JSF and British/American Ties

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
regarding this post:-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and this article:-

www.timesonline.co.uk...

why are america reluctent to give codes for F-35 (jsf project) to britain?

afterall we are their ^SO CALLED^ closest ally, who have supported the them in their 'war on terror' (iraq/afghanistan) and we are the 'sole' tier-one partner in the project anyway funding money into it already.

so all the above why are the american government stalling on britain but (as an example) are willing to give nuclear technology to india and arm israel?




posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
errmm..
Don't know about Israel but there's a lot more to the India-nuclear deal than that..
The technology to be shared with India is civilian and is shared with over 40 member states of the NSG, including Russia and China.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
In the original ITAR agreement (that the UK accepted) there was no mention of any 'source code', now the UK, which is getting a whole lot more in return then the 2$ Billion they put down, wants to demand the 'source code'? Please. They do not need the 'source code' to operate, service or modify the aircraft. Furthermore, the UK did not have the 'source code' for the Phantom nor does anyone else with exported US systems for that matter (unless it was in the ITAR agreement); yet they can still operate and modify their equipment.

What the 'source code' gives you is the decoded line code and program algorithms to the entire JSF and it's sensors/avionics suite. They can then be replicated and secret can be stolen, not bad for BAE, EADS and goes knows who else they might do business with. Point being it's not something we wish to share because we do not have too, the F-35 is too advanced to risk that and no one outside the US needs to know why that is.

You all know that greatly I respect the UK and appreciate all they've done but this stunt is BS, plain and simple. If they want to pull out they would have already done so and would not waste time with political knee jerking (in which they have no ground to stand on) in order to damage US reputation. The F-35 program will not die because 150 airframes got cut from the production total.

And by the way, someone say nuclear secrets? Trident II D-5 anyone? Or do I need to mention more?


[edit on 10-12-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23


And by the way, someone say nuclear secrets? Trident II D-5 anyone? Or do I need to mention more?


[edit on 10-12-2006 by WestPoint23]


Mention more for my benefit...

[edit on 10-12-2006 by XphilesPhan]



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I dont know, britain gets on my nerves at times, but we have such a unique relationship. I dont want to see an ally unable to operate the aircraft independantly, they may decide to extend it's service life.

Unless Britain has leaked classified information before, why are we being so reluctant to share with them now? Remember, Britain has shared a hell of alot with us. Not to mention the fact they will probably be the most helpful in our conflicts, and are already.

I dont know about this, Id hate to see our relationship with britain adversely effected over something like software.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Well, the US get's on our nerves at times too. Over the years we have hand our hands burnt dishing out stuff, only to get problems when we ask a favour in return. For example, during WW2, you tried to get us to hand over ALL of our Carribean colonies in exchange for 40 WW1 destroyers we wanted for convoy duty! The cheek of it! Not to mention our contribution to the Manhattan project, jet technology, tank technology...the list goes on!

Do the Yanks honestly think we'll be dishing out this technology to any of their enemies? Perhaps they should wine at the bloody Israeli's first!



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 06:04 AM
link   
dont forget the jet technology from the miles M.52 project. We got stiffed on that one too!



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Westy I find it rather insulting that you dont trust your "ally" yet you trust isrealis who have given away your technology to china on NUMEROUS occasions.

But then again what do you expect from a nation like america...



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Sorry Westy, but it is NOT just the JSF codec we Brits 'are after'.

We also wanted them for the overpriced Chinooks you Yanks sold us, we also wanted the codec to Trident - but you Yanks refused that, muttering something about maintenance. BS! They are OURS!

At times, you Yanks treat your closest ally as if we were a small child - there to be seen, but never heard.

True, we Brits are no longer the world superpower we once were; true the political globe is no longer coloured hunting pink.

It is also true that we Brits stand shoulder to shoulder with you in this so called War On Terror although you may have started it indirectly and we also stood shoulder to shoulder with you against Saddam Hussein even siding with you in your bogus claims about WMD.

I think it's called Quid Pro Quo and how about a little giving for a change instead of all that take, take, take?



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Fritz you have to remember THIER war on terror began on 9/11 when OURS has been going on for over a century.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Well, the US get's on our nerves at times too. Over the years we have hand our hands burnt dishing out stuff, only to get problems when we ask a favour in return. For example, during WW2, you tried to get us to hand over ALL of our Carribean colonies in exchange for 40 WW1 destroyers we wanted for convoy duty! The cheek of it! Not to mention our contribution to the Manhattan project, jet technology, tank technology...the list goes on!

Do the Yanks honestly think we'll be dishing out this technology to any of their enemies? Perhaps they should wine at the bloody Israeli's first!


Im sorry, I didnt mean to sound insulting...


look, if it were up to me, britain would have those codes.

I think if there is one nation I would trust completely, it would be britain. Surely more so than the israelis, who HAVE sold technology to our enemies....


