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.

 

UK threatening to pull out of the F-35 JSF programme if the US dose'nt share technology

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
> 2 billion $ funding for development (200 million alredy given)

> to buy ~150 F-35's

> The JSF team includes BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce.

> Assembly of the plane at BAE Systems at Samlesbury, Lancashire, England.

> BAE Systems is responsible for the design and integration of the aft fuselage, horizontal and vertical tails and the wing-fold mechanism for the CV variant, using experience from the Harrier STOVL programme.

> BAE Systems Avionics in Edinburgh, Scotland will provide the laser systems of the JSF

> BAE Systems Information & Electronic Warfare Systems (IEWS) will be responsible for the JSF integrated electronic warfare suite, which will be installed internally.

> BAE is developing a new digital radar warning receiver for the F-35.

> BAE Systems Avionics will supply side stick and throttle controls

> Rolls Royce to design and build the F136 engine for the JSF

> The C variant's vertical take off/ landing will have several other british technologies (derrived from the harriers)

Now isi'nt this a significant contribution ? Britian is capable of doing much more for the JSF if the US lets it.



[edit on 23-6-2005 by Stealth Spy]


It's not the technology. We don't need the technology, we could do EVERYTHING in house.

The problem is the money (isn't that always the case?). 2 billion out of a 244 billion project is chump change.

Had they given a significant portion of the cost (lets say 20%) then this would be a totally different story. As it happens, they contributed LESS THEN 1% OF THE BILL. Thus, since the US paid for just about everything (as usual) the US should keep it's right to have all upkeep done by American companies.




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

And.... 1% contribution? So the JSF is costing $200 billion? Thats an awful lot, don't you think? Are you sure about the figures there AMM?


Check post #1476574 on the first page of this thread. It's has the program cost at 244 billion dollars. The UK has invested 2 billion. Hence, less then 1%.

This is why I side with the US. Had the UK paid for any significant portion of the project, then of course they should get the codes, and have their own contractors do the upkeep. As it is, the UK made a minimal investment into what should be the best all purpose strike aircraft in the world. Since the US is paying for MORE THEN 90% OF THE PROJECT, I think it only fair that we get the economic benefit of having our contractors do the upkeep.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
244 billion is the cost of the programme...it means that it includes the cost of the 3700 + JSF's that will prospectively be purchased by the string of particapating nations. The Development budget is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar smaller than 244 billion $, and the UK's 2 billion $ for development alone is a very sizeable chunk of money.

and what do you mean that's not technology...the F-35C would never exist if it hade'nt been the UK's technology level in VSTOL,etc. And Rolls Royce are designing and building the engine for it.

Now the UK have shared all their tech with the US and now the US say we wont share our part. Rolls Royce have shared the engine tech with GE.

And if Britain knew such a thing would happen in advance 50+ years back, does anyone think they would have shared thier tech on the Jet engine (from Sir Frank Whittle) with America that Boeing used to become the world leader in the Aerospace industry ??



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   
The British have helped us in some areas of developed on the F-35, is that worth the source codes for the F-35? I don't know. I think since all export versions of the F-35 will not have some top secret systems and equipment, I can see why the pentagon is not willing to share the source coeds.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Dear all,

I wonder what would happen were the UK to pull out of this program?

I feel that it could be the potential death knell for it.

Not because the UK adds so much money to it, more because politically and technically it would push the program back sufficiently that Congress might demand that it be scrapped and the money put into UCAVs.

Why do I say this? Well it is well known that the F-35 is likely to be the last manned strike aircraft. UCAV development is moving much faster than anticipated when the F-35 was first envisaged. It is already running late and is likely to end up seriously overbudget (these programs invariably do).

Therefore I feel that we are nearing a crunch decision about the long term future of this aircraft.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
it is well known that the F-35 is likely to be the last manned strike aircraft. UCAV development is moving much faster than anticipated when the F-35 was first envisaged. It is already running late and is likely to end up seriously overbudget (these programs invariably do).


- .....and having lost the JSF competition Boeing has been doing everything it can to pour petrol (gas for our US friends) onto these flames and push their UCAV program instead.

(Makes me wonder if the 'scrapping brand new UK Chinooks over those codes' fiasco was the first act in this little play, what with them being a Boeing product now and people in the US getting as 'dumb as ditch water' over this issue towards their 'best friend'.)



