching missiles traveling much faster than mach 3 at our aircraft carriers; if our fleet can't handle a single rogue fighter then we've bigger problems.

Re:You'd be insane not to allow for doing that!

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about what you just wrote for a moment. They spend $45 billion on a jet fighter development which has a cornerstone based on stealth. A key of stealth if NOT emitting signals just as much as deflecting signals away from a transmitter. Emitting a signal just to 'authorize' an airplane to operate is a bit silly. Having zones of operation sound more reasonable but also pretty unlikely. These planes aren't designed to deliver nuclear weapons and even planes who do are not limited, it's the ARMING of the weapon that is highly controlled. One plane small fighter flying into anything isn't going to cause much damage, particularly not on the order of the Sept 11 attacks.

Do you think we authorize the Brits to launch the Trident nuclear ICBMs they bought from us?!? I think not.

Re:You'd be insane not to allow for doing that!

[Anonymous Coward]

9/11 anyone?

Re:You'd be insane not to allow for doing that!

[eMartin]

"How do you know? Is it impossible to believe that the US government might want a safety net for modern weapons that deactivates them if they don't receive a signal targeted to the plane's serial number every hour while in flight, with said signal broadcast by satellites with worldwide coverage....GPS perhaps?"

You have a point, but doing it like that would be kind of silly. All the enemy would have to do is find a way to jam that signal, and the planes would fall from the sky.

Of course, if it were done the opposite way and a deactivation signal could be sent to the planes, it could be forged and used against them as well or could be blocked.

But I guess these are good reasons to keep a system like this secret if it exists.

Re:You'd be insane not to allow for doing that!

[Goth Biker Babe]

Hey, I think the Brits want it so that they can shut down US planes...

In the first Iraq war we lost far more to US forces that the Iraqis. I notice that for the second war they trained your guys in "how to recognise your allies".

And what about the common folks

[nicolas.kassis]

Well, the British military wants to have the source code to there software. I guess we the common folks should do the same and require our software to be open and free from what ever device the coporation have inserted into our software to control us.
Nic P.S Oh well I'm way too political for 12:45 pm. I should probably shut up.

How SPECIAL is the UK to the US?

[dan of the north]

From TFA: '(Lord Drayson's) tough talking on the project includes the fact that Britain has a 'Plan B' if the JSF deal falls through.'

Is the UK's 'Plan B' developing a naval version of the Eurofighter Typhoon, or the already operationnal naval version of the French Rafale? Is either of these V/STOL like the JSF? Will the UK have to build new carriers?

What other options does the UK have if the 'special relationship' is not special enough?

--

Re:How SPECIAL is the UK to the US?

[El Cabri]

They don't absolutely need these planes to be V/STOL since they are to be used on their future, full-size carrier which, unlike their existing mini-carriers will be able to operate any kind of naval jet like F/A-18 or Rafale M provided they are fitted with a catapult.

The design of their future carriers is already supposed to be largely shared with that of France's second carrier which is supposed anyway to operate Rafales. So the decision to dump V/STOL would simplify things actually.

Re:How SPECIAL is the UK to the US?

[Half a dent]

The UK is getting two new full size carriers in a few years, second in size only to the Nimitz class IIRC but they will not be nuclear powered. As part of the development the French have the option to purchase a carrier of the same design too.

Nothing to see here

[lhoriman]

Lockheed's chief scientist, Dr. Gaius Baltar, stated last Friday: "There is absolutely, I repeat, absolutely, no way that the Joint Strike Fighters could be shut down with a software instruction".

Re:Nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

This made my morning, thanks laddie!

Re:Nothing to see here

[gnork]

Yeah, right. It's a radio signal transmitted over radio that triggers the mechanism. Come on, thats an old hat. It's implemented in us american military technology for ages.

obligatory MS joke

[maGiC_RS]

I bet microsoft won't let them publish it, and it has a backdoor that gives you a blue screen and turns off the jet when you reach 20 000ft

It does seem somewhat Microsoft inspired...

[hotarugari]

"Automatic F-22 updates now completed." displays on one of the HUDs. Screen flickers for a second and then US planes, etc. are indistinguishable from UK ones.

Maybe all we really need to do is make sure the UK and Australia agree to the EULA.

Re:Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

in which case, imagine a Beowulf cluster of these. Awesome 3D fireworks rendering on any terrain.

Future upgrades

[csirac]

Aircraft have lifespans measured in decades.

It is inconceivable that a country would buy combat aircraft and expect to use its stock-standard factory installed avionics, weapons systems, sensors, etc. unmodified for 25 years.

Australia has been burnt badly in the past cost-wise with the F-111 and F/A-18 hornets with respect to the USA failing to even think about the transfer of necessary intellectual property that would allow our own contractors to take on upgrade projects.

Instead, we had to use expensive US defense contractors (Boeing? Honeywell? Raytheon? I forget).

AFAICT the F-111 turned out to be a nice plane, but keeping it and the hornets up-to-date could have been MUCH cheaper if the USA weren't arseholes about it all.

Re:Future upgrades

[Detritus]

AFAICT the F-111 turned out to be a nice plane, but keeping it and the hornets up-to-date could have been MUCH cheaper if the USA weren't arseholes about it all.

How is it the USA's fault that Australia didn't negotiate for it in the first place? Did you expect it to be free?

If I sell you an airplane, part of what determines the price is the expected future income from parts and upgrades. That lowers the initial cost of the aircraft to the buyer. The aircraft industry isn't a charity. Besides security concerns, you can't expect them to give away that future income stream. If you want it, pay for it.

Re:Future upgrades

[csirac]

It's not quite as clear-cut as you make it out to be. The people purchasing this stuff aren't retards, they've bought fighter jets before - they know how complicated it can be to get at "trade secrets", especially military ones.

The details are murky, but the impression I get is that they expected access to software to begin with but were later denied when it actually came to needing it futher down the track.

Can't find a good article right now, see There are a number of lessons to be learnt from the experience of industry involvement in the F/A-18 program.

Someone's been watching Battlestar Galactica...

[surfcow]

There goes our secret plan to take over England.

Drats. Foiled again.

Assembly???

[drpimp]

Isn't all this stuff written in assembly anyways? Ewww digging through xor's and and's and sll's fun stuff!

Re:Assembly???

[Brett Buck]

>Isn't all this stuff written in assembly anyways? Ewww digging through
> xor's and and's and sll's fun stuff!

    Almost certainly not. Probably C++, but perhaps Ada.

      Brett

Re:Assembly???

[general_re]

Probably C++, but perhaps Ada.

Always Ada. Invariably Ada. 90-95% of it is in Ada, I'm sure, with only a very, very few well-delineated and tested exceptions. Ada is DoD standard, and they'll hang up on you if you call with a proposal that involves something else.

Re:Assembly???

[drpimp]

I say this because my friend works for Ratheon on some kind of military jet embeded system. Perhaps a C flavor for some things, but definately not C++, maybe just C. You could be right on Ada too.

Re:Assembly???

[trailerparkcassanova]

Most military avionics SW today is written in C with C++ and ADA a tie for second.

Re:Assembly???

[general_re]

Maybe elsewhere, but in the US, that's simply not the case.

Re:Assembly???

[nytes]

The DoD waived the Ada requirement long ago. They encourage it but don't require it.

I've worked on a few subsystems for the military in the the last few years, and when we mention that we use C, they do nothing more than nod their heads and move on to the next subject. They're typically more concerned with how we archive the source code.

Re:Assembly???

[Rick Evans]

Ada is no longer 'required' for DOD projects.

http://sw-eng.falls-church.va.us/ajpofaq.html

Having said that, the 'safety-critical software' community in the US still loves Ada. I've given presentations to a couple of these groups and the first question they ask is typically "Why aren't you using Ada?" They ask this question several more times, and the only answer they really want to hear is, "You're right, we'll re-write all xxxK lines of verified code in Ada and re-test it for free. Thanks for suggesting that."

Rick

Re:Assembly???

[general_re]

Quite so, but it's still more or less a de facto standard for avionics. And for this project in particular:

http://archive.adaic.com/docs/reports/ajpo/transit ion-support/html/3.htm

Messes up the Cylon Strategy for Victory

[dmarcoot]

Now how are we to reduce the rest of the world into a "rag tag fleet" and hunt it down?

Disturbing thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they haven't installed Internet Explorer. Gotta be unsettling to hit the bomb release button only find the display is showing an ad for penis enlarging pills. I think advertising ads shown in fighters during combat should be outlawed. Okay reenlistment ads but nothing else.

F-22 available on BitTorrent soon

[theurge14]

Not that I would download it.

I never understood the F-18 thing

[caitsith01]

When we could have had the vastly superior F-16 or F-15. It's not like we need the naval capabilities of the F-18.

The US is scrapping their Tomcats, maybe we should just pick some of those up on the cheap.

In any event, I think you will find the JSF program participation is more to do with the AUSFTA and related political maneuvering and less to do with any inherent characteristics of the plane.

Re:I never understood the F-18 thing

[inflex]

Mmmm... F15's, yes, I'd loved to have seen those.

I think one thing that held them back as being an option was the 'relatively' short life of the engines, other than that, a fantastic plane.

Re:I never understood the F-18 thing

[general_re]

The US is scrapping their Tomcats, maybe we should just pick some of those up on the cheap.

Hard to service them, though - all the machine tools, dies, and molds required to make parts for them have been destroyed, IIRC.

Anyway, if this Chinese J-10 thing turns out to be more than a knockoff of the F-16, or they stock up on those Su-27's they have a license to make now, you all may want something a bit more than the ol' Hornets on standby, just in case...

Re:I never understood the F-18 thing

[drsmithy]

When we could have had the vastly superior F-16 or F-15. It's not like we need the naval capabilities of the F-18.

I'm far from an expert (and too lazy at the moment to do any research), but how do the F16 and F18 compare in terms of combat radius ? Could the F18 having twin engines be considered essential in such a sparsely populated country ? Was the F15 even an option (cost, availability) ?

Not to mention, we live on an island - and you can't see why an aircraft with excellent naval attack capabilities might be useful ?

The US is scrapping their Tomcats, maybe we should just pick some of those up on the cheap.

My understanding is that F14s have little to no ground attack capabilities, which probably makes them a poor candidate.

Re:I never understood the F-18 thing

[Doctor Faustus]

Grumman was trying to convince the navy to use F-14s for ground attack for years, and they just started to around the time we started bombing Afghanistan. The real problem is that the F-14s are being retired because they're worn out.

In other news...

[Aokubidaikon]

The UK has warned Microsoft that it will cancel its £12bn order for Windows Vista if it does not hand over full access to the computer software code that controls the operating system.

Re:In other news...

[ray-auch]

No need to worry there. Been there, done that, got the source code.

See eg. reference to the UK in http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/sep0 4/09-19OfficeGSPPR.mspx

This was the first result on google for uk government windows source license

Smoke screen?

[Rank_Tyro]

I can think of no real reason other than research and development for this attitued. The UK would need the source in order to develope new weapons systems, and to intergrate current weapons systems onto the aircraft.

  Modern fighter/bomber aircraft are extensivly intergrated. The flight controls, the radar, navigation and cockpit displays all interact with each other in order to put munitions on target.

It is more likely that the UK wants to be able to develope new munitions without having to pay the USA in order to get a new weapon online. I can also understand that the Brits might not want to buy all of their munitions from the US when they can develope and manufature their own.

It is an entirely resonable request to make. F-18s F-16s F-4s are sold throughout the world, and even built under licence by foreign governments. I don't remember hearing that any of the software associated with those programs was being denied to the end user.

As long as you have the required diplomatic connections, a production license, and an end user certificate, it becomes your airplane. There may be some bs reason about the stealth technology but that is more hardware than soft ware.

I can't help but think that this is political posturing in order to get something else

Re:Smoke screen?

[csirac]

I don't remember hearing that any of the software associated with those programs was being denied to the end user.

Wrong, Australia was burnt with both the F/A-18 Hornet and F-111.

A Big Deal: Australia's air combat capability:

There are a number of lessons to be learnt from the experience of industry involvement in the F/A-18 program...

... A further significant hangover from the F/A-18A program was caused by the unsatisfactory handling of technology transfer and of intellectual property. Australia had expectations that, as a consequence of our large capital outlay, significant technology relating to manufacture and support of the aircraft would be transferred to Australia and access would be granted to software source code. Australia's expectations were not met, although when considered against our ability to usefully exploit the software code they may have been unrealistically high. Perhaps the core of the software issue was our lack of access to the source code needed for a full understanding of the aircraft radar, and an inability to reprogram the electronic warfare system in accordance with Australian requirements.

Countries generally want to be self-sufficient, or at least don't want to be trapped into being dependant on others.

Also important is that instead of the government allowing native defense contractors to take on upgrade projects, we are forced into using (expensive) US ones. So that expense goes into a black-hole, it doesn't stimulate our own economy or develop our own aviation industry.

This is not comparable to desktop software at all.

Re:Smoke screen?

[Rank_Tyro]

Trust me, the USAF was burnt on the F-111 as well. I worked on them, 1989-1992.

Yikes

[c0dedude]

Imagine the uproar if this was already implemented, the US Gov gave source with the feature removed, and the checksums didn't match.

Reliant's prefix number is 16309

[Anonymous Coward]

KIRK - You have got to learn WHY things work on a Starship.

SPOCK - Each ship has its own combination code...

KIRK - ... to prevent an enemy to do what we're attempting; using our console to order Reliant to lower her shields...

As far as real security goes

[stox]

Having all the source code, and being able to trust it, is only one facet of what is needed. Unless you can trust the entire tool chain, all the code embodied in silicon, etc., you can not fully trust the system. This brings up an interesting issue. Systems are geting so complex, there is simply not enough time to audit them to build real trust.

Re:As far as real security goes

[vinlud]

But there is accountability

They probably won't check every single line of source code
But when something goes wrong, they are at least able to find the cause, whether it is a software bug or an intentional software instruction

Somebody's been watching...

[ThatsNotFunny]

Star Trek II... isn't that how they lowered Khan's shields?

Re:Somebody's been watching...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, exactly. Seemed appropriate. - The AC that posted

Nothing to see here-Foreign OSS.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm wondering do we ask for the source code for any foreign weapons we buy? Do foreign countries exchange source code amoungst themselves every time they buy weapons? How about we push this "do as I say, not as I do" further and see if companies do the same?

Folks, the War of 1812 is over

[theshowmecanuck]

Actually Canada is part of the Americas. Specifically North America. But we're not part of the United States of America. We are not Americans. You probably just offended a tonne of other Canadians by saying we could be considered Americans. We define what we call ourselves, and we don't consider ourselves Americans, even though they are our closest friend, are our neighbour, and we are the worlds biggest trading partners ($US1.5B to $US2B/day).

Now that said, I personally don't get too worked up over others trying to call me American, but I do want to correct them. I actually like America... I lived in Missouri for 5 years (hence 'theshowmecanuck' for the 'show me' state), and wouldn't have stayed there that long if I didn't like it. But I am Canadian, not American. Mind you, there are some Canadians who forget the 'War of 1812' ended 192 years ago, and do get quite upset over being called American (or anything else American). I don't get it myself. We have differences, but who doesn't.

Re:Folks, the War of 1812 is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadians take offence to being called Americans because when they are called Americans the implication is that their independence, government, freedom, laws, culture, history, rights, and free will is forfeit in the eyes of Americans (or whoever else is saying this). Of course it isn't actually forfeit, but if I told you America is a puppet of the Bin Ladens, dancing to whatever they say, and if they say all Americans are now to be slaves, or are to bow to Islam, or are to be given the choice to commit suicide or undergo a new form of holocaust - Americans might get upset at the suggestion they have no power over their destiny, and their culture/rights/history are all forfeit at the tip of a hat from some other country.

It's easy to see why Canadian get angry when people say they are Americans. The real question is, why do Canadians yell at these retarded people? Jeez Canada! Stop picking on stuipd people, they can't help it!

BSG inspired fears

[slashdotmsiriv]

Those Brits watch too much Battlestar Galactica ...

Watching Too Much StarTrek?

[Black Copter Control]

Of course, if the USA Military didn't have the idea before this, they do now.

"OK, Kahn. Here it comes....."

Richard Stallman Responds

[Stormy Dragon]

Richard Stallman announced a new OSS project to create the Gnufight, the world's first open source warplane.

"Countries unhappy with being tied to a particular vendor with closed-source aircraft like the F-35 JSF will soon be able to enjoy the benefits of an Open Source craft, the F-35 FSF. We believe all military craft should be Free. Free as in beer, Free as in fire zone."

My opinion

[5plicer]

IMO, it is perfectly reasonable to demand the full source code for a critical system, such as a jet, where bugs could possibly kill people.

Re:My opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll keep this in mind the next time I get on an MD-88. After all, the US Govt and Mac-Doug say the source is safe. How can I be sure there isn't some way for an idiot with a bluetooth enabled PDA to turn off the plane in flight?

Because I'm sure the esteemed peer is completely capable of reading the code, or even has the slightest notion of what it entails. Last I knew, most aircraft were capable of being shut down remotely without localized encryption or battle management systems.

poor bastards

[c6gunner]

I'd love to see the looks on their faces when they realize it only runs in reverse.

Re:poor bastards

[Darby]

I'd love to see the looks on their faces when they realize it only runs in reverse.

Oh come on now, be a little realistic here.

The French have been around for some time and they've actually officially been involved in some wars. Plus technology and engineering are widespread.

There are far too many real life situations the French can picture themselves in to allow such sloppy design at this point in the game.

Say, the enemy comes up behind them. Obviously reverse isn't going to help them run away in this situation.

Heck, I'm neither a military strategist nor a naval designer and I managed to come up with that one. I'm sure there are a bunch more.

ahh... just looked it over now i see the problem

[atarione]

while($UK = support Iraq) $fly = true $crashPlane = false endwhile

Now we're getting somewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm quite amused, tho, at the fact that its a close US ally the one that has guts enough to start being assertive. Our lovely european countries are spineless.

Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[reporter]

The current dispute between London and Washington is similar to the dispute that arose between Washington and Japan over the development of Japan's first indigenous fighter, the F-2, in the 1980s. At the time, Washington adamantly objected to the idea of Tokyo developing its own fighter aircraft without participation from American defense companies. Following years of exaggerated fears of Japanese hi-tech domination, Washington feared that this new fighter would be superior to anything that American companies could develop. So, Washington wanted access to the development program. Tokyo relented, and Washington basically forced Tokyo to use an existing American fighter as the basis of the development program.

Once the agreement for joint American-Japanese development was reached, Washington had a change of heart. It refused to give, to Tokyo, the source code for the fly-by-wire computer program that controls the flight of the F-16.

The following summarized the American hypocrisy in 1985.

1. Washington did not want Tokyo to develop its own, possibly superior, weapons system.

2. Once Tokyo agreed to work with the Americans on the weapons system, Washington wanted to ensure that Tokyo would not have access to critical technologies: e.g. fly-by-wire computer algorithms.

That attitude from the 1985 is alive and well in 2006 -- in the form of the current dispute between Washington and London. Washington seems to want its allies to be permanently dependent on American weapons technology.

What kind of BS is that?

Both London and Tokyo should ignore Washington's hypocritical position and should promptly lock Washington out of English and Japanese fighter-aircraft development. Once Washington sees that both the English and the Japanese can develop fighter aircraft that is actually superior to American jet fighters, then Washington will treat London and Tokyo as allies on equal footing.

Right now, Tokyo is deliberating on the fighter to replace its aging F-4 Phantoms. Hopefully, Tokyo will not succumb to American pressure and will design a 100% all-Japanese interceptor.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Yaztromo]

Following years of exaggerated fears of Japanese hi-tech domination, Washington feared that this new fighter would be superior to anything that American companies could develop.

The history of the US doing this goes even further back than the 1980's. Well, at least as my grandfather told the story.

My maternal grandfather was a mechanic on the Avro Arrow project here in Canada, which, as the Wiki article quotes, was "...the biggest, most powerful, most expensive and potentially the fastest fighter that the world has yet seen...".

Now my grandfather was a consumate story teller, and certainly told his share which held dubious claims, but he had also done a number of remarkable things in his lifetime, and was long a very close follower of politics, so it was sometimes hard to differentiate between what was true, and what was just a good story.

Still, the way he told the tale, a major reason why Canada cancelled the Arrow program was due to pressure from the US, which didn't like the fact that Canada had developed a significantly more technologically advanced interceptor than the US contractors were able to develop. According to him, it was direct pressure on Ottawa from Washington to kill the project and instead buy a huge number of BOMARC missles from the US that brought on the end of the Arrrow programme.

