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."

Comments

Re:Embarassment

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't laugh. I work on a project for the Department of Homeland Security and a lot of the code is Visual Basic.

Re:no surprise here

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire reason they want the source code is to ensure that the US government can't arbitrarily disable their planes when they disagree with their use or conflict with US interests. A reasonable concern given the state of US politics, foreign policy, and state of the US moral compass.

Just one Canadian's opinion.

Re:Why invest in these airplanes at all?

[SylvesterTheCat]

Not sure where you get your information from, but...

They are not as stealthy as the current F-117 You are going to have to provide some references to support that one. Besides, the F-117 has a number of limitations, including very limited weapons capacity and no ability to defend itself. Stealth makes you harder to see via electronic methods. It does not make you invisible, especially during daylight hours.

Close air support is no longer granted unless the target is in a location which can absolutely guarantee no collateral damage. Not true. Not all targets are in locations that are in close proximity to protected sites. It is also very possible for a 'protected site' to lose its status if the enemy uses it as a facility that is incompatible with the reason for its protected status.

This means that CAS is no longer granted. Again... not sure where you are getting your information, but I happen to know that CAS is used in both of the current theaters when the conditions require its use.

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.

Re:Embarassment

[Frosty Piss]

The Air Force's new-ish GDSS2 is all VB6...

Re:The UK is not unique

[nmb3000]

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.

Re:no surprise here

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the British are concerned about not having the code for their military equipment. During the Falklands war they used the holes in the French made missles' soft to disable the Argentine missles. (Source http://www.guardian.co.uk/argentina/story/0,,16477 62,00.html .) They know that power can be used, they are not going to give that power to others to use against them!

Re:The UK is not unique

[91degrees]

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".

Re:I don't really think there is

[h4rm0ny]

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?