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
I'll admit it! I have been a hard-line SKEPTIC of the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) Program since the concept was created at the end of the 1990's!! I can't help it, but history is not in favor of the idea suceeding!

Has anyone ever heard of the TFX (Tactical Fighter eXperimental) from the 1960's? The TFX evolved from the idea of building ONE aircraft for both the US Air Force and the US Navy (sound familiar?). The concept evolved into the F-111 Aardvark. Now the F-111 turned out to be a good plane, but it ran OVER budget, and BEHIND schedual for the longest time, and was nearly terminated. even after it made it into service, it took a long time to get the bugs worked out.

In today's budget environment, one of two things will probably happen: either, we will end up with an expensive aircraft with ongoing technical problems, or we'll end up with another A-12 Avenger or Darkstar, and we have to pay for a research program that doesn't produse anything other than a bill for the US tax payers! The design has too many "High-Risk" areas in it. The biggest problem with the F-35 is, We Really don't Need it! It's role as a strike aircraft can be filled by the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, which is bases on the combat-proven F/A-18 Hornet. If they need V/STOL the Harrier still works. I am not confident that Lockheed can deliver on it's promises the way it once did. Here is a list of Contracts that Lockeed has failed on:

* Seinor Prom (Stealth Cruise Missile)
* Project Quarts (Reconnassance Drone)
* Darkstar
* X-33 (Venture Star)

With a record like this I think the Pentagon was foolish to give them Two big contracts at once!

My Case Aginst the F-35/JSF Program:

1. Single engine planes are less tollerant of damage! In the 1991 Gulf War, we had an F/A -18 that was hit by a heat-seeking missile. It made it back to the Aircraft Carrier ONLY because it had a Second Engine. Has anyone ever though that Navy aircraft are all multi-engine fo a reason.

2. Histoy has proven that "One Size Fits All" almost never works in the military.

3. They are applying stealth to a mission that really doesn't need it. This is a waste of money and technology.

4. Three copys of the same aircraft! All an enemy needs to do is "Get Lucky" and they can find a way to beat most of the US aircraft fleet. Between the Air Force, Navy, and Marines I've heard plans for around 3'000 aircraft. Diverity is a strength. You want aircraft with different strengths and weaknesses! I have heard people say the F-16 and F-18 are similar(which is True). However, they are NOT the same, each has areas of advantage and disadvantage!

5. They are taking too many chances with the design. (Has anyone ever heard the saying: If you gamble long enough, you will eventually lose).


In my oppinion the F-35 is a bad idea, and we will pay for it in the long run! If you have a Miricle Argument for Why the USA ever needed or will need the F-35 Now is the time to lay it out!

Right now the Argument for buying the F-35 remind me of listen to the kid in the candy shop trying to convince his parents that he can't live without the bag of Skittles! Does anyone have a reason for buying the F-35 that does NOT come down to: It's a new toy, and I don't have it yet! If the UK does pull out, they will be the ones benefitting in the long run!



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   
A new development worthy of mention here :


[url=http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_002666.php]>click here for the full article extra DIV



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The British have helped us in some areas of developed on the F-35, is that worth the source codes for the F-35? I don't know. I think since all export versions of the F-35 will not have some top secret systems and equipment, I can see why the pentagon is not willing to share the source coeds.


The reason the UK wants the flight control and avionics software packages and sourcecode is so we can build trainer simulators as well as build maintenance packages for the RAF and Royal Navy aircraft.

It isnt exactly hard to get this stuff from the aircraft itself, all it would take is a hardware debug station and a couple of weeks to decompile the binaries into readable code, audit the code and ensure you have a workable copy. However, that means we have to WAIT for the bloody aircraft. Therefor the comment that this is to protect topsecret systems and equipment is misguided - security by obscurity is false security.

We want to train our pilots as soon as possible on these aircraft. The US export regulations and Pentagon interference are stopping us, your primary allie, from doing this. Remind me again why we should buy this aircraft?



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
It isnt exactly hard to get this stuff from the aircraft itself, all it would take is a hardware debug station and a couple of weeks to decompile the binaries into readable code, audit the code and ensure you have a workable copy


IMO its not that easy. This is like trying to get the source code of the Windows OS when you only have an executeable version of it.

