It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-35 scared of Sparrows

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I know that, I was just giving an update on the political issues going on here. Im not saying its right, just say that this is the talk.

Yeah and its stupid talk, I mean come on...its like we are getting painted as untrustworthry because we stayed by the US's side while working with the EU....




posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yeah and its stupid talk, I mean come on...its like we are getting painted as untrustworthry because we stayed by the US's side while working with the EU....


Then I believe that we are in agreement



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Look the Pentagon has their reasons for not giving the British the codes, and I curious why do they want them so soon its not like they have the F-35 yet.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Look the Pentagon has their reasons for not giving the British the codes, and I curious why do they want them so soon its not like they have the F-35 yet.


You're suspisious of the only major ally you have?


Man, land of the free and home of the paraniod.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp



youre taking it personal here, im just saying we cant be sure how easily china could steal the codes, these planes rely on computers far more than other fighters, its not worth the risk even if you are good allies with good protection, you seem to underestimate china and ignore our need for security, woould you risk it if you had one of the most advanced weapons in the world and a hugely powerful enemy thats very good at stealing weapons from other powerful nations?

plus its also boeing copyrights that dont allow us to share the codes so its their legal right to require you to send them in for repair, we have to do the same thing with all our sensitive weapons parts.

[edit on 27-3-2005 by namehere]



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
The first thing that pops into my mind on this subject is when two entities ( individual, business or government) enter into a cooperative project there is always some type of legal agreement specifying the particulars. These agreements lay out what is required by each party, and what information is considered 'joint' and what is 'proprietary'. They also stipulate when and how informaton is to be shared.

I am sure there is some kind of agreement that was signed by both the US and the UK about the JSF. Without knowledge of what is laid out in that agreement, we really have no idea whether the US is being unreasonable, or the UK is attempting to aquire information the agreement doesn't entitle it to.

The only way we could possibly solve this issue is to obtain a copy of the ageement. Anyone have access to either gov's database?



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Well put Montana you get my vote for most sane post and for way above.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well put Montana you get my vote for most sane post and for way above.



I was hoping you would say you had a copy.


Thanks, though.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 03:48 AM
link   
to get to the subject, engine's compressor blades are reinforced and now have the ability to take a bird or stone hit and still function, well at least get the aircraft down safely, the blades are strong enough to stay intact and not shatter, and no matter where in the world you are, there will be birds or FOD (Foreign Object Damage).



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

arent intelligence services part of your defense budget which is underfunded?


Actually, no the Intelligence services are not funded through the defence budget.

The intelligence services receives their funding through a special arrangement called the Single Intelligence Vote. The services submit their required budgets, management plans and intelligence requirements to a board called the Permanent Secretaries Committee on the Intelligence Services (PSIS). PSIS is chaired by the Secretary of the Cabinet and its members are the Permanent Under Secretaries of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Defence, Home Office and Treasury.

These people decide how much funding the Intelligence services should get, and that figure is then approved by Parliament, and is seperate from the Defence Budget.

In 2002/2003 this budget was £893million UKP.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
youre taking it personal here, im just saying we cant be sure how easily china could steal the codes, these planes rely on computers far more than other fighters, its not worth the risk even if you are good allies with good protection, you seem to underestimate china and ignore our need for security, woould you risk it if you had one of the most advanced weapons in the world and a hugely powerful enemy thats very good at stealing weapons from other powerful nations?

You seem to think we are unable to defend ourselves from intelegence gathering forces, our counter intel forces MI5, army intel, NID and 14th intel are all highly regarded as on par with the CIA.
The chinese arent hugely powerful at the moment, they havent even got a bomber force to speak of, hell the RN could beat the PLAN in a head to head engagement and thats saying something!


plus its also boeing copyrights that dont allow us to share the codes so its their legal right to require you to send them in for repair, we have to do the same thing with all our sensitive weapons parts.
[edit on 27-3-2005 by namehere]

So you want your ally to have inneffective weapons therefore makeing them more dangerous therefore makeing them useless therefore makeing your ally have no naval air cover?
Thank you very much "ally"

Seems iraq and afghanistan wasbr a good enough loyalty test...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
So much excitement about the codes, but remember that the info is from the same article that apparently states that only F-35 is especially vulnerable to the birds!!!



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Look they will probably work out something, maybe the UK gets a different computer system on it that does not need the same codes as the US one.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Look they will probably work out something, maybe the UK gets a different computer system on it that does not need the same codes as the US one.

