Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Refuses to Hand Over Fighter Source Code to UK
orbitalia writes "The UK is heavily involved in the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter program) but has recently considered abandoning the project because the US refuses to share the source code. The UK had intended to purchase $120 billion dollars worth of aircraft to operate on two new aircraft carriers, but is now seriously considering Plan 'B'. This is likely to be further investments in the Eurofighter Typhoon project." From the article: "It appeared that Tony Blair and George Bush had solved the impasse in May, when they announced an agreement in principle that the UK would be given access to the classified details on conditions of strict secrecy. The news was widely seen as evidence that the Prime Minister's close alliance with the American President did have benefits for Britain ... 'If the UK does not obtain the assurances it needs from the US then it should not sign the Memorandum of Understanding covering production, sustainment and follow-on development,' the MPs insisted."
What happened to the buck stops here? And why does Bush refer to himself as "the decider"?
You seem to be mistaken about the pivot point of the relationship between Britain and the U.S. today. Bush and Blair are two peas in a pod. *rolls eyes* For you to deny what is going on here shows how out of touch you are.
Allowing another country to design military machinery is one thing, but software? Why did they even consider this in the first place, thats like a huge national security risk. I can see it now...
As the British fighters approach the American jets, they all suddenly lose control and crash into the ocean.
PWND.
They are not as stealthy as the current F-117
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The F-22, F-35, and Eurofighter are all more capable than the F-117. The F-22 and F-35 are also more stealthy.
Close air support today means not just small aircrat laying down munitions (rockets and 20MM) from low altitude line of sight, but also B-52's and B-2's dropping JDAMS from 25k'. Or an F-22 or F-16 dropping SDB's from 30+ miles away.
BTW, they are retiring the F-117's to the boneyard in a couple of years.
Don't laugh. I work on a project for the Department of Homeland Security and a lot of the code is Visual Basic.
I'm among the first to bash the services for huge projects that grow seemingly out of control, especially aircraft and ships, while less glamorous things such as individual soldier equipment gets short shrift. However, these systems are not designed, tested, produced and fielded overnight. Just because we have air supremacy in both of the current combat theaters does -not- mean that we will in future conflicts.
Can anyone imagine the reaction if in a future conflict, US ground soldiers get killed en masse because close air support is unavailable because we cannot maintain at least air parity? The outcry would be an order of magnitude above the body armor / armored HMMWV debate of a couple of years ago.
The Air Force's new-ish GDSS2 is all VB6...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
> You are simply wrong. While I'm not a F-22 fanboy, the stealth
> features of the EuroFighter are basic and the F-22 has advanced stealth.
You're talking out your ass. F-22 and F-35 have been criticized because the Air Force,
for "nicer" aerodynamics decided it only needed to be Stealthy Head on.
Get behind one of these new USAF birds, and it'll be like an F-16 locked up by an Su-27.
Forgive me for answering anonymously but features are turned "off" in the code. It would be too difficult to modify the source and remove the lines that aren't needed. With that said, several features would become "known" to people outside of a predefined need-to-know group. Secrets are not kept secrets if people not needing the information have knowledge of it. Most of the US pilots who fly fighter aircraft are unaware of some of the technologies that the weapon system they are flying has to offer. Of course, they would be told very quickly if they have the need-to-know. It is not a question of trusting the British. By all means, they are our closest ally. It is a question of keeping the knowledge of those technologies limited to a small predefined group of software engineers and scientists.
Every country involved has been told the same thing.
I really don't think this is a matter of mistrust between the US and UK, but rather living by the maxim of James Greer: "The likelihood of a secret's being blown is proportional to the square of the number of people who're in on it."
While it makes sense to try and plan for any and all future possibilities, it may simply be trying to limit the number of people/groups who have the capability--however small--to leak the secret.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Up until recently, the DoD still maintained battle plans for a potential war against Britain. The Pentagon games out nearly every scenario they can think of, however, so the fact that they had invasion plans for Britain left-over from WWII and updated once-in-a-while doesn't really mean much. We probably still have invasion plans for Canada left over from 1812--you never know, with those wily Canadians...