As far as i know there is no way in the world by which you can get the source code of an executeable file.

For all practical purposes i will consider it impossible for the UK to source codes unless the US give it to them.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

IMO its not that easy. This is like trying to get the source code of the Windows OS when you only have an executeable version of it.

As far as i know there is no way in the world by which you can get the source code of an executeable file.

For all practical purposes i will consider it impossible for the UK to source codes unless the US give it to them.


Sorry, but I actually do this on a fairly regular occurance for old and out of date inhouse software for companies. Its trivial to decompile a binary executable into human readable sourcecode, after all its a simple translation into the binary, so why not the reverse? There are plenty of high quality tools to do this, many of them available for free.

You wont get an exact copy of the origional code, but you get a copy of everything the binary does. Comments arent included, and various optimisations mean loops are unrolled or functions made inline, but you get something you can work with.

If I needed too, I could decompile the Windows NT kernel and do stuff with the sourcecode. I could even supply you with this code. The reason I dont is because the code is copyrighted, but as the code for the F-35 is written for a US government project, it probably doesnt fall under copyright and thus is pretty much free (no, government contractors in a lot of cases dont actually own the copyright - see the recent case where a patient management system was written for a group of government employed doctors, the sourcecode was available under the FOIA and is now in use in a lot of private doctors surgeries).



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
If I needed too, I could decompile the Windows NT kernel and do stuff with the sourcecode.




I am ~15 and dont have any expierence in code cracking I deem myself sufficiently acquainted with programming that I must admit that i strongly believe that cracking the Windows kernel source code is just not as easy as you claim.(i for one think its just not possible)

Sure you could get the binary digits using some easily available software but these binary digits only represent the results that the executeable file produces; but there is no way (IMHO) to automatically produce a high level language source code, which when compiled gives out the same results.

The US for instance did not transfer the Fly-By-Wire software codes of the F-16 to Japan for their F-2 despite persistant Japanese requests, thus leaving the Japanese the task of writing their own codes from scratch (despite being in posession of several F-16's). It has turned out that as a result the F-16 and F-2 have very different handling characteristics.

If what you say was possible the Japanese would have in a sly manner taken all the F-16's source codes and used it on their F-2 instead of writing their own(& encountering several problems doing so).

If what you claim were possible then why do you suppose is BAe making such a hulla-bulla of this issue and speaking of soverignity, making threats to pull out of the JSF programme, etc ??? and why would the Pentagon executives deny codes to thier best ally if they knew that they will anyway get it in a few years time ???(read those on page 1)... i mean those are strong words form both sides and they mean business. Clearly its not possible for the UK to get the source codes if the US dont give it to them.

Look at this :

In particular, what the British Government wants is access to the software codes that would allow it to maintain and upgrade the aircraft without having to depend on US manufacturers.
link

[edit on 25-7-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
I am ~15 and dont have any expierence in code cracking I deem myself sufficiently acquainted with programming that I must admit that i strongly believe that cracking the Windows kernel source code is just not as easy as you claim.(i for one think its just not possible)


Its perfectly possible - you dont get a 100% copy of what Microsoft would have in their source code repositories, but you have something human readable from the binaries that you can hack around with and modify, recompile and run (or whatever).



Sure you could get the binary digits using some easily available software but these binary digits only represent the results that the executeable file produces; but there is no way (IMHO) to automatically produce a high level language source code, which when compiled gives out the same results.


No. Theres no magic in what a binary does - its just another computer language.

Basically, you have the following levels -

1. Binary, the lowest form that directly executes opcodes on the CPU die in a form the hardware understands.
2. Assembler or Assembly, the next step up from binary, it uses human readable code to present what would happen at the binary level.
3. C or C++, higher level languages which gives the programmer a lot more comfort while programming, but still allow the programmer access to the hardware and the more risky stuff like memory calls and manipulation.
4. High level languages such as Python, Java, Visual Basic etc which for the most part hide memory allocation and manipulation from you while giving you lots of tools to ease your programming task.

Binary is jsut another language, you write some C, its precompiled to ASM (Assembler) and then compiled to binary. The binary has a lookup table which tells the calling OS what functions it has in it, including the _main function which is the one the OS will call initially.