I think it is BS that we are witholding these codes. I think our friendship with braitain is worth more that software!, which they will probably crack anyway.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
just some points in here, i can pefectly understand why a nation doesn't want it's secrets passed to anyone but as said in the past, stealth isn't a big secret anymore anyway.

if britain wanted a stealth 'british built' manned aircraft i'm sure bae have the knowledge to build one, (just look at stealth ucav's bae have built/building)

www.baesystems.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

www.flightglobal.com...

so to be honest with this it's not about passing on 'secrets' or the US/UK wouldn't have made arrangements with the jsf orignally, i think it's more of a case of the US playing hardball.

i have no doubt the deal will go ahead though, but my only question is why is this an issue in the first place after all the support britain as given to the US?

[edit on 11-12-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Fritz you have to remember THIER war on terror began on 9/11 when OURS has been going on for over a century.


True Again DW. You're getting quite good at this but, you fail to remember one very important fact. America and Americans do not like to be seen as the supporters of terrorism but -

America and Americans have been supporting terrorists for a hundred years only in their case, the American supporters in both government and the US Forces and out on the street, prefered to call them freedom fighters.

We in the UK knew them by their proper name - Irish Republican Army.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
XphilesPhan

Im sorry, I didnt mean to sound insulting...

You’re not. You're being American and acting as we expect Americans to act towards their staunchest ally – in a totally condescending manner.

look, if it were up to me, britain would have those codes.

Good. The improvement in your manners is duely noted. Now, be a good little American and run along and get us the codes, there’s a good chap! [Spoken with several plums in the mouth]

I think it is BS that we are witholding these codes. I think our friendship with braitain is worth more that software!, which they will probably crack anyway.

Your new found friendship is most welcome as are your compliments to our secret service and codebreakers.

However XphilesPhan, you cannot expect to be welcomed into our club with spelling like that!

The correct spelling for our country is: Great Britain



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
This is in reply to DW and Steve O but it covers others too.


Originally posted by devilwasp
Westy I find it rather insulting that you dont trust your "ally" yet you trust isrealis who have given away your technology to china on NUMEROUS occasions.


Oh we do trust them, they are getting the JSF and we have both transferred technology in the past to one another. What I don’t trust is BAE, EADS, and the whole European consortum along with their many clients. We are talking about the DECRYPTED F-35 line code and program algorithms, billions worth of R/D and too many national and company secrets that keep our defense, military and economical industry going. There is no reason why others should have access to that sensitive information, it is NOT required to operate and maintain the F-35. And if you’re not convinced foreign companies and governments do no share their source code with the US when we import technology.

Also, Israel was kicked off the F-35 program for its dealings with China and the US military does not trust or view them in a friendly manner. BUT they do have a VERY powerful and influential lobby base in Washington so despite reservation from military men they will probably end up with the F-35 due to politicians. But they too should not have the source code or even the F-35 IMO, I don’t trust them one bit.


Originally posted by devilwasp
But then again what do you expect from a nation like america...


No need for that at all…



Originally posted by st3ve_o
just some points in here, i can pefectly understand why a nation doesn't want it's secrets passed to anyone but as said in the past, stealth isn't a big secret anymore anyway.


It's not about just "stealth", although some manufacturing and engineering techniques may remain classified the concept is not that difficult to replicate (albeit on a more limited scale). The main issue is money and support in terms of an established engineering base and facilities. This however has more to do with how the F-35, and it many advanced sensors/avionics, work. And how they process/gather information, this is more akin to industrial espionage which in turn effects us dramatically. Not only in the immediate security issue but financially as well, it gives away many secrets that Lockheed and the US defense industry have.


Originally posted by st3ve_o
so to be honest with this it's not about passing on 'secrets' or the US/UK wouldn't have made arrangements with the jsf orignally, i think it's more of a case of the US playing hardball.


On the contrary it has everything to do with "secrets" and the UK is the one playing hardball, who is threatening and demanding here?


Originally posted by st3ve_o
i have no doubt the deal will go ahead though, but my only question is why is this an issue in the first place after all the support britain as given to the US?


This is irrelevant, the UK agreed to a basic understanding about the then JSF program and it's participation/procurement role. It is common practice not to share the source code. Now the UK wants to suddenly demand it and hold a production total of 150 airframes over us?
IMO the deal should go as planned, F-35 with no source code or no deal at all, simple concept, no last minute changes and threats.

[edit on 11-12-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I must say, Xphilesfan, I have noticed a somewhat massive difference in the way you portray yourself of late.

Not being patronising, on the contrary, it is rather pleasant. I do remember post's from yourself being much more......well...neo-conny, blow it up, yee-haa sort of thing!

I have also noticed Westy is much more balanced in his posting.

It's nice. I remember a time when things used to get much more heated.

Nice one chaps


Anyway, sorry for going off topic... Just thought it was worth mentioning...



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Westy, I do believe BAe and EADS went there seperate ways a while ago...

You do know BAe is a major shareholder in more than one US defence contractor as well, right?