Looking at the Wiki article, he may not have been that far off. The BOMARCs were purchased as soon as the Arrow programme was cancelled, and the US did pressure Ottawa to cancel the programme (although perhaps not for the reason Grampa cited). The engineering talent from Avro was quickly poached off by the US Government for the US space programme. Most experts believe that this single act set Canada's long advanced aerospace industry back by decades (during WWII, for example, it was a Canadian company that started making planes with standardized parts, so they could easily be interchanged).

Sadly, the BOMARCs were eventually phased out because they were expensive and completely ineffective. The Arrow could have been re-purposed, or even re-designed, but even this was not to be -- for reasons never explained, all of the plans for the Arrow were destroyed, alone with all of the working prototypes. The Canadian Government poured all of that money into the Arrow, and didn't even bother to store the blueprints for future use or defense research.

Whether it was my grandfathers "keep Canada down" conspiracy theory, the "interceptors aren't useful in the age of nuclear missles" official line, or a combination of the two, the end result has been the same: the BOMARCs sit in a warehouse in North Bay (last I heard at least...", the great bulk of which were copletely faulty and worthless, and we lost a symbol of national pride, and perhaps worst of all, lost some of the greatest brains behind our aerospace industry of the 1950's that put us at the forefront of aerospace research.

As an interesting aside, some years ago my grandfather showed me the some of tthe specially designed tools that were created to work on the Avro Arrow which he kept in his garage. He passed away nearly 5 years ago, and I have never been able to find out what happened to those tools (and am not sure if I could identify them anyhow -- the one I remember looked like a long piece of metal rod with a hook on the end, which could be easily confused with any number of metal rods he had in his workshop). If they could be identified and separated from the rest of his old tools and bits and pieces from over the years, they probably belong in a museum somewhere (heck, so far as I know, the rods he told me were "tools" could very well have been "parts", such as control rods of one sort or another).

Yaz.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

Another example?

ASRAAM & AMRAAM

Joint agreement, each country would build the next generation of the appropriate ranged missile, then they would buy each others. Everyone is happy.

US built AMRAAM, UK bought it.
UK built ASRAAM, US.... well sorry but we've decided to build our own and back out of the deal.

Are you surprised BVRAAM is a European missile? The US cannot be trusted, and my guess is that JSF will get cancelled very soon. Not only is it shaping up to be a dog, the hot sexy money is in UCAVs.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Simon Garlick]

Offtopic, but that was a very nicely-written post. Nice.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[MidnightBrewer]

I think it's more likely that the US would view the UK and Japan as threats if they were on equal footing, not as allies. That's military thinking for you.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we should harken back to the mid 1940's when the British were developing a jet engined plane to exceed Mach 1... Washington suggested a joint venture, and Britain agreed. Once Britain had sent them all their research and plans Washington decided it'd didn't want to do a joint venture anymore, but thanks for doing all the research. Then followed by chuck yeager breaking the sound barrier in a plane that looked strangely like the British one.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Venik]

I fail to see any similarity between the F-2 dispute with Japan and today's siatuation with the F-35. Brits and the US have been involved in numerous joint aerospace projects for many decades. One of the results of such joint work was the most successful VSTOL fighter to date.

Regardless of why the UK wants source code for the F-35 - be it the fear of backdoors or weapons integration tasks - for the amount they invested in this project the Brits are entitled to get the complete package.

Without Britain's participation and without its 135-unit order the price of the F-35 will skyrocket. The UK is the only Tier 1 partner on this project. Withdrawal of the UK from F-35 development and procurement will delay the project and would likely scare away the remaining smaller partners, like Norway, which is seriously considering pulling out of the JSF consortium.

Most importantly, however, should the UK go through with its threat to drop F-35, the plane's export prospects will be destroyed. The F-35 will become another limited-edition fifth-generation fighter a la F-22.

I find it hard to believe that the US reluctance to share the source code with the Brits is solely due to export control concerns. There has to be more to it than just red tape.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[hernick]

It has been a while since anybody other than the USA had the top fighter plane. You claim that either Britain or Japan has the ability to build a twin-engine fighter superior to the F-22 or a single-engine fighter superior to the F-35; I think you're wrong.

Current American fighters have had decades of research put in them. It cannot be denied that the American aeronautical industry is years ahead of Japan's. The Japanese do not have the ability to design and build a rival to the American planes, nor would they attempt to antagonize Washington in this manner.

As for the British, they might be able to contribute to a pan-European fighter development project, but Britain no longer has any significant national aeronautical design and construction facilities. It merely hosts parts of the European aircraft industry, which could not operate solely in Britain. And Europe doesn't have the military budget to develop fighters capable of matching the American birds.

Maybe Europe alone can build a match for the F-22, in a 10-15 years, but by then the USA will have something better. So, if neither Japan nor Europe can do it, is there anybody who could develop fighters superior to the American ones, before the USA has a chance to improve theirs and secure their top spot?

Yes. A European-Russian-Ukrainian alliance with a few hundred secure orders from financial backers such as China, India, Pakistan and Japan. Only then could they start a program to develop a fighter that will be unmatched, the top fighter out there. And in ten years, maybe they'll have succeeded.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Martigan80]

It just like how Boeing screwed Europe, or actually a British aircraft manufacture, buy forcing the F-104 on Europe to win the contract. Too bad that aircraft is not good enough for NATO flying missions. Now all the NATO countries are trying to replace that ill fated aircraft with...F-16's.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Jerom]

Yes, that's right any technological advantage the US has is so good only a collaboration of more or less the entire (civilised) world could beat them.

Exactly what we have seen in the car industry too. The best (and definitely) most succesful cars in the world are designed and built in the US by US companies. Oh, wait... they're not, which means other (individual) countries can (and will if needed) out-design and outproduce the US. And don't give me that "we are the biggest economy in the world" bullshit either. If you take the EU their GDP is already larger than that of the US.

The trust the rest of the world has in the US has been constantly shrinking (thanks to George "the dicator" Bush), and hence the willingness to rely on the US for anything remotely vital is continuously decreasing. And that is a good thing.

The US is still the strongest kid on the courtyard, but they lost the trust of the other kids, which was actually their main asset (as an albeit imperfect example of a free world). Any empire is bound to fail sooner or later.

Sorry, you had something good going.

J.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Alioth]

Alledgedly, it was also US pressure on Britain that had the TSR.2 canceled - http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/tsr2/index .html

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[tibike77]

Hopefully, Tokyo will not succumb to American pressure and will design a 100% all-Japanese interceptor.

...and I hope it will be able to shape-shift, and have 5 of them merge into a bigger, better fighter, were it for alien space monsters to invade Japan's airspace... eumh, "again" :P

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[CountBrass]

The US did something similar with atomic research: took all the work the UK had been doing on the understanding they would share the result (the A-bomb) and then refused to.

What constantly amazes me is. given the way the US constantly screws its allies is that a) it still has any and b) the UK still has the fantasy that we have a "special relationship" with the US: the only special relationship we have is the one where we bend over and drop our trousers on demand.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[CountBrass]

Airbus, built by a European consortium, is superior to anything the US makes. The US has, what, 240M people? Europe has 750M. China, over a billion. The writing is on the wall for the US's hegemony, which has relied a lot on other countries being willing to accept their cheques without ever cashing them (i.e. use their currency as their own).

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[jonwil]

Its also the reason the US doesnt like the EU Galileo GPS sattelite network.
The US doesnt like it when nations like the UK, canada, australia, france, germany, japan and other "allied" nations develop military technology that it has absolutly no control over and has no qualms about using its muscle to try to prevent such technology from getting off the ground.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fun because some countries like Germany or France say no to US for going to war they are traitors and cowards but when they use their home made technology they become super heros (Airbus, Iter, Galileo, Maglev, ...).

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's easy to over simplify the relationship between countries. What we know as a matter of public policy probably pales into insignificance if we knew the truth that was discussed behind closed doors.

If it wasn't for the net the big knobs at the top would still have a firm grasp of what we know and don't know. Even Jack Bauer can't stop the flow of information although I would give only even odds on his kicking the fcuk out of the internet.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[eeyore]

If I were the U.S. Defen(c|s)e Secretary, I'd just be glad the Japanese weren't planning to build aircraft carriers to fly their fighters from.
--
James

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[oliderid]

You said that Europe needs 10 or even 15 years to compete with a JSF design. Well i'm totally ignorant on avionic engeneering but why do you think that countries like the UK or France (even if their are united) are so retard that they still live in a pre Internet world where high definition computer screen are still 640X480 and CD-ROM driver costs a fortune?

I mean the only explanation I've seen so far is purely financial (no budget for European armies). The problem isn't the technology/know how as such.
If suddently European countries decide to invest all the money they've got in a state of the art military airplane. Do you seriously think it would take them 15 years to reach the JSF level? I can hardly believe it.

European powers thought they had a technological advantage over any other nations in the world before the World War I. Russian have learnt the hard way that humans, whatever the race could be, Japanase included, are the smartest beings on earth. If you think they are idiots, you lose.

Anyway what's the point to cause so much stress between the UK and the US. In the upcoming new world, western powers will be under severe competition with asiatic countries. If we aren't united, we will lose the leadership for a millenium if not more. If the US cannot even trust an ally like the UK, NATO is doomed.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[CAIMLAS]

"What kind of BS is that?"

Weapons - mainly to countries in Europe, Japan, Australia, and other "western" countries - are the largest export from the United States. Mainly in the form of things like munitions and expensive multi-billion dollar airplanes and ships, but small arms are also in that factor.

It would be both economically and militarily unwise to do otherwise, that's what kind of BS it is.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, Internet has been designed at CERN (Centre Europeen de Recherche Nucleaire - European Center for Nuclear Reseach) in Geneva, Switzerland by a british and the french invented the first global consumer network (15 millions terminals) called the Minitel years before Internet.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Xonstantine]

Exactly what we have seen in the car industry too. The best (and definitely) most succesful cars in the world are designed and built in the US by US companies. Oh, wait... they're not, which means other (individual) countries can (and will if needed) out-design and outproduce the US.

You are absolutely correct that the US does not have a monopoly on great engineering, nor are they the best at everything or even most things. Militarily speaking, however, the US does have technical supremacy in more than a few areas. Aerospace and naval technology being predominate (and nuclear also). In theory, other countries could build super carriers and F-22 or JSF equivilent aircraft. In practice, no one else has done so successfully. Whether that is because of lack of skill, lack of will, or lack of funding is largely irrelevant.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[WebWeasel2006]

Oblig Simpsons quote:

"And now we present to you the pride of the American air-force: The british made harrier jump jet" Enter rocking guitar track....

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan is 1/3rd the size of the US and Britain 1/6th. Common sense would seem to indicate that the US would REALLY have to drop the ball to feel threatened by those two. OTOH, both China and the EU ARE bigger than the US, and the US drives the UK and Japan away from alliance with them at their peril.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

No, HTML (web, www if you'd like) was invented in CERN, while underlying TCP/IP is US military (DARPA) project.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Skinkie]

You probably forgot to mention that the resources (Marshall Plan) could only be spend in the USA. So there was a big benifit for the US economy aswell.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Bombula]

Hopefully, Tokyo will not succumb to American pressure and will design a 100% all-Japanese interceptor.

I can only assume you're talking about the long-awaited development of veritech fighters.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Karem Lore]

So the United States IS a warmonger...

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Runefox]

There already is, or at least, was, a superior fighter to the Raptor and JSF, developed by Russia ten years ago, but probably never to see the light of day. It's called the Su-37 Flanker, and it outperforms the F/A-22 in every aspect but stealth.

A modified Su-35, it has no angle of attack limitation, and its thrust-vectoring nozzles, in addition to its unstable integral triplane layout, allow it to perform maneuvers that allow the aircraft to, for a moment, literally fly backwards in controlled flight, and can outmaneuver any Western fighter, including the projected/declassified performance ratings of the F/A-22, in close range combat, as seen in the Farnborough air show in 1996. It has a forward pulse-doppler array radar and rearward-facing radar as well, and as such can target and fire upon targets at its six o'clock with rearward-facing missiles. It also has advanced infrared sensors that can most likely target and track an F/A-22 in supersonic flight (since it would light up like a christmas tree to IR due to air friction).

So while the USAF stresses BVR combat, and do it well (though most situations don't allow BVR engagements, especially without AWACS), the Russian design bureaus favour supermaneuverability, and do it well. Besides, if the USAF really thought that BVR combat was all that was required to survive in the air, why would they equip their F/A-22 with a cannon, short-range missiles, and thrust-vectoring nozzles? The long and short of it is, close-range air engagements are far from history. The USAF knows it, and so do the Russians. While the Russians are allies, they provide exports to countries that could oppose the USA, and therefore this kind of technology should not be taken lightly, even if it isn't out there yet.

After all, the thought that technology and technological superiority could win air wars was what almost decimated the US Navy fighters in the Vietnam war, where their F-4 Phantoms didn't have internal guns - But rather relied on missiles, which are limited in supply and have a good chance of missing. Rules of engagement also required visual confirmation before firing, and the Phantoms were almost completely slaughtered by the North Vietnamese MiG's and their cannons, only finding reprieve when gun pods were fitted to their aircraft.

Anyway, fortunately for the F/A-22, it's not looking like Su-37's will be along any time soon, unless an export market opens up. Even so, I wouldn't call the F/A-22 or F-35 infallible, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take global collaboration or a decade of research to top it. The F/A-22 is already a dinosaur of an aircraft, having been in development since 1986. It's not the glorious alpha-and-omega of the aircraft world, and it has its share of problems, not the least of which is payload limitations due to the concept of carrying only internal stores (external stores would allow the aircraft to be detected on radar). And if any 'opfor' nation were to build an analog of the Jindalee Over the Horizon radar system, conceiveably every US stealth aircraft would be rendered useless.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the UK already has significant production facilties for engines, fusulages and wings, and is a major manufacturer of non-fixed wing aircraft, I'd say we'd have very little trouble producing our own aircraft without a partnership, if we had to.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the US had a vested interest in 'bailing out our butts', at least in WW2: the US armed forces had absolutely no chance of defeating the Axis powers single-handed, and indeed had sat on the fence regarding their preferred victors in that war until the last possible second. Had the Japanese not forced the issue by bombing Pearl Harbour do you honestly think the US would have entered WW2? The truth is that the war was almost over by the time the US joined the Allies, and even then their contribution was nowhere near as great as your history books would have you believe. The US helped bring WW2 to a swifter end, but didn't alter the ultimate outcome in any way.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[redalien]

Oh come on, do you honestly think this was a selfless act? You used a situation where we needed help to profit. If you hadn't you'd have been next. Seriously, think before you speak.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

The design plant had been infiltrated by the KGB at critical points. They had to cease production for that reason. BOMARCs were shite and a cover to excuse poor intelligence.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[rpjs]

But the packet switched networking technology which underlies TCP/IP was developed by the British Post Office in the 1960s.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[max99ted]

Thanks I needed a good laugh this morning.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

Both London and Tokyo should ignore Washington's hypocritical position and should promptly lock Washington out of English and Japanese fighter-aircraft development. Once Washington sees that both the English and the Japanese can develop fighter aircraft that is actually superior to American jet fighters, then Washington will treat London and Tokyo as allies on equal footing.

No they won't, England and Japan will become threats. The USA is not interested in independent allies, it wants servant nations not equals.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

Harold Wilson, Memoirs: 1916-1964 (1986)>>

Lend-Lease also involved Britain's surrender of her rights and royalties in a series of British technological achievements. Although the British performance in industrial techniques in the inter-war years had been marked by a period of more general decline, the achievements of our scientists and technologists had equalled the most remarkable eras of British inventive greatness. Radar, antibiotics, jet aircraft and British advances in nuclear research had created an industrial revolution all over the developed world. Under Lend-Lease, these inventions were surrendered as part of
the inter-Allied war effort, free of any royalty or other payments from the United States. Had Churchill been able to insist on adequate royalties for these inventions, both our wartime and our post-war balance of payments would have been very different.

The Attlee Government had to face the consequences of this surrender of our technological patrimony, but there was worse to come. Congress had voted Lend-Lease until the end of the war with Germany and Japan and no longer. When the European war ended, most people expected the conflict with Japan to last for another year or so. The atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima ended that assumption. Almost within the hour, President Truman, unwillingly no doubt, but without any choice in the matter, notified Attlee that Lend-Lease was being cut off. At that time it was worth £2,000 million a year. There was no possible means of increasing our exports to the United States to earn that sort of sum. Britain was in pawn, at the very time that Attlee was fighting to exert some influence on the postwar European settlement. The only solution was to negotiate a huge American loan, the repayment and servicing of which placed a burden on Britain's balance of payments right into the twenty-first century.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

That attitude from the 1985 is alive and well in 2006 -- in the form of the current dispute between Washington and London. Washington seems to want its allies to be permanently dependent on American weapons technology.

What kind of BS is that?

Clue you can use: America didn't get to be "#1" (whatever that is) by LUCK.
Another clue: The world is not a friendly place.
Yet another: It doesn't generally help to play fair.
And: They don't play fair either.
Finally: Pussies don't stay #1.

Ultimately, you're either for or against the US way of life and doing what has ALWAYS been necessary to support that.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Maybe Europe alone can build a match for the F-22, in a 10-15 years, but by then the USA will have something better.

Yep, the US technological advantage today is at least a decade. That's why I recorded the film on my VHS VCR last night, and I'll be tootling off home in my Austin Metro at the end of the day to play Doom on my state-of-the-art 80386 PC.

Still, at least my job's safe: my group writes the core software for a major US corporation, and as long as they have to make sure we can't take our bang-up-to-date 1990s skillsets and use them to benefit a British company, they can't fire me! I'm sure the same is true of all the major defence companies in the region, who only supply their technology to the US military and would never dream of offering it to our own as well, or even instead.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[tpbx]

The Arrow was cancelled because the Canadian and US Governments realized that the Soviet
  Union had deeply penetrated Avro and, more importantly, the subcontractor company that
had the Titanium fabrication technology to manifacture the Arrow's wingroot box. When
the first mig-25 fell into western hands, they found that critical part was in fact, a
direct development of that feature in the Arrow.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Cheapy]

Would you have rather not gotten any of the money?

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[nickos]

"there is only one special relationship in Washington, and that is with Israel" - one of Blair's advisers as quoted in "The Accidental American"

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Maximum Prophet]

Hopefully, Tokyo will not succumb to American pressure and will design a 100% all-Japanese interceptor.

My god man, think about what you are saying!!! If Japan develops it's own fighters, they'll be 1/5 the size, twice as powerful, have heated seats and be able to play MP3s at mach 5. (:-) That and the ability to combine fighters and transform into a giant MechWarrior will put us at their mercy.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[nickos]

You do know that the UK is part of the EU, don't you?

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[surprise_audit]

So, in fact, Microsoft are simply following the good example set by their Government?? Hmmm...

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

It was also in America's best interest to do so.

If people treated their friends like America treated its allies, they wouldn't have any friends.

America_Man: Hey, suck my cock! England_Man: How about no? America_Man: Hey, fuck you pal. My great grandfather saved your great grandfathers ass! England_Man: Why does that mean I need to suck your cock?

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Lumpy]

What constantly amazes me is. given the way the US constantly screws its allies is that a) it still has any and b) the UK still has the fantasy that we have a "special relationship"

and people wonder why people and other countries hate us to the point that when i travel abroad I wear a "I Love Toronto" and other Look he's canadian eh? clothing. Hell being from michigan I sound like a kanuk already. Now if a friend can get me that fake Canadian drivers license that I can keep in my wallet when overseas I will feel better.

Americans are hated because we heppily allow our government to screw everyone else on the planet for our own gains.

The only real allies we have anymore are there for 2 reasons. A) they are as corrupt as ourselves and want in on a piece of the action. B) My government has threatened them in one way or another than they do not dare change their relationship status.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't have an ass. In fact he didn't have any animals at all.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[tmortn]

Very good points. The Russian Mig and Sukoi designs are very very capable fighters. In fact one on one they may well be the best figters in the world. Heck with the 37. The Mig-29 and Su-27 were both capable of the full range of acrobatics you describ in the 37 they just did not have the directional thrust ability or tri-plane config.