If the OS can read the binary, then you can. If the OS can run the binary, then you can decompile or disassemble it. A good decompiler will give you C or C++ while a disassembler can give you the ASM that built the binary. Theres no encryption involved when compiling code, so you can quite easily look at a binary and sort out whats a function, whats a variable, what happens when and what does what.

You usually wont be left with good variable names, function names or short loops, but you will be left with usable, workable code that may take a bit of investigation to work out stuff. Its not pretty, its not trivial to use, but its usable just the same as if you sat down and wrote it yourself.

The following are some of the tools I use on a semi regular basis:

www.remotesoft.com...

www.itee.uq.edu.au...

www.backerstreet.com...

www.gnu.org...

www.geocities.com...

www.heaventools.com...

www.datarescue.com...

PS sorry if you consider this thread hijacked, I just thought some good info should be given out
I dont mean to take you for a fool Stealth Spy, I just do this pretty regular so Im quite taken aback to learn that what I do is impossible!

If I had a copy of Windows here (I dont, Im on OSX, hopefully with a new XP machine on the way tomorrow) I could post you some of the source code recovered using some of hte above tools. It would contravene copyright, but if it was good enough proof..... As I said, my activities usually involve companies that have legacy applications written in house many moons ago that have lost or damaged the sourcecode and would like a workable copy back.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

The US for instance did not transfer the Fly-By-Wire software codes of the F-16 to Japan for their F-2 despite persistant Japanese requests, thus leaving the Japanese the task of writing their own codes from scratch (despite being in posession of several F-16's). It has turned out that as a result the F-16 and F-2 have very different handling characteristics.

If what you say was possible the Japanese would have in a sly manner taken all the F-16's source codes and used it on their F-2 instead of writing their own(& encountering several problems doing so).

If what you claim were possible then why do you suppose is BAe making such a hulla-bulla of this issue and speaking of soverignity, making threats to pull out of the JSF programme, etc ??? and why would the Pentagon executives deny codes to thier best ally if they knew that they will anyway get it in a few years time ???(read those on page 1)... i mean those are strong words form both sides and they mean business. Clearly its not possible for the UK to get the source codes if the US dont give it to them.


Didnt get this, you must have edited while I was replying


Decompiling or disassembling is a last resort thing. It produces workable, readable code that is fully recompilable and usable but it is hard work to get it to a stage where you can do stuff with it on a longterm basis. Purely because a compiler optimises the code as it compiles it, it strips out all the human readable names you give functions, methods and variables and gives them its own names which are short, concise and save memory and execution time. Also a compiler will unroll loops, inline functions and change execution orders to again increase execution time. All of this has the effect of making the code you get out, while still 100% readable and usable, pig ugly and hard to work with.

My decompiling comment that started all this off was in reply to a comment that said that the US didnt want to do this because the code had secret stuff in, and I was pointing out that binaries have no magically method of hiding that secret stuff, once someone has a binary (from the aircraft itself), they can get access to the secret stuff, its not hidden.

The reason the Japs probably didnt want to use decompiled code is probably because it was deemed too time consuming to get it into a workable state verses writing their own, and that the F-16 fly by wire code was origionally written in a totally different language that the Japs ended up using for their variant. Also by writing their own codebase, they have programmers that have experience with the codebase and can utilise it quickly where required to rather than having programmers that have to clean up the code beforehand.

Im saying that you *CAN* decompile, Im not saying that *YOU WANT TO* or that its as easy as having the origional sourcecode in the first place. Having the origional sourcecode is by far lightyears ahead of having decompiled sourcecode, but you *CAN* do it. The origional sourcecode is allready commented and has human based function and variable names.

[edit on 25/7/2005 by RichardPrice]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
1. The USMC hates the AV-8B as a jet which sucks endless amounts of money and has a _horrible_ safety record. For next to NO warfighter contribution. As such, they could and would go with the F/A-18E/F or the F-35C and not miss a damn thing. Indeed, paring down to only two lines worth of production in the overcrowded Ft. Worth F-16 hall is one of the few sensible choices that could be made on the JSF (other than cancelling the program, outright).

2. The Jolly Brits _can't_ build a jet on their own. They are too poor and increasingly too backwards, having commited to copying the F-15 in a smaller package in the Eurofighter and once again falling behind a march on the technology front which merged the F-15 with the F-117 in the Raptor.

Too Bad, So Sad, So Sawry. Bye Bye Now.