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
Wow. I agree very strongly with your point. You're one of the few I think who have the courage to say this.
In truth, regardless of whose side you're on, war is supposed to be nasty and brutish. I can imagine the worst thing to happen to the US military is pervasive media and the internet. It magnifies everything a millionfold and filters war through the eyes of civilians. It should not. It hampers the efficacy of military operations because the military now attempts to please the public.
I agree with you - this war has become a nightmare of public relations because the US refuses to use crushing force to annihilate insurgents for fear of public outcry. Thus the irony of a military force doomed to failure for attempting to please the very people already predicting their demise.
Any military treatise preaches on the psychological aspects of war. For better or worse, the United States airs its dirty laundry for the world to see - on the news, online, message boards, etc. It sends a message of a country divided... a military CASTRATED. It's a shame, mostly to the soldiers who are in the field. Incidentally, your points about speed and decisiveness are key tenets of basic military philosophy as well - but group think in the US is a serious handcuff to that prospect.
There is no tactical reason for this conflagration to still exist - it's like the heavyweight pulling punches against a flyweight in the ring because the crowd is crying foul/unfair... etc. The same crowd will point derisively when the lightweight pulls out the decision. smh.
George Bush is an idiot - and the hesitance of this administration to close this out is damning. They've already taken the PR/IA hit... just close it the fuck out and pull out already.
un burrito me trampeó.
True, but the UK is meant to be a very close ally of the US, and is a major investor in the project.
I have to wonder if part of this is that the UK keeps being ignored in the "special relationship".
No, the truly sad thing is that anybody believes those nonsense numbers. (Which, oddly enough, were released just before the US election, just like their last survey.)
655,000 War Dead? A bogus study on Iraq casualties
The Iraq Body Count project strongly rejects the 650,000 number as well.
I think that there are lies told in the pursuit of "peace" that equal or exceed those claimed to have been told in the pursuit of war.
As to Iraqi suffering, I don't recall there being massive protests around the world when Saddam invaded Iran, Kuwait, gassed the Kurds, or filled various mass grave sites. That leads me to believe that very few people in "peace movements" outside Iraq are genuinely concerned about Iraqi suffering. I do remember massive protests by the "peace movement" when the large multinational coalition prepared to eject the Iraqi Army from Kuwait in 1991. The protests were against the liberation of Kuwait, which leads me to believe that few people in the "peace movement" were against the suffering of the Kuwaiti people under occupation, or against the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam who was waging aggressive war to incorporate Kuwait as a province of Iraq. During the period that Iraq was under sanctions, there were protests against the US and not against Saddam for misusing the corrupt Oil for Food money to buy weapons and build palaces instead of buying food. The evidence seems to point to the "peace movement" being against the US and not against Iraqi suffering.
But the thing that puts Americans over the edge is the deaths of their troops? I don't quite understand that logic. Can someone be so kind as to explain that?
Americans don't want to see other Americans killed. They understand that people are likely to die in war, but prefer that it is the enemy soldiers if it is going to be anyone. That isn't hard to understand, is it?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
way to go, America.
Douhet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Douhet
Never mind that it was disproven during the Second World War, since 'round-the-clock strategic bombing certainly didn't make the German populace rise up against Hitler (or Londoners rise up against Churchill during the Blitz). From my grandfather's personal experience as a POW, it made the civilians hate Allied airmen.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Funding should not have been withdrawn. It plunged Palestine into an impossible situation. The large majority of palestinians who had voted were in favour of a two state solution and Israel's right to exist and that was the climate at the time. Regardless of any private feelings of members of the Hamas government, and I say private because they were publically stating their willingness to negotiate peacefully and were sustaining a ceasefire at the time, they were hardly about to engage in some program of wiping out Israel.
The best approach for the EU and the USA was to honour existing payments. Instead they sent the clear message that the palestinians choice was subject to US approval.
It really makes you wonder if they Israeli government wants a palestinian state, doesn't it?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.