But when you start talking one on one there are many capable fighters in the world and I would argue the US designs hold no particular advantage and in fact with all designs except the F-16 probably hold a general disadvantage. The Euro Fighter and Rafale are both highly capable designs and the top level Mig and Su designs are as well. Proper training is the key then. Stick comparable trained fighters in those planes and they will have an odds on chance of winning a one on one engagement with anything. The next key then becomes the overall air power system. And that is where US dominance lays. The US supremacy is almost entirely wrapped up in our air control system as a whole. Nobody else does cordinated air power as well as we do. AWACS is the heart of it and why BVR today is not what BVR was in Vietnam. Pilot training comes next and last comes the technology.

The F-22 and JSF designs are not particularly impressive performers in terms of one on one dogfighting, they are adequate and thrust vectoring does a great deal to overcome their bulk that has arisen from internal warloads and stealth aerodynamic dictates. JSF in dogfight trim might be able to out turn an F-16 but only with directional thrust. Retrofit a similar capacity to the F-16 (which has been done and would be much cheaper) and its much more manouverable than the final JSF design. The advantage of the new US designs relies entirely on the stealth aspect. IE highly visible but un-reachable active search radar in AWACS vectors the US planes around in such a way that they can deal with threats before they know they are there.... not just BVR. Actual chase into ideal 6 o clock firing position to visually id an enemey before they even know they are there and then have control of any resulting engagement before it even begins for the other pilot.

If someone neutralizes stealth then the US designs are in a heap of shit in a matchup against a comperable air power. But then.... who is comperable any more? About the only time any single nation could claim higher capable numbers any more would be when just facing our naval assets. If we have access to forward deployment of air force assets then we are kind of head and shoulders above anyone other than a full NATO turnout or China. Russia fields only a shadow of its former strength.

AWACS, super cruising, AMRAAM, decent air combat manouevering capacity and highly trained pilots is a pretty devestating combination if all the pieces of that puzzle are there. The weakness of the US system lies in the fact we probably could not currently sustain a major air war level of munitions expenditure for very long and if someone could force us off our game plan... IE contest control of the skies (AWACS deployment) then we would be hurting in an old school scrap for control of the sky. The current thought is that with the next gen design if we got reduced to that then stealth would proove an advantage in dogfighting.

In other words, the US designs are all about winning the fight before you even get in knife range and even when they reach that stage they are far from uncapable. That is just not their top design priority. If they are right about that advantage then the designs are everything they have said they are. But to date there has not been a real test of it. Knocking down the excuse of an Air Force that Iraq had in Gulf War I dosn't really count and thats about as close as we have come to a modern air combat war (and that was before any of the designs were in production). Yes they had numbers, but they had shit for training and almost zero air born radar capacity. We knocked down their command and control system in the first wave and at that point the Iraq air f

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[gwayne]

When the U.S. says "bend over," the whole world drops its trousers--even fellow Americans!

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[bitt3n]

design a 100% all-Japanese interceptor

Does the world really need a jet that transforms into a giant robot? I say yes. Yes, we do.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[kiwimate]

Oh please. Do we even need to remind people that the US took their sweet time in getting to the wars? (Quick test: ask the average American when WWI and WWII started, and watch a shocking number of them get it wrong because they date it from when the US got involved.)

Especially WWII. The UK (along with other members of the empire like Australia and New Zealand) pretty much held off the opposing forces singlehanded until they were at breaking point before the US finally deigned to get involved. Because they'd been going it alone for the last several years, England was broke by then and, yes, desperately needed an infusion of funds.

But it was by no means a one way street. Example: one of the conditions from the US was that England had to turn over all the enriched nuclear material they'd been generating in their own plants, so that the US was now the only one with sufficient quantities to build more bombs.

Please don't cheapen the massive sacrifices made in terms of lives lost by England, Australia, and New Zealand in both world wars. It's not a great stretch to say that those countries did much more than their fair share in the first half of the 20th century to ensure a world in which all free nations could prosper, and that they were the leading defenders of freedom at those times. We still remember Gallipolli...

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[orderb13]

What kind of crack are you smoking? There is no way that the war would have been won without America and Canada's help. The Japs would have finished overrunning Austraila in short order and eventually Hilter would have succeeded in cutting of the British Isles and starving them out.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[OldeTimeGeek]

So the US goernment did something to suit it's own needs. Which government doesn't?

Governments don't exist to serve the wants of needs of the entire planet, just those of a few - either themselves, their constituents, or, if you're extremely cynical, the folks that pay for them. Any government does otherwise won't be around very long.

Or do you honestly think that foreign aid is given ever selflessly and unconditionally with no ulterior motive?

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Kadin2048]

Your analogy is all wrong.

The Japanese auto industry is superior to the American one, for a variety of reasons most of which are not really germane to this discussion (I blame a lot of it on the trade unions in the US not allowing the sort of cost-cutting and automated production lines that are common in Japan and in the Japanese-owned US factories, but that's for another time). But the point is that in terms of passenger car sales, the Japanese auto industry is bigger than the US industry. Yes, the American companies are still bigger (last time I checked anyway) than most of the Japanese companies, but a lot of their revenue comes from trucks, and the development work there isn't necessarily applicable to passenger cars. The Japanese companies pour far more engineering resources and talent into the design of their cars than the American companies do, thus they deliver a superior product. It's not a case of "Japanese engineers are better than American engineers."

The converse ("American aeronautical engineers are superior to Japanese engineers") is also untrue. The US arguably produces better aircraft and air-weapons systems than anyone else because it spends an obscene amount of money on the field. Far in excess of what any other country spends, either in terms of GDP percentage or absolute value. This means that the number of people working in the field is much greater than anyplace else. (You could probably argue that for the money spent, the US isn't nearly as superior as it ought to be, which might be indicative of a lack of innovation stemming from the lack of competition in the field, and I'd probably agree with you.)

So really, to correct your analogy, the US military-aeronautical industry is more akin to the Japanese car manufacturers than it is to the American ones.

Could some other country or group of countries produce a superior fighter aircraft? Most definitely -- but I'm not sure that there is anyone, perhaps save China or India, that really has the motivation to. It's a question of resource allotment; in the US, almost all of the R&D money in aeronautics goes to military research, while in Europe I bet a higher percentage of the available aeronautical engineers are working on civilian aircraft. Thus it's not really surprising to me that Airbus passenger jets are outselling Boeings; Airbus isn't taking all of its best people and having them work on classified military projects, Boeing probably is.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the Wiki article, he may not have been that far off. The BOMARCs were purchased as soon as the Arrow programme was cancelled, and the US did pressure Ottawa to cancel the programme (although perhaps not for the reason Grampa cited). The engineering talent from Avro was quickly poached off by the US Government for the US space programme. Most experts believe that this single act set Canada's long advanced aerospace industry back by decades (during WWII, for example, it was a Canadian company that started making planes with standardized parts, so they could easily be interchanged).

Firstly, I won't disagree that this damaged the Canadian aerospace industry. I do have a few points however:

1. Most of the so-called Canadian engineers were of immediate UK extraction. This talent was not "grown" in Canada as so many Arrow romanticists believe.
2. The Germans we (the US) commandeered after WW II did as much if not more for the US space program.
3. Canadian politicans killed it. They always had the option to "do the right thing". Look in the mirror (or at John Diefenbaker) if you want to blame somebody.

The Arrow looked to be a first-rate aircraft.. the F-22 Raptor of its day. The problem comes about when I hear of Arrow enthusiasts making claims like a 1960 vintage Arrow could knock down a 1985 vintage F-18 Hornet, which is bullshit since we're talking of a fighter that was never produced (prototypes notwithstanding) and that somehow US defense industry wouldn't be able to catch up given a 25 year gap.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Gunny101]

This time, instead of calling the plane a "Zero", they can call it a "One". Japs have had coder naming conventions even before coders did!

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[SgtChaireBourne]

JAZ-39 was one, but despite having a good aircraft, there have been some setbacks and even greater difficulty actually closing a sale.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Joseph_V]

Remember also in the 1940s when Alan Turing came on a collaborative visit to washington to discuss German encryption (which he has already broken, but the UK has not told the US about it). Washington gave their allies total disclosure to their computing machines, Turing went back and invented a few things... a machine that would crack the German code and.... the Turing machine.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 40's Canada's relationship with the UK was must stronger than its relationship with the States. Also, the UK did not force Canada to join the war; Canada's contribution was entirely voluntary (which was not the case for most of the other countries involved). Canada joined years before the US did.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[RestartLater]

The US helped bring WW2 to a swifter end, but didn't alter the ultimate outcome in any way.

They did alter the outcome, as Europe wasn't overrun by the Soviets. Which is what would've happened had the US not joined. Well, at least most of Western Europe would've been under Soviet control if US hadn't joined...

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[PMW]

Although the Arrow is a super-popular plane with many people, the myths about it gets blown a bit out of proportion and reasons why it was cancelled are complicated.

Realistically, it isn't clear the US government really had a policy, particularly for or against, the Arrow. On one hand, there were some who wanted BOMARC to be used instead (and the poster is right that BOMARC was a failure). On the other hand, the US Military:
* Provided test equipment and support for the development of the Arrow (a B-47 bomber was provided to test an engine.)
* Offered to donate a fire support system when the original planned ASTRA system fell apart.
* Offered to pay for several Arrows for the RCAF in order to keep the program running.

IMO the reasons it was cancelled was that:
* It was a really expensive project & plane. The most expensive project Canada had ever done and the most expensive interceptor in the world. Realistically that was the wave of the future but the Canadian government got sticker shock.
* The project wasn't done when it was cancelled. The designers would, of course, tell you the Arrow would be perfect yet nobody, the politicians in particular, could be sure. Realistically, actual performance/cost numbers were still uncertain.
* Nobody else seemed interested in buying it (due to cost).
* Everyone had gone "missile crazy" in the 50's 60's. Many people seriously suggested that airplanes would soon be obsoleted by missiles. That turned out to be BS but it was widely believed. Early versions of the Mirage & Phantom fighters didn't even carry guns (much to their detriment) this was so widely believed.

In any event had the Arrow been completed and used it probably would have been more expensive than anticipated, wouldn't have worked as well as web-advocates claim, would have never seen combat, and would have been retired as a beloved part of Canadian aerospace history.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[JustASlashDotGuy]

Sadly, the BOMARCs were eventually phased out because they were expensive and completely
ineffective. The Arrow could have been re-purposed, or even re-designed, but even this was not
to be -- for reasons never explained, all of the plans for the Arrow were destroyed, alone with
all of the working prototypes. The Canadian Government poured all of that money into the Arrow,
and didn't even bother to store the blueprints for future use or defense research.


*If* my memory is correct, I saw a story about he Arrow a while back on TV (history channel
maybe?). Initially, the Canadian gov't canceled the Arrow and claimed it was because they
wanted to divert money to the local farmers (or some BS story like that). The gov't later
said that the true reason the Arrow was cancel was because their was a suspected KBG spy in
the program and the plans were being copied. Therefore, everything was destroyed. And yes, the
Arrow was supposed to be truely remarkable. It set Canada back a great deal having to play
damage control.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[juan2074]

I just got the movie from the library. It will be interesting to watch, even if Mel Gibson is in it.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Rich0]

Well, yes and no. Which is better for the US economy:

1. Spend US tax dollars to employ US Contractors to build bridges in France.

2. Spend US tax dollars to employ US Contractors to build bridges in California.

Really, the biggest benefit of #1 to the US economy is in the form of getting money out of rich taxpayers and into the hands of employees who are more likely to spend it.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Elaarni]

Maybe Europe alone can build a match for the F-22, in a 10-15 years, but by then the USA will have something better.

You arent too familiar with the Eurofighter are you? Its performance is a match in many ways for the required design specs for the F-22. Europe isnt anything close to 10-15 years away, in fact, Eurofighter Typhoon has been delivered to at least 4 air forces. Guess what? The US because of delays has NOTHING as good as Eurofighter in its inventory since the F-22 still hasnt been delivered. So lets see, you think (incorrectly) that Europe would need 10-15 years to catch up with US fighter technology, and by then the next generation of US fighters would be available anyhow? You do know that the current cycle of aircraft has been in use since the 60-70ss right? thats a delivery cycle of 30 years being conservative, not 10 or 15. Sir, you severely underestimate the ecolomy and ability of the EU.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

get me that fake Canadian drivers license

And there's your problem: you think too much like an american. You'll need a fake passport, since drivers licenses are not used as pseudo-mandatory ID-cards anywhere else in the world.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post. That's really neat that you personally knew someone that was apart of the project. I'm a big fan of the Avro Arrow. It really was ahead of it's time. One thing you didn't mention or might not have known was that at the time. The US was using it's U-2 spy planes, which were classified at the time. I believe they were worried about the possibility of them being spotted by the Arrow.

Either way it's sad what happened, it was a great loss to Canada.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[slashdot_commentator]

Agreed. Granted the Soviet Union probably was the biggest contributor in terms of military force against the Axis, but I have my doubts they could have singlehandedly beaten the Germans in WWII. America's military forces quickly outstripped what Britain was putting up. And we're not even counting in the economic/manufacturing aid America provided. I'd guess by the time US/Britain hit France, they must have occupied about 1/3 of all the German forces, increasing that percentage as they got towards the Rhine.

Now picture the Soviet Union without that second front. No Murmansk convoys during 42-44, no long range bombing of Germany's industrial centers, and roughly a third more military force. Germany's problem was (Hitler) always trying to hold more land than they were capable of defending, and Russian winter. Even after the failures of Stalingrad & Kursk, if Hitler had adopted Guderian/Model/Mansteins' style of mobile warfare at that point, I think (without a second front) the Germans could have made a Soviet gov't collapsing push into the Caucasses. Without a second front, the Soviets would have experienced the same supply problems the Germans had going into the SU. Forget about liberating Eastern Europe. In fact, if the Germans didn't have that poisonous Aryan mentality, they could have gotten a good chunk of the USSR to revolt against the Communists.

As for the Japanese, just remember they're an island nation with a limited population and totally dependent external sources of raw materials. Granted, the Japanese would have predominated Asia, but I doubt they would have bothered invading Australia. (Why bother, if there were no Americans.) Just realize the Japanese could not possibly stand up against the US, even if the US was alone. The US put 70% of their military resources into Europe, and even with 30-40%, they were able to crush the Japanese. (Didn't matter what standing army the Japanese had in Manchuria. They couldn't control the sea.) Battle of Coral Sea and Midway pretty much sealed the Japanese fate.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Chuckstar]

F-22 has a superior radar to anything the Russians have ever even imagined. F-22s radar can scan with low probablity of intercept, can act as a jammer, can act as a high-bandwidth data link and scan enemy communications. These functions can overlap.

The combination of F-22's radar and avionics provides superior target acquisition abilities and superior situational awareness compared to any Russian fighter.

F-22 is capable of supercruise -- sustained supersonic flight without using the afterburner.

F-22 has a higher top speed, higher thrust-to-weight ratio (can accelerate faster) and a higher ceiling than Su-37. As indicated by the supercruise ability, F-22 can sustain top speed for much longer than Su-37.

F-22 can carry a larger weapons load than Su-35 and do so in its internal bays. Additional carrying capacity is available on under-wind hard points.

The only advantage of Su-37 is close-range dog fighting, and that ability has never been demonstrated by anyone other than an extremely skilled test pilot. Its not clear how easy any of those maneuvers would be for a typical front-line pilot to learn or, more importantly, implement in a stressful combat environment.

Extreme maneuverability can be very important to an aircraft, I'll grant you, but Su-37 hardly "outperforms the F/A-22 in every aspect but stealth". Not even close.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[slashdot_commentator]

We still remember Gallipolli...

You see, this is the English's problem. They didn't have a Field Marshal like Patton to explain to them that "the goal is not to die for one's country, but to get the other bastard to die for their country."

Don't get me wrong, on the individual level, the courage and professionalism of the British forces is quite impressive, and sacrifice heartbreaking. But you guys freaking LOST in Gallipoli!

It was a fiasco that lead to the collapse of Imperial Russia, and the rise of modern Turkey. Even Americans have stopped being nostalgic about the Alamo. And ultimately, the Americans won THAT campaign. Not like the Dardenelles Campaign, where every military analyst goes... "gee, we won WW I, but wouldn't it have been nice to not have embarked on that fiasco..."

Yeah, individually, you proved yourselves, but really, it was a failure. Stop glorifying failure. Gallipoli and the Charge of the Light Brigade. Sheesh. It was a purely a propaganda measure by the Monarchy to get suckers like you to think there's something glorious about dying for one's country. And to make failure less painful and reduce the desire to lynch the idiots who thought that one up.

Gallipoli, Dieppe, leave the beach invasions to the Americans. Can't think of a single, significant American beach invasion failure. Even when getting slaughtered at Iwo Jima, we were conscientious enough to accomplish the objective for what the sacrifice was made.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[ralphclark]

> Americans are hated because we heppily allow our government to screw everyone else on the planet for our own gains.

A small correction: the US government is screwing everyone on the planet for their own _short_term_ gains. Ultimately USAians are screwing themselves too, because all the big problems today are global problems.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[jebiester]

Or you could see it as a method of getting money out of ordinary American taxpayers and into the hands of rich US shareholders. Like what's happening in Iraq with all the US contracts (like Haliburton).

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[BgJonson79]

What's a USian? I can't seem to find the definiton in a dictionary. Have you tried, "American?"

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[mabhatter654]

I'm waiting for native Japaneese military hardware. Remember, Mitusibishi and other big name companies were big suppilers of the japaneese military machine. Frankly, I'd like to see what the Japs could do, espically if they worked together. I just know in the basement of some manufacturer there's anime inspired "giant robot fighters" working or being designed. Sounds like fun, but scary as hell for washington.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[ralphclark]

"USAian" is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek term frequently used on Slashdot to denote US citizens. America is a pair of continental landmasses and "Americans" would therefore include Canadians, Mexicans, Chileans, Argentinians and everybody in between. Or so it has been said.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Runefox]

I had a big post lined up, but as I think about it more and more, it's impossible to compare the F/A-22 to the Su-37, since a conventional aircraft and a "stealth" aircraft are in separate classes. As far as stealth goes, the F/A-22 is amazing that it can even do what it does due to the tradeoffs one must undergo to performance in order to gain stealth. Look at the F-117A, for example. While it's a striker, it's also very unstable, and without its computer system constantly making adjustments, the plane would likely be uncontrollable by a human, specifically due to its unorthodox design.

I still believe the F/A-22 to be a colossal waste of money, but that doesn't stop it from being a great example of technology. It's a conglomorate of every major advancement in warfare in the past few decades, and it shows. However, it also shows in its over $70 billion development price tag, and its massive unit cost.

I'm under the impression that conventional aircraft are not going to be obsolete any time in the foreseeable future. As long as production costs for stealth aircraft are so high, and as long as tradeoffs have to be made in order to retain stealth, there are going to be outperformers in the conventional world. The idea is that stealth will reduce losses and enable a higher success rate in combat, but that remains to be seen. The F-117 has been shot down (one was lost in Yugoslavia to an SA-6, an antiquated piece of equipment), and they have were "supposed" to be completely invisible. I have a hard time believing that the F/A-22 is going to be so, either, and I doubt it will be impervious to SAM or AAM attacks. I guess the main thing is, if it can cut down their effective range, or enable an easier missile evasion, it's considerably safer for the pilot, and the USAF's pocketbook.

But still, if an opfor (china, maybe?) comes up with an operational analog to the Australian Jindalee Operational Radar Network, the F/A-22, in essence, along with the F-35, B-2, F-117 and any other stealth aircraft the US might develop, will become nothing more than a standard aircraft. The other thing you have to ask yourself is, current radar is absorbed by the F/A-22's RAM coating, among other 'stealthy' characteristics. But what happens if conventional radar changes?

Radar now is a lot more accurate, and a lot more powerful, than it was when WWII was at its peak. What if it were possible to detect the absorption - Or reflection - of radar waves? It might sound absurd, but radar can detect radar, after all - How difficult would it be to set up, for example, a corridor or ring style network of radar systems capable of analyzing each other's received waves for anomalies/gaps? I don't work with radar, nor do I pretend to understand the details of its operation, but it seems to me that the only real way an aircraft could be stealth to radar is if it could "repeat" radar waves that hit it, essentially emulating a radar wave passing through.

Actually, now that I research it a bit more, this kind of radar already exists, in a sense. The Czech Tamara "Anti-Stealth" radar, and the newer VERA. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VERA_passive_sensor)

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Kaychsea]

The US was dragged kicking and screaming into the second world war by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. If Japan hadn't been an Axis power I doubt the aid for Europe would have been forthcoming.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Kaychsea]

Ooooooh, he shoots, he misses. Given the reference to Gallipoli I'd say you could be talking to an Australian or a New Zealander there. And they like being called English as much as you do. You left out Grenada.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Kaychsea]

As he's called Kiwimate, I'd go with New Zealander. (must learn to pay attention!)

