Which leads me to question why you would tell Xphiles "hey thats enough" while Paperplane, devilwasp, and fritz pretty much how do you brits say it...take the mickey or piss outa us (americans)...doesn't seem fair.

Hang on! When did i take the piss out of anyone on here????

All i have contributed to this discussion is one line of text

"dont forget the jet technology from the miles M.52 project. We got stiffed on that one too!"

This is a statement of fact. The US did renege on their promise to share supersonic jet technology. We sent them ours and they sent nothing back in return. Thats not my definition of 'sharing'

I still dont see any piss-taking and am insulted that you would associate me with such unneeded remarks.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by paperplane_uk]

i think a lot of this british/american debates is banter more than anything (like you see at a football game)

but maybe a clash of personalities aswell (who knows), but if i had to choose 2 words to sum british people up, it would be:-

1) nosey - we brits like to know people's business, always seeing what the gossip is on the street and we always have a nosey what the neighbours are up to, even the ministry of defence likes it's spy stuff

2) whingers - *see this thread*

if i had to choose 2 words to sum america up it would be:-

1) arrogant- 'we are right, you are wrong'

2) ignorant - the rest of the world doesn't exist to a huge part of americans, it seems most live on ^PLANET AMERICA^ most of the time.

the above about the US is what other countrys see and is probably the reason why people get irritated by you as a nation at times, but none of us wish you any harm

as said it's all banter, you need to learn to not take things to heart as much…there's an old saying "you can give it but you can't take it"

ape - a lot what you said on page2 is sooooo wrong, i'll reply to some of your points later as i don't have much time now.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Oh we do trust them, they are getting the JSF and we have both transferred technology in the past to one another.

Yet you dont trust us with the code, BAE will probably crack the code anyway but then again I supose you think we'll hand it to the nasty evil french and spoil all your R and D.

We want the source code so we have ALL the parts of the aircraft, we have no idea what else is hidden in that source code anyway.

No need for that at all…

The truth hurts.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Oh we do trust them, they are getting the JSF and we have both transferred technology in the past to one another.

Yet you dont trust us with the code, BAE will probably crack the code anyway but then again I supose you think we'll hand it to the nasty evil french and spoil all your R and D.

We want the source code so we have ALL the parts of the aircraft, we have no idea what else is hidden in that source code anyway.

No need for that at all…

The truth hurts.

I would not be so confident about "code cracking" capabilities. The DoD (USAF, in particular) has a robust Anti-Tamper program that includes ways to protect embedded software.

Besides, you would void the warranty if you pry open the CPU. And then where would you be?

Ok, this is better, this bit is directly from someone involved with the F-35 program, and I can't link to it due to board TC but if you want a linky U2U.

The F-35's software is encrypted. And even if it wasn't, trying to decompile the source from executable binary is ultimately an exercise in futility. All the fuss over the source codes issue is because it gives a tremendous insight to the current state of the art in terms of radar control, EW methods and other technologies in which the US leads the world. Basically, it is a bunch of greedy nations trying to ask for stuff they didn't pay for hoping that if they make enough noise they will get at least something if not everything for free.

You DO NOT need the F-35 source codes to integrate additional weapons and functionality. All you need to know is the framework by which such software modules can be written. It is just like you DO NOT need Windows XP's source code to write device drivers for it or to write additional software than runs on it. All you need to know is how you must write these things to comply with the existing framework.

When you buy a copy of Windows you are not entitled to its source codes. When you buy a BMW you are not entitled to its engine management software source codes. When you buy a GPS navigation hand held you are not entitled to its sources codes either. Buying a fighter is no different.

So, what's your excuse now? The bit about not being able to operate, modify, service and upgrade your jets and it's weapons is apparently BS.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yet you dont trust us with the code, BAE will probably crack the code anyway but then again I supose you think we'll hand it to the nasty evil french and spoil all your R and D.

You don't need the source code. Also, good luck with 'cracking' the source code, the F-35 has millions of lines of code, it's encrypted and the original source code was 'compiled' before it was placed into the weapons systems. Meaning you cannot tell what the source code was if you just look at the current programs running the jets software. You could theoretically reverse engineer the 'compiled' code and programs back to the original source code but all the original comments that explain what each instruction is doing are lost. You have to go thru the reconstructed source code line by line trying to figure it all out. Not easy to do considering you did not design the program algorithms, the original code, the jet itself and when there could potentially be hidden software features you have no clue about.

