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.

 

JSF and British/American Ties

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I think the reason why we're getting so edgy about complete control of the aircraft is that we could possibly be in a French/Argie exocet situation in the Falklands.

What if we end up being not-so-friendly in the future and the US wants to limit or stop an operation we are partaking in?

With access to our weapon systems fundamentals, we could see our carrier battle groups nutered by the US, as they could effectively disable the aircraft.

Would the US accept this if the situation is reverse?




posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
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.

And neither should you have the opertunity to disable all of our aircraft in one foul swoop, but then again it does add that little bit of extra control over us doesnt it?



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

Is it? How easy would it be to change the source code to stop the VTOL engine from working? To stop us picking up radar or even stop the plane turning on?



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.

True but that has never stopped any country before, a codes can and WILL be broken, didnt the germans say the enigma was impossible?



Umm... because he is a computer genius?

Ah right you want him here on that front right, I thought you were going to say something else.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I think the reason why we're getting so edgy about complete control of the aircraft is that we could possibly be in a French/Argie exocet situation in the Falklands.

What if we end up being not-so-friendly in the future and the US wants to limit or stop an operation we are partaking in?




I can see your side of it. But can you see our side of it? We just dont want this technology getting into the wrong hands thats all. Years upon years of reasearch and hundreds of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS could be at stake here, just for a little national pride...



With access to our weapon systems fundamentals, we could see our carrier battle groups nutered by the US, as they could effectively disable the aircraft.

Would the US accept this if the situation is reverse?



Highly unlikely scenario. I think hell has a better chance of freezeing over.


The US probably wouldnt like it if the tables were turned. Your right. But we couldnt blame britain for protecting their national security either. That is their right! The thing certain ppl here are forgetting is your government signed onto the program knowing (if theyre responsible) what they were going to be getting when they signed onto the program in the first place. Blame your government if you want to blame anyone for not reading the fine print correctly. Especially after WE (the US) have invested HUNDREDS OF BILLLIONS of OUR OWN $MONEY$ into such a program that YOU BRITS MOST DEFINATLY DID NOT!. Heres another thing. Secrets, dont stay secrets, by telling more ppl. Ya see where im getting at?



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
And neither should you have the opertunity to disable all of our aircraft in one foul swoop, but then again it does add that little bit of extra control over us doesnt it?
Is it? How easy would it be to change the source code to stop the VTOL engine from working? To stop us picking up radar or even stop the plane turning on?
True but that has never stopped any country before, a codes can and WILL be broken, didnt the germans say the enigma was impossible?
Umm... because he is a computer genius?


If it were that easy for the brits to do then they would NOT be bitching about any codes, and that mean Ole US for not giving it to them.

You brits are trying to paint your closest ally as an evil ugly monster that wants to control the brits.
The thing you constantly keep on forgetting is we are the inventors of the JSF. We spent the brunt of all the money on developing OUR product. You brits signed on knowing fully well (or atleast should have known fully well) what you were getting. Or did you think you could milk us after the fact?



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
If it were that easy for the brits to do then they would NOT be bitching about any codes, and that mean Ole US for not giving it to them.

....How would we disable your aircraft when you have both the code and the aircraft and we have nethier.


You brits are trying to paint your closest ally as an evil ugly monster that wants to control the brits.

No need to try mate...



The thing you constantly keep on forgetting is we are the inventors of the JSF. We spent the brunt of all the money on developing OUR product. You brits signed on knowing fully well (or atleast should have known fully well) what you were getting. Or did you think you could milk us after the fact?

www.baesystems.com...
Ahem,



The aft fuselage and empennage (tails and fins) for each F-35 JSF are being designed, engineered and built at the BAE Systems Samlesbury site, using the latest in advanced design and manufacturing technology.


And..


BAE Systems is responsible for the design and delivery of key areas of the vehicle and weapon systems, in particular the fuel system, crew escape, life support system, Prognostics Health Management (PHM) integration and Electro Optical Targeting System (EOTS).


And


BAE Systems is also responsible for supplying the Vehicle Management Computer, the Communication, Navigation and Identification (CNI) modules, the active stick and throttle and the EOTS Laser subsystem

And


BAE Systems facilities in the US & UK are responsible for developing an Alternate Helmet Mounted Display System (AHMDS) as part of the risk mitigation effort for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. BAE Systems has successfully completed the Critical Design Review (CDR) which was funded by the UK Joint Combat Aircraft Integrated Product Team (UK MOD

We helped build quite a bit of the aircraft...we would like a little bit of thanks for that.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Bravo DW, Bravo.

I actually read then re-read the link you provided and, unless my aching eyes deceive me, I think that BAe has all but built this damned JSF from the beginning.

Excellent post DW



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Yeah, smacks of The Manhattan project. US provides the cash, but everyone else does the work!