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[bbc]

"What's a USian? I can't seem to find the definiton in a dictionary. Have you tried, "American?""

You have no idea what a word means, yet you have a pseudonym ready?

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[boule75]

Some French still remember, reading de Gaulle's memoires, that there were more Brits than GIs landing in Normandy in 1944. And Churchill helped de Gaulle, precisely, when Roosevelt was still pondering what to think about Hitler and scorning the tall man.

What a pity US spook were re-elected twice recently in London and in Italy, and even elected once in Spain. At least the Spaniards sent back Aznar to where it belong.

Ok this is flamebait without proof, but not from an AC, although I love cheese.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[bbc]

"the french invented the first global consumer network (15 millions terminals) called the Minitel years before Internet"

Which was only available in France, which hardly makes it global. Plus it was launched 10 years after the internet, which is not the same as "years before".

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[LinuxTek]

Wow, that is indeed some very bad news for the military aircraft development programs. If USA had let Japan create its own fighters, we could by now be flying Veritechs!

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[BgJonson79]

Sorry, I'm not always good at communication sarcasm through the typed word ;-)

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Chuckstar]

-Most modern fly-by-wire fighter aircraft are unstable and rely on the computers to maintain stability. F117 is far from unique in this aspect. BTW, F117 looks much more unstable than it is. Its fundamentally a delta wing fighter.

-Its certainly possible to compare a stealth aircraft to non-stealth. You merely state: "if we ignore stealth ..."

-I'm not well versed enough in air combat doctrine to know whether F-22 is a "colossal waste of money", but I'm not gonna argue that its a colossal amount of money. To the extent it outperforms other aircraft, it certainly only does so on the back of a ridiculously large cash investment.

-Stealth has never been claimed to be "invisible". That is an invention of the media. Stealth is hardER to track and shoot down. That's it.

-No one has ever claimed F-22 will be "impervious to SAM or AAM attacks". It will be harder to shoot down than a non-stealth plane, and (compared to any current or near future opposing aircraft) will be able to target and shoot down enemy aircraft before being detected by them.

-"I guess the main thing is, if it can cut down their effective range, or enable an easier missile evasion, it's considerably safer for the pilot, and the USAF's pocketbook." -- EXACTLY. But don't forget perhaps the most important factor. While its important to get the pilot and the plane back in one piece, perhaps the most important factor is getting the mission completed. Stealth allows for missions that would otherwise be impossible, or at least missions that would otherwise have too high an odds of failure to be worth attempting.

-"But still, if an opfor (china, maybe?) comes up with an operational analog to the Australian Jindalee Operational Radar Network, the F/A-22, in essence, along with the F-35, B-2, F-117 and any other stealth aircraft the US might develop, will become nothing more than a standard aircraft. The other thing you have to ask yourself is, current radar is absorbed by the F/A-22's RAM coating, among other 'stealthy' characteristics. But what happens if conventional radar changes?" -- This represents a common misconception about stealth. No one has yet developed a radar system that tracks/targets a stealth bird as well as conventional radar. Its not clear that would ever even be possible. It is likely a stealth bird would always have some level of advantage over a conventional bird.

-Detecting gaps in radar is a viable approach to tracking stealth planes. As you note, it already exists. However, it's much less accurate than traditional radar. If you were a pilot, you would much rather be in a stealth plane vs one of those systems, than in a regular plan vs traditional radar system.

-Remember, also, that stealth planes will be operating in an environment where enemy air defenses are being targeted in other ways, as well. Take out a couple emitters in one of those "looking for the gaps" systems, put up a couple jammers, etc. and suddenly stealth starts looking pretty advantageous again.

Its really hard to argue that stealth is not a good thing. The only reasonable question is "at what extra cost is stealth worth it", and I admit to not being knowledgeable enough in air combat to take a position on that subject.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[Chuckstar]

Oops, I meant F117 is NOT as unstable as it looks. Its not particularly more unstable than other fighter designs. It just looks funnier.

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[CountBrass]

The thing is that having friends is a self-interest thing as well. Not screwing allies means you keep those allies and others trust you. I'll give you another example: the suez crisis. On the one hand: the UK (democracy and long standing US ally), France (ditto), who jointly owned some property that was being stolen, versus Egypt (dictatorship and Soviet ally). Which side did the US support?

Re:Similar to USA-Japan Technology-Sharing Dispute

[CountBrass]

LOL. The funny thing is that the US were providing a lot of aid to the UK, in particular, long before they officially joined the war. One example was that they took over garrisoning Iceland which freed up British forces, ditto convoy escort in the western half of the Atlantic.

I know this is /. but you could at least check your facts: the speech about lending your neighbour a fire-hose is pretty famous.

Trust, but verify?

[dakirw]

You mean like what Reagan said, trust but verify?

Re:Trust, but verify?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, these days that tends to mean trust the leader if he's a member of your pet political party, but verify that what he's doing is approved by the party spindoctors.

Joint?

[Enrique1218]

That is the key word here. It is a "joint" effort between our armed service and those of our allies to develop this plane. So, the plane is technically is our (US and allies) plane and not our (US only) plane. So, our allies should get all the information requested about the thing. I would expect that that is the arrangement? There is little information about what this software controls. I would assume it controls just about everything from weapons to radar to avonics to HUD. I understand why they want the source as a matter of national defense. They have the right to control or modify the planes as they see fit after purchase. Without the software, it may be impossible. I don't see a legitimate reason to withhold it. If we can't trust our allies, why did we invite them to help?

Re:Joint?

[eagl]

In US military jargon, "Joint" means between the separate US services. Using "Joint" to refer to multi-national efforts is a terrible misuse of the term. "Combined" is actually the more correct term to mean a multi-national effort, but I think they were using the "JSF" name long before the program grew into the massive multi-national program it is today.

It's quibbling to a certain extent, but specific words have VERY specific meanings and it's easy to create huge misunderstandings when incorrectly using words that have very precise meanings in a military context.

Re:Joint?

[Darby]

I would assume it controls just about everything from weapons to radar to avonics to HUD. I understand why they want the source as a matter of national defense. They have the right to control or modify the planes as they see fit after purchase. Without the software, it may be impossible. I don't see a legitimate reason to withhold it.

You're talking about two different things here though. You certainly presented many valid reasons that the UK would need the code, but the last sentence is a complete non sequitor. The UK could have all the reasons in the world to need the code, but none of them are reasons for the US to give it to them.

One of the primary reasons, as always, is financial. If they can't modify it, they have to pay US companies to do it. Since WW2, our economy has depended to a large degree on weapons. The Government taxes us to pay for the research and development of all these neat new weapons systems which they then allow private companies to sell all over the world, inciting violence if convenient to boost sales (see Iraq for the most recent example). It really comes down to what Ike warned us about. We have huge sectors of our industry based on socialization of costs and privatization of profits. Allowing anybody, ally, neutral, or enemy an easy way off of the upgrade treadmill wouldn't be economically viable in the sense that election campaign funds would dry up.

Wow! That's news to me.

[pandrijeczko]

Seriously.

I don't keep up on aviation news as much as I used to but I thought the RAF was going in the direction of Eurofighter Tycoon because Britain has a stake in it's development - with the exception of the Lockheed Hercules and a few Boeing airliners converted for military use, I don't think we've ever bought any military aircraft that weren't British developed or that we didn't at least have some development involvement (like the Tornado, for example).

Don't get me wrong - as a British tax payer, I hope we're buying the best aircraft that's the best value for money for our armed forces, although, if we are buying JSF, I suspect it's more as a result of Bush & Blair's love for each other than best price.

Re:Wow! That's news to me.

[igb]

I don't think we've ever bought any military aircraft that weren't British developed or that we didn't at least have some development involvement F-4 Phantom (the `UK' modifications to use RR engines don't count as development for more than political purposes). P-51 Mustang (OK, there the RR engine fit was more fundamental, but the airframe was all North American). Catalinas. Washingtons (B-29s) after the second war. B-24 Liberators, especially in their VLR maritime format. I _think_ the RAF operated some of those bizarre Bell Cobras with the engines behind the pilot. P-40 Kittyhawks. Probably more...

ian

Re:Wow! That's news to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

The most obvious example is the C-17 Globemaster. It's a good 'plane, but why are we subsidising the US defence industry STILL? Sure, we like the Herc, but EADS is ready and waiting...

Re:Wow! That's news to me.

[Don_dumb]

I think that the UK does have a military involvement in the development of the JSF, rolls-royce engines and such. And for the UK the JSF will be primarily for aircraft carrier launch. I dont think that the Eurofighter Typhoon is/was intended for this.

Falkland Islands

[JeffSh]

Let us not forget the lesson learned in the Falkland Islands incident. Britain demanded unlock codes for missiles that the French sold argentina.. brits disabled argentina's exocet missiles and all that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#French_ involvement

Re:Falkland Islands

[Edmund Blackadder]

They disabled them so well the Argentinians sank a British destroyer.

Re:Falkland Islands

[hcdejong]

What the French supplied to the British were specifications of the missile, so the British could finetune their electronic countermeasures and defeat the Exocet. Not that that worked flawlessly (see HMS Sheffield). Given what happened, the British didn't get any 'unlock codes'.

Re:Falkland Islands

[Anonymous Coward]

The argentinians in fact won the war, but for a minor and very primitive technical glitch. Their pilots flew well enough to match the legendary nazi aces like Rudel who trained them, their A-4 planes hit almost all british ships with gravity drop bombs thrown from ungodly low altitudes. However, the security pin of those US-made bombs was a threaded rod with a small drag propeller at the front that winded out and away during some 120-150 meters of freefall. The argentinians seemed to forget about that and often flew as low as 30-60 meters to avoid AA fire, so when they dropeed the bombs the unlocking and arming sequence did not have time to happen and most bombs impacted briton ships as duds. If they just saw off an inch or so from those safety pins before the sorties, today it would be the Malvinas Islands uncontestedly. More than a dozen dud hit 500 pounders were found embedded in british ships by the end and in fact one ship sank when a dud exploded while bomb disposal crew were trying to disarm it. It was not the Exocet missile which decided the war, but the above glitch.

Re:Falkland Islands

[veeoh]

Sorry, an 'incident'?

Just downscale the conflict why dont you.

Re:Falkland Islands

[zenst]

Well Actualy the issue there was:

The British were not told that the Argentinians had Excocepts, and they did ask.

The Ships defence system was mroe than capable of taking out an excocept at the time given enough notice but wasn;t aware the french had any. As such the radar system which picked up the missile went thru its list of signatrure to identify it, identified it as an excocept and then went we british have excocepts and the intel programmed into the friendly/hostile list shows they dont so it must be friendly.

This meant that it wasn;t until the mortal phrase of "its comming right for us" from the on-deck spotters that the human element had a chance to react. Had the radar flagged it as hostile then they would of had alot more notice to counter the missile and with the weapons onboard and response times by the time the missile got flagged (by human intervention) the chances of taking it out were pretty slim due to the defences onboard and the way excocepts work once with a couple of miles of the target (I believe there are weapons that now just act like a ranged depth charge to send up a small wave/wall that the missile hits messing it up due to the hight above the waves they fly).

Anyhow, as for remote control codes there indeed is that aspect to those missiles but it was a classic GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT that occured here and alas the garbage was the piss-poor intel or lack of provided by the French. Why the French were slow/neglagent to help an alley, well may have been protecting sales or probaly aspect of having ground staff in the country at thetime and telling friendly they had some missiles may have induced a ground strike upon the launch locations and as such endangered french citerzens. Who knows fully but the issue here was that the radar system although did pick it up it didn't automaticvly flag it as hostile/unknown as it believed any excocept in the air had to be British and fact it was heading towards there direction got muted until it was visualy spotted by the on=board spotters by which time it was too late to do much too it.

They're right. Do we care? If so, then what?

[eagl]

The issue is very valid. The question is twofold - Is the US willing to fully share ALL of our military technology with any other country during a period of relative peace (even as strong an ally as the UK), and what price are we willing to pay to keep our most advanced military capabilities to ourselves? Security vs. the budget. A military expert will say that it's stupid to spill all your secrets to ANYONE because mere knowledge of a capability is enough to allow an adversary (or potential adversary) to begin defeating that capability. A budget planner will say that without sharing the technology with partners who will share the program costs, we can't afford to build the hardware so those capabilities would remain purely theoretical (worthless).

Maybe it's better to do the basic research ourselves but not go that final step to building the hardware until we actually need to use it. This seems to happen a lot, holding back expensive upgrades and hardware purchases until a conflict kicks off, then funding/fielding the new stuff immediately as the budget expands when a conflict arises. But the JSF is such a massive project, it may not be possible to back-burner the program as a US-only effort. That means we may have to compromise some very unique capabilities in order to be able to actually field them ourselves. Tough choice.

Can't blame the JSF partners for playing hardball though... The JSF is almost entirely software driven as almost every single system is operated via a touch-screen interface instead of traditional switches, so not having the source code means that when something breaks, fixing it is somewhat more problematic than replacing a defective hardware switch. If you don't have the code, you have a really expensive flying Xbox that could quit working without warning and can't possibly be repaired.

You can't even replace busted hardware without the required software, because the hardware is all operated and tested via software. You can't just flip a switch to test the radar, because the switch is controlled by the computer which (should) report system status and troubleshooting data if it quits working.

A sensible approach would be to distribute an export version of the software, but I'm pretty sure that the original contract did not include parallel-but-equal lines of code development. To duplicate a multi-million-line codebase at this stage in the program would be cost prohibitive. You'd think they would have thought of this before... Like 15 years ago...

I do: it's obvious.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know why Australia keeps going back...

Australia is desperate to be the United States of Australia. Everything we do, our way of life, is modelled after the USA. We're embarrassed by our 'Convict Heritage', and the fact that nobody ever pays us the attention we believe we deserve. So we tag along behind the Yanks and lavish adoration upon them, in the hope they'll let us join them.

Is this post a "troll" or "flamebait"? I'm sure another Aussie Slashdotter with modpoints will make sure this post vanishes into -1 land.

Re:I do: it's obvious.

[lordperditor]

I have to agree, I originally came from Europe and have been in Australia for the past 12 years. It is sad the way Australian kids are dumping its own colourful culture and taken on an American culture (which is a real shame as the American social patterns and beliefs are a template for a real sick society, as looking at America for the outside in clearly shows) I have also been stunned at the way Australia does not have its own foreign policy but simply adopts American foreign policy on nearly all matters. Australia would do far better to start thinking for itself. (but that will never happen until Howard is kicked out of the PM job)

Re:I do: it's obvious.

[inflex]

Well, I for one have no problems with the "convict" heritage - something rather unique if nothing else.

I'd love to see a lot of the US TV shows completely axed from our stations, sure it means we'd be left with little more than ABC SBS and Neighbours, oh well, not like that's a bad thing (okay, Neighbours we can axe too).

I don't have a problem with the US per`se (sure, I have problems with their behaviours and politics etc - but every country has issues), I have a problem with Australia trying to become the next state in the US.

We're Australia, we should be proud and happy of that.

sendmail model could work

[mr_burns]

We could do like sendmail and have the version we have for the US fighters and the version we give to our partners.

GPL would actually work really well for the partner version. We already set terms in our contracts about who arms can be re-sold to or a right to first refusal. And GPL says you only have to reveal source to people you distribute to. If we hold partners to only releasing source to those they distribute to, the security through obscurity knobs are placated while the partners have an open codebase they can collectively hack on.

This helps everybody involved. Our partners can imporve upon their investment and more eyes fix bugs faster. And the hawks in the US can settle their nerves because they can choose to participate in the partner codebase yet still have their 'commercial' version to fall back on if they all of a sudden don't trust the open version.

The clincher of course is controlling who the planes and associated software are distribited to. You can't put a genie back in a bottle. But then again, if source being leaked breaks the security of your product... it was never secure to begin with.

absolutely sane thing to ask for

[nickgrieve]

absolutely sane thing to ask for

Its a weapon of war, so if your going to use it when it counts, and not just a few flybys at an air show, then your going to be at war. Who knows what state of war that will be, it could be a few sorties to bomb a wedding party or two, or it could be full nuclear MAD, lines of communication could be down, satellites down etc etc...

If you can't update an modify the software when you need it, those planes could be as good as craters in the runway.

Re:absolutely sane thing to ask for

[jericho4.0]

# define target PEOPLE_WHO_TRIED_TO_KILL_MY_DAD
# define target OIL_RICH_NATION
define target TERRORIST_WEDDING
# define target WEDDING
# define target MUSLIMS_ABOUT_TO_GET_THE_BOMB
# define target OSAMA /* not implemented, do not use */

Re:absolutely sane thing to ask for

[nickgrieve]

chortal :-)

Sounds reasonable - take the Israeli example

[horacerumpole]

As far as I'm aware, the F-15I (the Israeli version of the F-15) has its entire software built in Israel. I heard that all versions of F-15's have at least some of their systems built by Israeli sub-contractors.

You can take an example from the commercial world - I worked for startups which had to put their source code in escrow as part of pilot agreements with Fortune-100 companies.

So I don't think it's unreasonable or even extra-ordinary for the Brits to want the source too. Just prudent.

Re:Sounds reasonable - take the Israeli example

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Israeli was developing improved F-16 (Lavi -project) and US pressured hard to get program cancelled, so GE could sell F-16's to Israel. Program was scrapped, and Israeli sold all know-how of Lavi -procject to -- Chinese. Chinese J-10 is now precessor of Lavi, and ironical it is, they can thank US gov't for their front-line fighterjet. Call Europeans morons as you wish, but JCS hindsight isn't 20/20 either lol.

Re:Sounds reasonable - take the Israeli example

[horacerumpole]

"If the Jews are so smart then a) how did the Nazis almost wipe them out and b) why do so many of them want to live in a crappy, waterless flea-pit like Palestine?"
a) What does being smart has to do with being shot at?
b) Because they were (and at some areas still are) being prosecuted for centuries in all other parts of the world and this is the only place in the world they can call home.

Re:Sounds reasonable - take the Israeli example

[Reservoir Penguin]

Khaleb, why do you look like a settler???

Genuin paranoimia

[Jerry Smith]

A similar thing is the case in the Netherlands: the equipment to eavesdrop on phones, record and collect conversations etc used by the police are from Comverse. It's an Isrealian company, with employees embedded in the Dutch intelligence office. Maintenance can only be done by Comverse, remotely suddenly the memory gets downloaded by Comverse, equipment price is up to 3 times higher than comparable European equipment, and of lower quality.
No, nobody gets to see the source code.
Yes, the US uses this brand, and Amdocs, too. Enjoy...

Leaked bit of source code

[jjustus]

if enemy.shot_down
cockpit_announce("Top Gun!");
kill_count += 1;
if kill_count > 5
cockpit_announce("Killing Spree!");
end
end

why now?

[multi io]

Couldn't they have agreed upon some binding settlement on what to do with the source code -- before starting to build the thing? Any 3-employees software business sets up contracts beforehand about what should happen with the source code later on -- only the Royal Air Force starts thinking about it when the $543210 fantastillion plane is almost complete :-D

Mohammed and the Han

[cnflctd]

There are half a billion muslims of uncertain stability just to their north, and on hop further, a largish empire thats churning out killer machines at ever increasing rates.

The Ausies should pony up for a few hunter-killer subs while they're at it.

Re:Mohammed and the Han

[Anonymous Coward]

They've got some already. Look up Collins Class submarines.

Re:Mohammed and the Han

[Anonymous Coward]

half a billion unstable muslims? What about the half billion unstable christians? I'd be more concerened about them at the moment.

The nutjob mulims just blow shit up. The nutjob christians remove your rights and do it for "your own good"

Re:Mohammed and the Han

[killjoe]

"There are half a billion muslims of uncertain stability just to their north,"

While it's true that Australians have made enemies out of their muslims neighbors to the north i highly doubt any of them are planning on launching fighter jets in your direction.

I am not sure which largish empire you are talking about there. China? Russia? North Korea? Japan? I don't ever recall either one of those countries expressing a desire to attack australia.

Re:Mohammed and the Han

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Ausies should pony up for a few hunter-killer subs while they're at it."

We have the Collins class subs. They had a very bad start but they are well respected now.