3. 'The Brits Contribution' (some 2 billion dollars) is piddling worthless as more than a cover charge on the JSF R&D phase for a total program effor worth some 257 billion.

Fitzgerald's First Law Of Acquisition being "Too early to tell (if it works), too late to stop...(inertia of spent money)". Having learned from the A-12 program effort not to try and get money from Congress too early in the program, going instead to 'foreign investment' is an easy way to keep the funding process all within the Pentagon. The idea being "We'll dump it all on them at the end and pretend there are no other choices left after we stop production on the F-teens the year before...".

With the coming crash of petroleum production, social security and the retirement of the baby boomers children, along with the rise of Communist Slave Market Capitalism in China ALL set to pop in about 2025, _WE_ cannot afford the JSF.

Period. Dot.

Thus pretending that the Brits 'deserve' to have American Tax Dollars sponsor the cheapest Royal Navy air capability possible (which is effectively what STOVL comes down to as it's up and away performance remains strictly non competitive for range or payload) is ludicrous.

4. One of the few areas where the U.S. maintains a deathgrip on our shrinking technologic base advantage is in 'codes'. Literally the software that runs a computerized piece of avionics kit in this case.

There are two levels of codes: Source and Object. Source is how the math is run through the machine on a direct on/off digital bits basis. Object is the way a given language (Ada or C) manipulates the math to form functional subrooutines. Put another way, your kid's desktop PC using Windows or Linux could be an amazing machine in the bowels of the Pentagon. If only it had the same dynamic interfaces and code-locked performance optimizations _for a given function_ (which is often, admittedly, further enhanced by RISC based modular hardware card inserts), such as modeling nuclear detonation physics, breaking complex single-key cypher codes or networking with the rest of the DOD.

So it is with a given platform of any type being able to basically _sit there_ in the theater battlespace, carrying a weapons system which is effectively plug'n'play. While 'enabled' by datalink access to thousands of Intel/Surveillance/Recce apertures which are imported to a given theater specifically to make that crate and it's weapons systems, useful.

The Euros would /love/ to have what is the heart of our 'Cooperative Engagement Capability' (netcentric) optimized warfighter effort. Because not only could they copy it and make a few alterations to beat copyright before reexport. But they could also sell countermeasures that /at least/ hacked the program. If not the specific instruction set on the chip.

To make our systems ineffective as a function of their very architecture.

If the Brits, half of whose defense business is now owned by Thales or EADS (Continental defense conglomerates who would rape any secrets of their 'British Division' subcompanies in a heartbeat) think they 'deserve' to be onboard for this, they are nuts. Because as with any Vae Victis Vickers efforts (the JSF is a defense industrial effort purely for commercial gain), your national honor is only as good as your mercantile promise of proprietary secrecy.

And it was _THE BRITS_ who laid back and spread'em wide in prostituting large chunks of BAe and GEC to whomever would French Investment Corp buy them.

5. FACO is another Option.
While Congress are generally a bunch of greedy worthless pigs snuffling after whatever funding acorn will make them look good (stay in power) with their local electorate base and all the PAC/SIGs therein; there is no doubt that they are far from stupid. For they have vote-funded the JSF in such a way as to keep most of the subproduction contracts 'firmly competitive' _only_ to U.S. sources.

What this means is that the Euro and Asian late-for-bandwagon fools have more or less been left with the privelege of owning stealthy airpower (whoopy, if you're not fighting the U.S. and _don't_ want to fight /with them/, there are many cheaper, better, alternatives.) and a fuzzy-dice level of tertiary production.

Where the deal maker or breaker comes in is what is called 'FACO'. Or Final Assembly and Check Out. Whereby you have the ability to act as a mini-prime in integrating and testing all mission systems and airframe components as a local depot if not manufacturer level 'regional salesman'.

We did something similar to this, suckering in Sabca and Fokker in Belgium and the Netherlands. And to a lesser extent, later with TUSAS in Turkey. On the notional basis that they would be the final line assembly and designated repair/upgrade source for NATO on the F-16 Deal Of The Century.

Unfortunately for them, there was still a 'core kit' of knocktogether components that had to come straight from Ft. Worth. And these 'components' consisted of the most valuable (by bulk) physical items in the jet. So that they were little more than monkey-see-do banging things together with an eye on the instruction booklet.