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
12/12/2006 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- United States and United Kingdom officials signed a memorandum of understanding Dec. 12 to begin future cooperation in the production, sustainment and follow-on development, called PSFD, phase of the Joint Strike Fighter program.

www.af.mil...

US and UK have just resolved this little problem, and now we will have to wait for the others to sign it so we can all be on the same page about who gets what technology and os there wont be any more confusion. Can't wait for this program to be finished, the Air Force is going to get there money's worth if it does half of it's capabilities.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Wow. The revolution still stings huh?


I really do struggle to understand the problem here. For the US - don't want secrets being lost, your source code being read, or people tinkering with your work? Don't enter into a partnership, keep your tech to yourself, but don't whinge when plug and play Coalitions become difficult. And this constant line of "but you might pass it on to others!" crap is frankly ridiculous. All the biggest US tech comprimises have come from US citizens, so it is a little disengenuous to be pointing fingers at allies when Walker/Ames/Hansen/Goshir have been walking out the front door with TS documents galore.

Now, for the UK - if you are worried that your friends are going to turn your radar off as you approach Rmax, then build your own aircraft and the problem goes away. If you are worried that your aircraft isn't going to perform as well as the US version (and it won't so, deal with it), then build your own aircraft. If having to rely on the US to provide fly-away support worries you, then build your own aircraft. Yes, there are risks involved in purchasing the JSF, but I'm tipping that your relationship with America would have to go pretty far down the tube before they start turning your radar off. In fact, the only scenario I can possibly see this happening is if the UK (or any other partner nation) is involved in a conflict that is counter to US interests. And if anyone can come up with such a scenario, I'd like to hear it.

The simple fact is that the allies of America get far more in return for their investment than the US gets from them (in financial terms anyway). But being an ally isn't just about money, and the US realises this. It is about goodwill, support, and a view to the future when American supremacy isn't necessarily guarenteed. But seriously, squabbling over source codes which in the grand scheme of things isn't going to do jack with the ability to fly, fight and maintain the aircraft is pointless.

Oh, and for the record, I'm Australian. We're simply happy to have moved on from the Tiger Moth...



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
....How would we disable your aircraft when you have both the code and the aircraft and we have nethier.




You brits are trying to paint your closest ally as an evil ugly monster that wants to control the brits.



No need to try mate...


Well are you not? Whos looking at the deepest darkest scenarios?. REACHING in other words!? Certainly not me Matey!




The thing you constantly keep on forgetting is we are the inventors of the JSF. We spent the brunt of all the money on developing OUR product. You brits signed on knowing fully well (or atleast should have known fully well) what you were getting. Or did you think you could milk us after the fact?

www.baesystems.com...
Ahem,


The aft fuselage and empennage (tails and fins) for each F-35 JSF are being designed, engineered and built at the BAE Systems Samlesbury site, using the latest in advanced design and manufacturing technology.
And..
BAE Systems is responsible for the design and delivery of key areas of the vehicle and weapon systems, in particular the fuel system, crew escape, life support system, Prognostics Health Management (PHM) integration and Electro Optical Targeting System (EOTS).
And
BAE Systems is also responsible for supplying the Vehicle Management Computer, the Communication, Navigation and Identification (CNI) modules, the active stick and throttle and the EOTS Laser subsystem

And
BAE Systems facilities in the US & UK are responsible for developing an Alternate Helmet Mounted Display System (AHMDS) as part of the risk mitigation effort for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. BAE Systems has successfully completed the Critical Design Review (CDR) which was funded by the UK Joint Combat Aircraft Integrated Product Team (UK MOD
We helped build quite a bit of the aircraft...we would like a little bit of thanks for that.


Well we funded the damn project! how about lets not be to greedy. Beggers cant be choosers which is exactly what you UK'ers are doing. Like I said earlier. Blame your government for its ability to sign documents without first reading them!
Your under the mistaken impression that the US could not have done that? We have manufacturers here in the states. Let me remind you that WE the United states of america could do this project on our own. You brits couldnt say the same thing now could you.

And... Just before you think your sh*t doesnt stink... You guys barely tipped the waitress with that chump change. Whos paying for your meals? Know suprise there...

USA $35,475,000,000
UK $2B
Italy $1B
Netherlands $800M
Turkey $175M
Canada $150M
Australia $150M
Denmark $125M
Norway $125M


Now is it we who need you. Or you who need us? If every country were to drop out of the JSF programme Im sure the US could pick up the 4B 525M dollar tab....




[edit on 053131p://222 by semperfoo]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
One problem you guys would have is that if everyone pulled out, the orders would be considerably lower. The cost per unit would be higher and I think your Congress dude's might have some thinking about forking out so much for a plane, either that, or cut back the order themselves, further pushing up cost per unit prices.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Fritz, BAE like many other companies is a subsidiary to the Lockheed Martin F-35 program. They provide certain specialized components for the aircraft but it's Lockheed's bird and program, they do the major share of engineering and building. For another example, Boeing provides major components for the F-22 Raptor which is a Lockheed product.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
what you UK'ers are doing. Like I said earlier. Blame your government for its ability to sign documents without first reading them!


again ive asked about 3 times in this thread without response, can someone provide to a link with the original paper that the UK signed?, semerfoo you seem to have seen this paper, so can you tell me where you read it from please?