It's not many navies that can claim a kill of a modern US aircraft carrier in war games. Caused quite a stir at the time, didn't help that the Oz crew started playing "The Land Down Under" by Men at Work over external speakers after the kill, most war games now have RoE that pretty much stop an attempt on a carrier from being possible.

Re:Mohammed and the Han

[Anonymous Coward]

China? Russia? North Korea? Japan? I don't ever recall either one of those countries expressing a desire to attack australia.

Ummm I dont really want this to come off as some kind of flame or anything but both Russia and Japan have expressed an interest in attacking Australia. The cold war and WWII upset Australia greatly. Americans should not forget that it was Australia that came a lot closer to being invaded by Japan than the US. Australias defense policy may sound a little paranoid at times, but it is seated in a history of attitudes. For example Australia has a standard defense backup plan of being able to build or purchase nuclear weapons if required(one of the reasons lucas heights is there... to keep some nuclear expertise in the country). There is a fairly hefty report on it that is available in most good university public libraries.

Re:Mohammed and the Han

[skribe]

After the June 4 riot was suppressed, we have been thinking about how to prevent China from peaceful evolution and how to maintain the Communist Party's leadership. We thought it over and over but did not come up with any good ideas. If we do not have good ideas, China will inevitably change peacefully, and we will all become criminals in history. After some deep pondering, we finally come to this conclusion: Only by turning our developed national strength into the force of a fist striking outward--only by leading people to go out --can we win forever the Chinese people's support and love for the Communist Party.

From the perspective of history, the reason that China is faced with the issue of living space is because Western countries have developed ahead of Eastern countries. Western countries established colonies all around the world, therefore giving themselves an advantage on the issue of living space. To solve this problem, we must lead the Chinese people outside of China, so that they could develop outside of China.

Would the United States allow us to go out to gain new living space? First, if the United States is firm in blocking us, it is hard for us to do anything significant to Taiwan and some other countries! Second, even if we could snatch some land from Taiwan, Vietnam, India, or even Japan, how much more living space can we get? Very trivial! Only countries like the United States, Canada and Australia have the vast land to serve our need for mass colonization.

- Selected quotes from a speech made by Chi Haotian, Minster of Defense and vice-chairman of China's Central Military Commission. As reported in the Epoch Times.

If true it is at least disturbing.

Re:Mohammed and the Han

[killjoe]

even a cook publication like epoch times says the speech may not be real. If you are willing to spend billions of dollars trying to defend from this threat then go ahead I suppose.

Re:Mohammed and the Han

[1u3hr]

While it's true that Australians have made enemies out of their muslims neighbors to the north i highly doubt any of them are planning on launching fighter jets in your direction.

Fighter jets aren't for Top-Gun duels; they're for protecting your bombers, attacking enemy ones, and also taking out ships. The latter being most relevant considering the geography.

Re:Mohammed and the Han

[BeanThere]

Nations have yearned for and tried to colonise the planet for millenia; invading other lands is one of the "constants" of human history ... what makes you think that this aspect of human behaviour has suddenly changed? There is nothing special about this point in history. Why is it so hard to imagine? Because we live in "modern times" (whatever that means)? Any sensible nation should attempt to build a solid defence system.

Re:Mohammed and the Han

[killjoe]

1) In the last two millenia I don't know of any country that waged war with Australia and attempted to invade them. The aussies were involved in wars as a part of the british empire but it was alwasy in far off places.

2) Fighter jets seem like an especially useless defense mechanism when you on an island as big as austalia is.

3) YOu aren't really going to be able to defend against the chinese no matter what.

4) Your new enemies (the muslims thanks to howard) are going to attack you from the inside.

Re:Mohammed and the Han

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. just wow.

Australian defense -> Threat of Muslim nations to the north -> Yeah, but Christians! Har! Har! -> +1 funny

Re:Mohammed and the Han

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am not sure which largish empire you are talking about there. China? Russia? North Korea? Japan? I don't ever recall either one of those countries expressing a desire to attack australia."

During the cold war, Perth (West coast of Australia) was considered a prime target for a Soviet nuclear strike.

Think of it this way, do you really think the Soviets wanted all-out nuclear war with the US and Europe? With guaranteed MAD? Not a chance.

But they may have had to prove a willingness to 'pull the trigger', and got very close to doing so during the Cuban crisis.

But they couldn't attack a US or European city or facility because there would be full retaliation.

Meet Perth, Western Australia. Nice little city, not too big and totally isolated from anywhere else on the planet.

Would the US or Europe go full attack/MAD because one small city on the other side of the world, and thousands of miles from anywhere got nuked to prove a point? Not likely.

Many people believe that Perth was the city most likely to be nuked by the Soviets.

Re:Mohammed and the Han

[heinousjay]

You must be new to Slashdot. Anything related to the US is bad bad bad, and anything opposed to the US is good good good. It's just how it works around here. Europeans and other associated low-self-esteem inferiority complex victims need somewhere to vent their penis envy induced frustrations.

Re:Mohammed and the Han

[glowworm]

In the last two millenia I don't know of any country that waged war with Australia and attempted to invade them. The aussies were involved in wars as a part of the british empire but it was alwasy in far off places.

How about Japan?

Re:Mohammed and the Han

[killjoe]

Well allright then. You should arm yourself in case of a japanese attack again.

Re:Mohammed and the Han

[BeanThere]

In the last two millenia I don't know of any country that waged war with Australia and attempted to invade them

... 'therefore' noone will ever attack them? "Nobody has ever invaded them before. Therefore nobody ever will." --- that is called a logical fallacy.

Points 2 and 3 - if you study history one thing you'll notice is that the (geographic or population) size of a nation has extremely little to do with their chances of success in a conflict. And fighter jets have many other uses than flying around randomly defending a large area.

Point 3: Saying "they will win anyway so why bother even trying to defend ourselves" is also a lame argument, human conflict is a lot more complex than that (again if you study history you'll see plenty of examples why ... e.g. Austria was too small to defend themselves against Germany but yet they are still here today and were on the winning side ... nothing is cut and dry and outcomes of conflicts are basically never predetermined or predictable).

Your new enemies (the muslims thanks to howard) are going to attack you from the inside.

Finally you have a valid point regarding at least one kind of enemy, but you make the mistake of generalising this to all enemies ... just because some of your new enemies will attack you from the inside, doesn't mean all of them will. Again, a logical fallacy.

It's all about the technology transfer

[GrodinTierce]

Since it doesn't seem to have been explicitly mentioned yet, I think it's important to point out that one of (if not the biggest) American concern is that technology given to the Brits will, because of the various partnerships in the defense industry, end up spread throughout the EU, possibly ultimately in China (if the embargo is ever lifted, or maybe even without that). Here are some relevant links: an admittidly biased blog, and a more objective defense industry news site.

Funny you mention the F-18

[TubeSteak]

The U.S. is ditching all their F-15s and replacing them with F-18 SuperHornet

Though, as I understand it, the F-18F is fundamentally different than the A/C/D versions.

Re:Funny you mention the F-18

[inflex]

The super-hornet is quite different to the original, yes. Even still I don't know why they'd replace the F15's with them, somewhat entirely different in roles *shrug* it would seem politics dominates rather than purpose (that's supposed to seem like it's a revolutionary idea ;) ).

Maybe they've watched ID4 too many times "Look, Will Smith kicked butt in the F18"

Re:Funny you mention the F-18

[lbrandy]

The U.S. is ditching all their F-15s and replacing them with F-18 SuperHornet

This is infact completely false. F-15Cs are being replaced by F-22s. At least that's the plan, but no one inside the airforce is convinced that's going to happen in the foreseeable future. The F-15Es (Strike Eagles) have not been scheduled to be replaced, at all.

The F-18 is a medium level fighter that's meant to be cheap and easy to maintain. It's accomplishes a unique mission, but it can't really touch the 15s and 16s as far as lethality is concerned.

Not really...

[Space cowboy]

From the article you link to:

As France had recently sold Super Entendard aircraft and Exocet missiles to Argentina, when war broke out there was still a French team in Argentina helping to fit out the Exocets and aircraft for Argintinean use. The French team continued to assist the Argentines throughout the war, in spite of the NATO embargo and official French government policy. [2] ... and Argentina did (after all) use Exocets to sink British ships. I don't necessarily blame them - we were at war with them, and killing them just as happily! But it caused a *lot* of anti-French feeling in the UK at the time.

Simon

Re:Not really...

[Cyno01]

Because otherwise the Brits have loved the French for, oh the past thousand years....

Re:Not really...

[Noryungi]

If you have to criticize the French, you should at least pick a different subject. Here is the beginning of the Wikipedia article -- and I can confirm most of it, since the cooperation described was well known in France at the time:

French president François Mitterrand gave full support to the UK in the Falklands war. As a large part of Argentina's military equipment was French-made, French support was crucial. France provided aircraft, identical to the ones it supplied to Argentina, for British pilots to train against. France provided intelligence to help sabotage the Exocet missiles it sold to Argentina. In her memoirs Margaret Thatcher says of Mitterrand that "I never forgot the debt we owed him for his personal support...throughout the Falklands crisis". Sir John Nott, who was Secretary of State for Defence during the conflict later acknowledged: "In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies".

Sad to see traditional knee-jerk anti-french feelings are alive and well on /.

Re:Not really...

[MooUK]

If that is true, the question still has to be asked - how much choice did that team have?

Re:They're right. Do we care? If so, then what?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this approach: ship them the plane without the damn software. Let them write their own software.

Pretty common practice

[kbielefe]

This is a pretty common practice. At my job we are required to frequently go through quite a rigorous process to make sure nothing sensitive to U.S. national security makes it into exported source code. Actually delivering compilable source costs a lot extra, is specified in a contract, and comes with training and a compile/test environment.

AA missiles too

[Werrismys]

Russians excel not only in avionics, they have had better Air-to-Air missile systems since the 70's. American Sidewinders have played catchup for 30 years. Now, the longer range AA missiles (of AMRAAM etc variety) are better on american side, and are quite cool when you shoot down some Vietnam-era opposition from safe distance ;-I

Targeting systems that follow the head were pioneered by soviets. Heck, soviets even have had AA missiles that can launch in opaque angles from fighters for a couple of decades... americans are only just now incorporating this for copters and jets.

Once Bitten.

[forgotten_my_nick]

I Recall a story some years back where the UK bought a load of apache helicopters from the US. However could get no one to fly them for years and got screwed on replacement parts. Basically ended up paying the US a ton of cash for things sitting in a hanger unable to fly.

Re:Once Bitten.

[original_nickname]

Nope, this may be partly the case, but it's actually because we didn't bother to train the pilots....

And apparently the ones the we did train now want to leave!

Re:Once Bitten.

[AndrewHowe]

So there's a bunch of Apaches in a shed and no-one wants to fly them? Errm... I'm up for it, where do I sign up? What are the hours?

Re:Once Bitten.

[original_nickname]

Apparently the pay is less than £60k a year, too, so the pilots are leaving!

link

It's all part of a master plan.

[Anonymous Coward]

What, you didn't know? It's all a long-term plan. Remember how the U.S. sold weapons to Iraq so that Iraq could attack Iran? Iraq was taking delivery of U.S.-made weapons up to the month that the U.S. first invaded Iraq. After encouraging Iraq to think in a militaristic manner and become a more adversarial society, the U.S. invaded.

So, who's next? Well, there is Syria, North Korea, and Iran. But that's only for the next few years.

Once Australia has a lot of weapons, and has become a more violent-minded society, the U.S. will find a plausible excuse to invade. Maybe there will be a fight in a bar in Adelaide, and some people calling themselves neo-something to make their ideas sound more logical will tell everyone that Australia has become so violent that it has become a threat to its neighbors.

Of course, Aussies will be very proud to be killed by such superior people as Americans.

Some part of this is probably a joke, but I'm not sure which part.

It doesn't matter much - they still use Windows...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike the US where you can see some use of other platforms like Linux (same reasons, you can look at the code and the NSA has been good there too), the UK is hell bent on using Windows.

I'm pretty sure the top brass has been sold on the total control idea of Windows DRM, without anyone knowledgeable being able to penetrate the thick MS sales exec layer to get it through to these guys that it amounts to the biggest handover of control since they left Hong Kong.

If you want to know how MS does it, it's very easy: go and count the ratio of MS people to clients in a top presentation, it's about 1:1. As an experiment, try and challenge some of the (usually undated and unqualified) statistics - you will immediately be engaged by an MS suit in conversation, thus allowing the selling to go on undistracted. And believe me, these guys are good.

It's *very* educational to come in late and stand at the end of the room - try it if you can. Oh, and don't forget the fact finding missions - it doesn't matter if it's sponsored or not: if not the taxpayer will pay for it instead.

Been there, seen it, know the risk. And yeah, occasionally you mention it but nobody really cares. Decision makers rotate compulsory every couple years or so (via promotion), so they're only really concerned with keeping the predecessors' skeletons long enough in the closet to move on.

no way

[Anonymous Coward]

is the Air Force gonna give up their '15s for the any variant of the F-18...

Remember...

[Greyfox]

Our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

I loved that game. Damn AI nations would always feel the need to piss me off at some point though, at which point I'd feel obliged to crush them mercilessly. I seem to recall one of them where they'd try like crazy to surrender once I'd beaten them down past a certain point. IMHO they shouldn't have pissed me off in the first place then. No UN in Civ to try you for genocide, though...

Um, then don't buy them

[BarnabyWilde]

The US created the source code at great effort and expense, and if we believe the that our national security would be threatened by disclosure, then so be it. No deal. BWilde.

Re:Um, then don't buy them

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see any probliem since this code is outsourced to Pakistan or India as usual so if Uk wants it they just have to download it from sourceforge...

Isn't that how the Cylons got the Colonial Fleet?

[skitz0]

//tinfoilhat

US vs Russian Aircraft

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok in short: US aircraft are technologically superior. Russian aircraft are cheaper and easier to maintain (due to their simplicity).

Now for the long version. Russian aircraft are designed with simplicity in mind. Add only what's needed. This keeps costs down and maintenance easy. The effect of this is that Russian fighters are rarely failures but by the same token rarely great successes. You can't go wrong with a Russian fighter but you can't perform miracles.

US aircraft are designed big (this is a common US trait I find). US put a lot of advanced technology into aircraft for the purpose of beating any competition (toe to toe). This means that the fighters are often more powerful/faster/effective individually but are more expensive and require more man hours in maintenance. When a US fighter succeeds it does extremely well. When a US fighter fails it fails spectacularly.

Neither doctrine is right nor wrong just two ways of looking at the same coin.

or the Avro Arrow...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Arrow

What econoomy are you living in?

[Anonymous Coward]

What depressive economy are you talking about.

The US economy is just fine, thanks!

Re:What econoomy are you living in?

[Warg! The Orcs!!]

He didn't say the economy was depressed, he said it was depressive.....

Better stuff

[Joebert]

Of course America's giving the UK a hard time getting the code, don't want to make it easy, the UK might get the idea that America has somthing better up their sleeve anyway...

hrmph

[Adult film producer]

Are the brits trying to compare us to the Cylons? I might remind them that Tricia Helfer is Canadian. Fucking eh!

Switched off

[Bromskloss]

They could be switched off with just hardware too.

Re:Switched off

[original_nickname]

Yeah, but not remotely (in mid-air, for instance).

It could be that the software for the planes will stop responding if a certain signal is received.

Unless the hardware is a missile :D

This has got to be bogus..

[puke76]

Err... Can anyone say "Trident"? The UK cannot launch Trident missiles without the express say-so of the USA, not through any agreements but because they control and run the Trident computer systems.

It's like the old saying:
"Whats the USA's biggest aircraft carrier?" "Britain"

Re:This has got to be bogus..

[ledow]

First, I've never heard this so I'd have to see the sources, but most importantly:

If this is true and the UK has been stung, does that mean that it should be stung again? No. It means that NEXT time it demands code up-front to be sure there is no possibility of a repeat. US and UK may well be Allies but they are only Allies as long as both of them co-operate with each other. They both still have things they'd much rather the other didn't have control of and things that they would prefer NOT to have control of / be responsible for.

Here is the source code...

[Hamster Lover]

10 PRINT "SUCKERS!"
20 GOTO 10

That should make things easier...

Plenty of alternatives, why not JAS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not JAS, SAAB Gripen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Gripen

That way those 12b stay in europe. Also they are far cheaper.

Backdoors in military hardware are foolish

[Opportunist]

I mean, be serious. Imagine there's a shutdown backdoor in the plane software (or whatever) that allows remote controlled shutdown. Key question: What if that code falls into enemy's hands?

And it WILL. No matter how tight security is, there are human beings who know the necessary details. Think it's hard for (insert terrorist group or anti-US government) to shell out enough money to convince someone to betray his country? They only need to find ONE person willing to trade patriotism for money. Take your average politician and it's even rather cheap.

Do you think the US government is stupid enough to let something like this happen? Ok, let me rephrase that question: Do you think a company who wants to make deals with the feds in the future would actually build something like that? Because one thing's for sure, even if the gov demands a backdoor in their planes, once it gets out (not if, when), who'll be the one to blame?

So the claim that they need to know if there's a backdoor is a frontend for the real threat: That they'll be forced to use US weapons and ammo on those planes, too, because they cannot adapt their tools of destruction to the controlling software without knowing how it works. And if you actually plan to do something with your shiny new military hardware other than showing it off, that's where the real costs are hiding.

Re:Backdoors in military hardware are foolish

[Pentagram]

I mean, be serious. Imagine there's a shutdown backdoor in the plane software (or whatever) that allows remote controlled shutdown. Key question: What if that code falls into enemy's hands?

Obviously they would compile a different version of the software for export.

Similarly, the TSR-2

[MROD]

In the 1960's pressure from the US caused the cancellation of the british TSR-2 programme. The government cancelled the TSR-2 and ordered F-111's.. which were then cancelled a few years down the line. A total fiasco.

Similarly, all the plans and prototypes for the TSR-2 were destroyed.

Re:Similarly, the TSR-2

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, only the partially completed airframes were scrapped. There is one prototype TSR2 at the Imperial War Museum, Duxford and another at the RAF museum, Cosford.
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/tsr2/survi vors.html

Re:Similarly, the TSR-2

[Alioth]

The TSR.2 prototypes were not all destroyed - two of them are on public display (I've seen the one at Cosford, I think there's one at the IWM in Duxford too).

Re:Similarly, the TSR-2

[Chris Mattern]

> Similarly, all the plans and prototypes for the TSR-2 were destroyed.

No, the Conservative government in 1981 actually considered reviving it. There was some consideration of necessary upgrades (including the use of carbon fiber composites in the construction), but it was dropped fairly quickly. Still, I don't see how they could've even begun to discuss it if they didn't have the plans.

Chris mattern

Re:Similarly, the TSR-2

[Anonymous Coward]

My father worked on the TSR2. Remarkable plane, it would be advanced if it was still flying today, so far ahead of its time that its amazing. Two things killed it, pressure from the U.S. and a belief by the moronic British govt at the time that manned aircraft were going to be replaced by missiles.

Re:Similarly, the TSR-2

[Mutatis Mutandis]

This was at a time when the development programmes for advanced combat aircraft (and other military equipment) were successfully expanding into truly phenomenal cost overruns. The TSR-2 development cost estimates first doubled, and then tripled. The F-111 was so attractive to the UK government because its estimated unit price was about half of that of a TSR.2.

Of course, the UK had no monopoly on cost overruns, and McNamara's pet project went through the financial roof as well. The F-111 became even more expensive than the TSR.2 would have been. The TFX project that produced the F-111 tried to be all things to all people, actually rather similar to today's JSF project, and predictably it failed to do that. (You can easily guess my opinion of the JSF project.) The F-111B version for the US Navy was cancelled outright.

Besides, both the TSR.2 and TFX projects were arguably too far ahead of their time. The F-111 did not become a really effective combat aircraft before its first generation of pilots had retired, and its fragile 1960s electronic systems replaced by more modern and reliable ones. There is every reason to assume that TSR.2 would have suffered from the same problem.

Re:Similarly, the TSR-2

[HuskyDog]

Similarly, all the plans and prototypes for the TSR-2 were destroyed.

There are two prototypes of the TSR-2 at museums in the UK. I saw the one at Duxford before it was put into temporary storage, and it realy is most impressive.

Good grief !

[TractorBarry]

What ? A government official that actually seems to show some understanding of these new fangled computers ? And why it's a good idea to get the source code for something they want to buy ?