Now that modern tactical airframes are more or less self intelligent with health monitoring and EW/Sensor effectors sharing the same databus, even that option gets dicey. Again 'because of the codes'.

I have a feeling that the export JSF is going to be a LOT dumber than what we give our own services and that, in particular, their ability to participate in networked theater intelligence database may itself be more of a passive receive-only 'dumb keyboard'. Even as the likeliest method of isolating VLO from being sold and/or copied is to simply not include it at any significant level.

IF this happens (effectively two 'grades' of jet) and IF Britain makes some kind of concession towards buying more than the paltry handful for the RN (i.e. FOAS/MJCA for the RAF as an alternative to Tranche 3 Eurofighter). We may still be able to make some kind of a deal work. But frankly, with the numbers of U.S. Service models continuing to fall from the original 2,937 towards 'something less than 1,500', as a function of driving individual unit prive above the 100 million dollar mark. And given the jet is less capable _as a fighter_ than either of the dual engine canard clones with weapon upgrades (Meteor and Storm Shadow) without VLO to go JDAM bombing. If the Brits try to make up their losses based on a pyramid scheme of selling-on 'dealer profits' to the next bunch of EU-suckers (note, this is NOT 'NATO' anymore), they will find that nobody wants the trash that is the JSF /anyway/.

The simple fact of the matter is that Britain has always known and feared the union of FrancoGerman interests because their 'City' market strength as poobahs sitting atop a global trade empire has long since faded. And they can only count their own power as a nation and an economy by that of the ally they sleep with. They made a bad bed-partner decision in selecting the U.S. over their closer (cultural and geopolitical) neighbors. And they deserve to pay for their moronicism by losing whatever 'sovereignity' they have left.

As a proud American who //despises// the utter wast that is JSF, even _I_ find it laughable to think that someone who 'buys in' to a technology base effort without presetting the terms of the deal in their favor can possibly think that they can 'afford' to demand top cut in the beggars banquet of production that follows.

Go to UCAVs. They are cheap to buy, cheap to own and in many ways, /vastly/ more capable than any manned fighter ever will be. Not least, they represent a level of cruise-missile-with-landing-gear technology by which even the depleted resources of Warton can manage to design a fairly competent stealthy stores pylon capability.

It's not like we're facing anyone but our own shadow-boxed paranoia.


KPl.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
1. The USMC hates the AV-8B as a jet which sucks endless amounts of money and has a _horrible_ safety record. For next to NO warfighter contribution. As such, they could and would go with the F/A-18E/F or the F-35C and not miss a damn thing. Indeed, paring down to only two lines worth of production in the overcrowded Ft. Worth F-16 hall is one of the few sensible choices that could be made on the JSF (other than cancelling the program, outright).


Funny that, comparing a jet that first flew in 1966 to jets that first flew at leasdt 10 years later (1974 for the YF-16, 1981 for the F-18 and 1999 for hte JSF). Also funny that, dissing a plane that dominated the skies over the Falklands in 1982, against supersonic jets deployed from mainland Argentinia. Try telling the pilots that flew them then and now that it doesnt give a contribution.



2. The Jolly Brits _can't_ build a jet on their own. They are too poor and increasingly too backwards, having commited to copying the F-15 in a smaller package in the Eurofighter and once again falling behind a march on the technology front which merged the F-15 with the F-117 in the Raptor.

Too Bad, So Sad, So Sawry. Bye Bye Now.


Again I apologise, we just dont have the means to spend figures like $417.4 Billion USD (2003) on defence. You do realise the US spent 46% of the global total spent on defence that year?

Also, Im proud of the fact that we share our tech with our neighbours, that we cooperate with them. You see, that sort of action brings you FRIENDS. Something the US is sorely lacking at the moment, and is in danger of losing more of them.



3. 'The Brits Contribution' (some 2 billion dollars) is piddling worthless as more than a cover charge on the JSF R&D phase for a total program effor worth some 257 billion.
*snip*

Thus pretending that the Brits 'deserve' to have American Tax Dollars sponsor the cheapest Royal Navy air capability possible (which is effectively what STOVL comes down to as it's up and away performance remains strictly non competitive for range or payload) is ludicrous.


The total figure for the JSF program you quoted was including purchase costs for the US planes. The $2 Billion figure you quote as the UK contribution doesnt include purchase costs for our aircraft. Great fun with statistics.