(in Saddam a la South Park voice) :

C'mon guys..you can trust us.. just give us a break



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   
@ westpoint

i'm not sure on the orginal agreement so i can't really comment on that, but all i know is the UK would have 'expected' these computer codes anyway.

how are we supposed to upgrade the aircraft? it's like buying a homepc - this pc may be top of the range when you first buy it, but after a certain amount of time it will need new software and better upgrades adding to it, the same goes for military equipment.

it's not only that but 'without' these computer codes, the US can effectivly turn these computers off without warning, therefore we will have 150 fighters that are basicly useless.

so from a british point of view what's the point of spending £billions$ on these fighters if we are not fully in control of them and another nation is pulling the strings with it?


[edit on 11-12-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
The British perspective is that we require full operational sovereignty over aircraft that we have bought and helped develop and manufacture, an aircraft programme that the P.1216 and SeaTyphoon studies were cancelled so that we could participate in, bringing unequalled V/STOL experience to the party with us. That sovereignty includes the ability to whatever improvements or modifications to the aircraft are deemed necessary over its service life without recourse to the USA or Lockheed to do so. Just like we permitted McDonnell Douglas to do with the Harrier, which we then further tweaked and bought back again.

How can that be unreasonable?

The prevailing American standpoint appears to be that we are seeking to weedle out state secrets which we can then pass on to our Euro-buddies (ignorant of the fact that we like that lot even less than we do Americans), there seems to be of porky pie telling going off here, but from which side?

Westy, BAE is one of the major defence contractors to the Pentagon and in a recent study was deemed 2nd most trustworthy of the lot (Lockheed Martin came first) so that cannot be the real reason for this reticence, can it? If BAE is more trustworthy and reliable than the mob that built your fleet of B-2's?


Oh, and I prefer it when your background images are displaying a little less fabric





[edit on 11-12-2006 by waynos]



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Westy, here's the list for you.

Having checked the NYSE, NASDAQ and all those other funnies that try to copy the LSE, I find that BAe owned defence companies are amongst the top 10 US defence contractors:

Airbus North America
198 Van Buren Street, Suite 300, Herndon, Virginia 20170, USA
Tel: +1 703 834 3400
Airline Training Centre
4355 NW 36 Street, Miami Springs, Florida 33166, USA
Tel: +1 305 871 3655
Asset Management, Trading, Services and Support
13850 McLearen Road, Herndon, Virginia 22071, USA
Tel: +1 703 736 1080
Fax: +1 703 736 4209
BAE Systems, Inc.
Corporate Office, 1601 Research Boulevard, Rockville, Maryland 20850, USA
Tel: +1 301 838 6000
Fax: +1 301 838 6925
BAE Systems, Washington Office
1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1400, Arlington, Virginia 22209, USA
Tel: +1 703 907 8200
Fax: +1 703 465 0329
BAE Systems Information Technology
8201 Greensboro Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102, USA
Tel: +1 703 847 5820
Fax: +1 703 847 5880
BAE Systems Technology Solutions and Services
1601 Research Boulevard, Rockville, Maryland 20850-3173, USA
Tel: +1 301 738 4000
Fax: +1 301 738 4643
BAE Systems Ship Repair
750 West Berkley Avenue, Norfolk, Virginia 23523-1032, USA
Tel: +1 757 494-4000
Fax: +1 757 494-4184
Communication, Navigation, Identification, and Reconnaissance
164 Totowa Road, Wayne, New Jersey 07474-0975, USA
Tel: +1 973 633 6140
Customer Solutions Operating Group
1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1400, Arlington, Virginia 22209, USA
Tel: +1 703 907 8200
Fax: +1 703 907 8300
Electronics & Integrated Systems Operating Group
65 Spit Brook Road, Nashua, New Hampshire 03061-0868, USA
Tel: +1 603 885 4321
Electronic Protection
95 Canal Street, NCA01-5707A, Nashua, New Hampshire 03061-0868, USA
Tel: +1 603 885 4321
Exostar LLC
13530 Dulles Technology Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171, USA
Tel: +1 703 561 0500
Fax: +1 703 793 1763
Information Warfare
144 Daniel Webster Highway North, MER24 -1111, Merrimack, New Hampshire 03054, USA
Tel: +1 603 885 4321
MBDA
1611 North Kent Street, Suite 802, Arlington, Virginia 22209, USA
Tel: +1 703 351 1230
Fax: +1 703 351 1254
MBDA
5701 Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 4-100, Westlake Village, California 91362, USA
Tel: +1 818 991 0300
Fax +1 818 879 2522
National Security Solutions
10920 Technology Place, San Diego, California 92127-1874, USA
Tel: +1 858 675 2600
Platform Solutions
600 Main Street, Johnson City, New York 13790, USA
Tel: +1 607 770 2000
SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems
202 12th Street South, Suite 704 Arlington Virginia 22202 USA
Tel: +1 703 418 2424
Fax: +1 703 418 2423
Sensor Systems
95 Canal Street, NCA01-5707A, Nashua, New Hampshire 03061-0868, USA
Tel: +1 603 885 4321

I do hope, dear Mods, that I have not broken any ad issues but I am merely trying to back Stu M with company facts.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join