This is the strangest thing I've seen this year...

hurry up

[j.a.mcguire]

and be snappy about it too ass holes, we're going to war!

Re:They're right. Do we care? If so, then what?

[Tonttoro]

The plane without the software should be a lot cheaper too.

The F-35 is a carrier launch vehicle

[mosb1000]

An F-15 could also probably kick the ass of an F-35, but it's hardly a fair comparison because the planes serve different purposes. Now, if you want to compare the SU-35 to the F-22 be my guest, but there's no mystery as to why a larger, heavier fighter can best a smaller, lighter one.

Weapon/pylon links prob an issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

US companies lacks slihtly behind in missile desing (also like supersonic ramjet-cruise like sunburn is not avail, if PAC-2 is not accounted for). Like russian R-77 or european BVRAAM Meteor.

Hughes/Raytheon enchanded AMRAAM variant, FMRAAM - lost competition bin against Matra/BAe Meteor as advanced AVRAAM solution.

Perhaps UK would want the F-22 talk with non-US missiles via it's two-way datalink bus, and not to be limited into raytheon/boeing desings.

What he knows...

[drgonzo59]

The CIA taught him. So blame the CIA and the US government. They specifically taught the "freedom fighters" the advantages of car bombs and the art of war of attrition. Bin Ladin is sort of the the American prodical son, who came back after all those years, ... except that he had a bomb in his pocket.

Re:What he knows...

[x2A]

except that he had a bomb in his pocket.

nah, he was just pleased to see ya ;-)

eurofighter?

[Anonymous Coward]

er, given the amount of money the British taxpayer has put into the Eurofighter project, why the hell are we buying these anyway?

Time to talk to my MP, methinks... (note: that's Member of Parliament, not Military Police.)

That's not it at all!

[x2A]

...the americans don't want anybody to discover that they've used chunks of GPL code

This is important

[bloobloo]

During the Falklands War, Argentina was attacking the Royal Navy with French built Exocet missiles. Eventually after political pressure, France gave the RN sufficient information for them to be able to order the exocets to self destruct. We don't want to find that the Americans can do that to us.

Typhoon vs. F-35 vs. F-22

[Savage-Rabbit]

As for the Russians, they can produce good airframes and decent powerplants, but they lack sophistication in the high-end electronics/software/sensors that pretty much make or break a combat aircraft today.

What worries most analysts is not so much the capability of Russia to produce an F-35 killer but rather what will happen if China/Russia/India combine to produce a joint stealth fighter project. The resulting machine could conceivably be better than the F-35 and capable of making up it's shortcomings vs. the F-22 by being cheaper to make and easyer to mass manufacture. The idea being that if you can't beat the F-22 technologically use the 'T-34 effect' to swamp forces using the F-22. Now Russia perhaps does not have the economic muscle to mass manufacture a stealth design in a big way but India and especially China do.

The only comparable jet to the F-35 is the Eurofighter platform, though the capability mix is different.

Purely in terms of electronics the Eurofighter is probably better than the F-35. The Trance 3 aircraft with all the frills including thrust-vectoring will be even better than the current Typhoons which lack a large portion of the Eurofighters potential feature set. Another thing is that he Eurofighter can supercruise which the F-35 AFAIK can't. The F-35 does have stealth and it is frequently clamied the Typhoon has none, which, according to one US source is due to an European ability to understand but inablitiy to implement Stealth technology. The first part is a half truth, the Typhoon has low observability features, which will probably lower its radar signature considerably but of course never quite as low as those of the F-22 especially. Also keep in mind that the F-35's stealth is compromized by an inability to carry weapons internally unlike the F-22. As for the European inabilty to produce Stealth designs, I find that claim to be funny. I would evaluate the Typhoon as being better the F-35 but not as good as the F-22.

Re:Typhoon vs. F-35 vs. F-22

[1u3hr]

if China/Russia/India combine to produce a joint stealth fighter project.

China and India have been at war a few times in living memory; they've still got unresolved border issues and are not about to integrate their weapons systems.

Re:Typhoon vs. F-35 vs. F-22

[Anonymous Coward]

China and India have been at war a few times in living memory

So have France and Germany - you might remember the more recent incident, it involved a reasonably famous dictator and a moderately infamous genocide - but that didn't scupper the Eurofighter.

Re:Typhoon vs. F-35 vs. F-22

[Savage-Rabbit]

China and India have been at war a few times in living memory; they've still got unresolved border issues and are not about to integrate their weapons systems.

For one thing their relationship has been thawing lately. Secondly the Idea the Russians are pushing is somewhat akin to the JFS program, with China/India doing much of the financing and Russian companies much of the development with some of the development being passed on to China/India as technological exchange. The individual countries would then manufacture the design on their own and arrange their own domestically developed weapons, electronics and power packages if they wanted to. Russia would thus be acting as a kind of trusted intermediary and all parties concerned would be getting alot more from pooling their resources into the development of one aircraft than if they did three seperate projects. Even if this only suceeds in a constellation with, say, Russia, China and a group of richer-than-god Oil-States from the gulf region but excluding India it is something for the Neocons in Washington to worry about. Note that Russia has pushed simiar ideas vis-a-vi a GPS independency, ie. a GLONASS successor

Re:Typhoon vs. F-35 vs. F-22

[smithmc]

  China and India have been at war a few times in living memory; they've still got unresolved border issues and are not about to integrate their weapons systems.

And China and Russia aren't exactly bosom buddies, either. Then again, does China need Russia's or India's help to develop advanced weapons?

Re:Typhoon vs. F-35 vs. F-22

[Anonymous Coward]

F-35's stealth is compromized by an inability to carry weapons internally unlike the F-22 What would be the point of having a stealth fighter-bomber if it can't carry bombs when it needs to be stealthy? The CTOL & CV JSF carry a pair of 2000 Lb bombs and a pair of self-defense missiles internally, the CTOL even has an integrated gun. STOVL is limited to a pair of 1000 Lb bombs and pair of missiles internally.

Who will cry for British if they are screwed?

[Anonymous Coward]

UK follows US like a dog follows its master since so long than they just deserve it. Perhaps one day they will realize that US is only playing its own game and uses others countries when needed.

Look at what happens with India, US is ready to give up Nuclear know hows to counterbalance China increasing power. Very good move indeed to avoid Nuke proliferation! And in few years they will screw Indians as well when they will realize they are also a very fast growing economic threat...

Re:Who will cry for British if they are screwed?

[PhotoBoy]

Blair follows Bush like a dog follows its master, the rest of the country has no such allegience to either of those war mongering simpletons thank you very much.

Not really

[WindBourne]

The economy has limped along over the last 6 years. IYR, When bush first came into office, they made some quick adjustments to how unemployment, and the economy is calculated. They said that it was a "truer" measure of the economic health. It was not. It was designed to make things look better than what it is. And BTW, there are pockets that do well, as in every econs (during a depression, forclosure experts boom relative to normal time). Housing is a good one that was doing good due to the very low interest. Most of the other segments that are not real estate or federal spending related related, have limped along. And with the high federal and trade deficits it is hard to believe that we will make it back to where we were say during the 80's, let alone what we had in the 90's.

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

IYR, When bush first came into office, they made some quick adjustments to how unemployment, and the economy is calculated.

How "the economy" is calculated? What the hell are you talking about?

Re:Not really

[InsaneGeek]

Well you go on believing that FUD: We've already made it back to the 90's, I don't think the 90's rate is sustainable at all so I'm expecting a downturn over the next couple of years because we are doing so good it can't be sustained. As for your statement about unemployment figures the change only was for federal employee's benefits affecting only an extremely small fraction of the number. The random sampling method continues today, let me let snopes.com school you on your FUD: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/unemploy.htm On the economy, let me just copy and paste what I did on another forum back in November (which is why some of the numbers are a little older than a couple of months but still less than a year, and we've gotten even better since then)

ftp://ftp.iza.org/charts/PDF56_e.pdf
For the past 3-4 years the US has had the highest GDP growth of: germany, france, italy, japan, canada, UK & EU in general

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/47/35326565.pdf
From OECD standardized unemployment rates, July of 05 we have a level of 5.0, less than Germany (9.3), less than France (9.7), less than Italy (7.8), less than Canada (6.8), only UK (4.7) and Japan (4.4) have a lower one.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/ CurrentInflation.asp
For about a year we've been hovering at around 3% or so (up and down) inflation, which is the same it was before 9/11. You'll note around 9/11 Greenspan dumped a whole lot of cash into the economy & China picked up it's output significantly decreasing inflation to some of the lowest rates it's ever been (~1 percent). Greenspan only lately has been saying that our economy has been doing so *good* that our growth rate is starting to encourage those inflationary items, so he's started gradually raising the interest rate to start removing dollars out of the economy to slow it's growth rate down. Classic example of a Phillips curve. I think greenspan should probably start getting more aggressive on it as our economy has been going so *good* that we need to stop it from turning into a beast like it did in the 2000 where we get another big bubble. Right now it ain't sky high, it's nowhere near sky high, under 1-2% means our employment level isn't doing well and pressuring it down, over 5% is high, over 10% is sky high (look to the 70's).

So we have a higher GDP growth rate (rate our economy is expanding/contracting) and we have one of the lowest unemployment rates. Our unemployment rate is at a level that is lower than almost every other country in the world. Our inflation rate is increasing but it's still very reasonable, but the government does need to start pulling money out of the economy because we are doing so good we are starting overheat it. The govenment needs to start becoming more miserly with our money: spend when the goings bad and save when the things go good to reduce the major peaks and valleys. Unlike you, from all the things I see as economic indicators that I think our economy's been doing *so* good that we should be expecting a dip here in the next few years as part of the general up/down cycle, and we should start pulling money out of the economy.

Re:Not really

[stinerman]

So we have a higher GDP growth rate (rate our economy is expanding/contracting)

Common wisdom and traditional liberal economic theory tells us that a rising tide lifts all boats. Due to increased neo-liberal policies it has been said that a rising tide now lifts all yahts. Our GDP has indeed shown decent growth, but unfortunately, most of the increased growth has benefited a small segment of our population. I recall Bill Maher saying on his show that the number of billionaires had doubled since 2000. Basically, I don't agree that better GDP numbers necessarily means much. I'm more worried about people being able to pay their mortgages, for college, etc. An increased GDP doesn't tell me anything about that.

Our unemployment rate is at a level that is lower than almost every other country in the world.

Other countries don't measure employment in the same manner we do, so its not a valid comparison. There are measures that are much closer to the way they do things in Europe, but I do not recall where they can be found.

Re:Not really

[InsaneGeek]

I don't agree that better GDP numbers necessarily means much. I'm more worried about people being able to pay their mortgages, for college, etc. An increased GDP doesn't tell me anything about that.

So what exactly shows that our country is doing better economically, since GDP has been used for decades now and what basically every economists shows as a barometer (obviously very high-level guestimation for detailed information, there are lots of complex calcs that they get paid to know and use)? There's a reason I gave out multiple statistics, you combine the three and it basically can give you what your are asking for: GDP rising, low unemployment rates, inflation low but sustained. That trifecta of information basically shows that individuals are thriving in the economy.

Other countries don't measure employment in the same manner we do, so its not a valid comparison. There are measures that are much closer to the way they do things in Europe, but I do not recall where they can be found.

Maybe you should look a little more at the OECD website I gave out and get a better understanding then. Oecd is an international organization of different countries based out of France that take countries different methods and make them statistically comparable (which I why I used those numbers). The US does measure it very close to the way other countries do (every country from Canada to Britain to Australia do it a little different), random sampling of people and whether or not they are actively looking for work; it's not based upon what I see a lot of wrong complaints about "who's getting benefits".

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

the only thing overheating is the crack pipe your smoking

Re:Not really

[Oblio]

GDP measures output, which truly is not that relevant to what this guy is looking for. National Income numbers would be slightly more relevant to him.

It's honestly a little hard for me to understand how people can look at all the available data and come to any other conclusion than that we are facing a mixed outlook, so I'll just leave it at that.

Re:Not really

[stinerman]

So what exactly shows that our country is doing better economically

Well the GDP.

What I'm saying is that the idea that the "economy"/GDP is doing well doesn't necessarily mean that your average middle class person is doing well, much less the man who lives on the street. An increasing GDP does nothing for the man with stagnant wages who can't afford to pay his bills anymore. I'm reminded of the following story:

You and your neighbor make an average income of $50,000/yr (assume each make $50,000). Your neighbor wins the lottery of $10 million. You and your neighbor now have an average income of $5,050,000. The average looks really good, but you weren't helped a bit. This is very basically what the GDP represents. The country, on average, is getting richer, but the same people continue to win the lottery. To put it in terms of the pie analogy, the pie is getting bigger, but many people are getting smaller pieces of the pie.

Re:Not really

[Politburo]

The last time the unemployment methodology (as measured by the Current Population Survey) was significantly changed was 1994. The survey was instituted in 1940. The 1994 redesign only tweaked some definitions of unemployed vs. out-of-workforce.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is made up mainly of career statisticians and economists. While the Administrator is appointed by the President, the Bureau is rigidly non-partisan and its methodologies are public and open to criticism and change.

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Median income is down.
Average income is up.

Do you understand what this means? The rich and getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. The top 1% are doing VERY well, so they're raising the GDP. However, for those outside the top brackets, life isn't so rosy.

GDP numbers won't feed or house a single family.

Re:Not really

[InsaneGeek]

But what are you using for comparison time frames? Are you looking at the insane time during the 90's when people who walked out of high-school and would make 100k figures with no knowledge and saying "well now his dot-bomb company went under and his new job only pays 50k, so obviously our economy is screwed". As I've said before the 90's were unsustainable, any comparison to those levels is ludicrous. Appropriate comparative rates would be to take the rates of people from the late 80's early 90's adjust for inflation and compare to today; I think what you'll find is that we are still living way too high on the hog. True, people with no experience have gotten way expensive houses on those dot-bomb job expectations and are no longer able to support them when reality came in, in 2000. But I still say that relative to history our economy is going insanely good, much better than it should be. The income level's in the 90's fits your winning the lottery analogy extremely well; everybody expected to continue to hit the massive lottery winning every week. They did for a while and then reality came in and adjusted wages down, what I'm saying is that they weren't adjusted down enough. When janitors are doing day trading off of tips they hear off yahoo finance you know that it's not sustainable, we are almost back to that same excuberance level now. Definetly people aren't making the 90's millionaire money, but you can't expect to walk out of college and make even 50k. That crazyness can't be sustained, just can't if you are buying houses, cars, lifestyles on those types of expectations than you really are expecting to constantly hit the lottery.

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

God, you people are dumb.

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

"Other countries don't measure employment in the same manner we do, so its not a valid comparison."

Did you even read the employment link he posted? The OECD rate is STANDARDIZED across all countries in the report. From the link:

The OECD standardised unemployment rates, compiled for 27 OECD member countries, are based on definitions of the 13th Conference of Labour Statisticians (generally referred to as the ILO guidelines). Under these definitions, the unemployed are persons of working age who, in the reference period, are without work, are available for work and have taken specific steps to find work.

The uniform application of the definitions results in estimates that are more internationally comparable than those based on national definitions. National unemployment data in some countries only include persons registered at government labour offices. Under the ILO definition, persons without work who are seeking employment through other means can also be classified as unemployed and registrants can be excluded if they worked or were not available for work. The standardised unemployment rates shown here are calculated as the number of unemployed persons as a percentage of the civilian labour force (i.e the unemployed plus those in civilian employment). The standardised unemployment rates are seasonally adjusted.

Imagine that, they actually know what they're doing!

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

I think greenspan should probably start getting more aggressive on it as our economy has been going so *good* that we need to stop it from turning into a beast like it did in the 2000 where we get another big bubble.

You mean Bernanke?

For about a year we've been hovering at around 3% or so (up and down) inflation, which is the same it was before 9/11.

The basket of goods used in the federal reserve's calculations don't include fuel or food -two of the largest household expenditures. This is the kind of fiddling GP was talking about.

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuel prices and food prices are important. They already have separate indexes for you to look at.

One of the main points of inflation is that it is a useful figure of merit which depends on employment, productivity, interest rates, etc. in a somewhat predictable way.

Whereas food prices have less to do with the economy as a whole, and more to do with what the weather has been like in various food-growing regions. It's an important economic input variable, but its variations are random, so you can't use increases or decreases in food prices to understand the economy better.

It's the same business with fuel prices. They vary due to political climate, weather, and so on, rather independently of the rest of the economy.

It's very important to look at oil prices in making economic predictions. But including oil in an inflation index, unless you can smooth out random fluctuations, is not a good idea. You would be combining two different measures which behave in different ways.

Re:Not really

[sgt_doom]

Negative...negative...negative....

If one subtracts corporate and personal debt from the GDP (which makes up a signficant portion of the GDP) you will find that this country has actually experienced negative GDP growth for the past few years.

OECD is a subset of the WTO - and citizens should place as much faith in their statistics as they do in the WTO.

The USA's population has had a negative savings rate for over a year now. The last time that occurred was just before The Great Depression of the '30s. Think again, my friend, but this time think more analytically and sagely.

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

And with the high federal and trade deficits it is hard to believe that we will make it back to where we were say during the 80's, let alone what we had in the 90's.

Umm... Where are we and where were you? Our standard of living has increased tremendously. My grandfather tells me stories about how it took him a year to save up for a television, and how he had to resort to fixing electronics on the side to afford what would be considered a tiny house by today's standards and a single used car. Our house sizes have ballooned, the amount of electronics and other luxury items in our homes has also increased. Most middle class people really have no problem heating their homes even after the recent oil price increases, most likely because oil is still cheap when adjusted for inflation. He had it pretty good considering he worked for Grumman at the time and was making a decent wage by the time's standards. Honestly, look around you and tell me what is so much worse today than it was 25 years ago? House prices are kind of silly now, but I think that is really a reflection of how well off we are in other areas and that appears to be correcting itself. IMHO, buying a house is always going to be a struggle because it is a reflection of how well off you are compared to everyone else. IE you could be making $250k a year, but if everyone else in your area is too, you can bet that you are still going to struggle to buy in your area. I myself am faced with a dilemma similar to this. By most standards I am doing pretty well, but to buy a house would be forcing myself into a deep struggle. Some people in my position are just renting and living it up, others like me are just slowly saving and hoping to save faster than prices are rising.

Things are pretty good now and generally have been for the last 2.5-3 years. Its not the mid to late 1990's all over again, but thats probably a good thing (refer back to your statement about the economy limping along).

So I mean, unless you were doing lines of coke off of a hooker's ass in a Manhattan penthouse in the 80's and are currently residing in a cardboard box, you have it better.

Re:Not really

[modecx]

Look at how much our economy has inflated during the last 5 years... The economy always inflates when a republican is in office. Never fails. You'd need almost 1200 dollars today to buy what 1000 dollars would have bought in the year 2000. When Clinton was in office, our inflation rate decreased, and it was starting to head in the other direction. People want to know why everything is so expensive, and why they haven't got raises in 5 years. How can it be a suprise to them?!

When the price of a dollar decreases, it's supposed to make it more attractive to buy from the US.... But what the fuck do we make anymore? Cars? Hell, all the auto manufactures are in trouble. Our economy is in transition from being dependant on manufacturing, to being driven by services. It dosen't make econimical sense to build things here, when you can build them in Taiwan and then import it and make profit like crazy. Many of the cars our country exports aren't truely built here, Ford and GM have plants in Europe, because it makes more sense to build some cars there. Lowering the value of the dollar makes it more expensive to buy things from everywhere else. Our fuel prices haven't gone up because demand has increased or supply has decreased substantially, it's largely because the buying power of our currency has dropped. Is it a suprise? NO.

When you've got a stupid, pointless war racking up bills, and congress making tanker loads of more fake money, it shouldn't be a suprise that it's going to be more expensive to live. Combined with greedy profiteers, it's hell!

Sun Tzu had it down how long ago? 2500 years? "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare ... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns. "
We're not so special that we can make it happen any better than the Chinese could. I also like this one: "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy."

Had he be living today he would have said: "GG GWB".

Simpel solution

[91degrees]

Sell one to Pakistan. Wait for them to reverse engineer the thing (Apparently they do this a lot). Buy the software back from them:)

Eurofighter???

[HaydnH]

So Europe develops the Eurofighter (Typhoon), UK buys 232 of them... and then still wants these things? I thought the Eurofighter was meant to be an excellent fighter second only to the F22 in performance (which costs approximately twice as much as the Typhoon) but was meant to be easier to fly.

Licence agreement?