4. One of the few areas where the U.S. maintains a deathgrip on our shrinking technologic base advantage is in 'codes'. Literally the software that runs a computerized piece of avionics kit in this case.

There are two levels of codes: Source and Object. Source is how the math is run through the machine on a direct on/off digital bits basis. Object is the way a given language (Ada or C) manipulates the math to form functional subrooutines. Put another way, your kid's desktop PC using Windows or Linux could be an amazing machine in the bowels of the Pentagon. If only it had the same dynamic interfaces and code-locked performance optimizations _for a given function_ (which is often, admittedly, further enhanced by RISC based modular hardware card inserts), such as modeling nuclear detonation physics, breaking complex single-key cypher codes or networking with the rest of the DOD.


I shall stop this rubbish here - wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

'Codes' means sourcecode. Source is the raw stuff programmers work with, you can compile it to binary which means its executable by the CPU, or you can compile it to object code which requires either a binary to run, or a linker to link several object libraries together to form a binary executable.

The standard method of compiling is this:

Source -> Object -> Linker -> Executable.

You are spouting a lot of buzwords which dont actually mean anything. That second part of that comment actually has very little logical meaning!

Well, I give up here, its obvious you are trolling and thats about it.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Richard Price, i guess you are right.

Just found this link about the Chinese cracking some secret Russian FCS software codes; but the article describes it as some kind of a great feat.



A 33-year old Chinese software engineer, Zhu Rong Gong, has duplicated the secret fire-control software and systems integration for Russia’s Su-27 series of aircraft, giving his country’s drive towards the fully autonomous production of this potent weapon a sharp spurt. Zhu, who works at China’s Luoyang Institute of Electro-Optical Equipment (AVIC Research Institute Number 613), has won many awards, including a personal commendation from the Defense Minister.

In February 1996, Russia sold full Su-27 production rights to China for US$2.5 billion, but withheld the production secrets of certain key technologies, such as the software used to control the aircraft’s sophisticated integrated fire control system, which were supplied only in “black box” form.

The Russians counted on their “bans and restrictions”, coupled with China’s practical limitations, to hold Beijing back from modernizing and exporting non-licensed versions of the SU-27.

Chinese intelligence has actively pursued the secrets of the aircraft sub-systems Russia is withholding. During early 1999, a plot to steal key Sukhoi Su-27 technologies denied to China was reportedly foiled by the Russian Federal Security Service; on May 1, 1999, the Russian Far East Military District Court charged two Chinese nationals and five Russians with stripping two sets of equipment from Russian operational aircraft and from the Komsomolsk-na-Amur Aviation Production Works, where the Su-27 is manufactured. Most of the stolen items were believed recovered.

Its work, crowned by Zhu Rong Gong’s duplication feat, has contributed significantly towards China mass-producing its own updated and improved versions of the Su-27 fighter aircraft design, free of dependence on Moscow


Full article ........

And promptly the expected happens : China Ends Su-27 License

Well the Chinese are the world renown for illegal copying, plagerising, piracy, reverse engineering, so this comes as no surprise.....will be nice to see if the Brits manage this.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Richard Price, i guess you are right.

Just found this link about the Chinese cracking some secret Russian FCS software codes; but the article describes it as some kind of a great feat.


Well, firstly its no walk in the part, but when it comes to computers the press certainly like to think theres mysticism and magic going in in those little beige boxes under your desk. In reality, it probably took him a while to get the code into a tidy state, properly named all the sourcecode files and produced a working management system. Its not trivial work - it usually takes me 4 or 5 weeks to turn over a project to a company in a good state, but its certainly not much more than mediocre work or state of the art work at any length.