One more thing, besides all that I've mentioned above, it's ILLEGAL!!!


And it would be nice if we can get Skeptic Overlord into this discussion...

[edit on 12-12-2006 by WestPoint23]

we arn't even going to buy the aircraft without the codes so i don't even know why people are talking about 'cracking' it

we'd be better off with the sea typhoon anyway, better 'allround' aircraft anyway i feel (apart from the stealth aspect), stick with what you know best

i just hope its not too late/too costly to go down that route, i don't fancy having the french frog eaters 'rafale'.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by st3ve_o]

You actually fell for this little charade? The UK has no choice but to buy the F-35, all these "threats" are for show so hopefully you'll get a litter more then your fair share. The UK would have pulled out a long time ago because it knew from day one, NO SOURCE CODE. All these option B's and C's are either more costly, do not offer you current F-35 capabilities, or both.

so are you saying a rafele would be too costly than a f-35?

are you saying a fleet of ucav's would be more costly?

naval typhoon probably would be more costly (i agree), but as said stick to what you know best and i feel the typhoon is an 'allround' better aircraft.

i think plan'b' would be ucav's and by possibly extending the retirement of the harrier and looking at maybe 2016 for ucav's to enter service, it's a big risk with ucav's though i feel because they are not proven and putting all your cards on the table for that is a MASSIVE risk.

but you don't know what the mod as up it's sleeve though, it may well be none of those.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by st3ve_o]

Guys, can we stop bickering now? A technology transfer deal has been signed today in Washington guaranteeing the UK access to all the 'codes' it needs. The stuff that you have all been arguing over, the so called source codes that would give us all your stealth secrets or whatever, is nothing more than a smokescreen, the US pretending we are being unreasonable by asking for than we need. This was never the case but argument was accepted without question by the American side of this discussion. There were several vital elements that were going to be held back that would have compromised British operational sovereignty of these the planes, but this has now been overcome. Row over

As for the poster who asked whether other countries have expressed similar concerns, damn right they have. Australia, Italy and Holland in particular. Now that the UK has its agreement they will probably expect the same, even though the UK is the only level one partner.

Lord Drayson said: “After an excellent meeting with Gordon England, I am delighted to be able to sign this MoU which will take the UK into the next phase of the JSF programme. I have always been clear that the UK would only sign if we were satisfied that we would have operational sovereignty over our aircraft. I have today received the necessary assurances from the US on technology transfer to allow me to sign the MoU.”

[edit on 12-12-2006 by waynos]

Whatever the terms of the agreement were I doubt that the entire raw source code was part of it, because the UK does not need it.

After some reading, waynos where in that article does it say it was about anything more than that? Ambiguous wording like "operational sovereignty" and "operate the aircraft safely" is hardly proof of anything. Again, did you operate the Phantom independently and fly it safely? Pardon my skepticism.

And Steve O, the article never once mentions source code, or that the UK is getting it, hard to decipher the terms, my feeing it they probably will get some of it or the an in-depth understanding of how it works.

BTW - MOU does not equal buy as the recent Saudi Typhoon debacle has shown...

[edit on 12-12-2006 by WestPoint23]

*points and laughs* looks like britain is getting windows professional afterall

all serious though, i said earlier that britain would probably get what it was asking for, but i don't know why this was an issue in the first place

still we haven't committed to buying the aircraft yet, all we've done is signed an MOU....we thought we had conformation we had FULL operational sovereignty of the aircraft (aka codes) when george bush met tony blair in the summer and that ended up going pear shaped, let's hope it doesn't happen again

[edit on 12-12-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
So, what's your excuse now? The bit about not being able to operate, modify, service and upgrade your jets and it's weapons is apparently BS.

Excuse?
Mabye the bit about giving you guys complete control of our aircrafts BASIC CPU's is a good enough one?
As an example your source says : when you buy a BMW you dont get the fuel management system , that because most people dont repair thier own fuel management systems thats what a garage is for (hence why BMW keep or sell it at ridiculous prices to garages). Unfortunatly for us thats WHAT we want to do with our aircraft; know every working part of it, not just the controls.
I for one dont want the DOD being able to turn off our radar or what ever else the original sort code is connected to.

You don't need the source code.