[babbling]

I wonder if the licence agreement has a clause stating that if you don't agree, you can return them for a full refund.

Maybe the UK could get money back for the fighters they have already bought.

Re:Licence agreement?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'planes don't exist yet, and are WAY behind schedule. This is becoming a real problem for the UK as we have been running down the equipment they are designed to replace, and it's starting to become a problem. Starting from scratch at this point seems impossible, but it could still be done...

The UK is about to spend out on new aircraft carriers designed to work with the JSF. It's gonna be a big shit sandwich if the JSF goes titsup.

Re:Licence agreement?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Why not just return the missiles? Saves on postage and packing, and has a very low rate of vendor complaints afterwards. ;-)

Re:Licence agreement?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The UK is about to spend out on new aircraft carriers designed to work with the JSF. It's gonna be a big shit sandwich if the JSF goes titsup.

There are all kinds of problems with timing and budget overruns in the UK military, but they really aren't stupid. I would be staggered if there were no contingency plan involving some Eurofighter variant.

(In fact, I thought that was the original plan, but apparently either I misunderstood or the plans have changed since I read about the new carrier project a few years ago.)

Re:Licence agreement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the two new carriers are designed to be converted down the line to a CTOL carrier (see the WIKI entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVF) the main plan is most to use the JSF but modifying the Eurofighter is most likly an option

Re:Licence agreement?

[UnixRevolution]

Why not just return the missiles? Saves on postage and packing, and has a very low rate of vendor complaints afterwards. ;-)

Because it is not a missile, it's an airplane.

Re:Licence agreement?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Really? No shit, Sherlock!

Lots of good reasons

[DCFC]

Having sold secure stuff I wrote to the UK government, I see several reasons here.
Big one is that without the source code interfacing to new non-US made gear will be very hard. Britain will want to buy and build other systems. Also looks at firm like Computer Associates who've done bad things to customers through object code, and made good money from it. Ever had Oracel threaten to withdraw support unless you pay a grossly inflated bill ?

Also the US will presumably sell these planes to Israel, and I think we can assume that even if the code is not given the Israelis are easily smart enough to get it anyway. Israel has supplied ex-British/US technology to countries actively engaged in fighting UK forces. They are a US ally, not a British one.
Recall that Iran was armed with the best American technology befor it went tits up, and modern stealth technology is based upon the fact that the CIA was successful in acquiring working models of Soviet Radars. Hint: von Braun wasn't always a loyal US citizen :) Short version technology leaks to your opposition faster than you might think.

But in a body of code that size, one could of course hide a backdoor in plain sight. I've done code reviews of operating systems, and it's bloody hard to be 100% that someone hasn't screwed up, let alone planted a logic bomb. One really nasty bugoid was that a Microsoft C was generating undocumented opcodes, which was fine until Intel released a new revision where the "useful" instruction was gone. Source code != object code != what it actually does.
So you need the full plans, microcode et al for the processors, compilers, and of course debugger.

Also on a political level it must be remembered that America is not an ally of Britain. Yes, Britain is an ally of America, but it's not symmetrical. Each time since WWII when Brtain has been attacked by either conventional forces like in Argentina, or terrorists America has either "tried to be friends to both sides", or in the case of Irish terrorists actively helped the bad guys. Read up on when Britain, France and Israel allied against Soviet backed Egypt to see how "useful" it is to have America as an ally. Ditto Grenada.


These fighters will be in service 20-25 years from now. Presumably Britain will want to go and kill someone in that time, what if one of the Bush family is making good money out of that country ?

As of July 4th it did

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, we didn't come up with the snappy name for a few years, but as of July 4th 1776, we thought we existed as a separate country. The british did not, leading to a bit of unpleasantness ending with the very unfortunate Mel Gibson movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0187393/).

Actually, the cold war is not over

[WindBourne]

Look closely. the USSR is gone, but you still have another entity out there that is not democratically elected. China is a country that is trying to build a large exporting economy. That is understandable. But they limit what can come into their country. In addition, they opened up 20 years ago, and then have slowly insisted that certain industries move to their country. But as it does, their is a tech transfer. Once again, I am not too surprised. The problem is, that a few people up top side can control all that. Just as Google is today an awesome and none evil company, it can overtime turn evil ( for a future reference, see microsoft). Th reality is, that the west is working with china in hopes that by having a tied economy that we will not want to attack each other due to mutual interest. But that only works where the citizens can control the gov via a vote. Since the chinese gov. has the final say, that is flawed logic.

Basically, saying that the cold war is over it incorrect. There is a cease fire while the politicians wait to see what happens. Hopefully, the chinese will in the end trust their citizens and give them the vote. Otherwise, somebody will come along who will see the need to aquire more power then they have and will make use of the military. It normally happens once a nation believes that they have the economic might behind them (can you think of any fairly recent examples?).

So no, the cold war is simply resting.

Why not software?

[cheezemonkhai]

Why not...

If the bomb is dropped at supersonic speeds it might not get away from the aircraft and so be hit by the aircraft in flight and destroy the aircraft.
I see no reason not to use software to stop a pilot in a high adrenalin environment from blowing themselves and an expensive fighter up.

Re:Why not software?

[kyouteki]

If an airplane is travelling at 200 MPh, so are the bombs that it's carrying. If an airplane is travelling at 900 MPh, so are the bombs that it's carrying.

Re:Why not software?

[CantGetAUserName]

I'm assuming you've not, therefore, seen some of the interesting high-speed footage of some test bomb drops. One I did see on TV ages ago was interesting - must have been terrifying to fly. Bomb drops ... bomb tumbles ... bomb pitches up into tailplane, destroying tailplane. The bomb did more damage to the plane than to the target ...

Re:Why not software?

[modecx]

I've also seen a video like that, but it was the external tank of an F/A-18 that the pilot dropped (routine thing to do before landing on a carrier) that crashed into the wing of his wingmans' A-7 Corsair, not a bomb. Needless to say, it was a big fireball, but I think the A-7 pilot survived after ejecting... But that certianly didn't happen at supersonic speed, either.

Anyway, the guy you responded to clearly dosen't understand the implications of supersonic aerodynamics and the detachment of bombs. It's a dangerous thing!

Bit of politics....

[supersnail]

Could be that us Brits are deeply uncomfortable with any deal involving the US at the moment.
The current US adminisration is deeply unpopular in Britian with almost everyone except Tony Blair.
Now Tony is on the way out the US is losing its British cheer leader.
None of the potential new leaders see any politcal adavantage in a "special" relationship with the US, to the extent that even a closer alliance with the hated French is the now prefered option.

Considering centuries of mutual hate and loathing there is between the Glorious subjects of her Brittanic Majesty and the unwashed garlic chewing frogs it is one of the great acheivments of the Bush dynasty to get the US rated below the French in British public perception.

Careful there

[WindBourne]

I may despise my current admin for being full of liars and traitors, but I am still proud to be an American. Just as in any other country, we have our weakness and out strengths. Overall, our sense of freedoms are 2'nd to none (of course, at the moment, the sense of such may not match the reality of such). While we are at this time causing more issues, overall, we have been beneficial to the world. The one thing about being a democracy is that bad admins do pass. Hopefully, the traitors and liars will be outed and will go to prison. But at the very least, there will be a elections coming up and we can clean up.

Helicopters too

[DrHyde]

Shades of the fiasco where the army bought helicopters from some yankee company and can't fly them because without the source code they can't be certified as being safe and airworthy!

Nah

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even MS is using .nyet in there products.

Re: Pedantry

[monktus]

A good post. Slightly different from the Japanese situation in that the UK has already ordered, and is partly building a few hundred Eurofighter Typhoons, but I asssume these are are for a different role than the JSF. I didn't see much in the article about the US trying to withhold the code so, as has been mentioned, it seems like posturing.

One thing though. England != UK.

Exocet missile codes...

[__aaijsn7246]

Reminds me of a recent story Thatcher demanded that Mitterrand turn over Exocet missile disarm codes during the Falklands war. The Exocet is an Aérospatiale produced anti-ship missile which France had sold to Argentia. One was used to sink the HMS Sheffield, so the British wanted to be able to disarm them. Mitterrand reportedly complied.

From a book by Mitterrand's psychoanalyst, Magoudi:

"Excuse me," Mitterrand begins, apologising for his late arrival. "I had a difference of opinion to settle with the Iron Lady. What an impossible woman, that Thatcher! "With her four nuclear submarines on mission in the southern Atlantic, she threatens to launch the atomic weapon against Argentina -- unless I supply her with the secret codes that render deaf and blind the missiles we have sold to the Argentinians. Margaret has given me very precise instructions on the telephone."

Magoudi wanted to know how his patient felt about being "symbolically emasculated", as the psychoanalyst put it. "You mean that in the face of such aggressiveness you remain passive?" he asked.

"I will have the last word," Mitterrand replied. "Her island, it's me who will destroy it. Her island, I swear that soon it will no longer be one. I will take my revenge. I will tie England to Europe, despite its natural tendency for isolation. How? I will build a tunnel under the Channel. Yes. I will succeed where Napoleon III failed."

Re:Exocet missile codes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's another (unsubstantiated) Exocet story...

It is said that Israel was horrified at the effectiveness of the Exocet after the Falklands war, so they had hackers break into the French factory computers and steal the source code. Then, they added some disarm codes and replaced it, so the modified code was placed into all Exocet's made from then on.

Presumably, every Israeli vessel has a special secret transmitter which is activated in case of Exocet attack to send the disarm codes.

True or.....

Simple improvements

[x2A]

nah we just know we can speed up the tracking system by compiling it with -O2

They shouldn't get source code

[EmagGeek]

It's a matter of national security, plain and simple. We can't go around telling everyone how we do the things we do. If the UK is that suspicious of us, and thinks that we would interfere with their own defense like that, then I am sure they are welcome to defend their damned selves with the *cough* French hardware...

There's one thing the US undisputedly does better than anyone else, and that is to design and build effective weapons. There's a reason we can be the most powerful nation on the planet with a standing army of only about a million people, and that reason is because we are the most effective integrators of technology in warfare.

The military is for defense (not free software)

[wilby]

This is not a fee software. This is a national defense issue. Briton wants to buy a fighter plane. The US designed a plane that can be remotely disabled. (remember 911) Briton refuses (rightfully) to buy a plane that the US can shutoff at any time. Who can predict for certainty that there will never be any future hostilities between the two countries. I think I am as red white and blue as they come but Briton is 100% correct on this one.

Re:The military is for defense (not free software)

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not likely that these two parties would be in engagement at opposite sides. But their advesary (either US or UK, NATO -forces in general) will posess theoretical possibility to attack both sides equip thru sinle vulnerability. It's single-point of failure, security thru obsecurity and black-box buying of very critical things that thousands and tens of thousands lives may depend upon it.

I don't personnally believe, that any block of planes really have "override switches" put on (only "override" in fighter is it's IFF). If any real doubt even would exist, Navy would stop selling F-18's pretty quickly.

So...

[dp_wiz]

Then we will have those sources in p2p?

As well noted.

[jonbusby]

As well noted the US has a history of thieving other countries technology on the pretence that they're going to "share" the result. If I remember rightly (although I cant find any information to back this up) they asked to see alot of our development files on the Eurofighter, saw what brillient research we had done, and stole it to produce parts of the F22. Still if they share the source code on this maybe things will change. I wonder what its written in anyway!

Source code for JSF is already available.

[Jerk City Troll]

It' right here, duh.

No Subject Needed

[pilsner.urquell]

Brovo.

Does the JSF run Windows Vista?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the middle of a dogfight

  "Windows update cannot authenticate your Windows Vista license number. Please purchase a legal copy from a Microsoft certified vendor. Shutting down Vista...15...14...13..."

To be fair

[rpjs]

I understand that the UK negotiators say that the US administration is sympathetic to our case but that they don't think they could get the necessary waivers passed by Congress. Presumably Congress is worried we're going to use these aircraft to reconquer Ireland or something?

Re:To be fair

[infinite9]

I understand that the UK negotiators say that the US administration is sympathetic to our case but that they don't think they could get the necessary waivers passed by Congress. Presumably Congress is worried we're going to use these aircraft to reconquer Ireland or something?

The article I was reading a few days ago said that it was the pentagon that was the problem. I guess the current situation allows the UK to ask for the codes if needed, and that it would certainly be granted, but that it takes something like 20 to 30 days for the request to go through. The royal navy/air force obviously feel like they need to be able to act faster than this. This is all completely ridiculous. I can't imagine why anyone in our government would want to withold any kind of military technology from the brits.

Re:To be fair

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

We are at peace with the Brits; We have always been at peace with the Brits. =)

Re:To be fair

[skogula]

Always been at peace with the brits? Who was it that burned the Whitehouse around 1813.

Re:To be fair

[wiredlogic]

the Brits

you mean Airstrip One.

Re:To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Eurasia.

Re:To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

And while you're asking questions, why don't you ask what that whooshing sound is far above your head? Or are you so used to it by now that it doesn't register anymore?

Re:To be fair

[coldfusionreaction]

Yes, we are also at war with the East; We have always been at war with the East. :)

Re:To be fair

[Baikala]

Do you ignore what 'sarcasm' means or just not very talented at recognize it?

Re:To be fair

[timjdot]

Where's your "Most prosperous colony now" laddies?!

USA = No Fly Zone. Get it?

Re:To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

That didn't stop Al Qaida.

Re:To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Who was it that didn't read 1984? Oh, right. You.

The British Miles M.52 supersonic fighter

[murdie]

I think you're thinking of the British Miles M.52 - see http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A882272 and elsewhere. A crucial difference between the Bell XS-1 and the Miles M.52, if I recall correctly, is that the former was rocket powered, and the latter was (Rolls-Royce) jet engine powered.

I'm not an aviation buff, but learnt about this fascinating project from a - I think - BBC TV documentary in August 2004.

Yet another case where 'stuffed shirt' British politicians have pulled the plug on projects in which the UK had a technological lead and more adventurous and entepreneurial Americans did the work necessary to bring the development to fruition, and then sold it back to us!

OS free JSR, no problem!

[MROD]

Well, if they get the planes without an OS, they can always run Linux on it!
</Obliglatory Slashdot Linux Reference>

Re:They're right. Do we care? If so, then what?

[MROD]

Actually, the JSF is a joint project between the US and the UK. The "joint" part relates to more than the use of the aircraft in the joint services of the USA. That's why this is such a big thing.

From what I understand a lot of the avionics (as well as the engines etc.) are being partly developed by BAE Systems, a UK company, so the technology isn't even all US based.

Now, I can understand why the UK government wouldn't want to rely upon a closed source flight control system. The US government has stated in the past that it wants to be able to remotely shut down weapons systems sold to other nations if that nation is behaving against the interest of the USA.

Now, the term "behaving against the interest of the USA" doesn't necessarily mean attacking the USA or any of its forces. It can mean attacking a 3rd party which, for various reasons, the USA has a vested interest in or the use of the weapon in an area could be embarassing for the USA.

Why would any soverign country want to rely upon a weapon system that another country can shut down at will for defence, however friendly that country seems?

Re:They're right. Do we care? If so, then what?

[cgenman]

A military expert will say that it's stupid to spill all your secrets to ANYONE because mere knowledge of a capability is enough to allow an adversary (or potential adversary) to begin defeating that capability.

Or an ally (or potential ally) to defend the shortcomings of your existing weapons technology. Like, for example, american-made rifles that can't hold up in sand.

I don't buy the whole secrecy-gives-you-a-bettery-military theory. I tend to think that secrecy allows contractors to be lazy, thus ensuring that when we really need it the military just isn't what we expect it to be.

Maybe it's better to do the basic research ourselves but not go that final step to building the hardware until we actually need to use it.

The problem is that ramp-up times are tough. If you need to send planes into North Korea next week, or Alabama by tomorrow, you need experienced pilots and ground crew. Not only that, but you need the planes to have already been built, rather being furiously glued together as fast as Northrup can go.

Usually the "panic response" of building up capabilities after a conflict begins is simply remorse over not having started earlier.

If you don't have the code, you have a really expensive flying Xbox that could quit working without warning and can't possibly be repaired.

Militaries tend to look at planes as an investment, and try to keep them running for years by upgrading their capabilities, finding alternative suppliers, etc. If you have the plane, you have, for example, the physical capability to modify it to work with any arbitrary weapons system you may want it to within reason. However, without source code the process of modifying the software to work with said additional capabilities is somewhere between dangerous and impossible.

I heard an Aussie RAAF F-18 pilot say...

[Shanep]

in a documentary...

That parts of jet fighters that the US had sold to other countries can be controlled remotely. He claimed that the US could disable the fire control computer of an enemy jet fighter from a US AWACS for example. Anyone know any more about this?

I've also heard that a certain big American corp that makes lots of things, including crypto hardware, puts backdoors or weaknesses in their products to be sold to other countries. Why on Earth would nations like some of those in the middle east and other nations less friendly to the US, buy computerized military hardware from the US!? Seems crazy to me.

To the Rest of the World:

[anothy]

Dear RoW:

I'm an American. I love my country. But we're maybe a little bit crazy right now. Please, for the good of everyone involved, stop enabling us to continue to be crazy bastards. Stop putting up with our shit.

I am entirely certain a coordinated Europe can build a fighter every bit as good at what comes out of the US; same for Japan and Canada, at the least. Why are you jumping through random hoops to get ours? We've become lazy, in many ways - don't make that mistake yourself. It's good for your country to build your own in many cases. Give it a shot! I think you'll find you like it.

You can get by entirely fine without our weapons manufacturers, without our Department of Defense. You shouldn't be following our example in IP law, either, nor paying any attention to what our crazy Department of Homeland Security is doing. We're off the rails right now. With your help, we can get ourselves straightened out, but we need some tough love from our older relatives. We need to be kicked in the bum and tossed from the house. We'll come around.

And don't worry about us going all isolationist. We're too built up into depending on other markets for trade. Get a few key players on board, and it won't take long until even the most conservative politicians change course, even if only for market reasons. Give us a few years, though: we've got to get rid of the mad git running things right now. But get Canada, Japan, China, and western Europe (most significantly the UK, but the EU would be best) to agree, and we'll be right as rain again in three years time. C'mon, give a friend a hand.

Thanks a lot,
A concerned American.

Don't need the JSF anyway ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry UK. You don't need the JSF, there are plenty of other good (and cheaper) modern combat aircraft out there. Take http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_GripenSaab Gripen for example.

Rules of engagement

[maybeHere]

If the rules of engagement demand a visual identification before a firing order is issued, BVR pretty much becomes meaningless. I'm not saying that ROE like that are the norm, but IMHO forced limitations shouldn't be forgotten completely.

Compilers?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

I hope for their sake that the Brits have their own compilers.

Why they will never release the sourcecode ..

[tkjtkj]

Here's why it will never happen that the U.S. allows the source to be released: it would become clear that within the code is proof that we indeed do have the capability to manipulate the functionality of military hardware that we sell to others. Should proof of that fact be revealed, it would have serious consequences for our foreign policies, at the least! The value of the code to the U.S. is far, far more than $12 Bn.

Big DUH

[Spiked_Three]

If you have any idea how these systems work, you realize that not only does the US have the ability to turn off these jets, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY if the US gives complete software over then you THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO TURN OFF THE US JETS.

No one with a working brain is going to expect differently - If you don't like it, buy it without the computers and build your own - good luck.

I don't expect or get the source for the software in my car, or even my microwave oven for that matter. And I make a choice to buy or not buy regardless. I am 100% sure GM and the feds can turn it off my car anytime and anywhere they want.

Back to the...

[saleenS281]

"Back to the drawing board." -GWB

defenCe procurement

[Anonymous Coward]

from the /. article "Lord Drayson, minister for defense procurement"
from TFA "Lord Drayson, minister for defence procurement"

Lord Drayson is British after all.

Huh... EuroFighter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to troll, but why would G-B want to buy US-made JSFs when they poured tonnes of money into the EuroFighter? What's the point of developping your own fighter plane when, in the end, you will buy someone else's products? Why not develop/maintain local expertise and whatnot, instead of putting Britain even more at the mercy of the USA?

So if the EuroFighter money was to be wasted (shades of Canada killing it's own "super fighter" of the time, the Avro CF-105, after spending so much money on it), why didn't the British gov't put said money into either: (a) cleaning up the railway mess caused by privatisation or, (b) social/health services?

Or did I miss something somewhere, like G-B wanting to operate two kinds of fighters?

Re:Huh... EuroFighter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done genius!