For example, compare the following programs:

Origional Code -


#include

int main()
[ int i, numtimes, number;
unsigned value, fib();

printf("Input number of iterations: ");
scanf ("%d", &numtimes);
for (i = 1; i 2)
return (fib(x - 1) + fib(x - 2));
else
return (1);
]


Decompiled code from binary -


/*
* Input file : fibo.exe
* File type : EXE
*/

int proc_1 (int arg0)
/* Takes 2 bytes of parameters.
* High-level language prologue code.
* C calling convention.
*/
[
int loc1;
int loc2; /* ax */

loc1 = arg0;
if (loc1 > 2) [
loc2 = (proc_1 ((loc1 - 1)) + proc_1 ((loc1 + 0xFFFE)));
]
else [
loc2 = 1;
]
return (loc2);
]


void main ()
/* Takes no parameters.
* High-level language prologue code.
*/
[
int loc1;
int loc2;
int loc3;
int loc4;

printf ("Input number of iterations: ");
scanf ("%d", &loc1);
loc3 = 1;
while ((loc3



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Thanks for the explaination using the fibinocci series generator using C as an example


Now i see what you mean....it might take a year or so for a team to crack the F-35's codes....but is just a question of 'when', and not 'if'

And it apparently seems that China are having problems with the code they cracked in 2002
(serves them right)


China’s desire to produce an "indigenized" version of the Su-27/J-11 fighter may be at the heart of decision not to complete a co-production contract for 200 fighters, but Irkut officials are skeptical that China’s Shenyang Aircraft Corporation can make such a fighter, meaning China will have to return to "kit" co-production. Sukhoi officials have noted China’s desire to do so since 2000 and to wit, Shenyang has been busy integrating Chinese radar and engines to form a new J-11 version, sometimes called J-11B. Evidence of China’s commitment to "indigenization" emerged in February 2005 in the form of photos of a Y-8 transport modified with a J-11 nose, to test a Chinese fighter radar for this aircraft. Meanwhile Sukhoi has sought to interest China in Sukhoi-designed upgraded Su-27 models like the Su-27SK. The differing ambitions came to a head in early 2004 when Shenyang apparently told Sukhoi it would not buy more than 105 co-production "kits" out of 200 contracted for in a widely reported 1996 contract. Reports indicate China had an original option to stop kit procurement at 105. But an Irkut official notes that China will have great difficulty fully reproducing the Su-27/J-11, especially in copying software, avionics and flight control systems. While this may be debatable, Irkut official note China may not be able to accomplish this task until after 2010, when Sukhoi will be fielding a 4++ generation versions. While Irkut banks on logic returning Shenyang to kit coproduction, nationalism may impel China to continue down its chosen path.

link

Although i have lots of C++ expierence with a few 10,000+ line projects that i have made independantly, i must admit that decompiled code(although for a simple programme) makes me go blank every time i take a look.

God, you have a hard job;

Anyway thanks for the great links and examples
... i think i'll try my hand at cracking something simple like MS notepad or MS paint or the calculator.....thanks again.

Regards,
Stealth Spy



P.S (EDIT) : You also got my vote for way above
...thanks again for the informative posts
...and hopefully the good people at Sun, IBM, Red Hat are working to crack the windows codes


[edit on 25-7-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
The Jolly Brits _can't_ build a jet on their own. They are too poor and increasingly too backwards, having commited to copying the F-15 in a smaller package in the Eurofighter and once again falling behind a march on the technology front


LOL..just wondering why the several brits around here have not come down on that one


Communist Slave Market Capitalism in China

i would want to give you a thumbs up for that one, but i guess i wont.




If the Brits, half of whose defense business is now owned by Thales or EADS (Continental defense conglomerates who would rape any secrets of their 'British Division' subcompanies in a heartbeat) think they 'deserve' to be onboard for this, they are nuts. Because as with any Vae Victis Vickers efforts (the JSF is a defense industrial effort purely for commercial gain), your national honor is only as good as your mercantile promise of proprietary secrecy.

And it was _THE BRITS_ who laid back and spread'em wide in prostituting large chunks of BAe and GEC to whomever would French Investment Corp buy them.


just wondering about this one too... (see up)




If the Brits try to make up their losses based on a pyramid scheme of selling-on 'dealer profits' to the next bunch of EU-suckers (note, this is NOT 'NATO' anymore), they will find that nobody wants the trash that is the JSF /anyway/.

The simple fact of the matter is that Britain has always known and feared the union of FrancoGerman interests because their 'City' market strength as poobahs sitting atop a global trade empire has long since faded. And they can only count their own power as a nation and an economy by that of the ally they sleep with. They made a bad bed-partner decision in selecting the U.S. over their closer (cultural and geopolitical) neighbors. And they deserve to pay for their moronicism by losing whatever 'sovereignity' they have left.


LOL...bed partner ...that does sound funny



[edit on 26-7-2005 by Stealth Spy]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join