Mabye not in your eyes but we WANT the source code so we know all about the aircraft.

Not easy to do considering you did not design the program algorithms, the original code, the jet itself and when there could potentially be hidden software features you have no clue about.

That is exactly why we want to look through the code, to see what the DOD boys have been "adding" to our planes.
Oh and about cracking it, your fine encryption services havent stopped the chinese from stealing information.

One more thing, besides all that I've mentioned above, it's ILLEGAL!!!

The US is the last person to be whining about illegal actions now is it westy?

And it would be nice if we can get Skeptic Overlord into this discussion...
[edit on 12-12-2006 by WestPoint23]

Why for may I ask?

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Can you elaborate?

We've been fighting "terrorists" for over a century, boer war?

Originally posted by devilwasp
Excuse?
Mabye the bit about giving you guys complete control of our aircrafts BASIC CPU's is a good enough one?

You do not own years and billions worth of company and state secrets when it comes to programs and computers software which you do not need to operate, modify and service the F-35. Sorry, but some principal based ambiguous term like "operational sovereignty" does not cut it. IMO if you want to throw terms like sovereignty around build and develop the plane yourself, then you have ground to stand on when it comes to that topic.

Originally posted by devilwasp
I for one dont want the DOD being able to turn off our radar or what ever else the original sort code is connected to.

Oh please, even if that was possible I'm still astounded at how weak that is.

Originally posted by devilwasp
That is exactly why we want to look through the code, to see what the DOD boys have been "adding" to our planes.

Wrong lead there mate. I was talking about the fact that when you mess with the code and try to illegally reverse engineer it you will run into unforeseen problems; due to the fact that you do not know how the code works or how the people who designed it made it tamper proof.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Why for may I ask?

Umm... because he is a computer genius?

You can't quote the Phantom westy, that was an old fashioned engineered aircraft that any engineer could understand perfectly, modern computer technology means things are completely different now.

The MoU is not an order for planes either, it is an industrial agreement that allows Britain to move on to the next phase. It does however make a British decision NOT to buy the Lightning that bit less likely.

You are still hooked on this 'raw source code' theme I see. I already told you that this was NOT what the argument was about, this was just the position taken up by the US press to show how unreasonable we were being. The British position was always about complete operational, and evolutionary, sovereignty, however many denials are posted. Foe example what If Britain wanted a particular change (say a laser cannon - for want of anything else) 15 years down the line and the US, just like Chris Tarrant on 'who wants to be a millionaire' said "no, we don't want you to have that..." and actively prevented such a thing. This is what is unacceptable to us, as it would anybody. Unfortunately the US is more paranoid now than at any other time in history and this was the root of the problem, not a British wish to get access to all your secrets on the back of a fighter plane order.

example, we built the Harrier GR.1 - you bought it as the AV-8A.
We upgraded to the GR.1 to the GR.3 - AV-8A remained unchanged
We pulled out of AV-16 so you developed AV-8B on your own withoput us.
We bought AV-8B as the GR.5 and have since upgraded it to GR.7 AND GR.9 ON OUR OWN.

This is what we want to continue; Say the F-35B is the Lighnting FA.1, we want to be able to go to the FA.2 and FA.3 when we want to, without having to wait for either US permission or for an 'F-35E' to appear. Just like you did with the AV-8B.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by waynos]

Waynos, if you definitively show me that you cannot do that without the raw source code then I'm sold.

However you have to remember that sensitive information like that can still be used for other purposes detrimental to US companies and the US military.


[edit on 12-12-2006 by WestPoint23]

Westy, do you have difficulty reading and understanding plain English?

Hint, read my last two posts again, more slowly if necessary

Originally posted by waynos
Westy, do you have difficulty reading and understanding plain English?

Hint, read my last two posts again, more slowly if necessary

Ouch. Waynos I cannot possibly see how this could of all been an argument without the "source code" issue being discussed. How could/can the US stop the UK from further developing the F-35 as they see fit otherwise? If it was all about some clause which said "you cannot modify it (F-35) without US permission" then I can understand the British argument but I doubt it was that simple.

If its true that the british are going to be getting the source codes then what a great american give away. The US spent hundreds of billion of dollars on this system while all the other countrys spent so little. The british want it then the aussies want it and so on and so forth. It would be a huge mistake to do this IMO.