But the fact is you dont seem to trust us!
Even after standing with you at our own expense we still arent trusted!



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
There are a couple of reasons why the British have not (yet) received full access to the F-35's software suite:

1) U.S. law: Export control statutes state that a purchasing (or teaming) nation may not have access to classified source code for weapon or sensor systems, unless they are directly involved with the development of that code and have signed a Technology Transfer Agreement. Now, since the British are not involved with the development of the code, they do not need access. When the aircraft has been delivered to Britain, and the British have sufficient justification to require access to said code, the law stipulates that the code can then be released to that nation (or partner), but not before. This is simply a "need-to-know" policy that is enforced on a daily basis for all classified information. These facts do not impune British loyalty or trustworthiness, for the British capability for internal security and their level of trustworthiness has always been regarded as a mesuring stick for our own capabilities. It is simply the law.

2) Technology Transfer: because the goal of the JSF was to produce the most capable multi-role aircraft at the absolute lowest cost, much of the technology going into the F-35 was originally developed for other aircraft. A huge percentage of technology was lifted directly from the F-22 Raptor, including steath and avionics. It is a very fair statement that full understanding and insight of F-35 technology would give someone a very good idea of the capabilities (and therefore limitations) of the F-22. This fact make alot of US congressmen and USAF generals very uneasy, taking into consideration that the F-22, our premier air defense aircraft for the forseable future, is costing billions of dollars over many, many years. This is money, of course, to which the British have not contributed, yet they will reap the benefits of this expediture in the form of technology transferred to the F-35 at no cost to them.

3) Politics: In the 1990's, President Clinton tried to pass legislation that would make special exceptions for Great Britain and Australia regarding technology transfer of military systems. In essence, this exception would have allowed the US to transfer sensitive and classified military technology much more easily to GB and AUS, without going through many of the legal hassles and red tape the US laws and the State Dept. require. The Republican congress, seeing this as an attempt to curry the political favor of the British and Australians by Pres. Clinton, shot down the legislation. Fast forward to Pres. Bush - he tried to pass the same legislation. Guess what? A small group of republican bureaucrats keep holding up the same legislation, again and again (much to Pres. Bush's chagrin). These two legislators, Rep. Hyde and Rep. Hunter, are simply flexing their political muscle to leverage the administration for things they want passed. They also feel that that the UK and AUS shouldn't get special priviledges over other countries, as the Cold War is over. These two men are not making very many friends on Capitol Hill.

I am sure that when the time is right, the source code will be released to the British government. However, most of this problem can be attributed to internal US politics and the inherrent red tape associated with our government and the way it operates. It has nothing to due with British trustworthiness.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Look they will probably work out something, maybe the UK gets a different computer system on it that does not need the same codes as the US one.

But the fact is you dont seem to trust us!
Even after standing with you at our own expense we still arent trusted!

The US mostly trusts the UK, and I think the only way we would trust you even more would be to start breaking off ties with Europe. Not that I think that will ever happen...i'm just saying.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
The US mostly trusts the UK, and I think the only way we would trust you even more would be to start breaking off ties with Europe. Not that I think that will ever happen...i'm just saying.


The day that happens, I resign my UK citizenship.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   



Originally posted by Murcielago
The US mostly trusts the UK, and I think the only way we would trust you even more would be to start breaking off ties with Europe. Not that I think that will ever happen...i'm just saying.


The day that happens, I resign my UK citizenship.



Agreed. Without Europe, we would become the US b**ch (more so than already
)



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
The US mostly trusts the UK, and I think the only way we would trust you even more would be to start breaking off ties with Europe. Not that I think that will ever happen...i'm just saying.

Why though?
Why would you want us to break ties with them?
They are good people and strong allies...some of the best in the world infact.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   


They are good people and strong allies...some of the best in the world infact.


Not to mention that despite neocon hysteria, they are among the closest and most powerful allies the US has, and have been for more than half a century.

Of course nowadays we are supposed to forget all those decades of mutual defense, and even the recent contributions of our European allies in Afghanistan. All because they weren't in enough of a rush to go into Iraq, even though in retrospect it appears their reluctance was sound: no WMD's were found, and Iraq is in a state approaching civil war.

EDIT: I am going way OT here, my apologies.
That is all I will say on this matter here.

[edit on 28-3-2005 by xmotex]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join