Slashdot Mirror
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."
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!
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.
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 :-)
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29:
Russian fighters are indeed pretty good!Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
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.
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.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Wrong, Australia was burnt with both the F/A-18 Hornet and F-111.
A Big Deal: Australia's air combat capability:
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.
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...
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.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
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.
From the article you link to:
... 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.
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]
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
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.
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.
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.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
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.
The evil monkey commands you to dance.
Not so neck and neck.
f ighter_aircraft#DERA_study
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_
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.
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.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
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?
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.
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.
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)
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
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?.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
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.