Yes, the UK does, and wants to continue to, operate SEVERAL different types of fighter aircraft. At the moment we fly Eurofighter, Tornado, Jaguar, Harrier and Hawk fighters. The future target WAS to fly Eurofighter, JSF and Tornado (and presumably some type of UCAV).

Treaties

[old_unicorn]

This is not a joke. When the Argentinians invaded the Falkland islands, the US had a treaty with Argentina, and was unable (officially) to help the UK. What if Argentina or another ally had demanded the disabling of US-origin aircraft? The US did give intelligence apparently, but all unofficial. The French were more helpful and gave the switch-off codes for some of their equipment such as exocets. It happens. Also the brits have some european missiles etc which they may want to fit, and with no source code any UK-only equipment would have to be integrated in the US, at US prices, to fit in with US timescales, and if there is a serious war then US contractors are going to be busy enough with their own concerns to make UK-only mods top-priority, whilst Briatian will have programmers sitting around twiddling their thumbs. **** Join the campaign to lose loose ****

Australia?

[nickco3]

.... like most other european countries you are paying hefty taxes

Dude, that's Austria

My cousin at Lockheed

[engagebot]

It'll be interesting to hear from my cousin what goes on. He's a Sr Engineer at Lockheed, and has worked on the JSF project for years. This directly deals with his systems...

a nation's defense cannot be outsourced

[swschrad]

and the Brits are right. now that you can't just make clones of mechanical geegaws, but must make your safety and operational changes in fly-by-wire systems in software, the software is the key. and for that, every user of weapon X has to hold the code and tools.

on the plus side, we're finally getting our ports control back, and that's many years overdue. swords typically have two edges, and it will hurt our exports, but maybe this "global economy thing" isn't really strategic for OUR safety and future.

so don't expect military weapons sales to pull the US out of its defecits in the future, or handovers of killing toys to win friends and influence enemies in the world marketplace. like GPS, any time somebody in washington decides it's the day to keep a technology to ourselves and flips a bit in a header, it's all toothless trash.

Brits with our tech?

[stlhawkeye]

I'm wary of giving the Brits that code. This is the same government that bought Westinghouse, the private storehouse for American nuclear technology, and then turned around and sold it to Toshiba which is going to leverage the technology in China.

Speaking as an American...

[ThousandStars]

... I can only say, good for you, UK. Don't compromise and don't surrender. You should have full access to the weapons you purchase, including the source code, so you can use them as you see fit.

Actually

[Anonymous Coward]

...the BOMARC sits at the canadian aero museum in Ottawa, less than a stone throw away from the leftover parts from the AVRO Arrow.

That John "Prairiehead" Dieffenbaker caved in to Eisenhower is obvious. What is not is that canada did fall back fifteen years behind tech wise and now is virtually US bond in most weapon system.

Pity.

I have American DD player can I have the Source

[zenst]

Well Its totaly understandable but is like me asking the manufacturer of the DVD player I'm about to buy for the source code.

From an American military point of view I'd already have least 2 versions of the code. One we sell and one we use ourselves with the best refinements. So releaseing source which can after all be reverse engineered albiet painfuly shouldn;t be a major issue.

Politicaly and posture wise they whill hum and arrrghhh opver it as long as possible but will eventualy capitulate with some comprimise or benifit. Best would be release source but also with a group of minders/engineers or alaw access at a isolated location so all work and inspecting is carried out there and only compiled code is ever taken from that location.

Bottom line the ability to inspect/modify and change the code is what is required and not having a copy you can decorate the office walls. As such it is totaly viable for the Americans to enable this whilst maintaining control with regards to access and still allow the British the level of reasurance they need.

Personaly I'd want to know the hardware specs in more detail as backdoors can be hidden in other ways if required. IE if the planes sensors were suseptable to XX radio frequency as XX part on the plane acted as the perfect antenna for that frequency and generated a harmonic that blinded XX sensor which had a cascade effect making all sensors cut out.

Bottom line Military hardware/software is like guniness, you have A grade for home and B grade for export.

So will I be able to use this as a precidence to obtain the source code to my DVD player or threaten the shop stuff with a lost sale unless they turn over the remote control. Or are we about to get DRM for planes.

Of interest statisticaly its other countries put in more software backdoors than America ever has. America prefer the more opfront control of having or not having and not the you can have it but were not telling you about this hidded feature. Yip Americans are more upfront and honest with regards to software security than other countries due to the fact they prefer the sinmple yes/no approach to control over the yes/no/have a knobled version. Not asaying there perfect but it puts the software/govement/military/spook angle into perspective overall.

Though if the situation was reversed the only issue would be what format would the Americans like the source code in and how many of our top staff would you like to poach along with it.

free vrs non-free response to requests

[twitter]

the first time a pilot requests a feature, you guys will sigh [and tell him to get coding]

Judging by all the features I have that Windoze users never will, I'd say developers get excited when they hear a good idea. For common ideas, they usually have a list of features on the way. It's hard to come up with new ideas, so the same requests might become tiresome but most people are used to it and have a faq. I don't know any free software enthusiast who would intentionally damp another user's enthusiasm. Now let's compare that to the non-free response.

The non free response is much ruder. It's typically a combination of:

• You don't need that.
• You are too stupid to use that.
• That's impossible.

The same response is given whether the non-free market droid understands the request or not. You are not allowed to talk to the developer and the developer is not allowed to make decisions that count. The reasons are:

• They may actually believe the above.
• Cheapness.
• They want to keep the good idea to themselves to be first to market.
• They want to disparage a competing program that already has the feature.

Non-free is competitive in only that anti-social way. It's insecurity that drives their secrecy and rudeness.

Re:free vrs non-free response to requests

[Anonymous Coward]

The non free response is much ruder

I hate to break it to you, but those responses are actually more common for open source projects than they are for commercial software.

Non-free is competitive in only that anti-social way

Double-double positive negation (or something), wow. Did you perchance finish highschool?

Re:free vrs non-free response to requests

[Kristoffer Lunden]

The non free response is much ruder. It's typically a combination of:

• You don't need that.
• You are too stupid to use that.
• That's impossible.

The non-free market would never tell you that. They would build it and charge you for it - no matter how well they actually implement it.

All of those responses are very common in the free world though. Sometimes it's a good thing (the developer may be right) but it's all too often rude.

Re:free vrs non-free response to requests

[Anonymous Coward]

bull -- commercial software just doesn't implement new features without $$$$

Re:free vrs non-free response to requests

[Anonymous Coward]

"They would build it and charge you for it"

UK is developing JSF for the USA!!

[Joseph_V]

I don't see how the UK can expect to get the sourcecode for the JSF... it's absolutely ludicrous.

The US is spending billions BUYING JSFs from the UK, why would the UK get the software for free?

Trade for some of your secrets and perhaps we'll accept, but for now the JSF is a coorporate matter, while the source-code to our weapons systems is a matter of national security. (Hell they already have the plans to our most sophisticated jet, don't get me started on that)

Seriously the sheer cynicism and lack of attention people pay to WTF is going on in these comments kills me sometimes.

Re:UK is developing JSF for the USA!!

[JustNiz]

>> The US is spending billions BUYING JSFs from the UK, why would the UK get the software for free?

Umm nope. This is about the JSF's that the UK is buying from the US. They want the software source too as a part of the pakage being sold to them (i.e. NOT for free), otherwise they won't buy them.

It's reasonable for any country to expect to have full visibility of the workings of its own defense systems.

EEEK!

[twitter]

You seem to have understood the meaning of the phrase "joint strike".

Great!

[BeerAndLoathing]

Great! National security through obscurity.

Doesn't it go both ways?

[jbrandv]

If it was possible to shutdown the jet remotely and we gave them the source code, coudn't they just shut down our jets too? Screw 'em. Don't give them anything. Either they want the jets or they don't. I suspect this would be covered under the DMCA anyway.

Does anyone know

[JustNiz]

if it uses Microsoft OS? Maybe it's Microsoft that doesn't want to open up.

Fine...

[BarnabyWilde]

...design your own. it's a free world. Griper.

Sorry, have to be completely honest for a second

[snowwrestler]

As a U.S. citizen I have to admit that I feel pride as well as outrage at hearing all these stories. The first job of any government is to protect its citizens from international harm, and winning consistently at this sort of international intrigue is one way to do it. In fact I'd say that in some ways it's a good way of accomplishing national security in that it depends more on lying and less on firebombing. (neither being great but firebombing considerably less great in my view)

I know it's wrong to screw our allies, but on the other hand alliances can shift. The U.S. has fought both Japan and Britain on our own soil in the past, and seen many allies turn to enemies (Iraq for instance). There is something to be said for always attempting to maintain an advantage in international relationships. It's not a bridge club after all.

Go fly a...

[MrDoh1]

So I guess the US is gonna tell them to go fly a kite because that's all they will be flying?

Recompile??? (was:Is that for real?)

[soren42]

So, basically, you're suggesting the Gentoo Strike Fighter or GSF. If I read at least part of your intentions correctly, you imply that every foreign buyer should essentially:

emerge fighter-software

on every piece of imported equipment.

Re:Recompile??? (was:Is that for real?)

[Bull999999]

GSF: Enemy fighter in range.
Pilot: GSF, launch missle.
GSF: Compiling launch module now.
Pilot: Shit...

Re:Recompile??? (was:Is that for real?)

[Iron E]

"Compiling"? You must be joking...

pilot@JSF T=0900 $ emerge missile-launcher

Calculating dependencies... done!

!!! Error: the weapons/missile-launcher package conflicts with another package;
!!! the two packages cannot be installed on the same system together.
!!! Please use 'emerge --pretend' to determine blockers.

pilot@JSF T=0902 $ emerge --pretend missile-launcher

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[blocks B ] engine/thrust-control (is blocking weapons/missile-launcher-1.0.3-r9)
[ebuild U ] misc/landing-gear-0.7.14-r2 [0.7.14-r1]
[ebuild N ] weapons/missile-launcher-1.0.3-r9

pilot@JSF T=0905 $
Broadcast message from radard (Fri Mar 16 09:05:31 2007):

WARNING: left aileron destroyed by enemy machine gun fire!

pilot@JSF T=0905 $ eject

Avro Arrow

[Riturno]

Also, this story was made into a movie by the CBC called The Arrow starring Dan Akroyd. It was reasonably compelling, although there was a bit of dramatic license taken.

Additional links: http://www.avro-arrow.org/Arrow/CBC.html

From the CBC Archives: http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-75-275/science_techno logy/avro_arrow/

Trust!

[arthurh3535]

If we don't give this out, we are basically saying we don't trust our own allies.
And if we *don't* trust them, we have serious issues. Alienating our own allies because we won't treat them fairly and equally just means the United States is inheirently untrustworthy.
Haven't our allies earned our trust?

Not only is the Cold War over...

[DrVomact]

The age of massive industrialized warfare waged by nation-states is also over. Today, bombs are delivered by car or truck, engagements are fought by small, loosely controlled bands of irregulars, and our enemies communicate via handwritten notes sent by courier. And they are not only winning, they are running rings around us. So the kabillions we (the industrialized "Western" nation-states) spend on air superiority, electronic intelligence (ELINT) systems, space weapons, and huge military staffs whose chief talent is giving PowerPoint presentations are a complete waste of resources .

Read something by Martin van Creveld if you want to understand what's going on. Through a Glass, Darkly is a good place to start.

Peace with the Brits

[Anonymous Coward]

>>> We have always been at peace with the Brits

Only since 1814. The UK could join the the rest of the world calling for war crime trials of the Bush regime.

Re:Peace with the Brits

[Anonymous Coward]

"The UK could join the the rest of the world calling for war crime trials of the Bush regime"
You mean the rest of the terrorists.

Yes, ITAR is annoying

[default luser]

It's thanks to lovely things like ITAR that I can't even CALL CANADA to get tech support.

Like many defense companies, we make use of many Dy-4 products (now owned by Curtiss-Wright). The only problem? Dy-4 is a CANADIAN company.

So, in order to get tech support with Dy-4, I have to go through a specially-designated contact who has an export license for just this sort of thing. This wouldn't be a problem, except he is the only person with said export license, and has to serve all sorts of people.

I can't even EMAIL these people about a technical issue without someone holding my hand, even if I know it's not critical information.

Nuts

[wilson316]

U.K. "Gimmie root"
U.S. "No"
U.K. "Gimmie root"
U.S. "No"

Battlestar Galactica

[alextheseal]

Has somebody in the UK just downloaded Battlestar Galactica from Itunes?

Screw'em.

[tgrigsby]

We've produced the best fighter jet in existence, and it can't be turned against us. Y'know, I'm just not seeing a downside here. If they don't want the best, let them get a second rate jet without our security features. No problem. They can then turn those jets against us, but we'll have the better fighters, and they'll be raining out of the sky. Or they can be smart about it, buy the jets, and just not use them against us.

I say screw'em. In the end, they'll buy the jets.

Of course, they'll then turn a team of 12 year old hackers on them and probably have them cracked in a single weekend, but that's a separate issue.....

Can understand.

[Icegryphon]

I see why this is a reasonable request. Just so long as the UK keeps it protected on their end everything will be fine.

SU-30 MKI Bang Bang

[theolein]

From here and other places

Not long had the exercises finished when the media in both countries painted the exercises as a 'rude shock' for the USAF and the Washington establishment. According to respected media reports, Indian pilots outflew the Americans, right through the exercise. "On the first day all four American planes were shot down. Never once did the Indians come off second". According to United States media, the F-15C's were defeated more than 90 percent of the time in direct combat exercises against the IAF. It should be noted that the IAF did not field its newest "near fifth-generation" Sukhoi-30MKI air-dominance fighters and if it did so, the results may have been even more favourable to the IAF. Nevertheless the IAF had the benefit of operating the two-seater Sukhoi-30MK/K "four plus-plus-generation" fighters.

USAF officers said India's Su-30's had a clear advantage over the F-15 in long-range flights, and even though the US and Indian pilots were "seeing" each other at the same time on their radars, the Indian pilots were able to "fire" the simulated first shot with their R-27 (AA-10 Alamo) AAMs (Air-to-Air Missiles) and often winning the long-range BVR engagements. This, they said, meant that the Indian radars were more advanced, which came as a real shocker for the USAF. It should be noted that Sukhoi-30's inherently have a very respectable internal fuel capacity to enable them to make generous use of afterburners and establish kinematics advantage. Similar advantage is enjoyed by the Russian R-27 (AA-10 Alamo) series of BVR AAMs with powerful motors, especially the 130 kilometres extended-ranged models.

While the superb performances of the Sukhoi-30's were somewhat anticipated, the performance of the MiG-21 Bisons came as a major "unpleasant surprise" to USAF officials. The Bison with new powerful R-25 engines, latest radar, missiles and EW (Electronic Warfare) were credited with "jackrabbit" acceleration and great dog-fighting ability. It also validated the claim of Russian officials that they are capable of successfully converting "second generation" late-model MiG-21 bis fighters into "fourth generation combat platforms".

Col. F. Greg Neubeck USAF exercise director for Cope India, emphasized the fact that US forces were always outnumbered in these exercise scenarios, but said the missions proved more difficult than expected. "What we faced were superior numbers, and an IAF pilot who was very proficient in his aircraft and smart on tactics. That combination was tough for us to overcome. One reason the Indian pilots proved so formidable is that their training regimen does not include a concept of 'red air'. Instead, they fly pretty much 'blue-on-blue' - a full-up airplane with no restrictions against somebody else's airplane with no restrictions, and that leads to more proficiency with your aircraft. The service probably needs to take off the handcuffs that we put on our red air training aids and allow them to be more aggressive and make the red air tougher than we have in the past."

The Russian craft are not as good as the F-22 but they're better than F-15s and the Chinese have hundreds of them and the Indians are also building up a huge force. The US has constantly reduced the number of F-22s because of price.

Liberation of USA

[Anonymous Coward]

British need the source code to be able to help Liberate America from the Bush dictatorship in a few years.

US to UK....

[AtlBraveFan]

If you don't mind could you turn on the auto update functions? That way we can keep your software up-to-date..he he he...

Not Star Trek, I thought of "Unforgiven"

[JudgeFurious]

When Clint Eastwood tells the kid to hand him his revolver and the kid looks at him nervously. Eastwood says "Don't worry kid, I'm not gonna kill you. You're the only friend I have left."

Does the US want loose the UK as a friend

[Anonymous Coward]

Things like this cause a drip drip approach to ruining a friendship. In itself the situation will reach a compromise but the political and media damage gets done. UK feels cheated and so EU alliances look better.
Here is a scenario - 10 to 20 years from now China will be a superpower and the continued expansion of the EU could make it the largest collection of cooperating sovereign states in the world (perhaps half a billion population, thats 4 times the US), even perhaps including russia.
Suddenly the US starts to look isolated. All because the US kept promising but not delivering to allies. Having friends sometimes means trusting them.

12% or 8% or 0%?

[ironduke-particle]

Because of prior expertise in VSTOL and STOVL aircraft acquired by British (or nominally British) defence contractors with the Harrier and the Rolls-Royce Pegasus vectored-thrust engine, it was inevitable that there would be some British involvement in JSF. Depending on whether the Boeing-led consortium or the Lockheed-led consortium won the contract, this was looking to be either 12% or 8% of the value of the program contracts.

There are five principal customers for JSF. They are, in my understanding of the size of their prospective order, the USAF, USN, USMC, RAF and the Fleet Air Arm. The USAF want a conventional aircraft, the USN want something with a catapult shoe and a tailhook, and the others want STOVL. From my point of view, building any variant other than the STOVL one is insane, but what do I know?

If the MOD cancels the orders for the Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm, it will save itself money -- and more money when it realises it can cancel the proposed two conventionally powered aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince Of Wales. Eventually Her Majesty's armed forces will be reduced to a single Somali mercenary armed with a board with a nail through it. In the meantime, the DoD will order the 3000 or so units it wants, and they will still get built at $50m per unit or whatever, and British defence contractors will get about 4% of that, down from the forecast 8% because of effective lobbying done in Washington to re-award some contracts.

What sticks in HM Goverment's craw with regard to the Pentagon refusing to release source code for this weapons platform is that British defence contractors will not be able to maintain the aircraft. Only Pentagon-approved -- ie US -- companies will be able to do this, and awarding defence contracts of any kind to foreign companies is as politically unpalatable in the UK as it is in the US. [Which is why the British Army's AH-64D's cost about $40m per unit instead of about $12m; built under licence by Westland, and then the US manufacturer refused to supply flight simulator software etc, so British contractors had to develop their own.]

The supposed danger that the US might be able to use the weapons platform software to veto British military action is ridiculous -- the last time any Prime Minister defied the US Goverment in defence matters was when Harold Wilson publicly endorsed LBJ's position on Vietnam but refused to send any troops.

Its all about the airframe hours..

[sr180]

Its the Airframe hours that are killing the Australian FA-18's. The airframes have just clocked up way too many hours, because they are our sole strike force capability, and its all we have. With the F22 being delayed further and further, its going to be a serious question of whether or not the FA-18's can actually last that long. (The F111's cant!)

bingo

[slashdotwannabe]

...the US would no doubt have been expecting this demand at some point, because if the tables were turned, the US would be demanding the same thing.

Similarly, this isn't a matter of an exceptional lack of trust on the part of the UK - in matters of national security, you shouldn't be trusting anyone to this level.

This pretty much hits to the heart of the source code issue - well said!

I can only think that there are RAF generals who remember accepting American promises of how the F-111 would perform and cancelling the TSR-2 program, only to find that when the F-111 was actually delivered, it was much more expensive and didn't perform as well. As Ronnie once said "Trust, but verify".

You're wrong

[Gorimek]

Dude, your examples are completely made up. When Chamberlain said the infamous "peace in our time" in 1938, he had just given Hitler Czechoslovakia in a desperate attempt to stop war. That it would not be enough was obvious to Churchill and many others.

Stalin demanded large areas from Finland in early 1938, to provide a buffer for Leningrad. That made it clear to anyone still in doubt that the USSR was a serious military threat. Still, there is only so much a small country can do to prepare for an attack from a 50 times bigger one.

The point you're repeating is a valid one, but the real arguments for it are quite a bit more complicated than this. Read some history! It's both fun and educational.

No and yes?

[modecx]

France isn't a NATO member? This would seem to disagree

I concede to the rest of your points, though :)

Re:No and yes?

[Jezter!* $nothername]

They must have snuck in whilst I wasn't lookin. Even more need for the source code (for the reasons listed) and quickly!