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."
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.
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.
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
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.
Nice to see how much confidence we inspire in our closest allies.
Small wonder our enemies don't trust us.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
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.
KIRK - You have got to learn WHY things work on a Starship.
... to prevent an enemy to do what we're attempting; using our console to order Reliant to lower her shields...
SPOCK - Each ship has its own combination code...
KIRK -
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.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
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.
The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
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.
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.
the US didn't exist in 1776.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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.
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.
The plane without the software should be a lot cheaper too.
when everyone gives everything, then everyone everything will get
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.
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.
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...
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.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
"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.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
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.
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.
Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
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.
But the packet switched networking technology which underlies TCP/IP was developed by the British Post Office in the 1960s.
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.
The ______ Agenda
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.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
"there is only one special relationship in Washington, and that is with Israel" - one of Blair's advisers as quoted in "The Accidental American"
So, in fact, Microsoft are simply following the good example set by their Government?? Hmmm...
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...
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.
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.)
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
"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.