[edit on 12-12-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o

Originally posted by semperfoo
what you UK'ers are doing. Like I said earlier. Blame your government for its ability to sign documents without first reading them!


again ive asked about 3 times in this thread without response, can someone provide to a link with the original paper that the UK signed?, semerfoo you seem to have seen this paper, so can you tell me where you read it from please?

[edit on 12-12-2006 by st3ve_o]


Alright cupcake. Are the british apart of JSF program? Are there 8 countrys in total in the JSF program? How did they get in the program? Whos responsible for the developement of the JSF? That would be the United States. Meaning we oversee everything. We decide whos in and whos not! Thats a fact! Just look at how we gave Isreal the back hand and showed them the door. These countrys signed on to be a part of the JSF program. The End...



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
yeah but your saying the UK signed and agreed to something that was clearly written on some paper and we agreed to this 'something' that we now shouldn't be entitled to it as it wasn't in the original agreement
- i'm asking you to provide me with what you've seen.

it must say something in the lines of "thou shall not have FULL operational sovereignty over the aircraft" then signed by a british offical, until then don't make out britain agreed to something that we never


as for joint strike fighter ^american, american, american^, read this:-

en.wikipedia.org...

and i think another member *above* as already provided source's that proves the JSF not 'soley' an aircraft developed by the good ol US of A.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by st3ve_o]


ape

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
if they actually handed over the source codes what a huge mistake the US has made, if these countries dont like the original agreement that was already signed they should just pull out and put together funding for their own project. This is top of the line US technology they are getting it would be like giving them a stealth bomber when it was first developed for a fraction of the cost =[.

HAHAHA what a low blow these countries have given the US in regards to the original agreement, and the british posters have the nerve to accuse the US of wanting control over their plans so we can shut them down etc look how generous the united states is to your countrys government in regards to this project, you're getting alot more for what you payed for and not only that once you get your hands on this technology you're just going to replicate it to the fullest or in your terms 'improve it' after all the r&d has been done by the states for the past 20 years, what a rip off and what ignorance I am witnessing.

I am now hoping this deal falls through for all i care the brits can purchase aircraft from the russians with this kind of attitude and mistrust they can develpe their own aircraft to compete with the JSF ( will never happen ).


I would also like to mention that the JSF as originally pointed out is not twin of the raptor but non the less has alot of it's features and design, something no brit or any other country invested or helped with, this is US tech here and nobody elses you have no right to this at all.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
if these countries dont like the original agreement that was already signed


lol ffs, what's this agreement that we ORIGINALLY signed??


links, links, links


ape

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
is it even possible to get this kind of information? I mean there would not be a squabble if the source code was included in the original agreement which it obviously was not yet the UK still signed the paper, pretty cheap IMO and if you have already searched and not found anything whats the use of me or anyone else attempting?


also i noticed all the links posted in regards to the UK's involvment in this project and I would like to point out that it's obvious they are protecting their 'investment' by being active in the r&d, but I would like to point out what they are doing is not the bread and butter of that aircraft hence why they filed a complaint.



originally posted by semperfoo
USA $35,475,000,000


HAHAHA, enough said.

[edit on 12-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
As somebody who is British.

I have to agree with the American posters.

They do not owe us anything and they definently don;t have to give us any source codes.

First of all they are funding the whole project we are only paying something like $2 billion out of something close to $40 billion which is less then 5% of the costs. For that price you can't even buy crap nowadays.

We payed $2 billion and we are getting access to the aircraft for $35 million per aircraft.

Thats a pretty good deal considering we are there dogs since 1945 good thing the American's decided to throw scaps of the table at us.

We in Britain seem to be delusional about our importance on the world stage. British people need to realise we are seen as a joke and nobody takes us seriously not even America.

We have no special relationship between American and Britian. Why would they have one with us? There economy is 100x bigger then our's, there armed forces are 10x bigger then ours. We are not needed by them.

This is our own fault for destorying our own 1st class aircraft industry and then begging other countries for scraps from there aircraft industries. Why should America give us anything?

People in Britain seem to think the relationship between britain and America is like a Husband and wife where everthing is 50/50. This couldn't be further from the truth the relationship is more like that between a Pimp and a prostitute. We are the prostitute.

I'm surprised America didn't give us the middle finger and tell us to "F*ck off" when we asked them for the source codes.

If Britain want's control of it's own aircrafts then we should build there own rather then begging other countries who are bigger and more powerfull then us.

Personally if i was in control of our armed forces spending i would go to the Russians and buy naval Su-27(Insert navy version model here) jets and use those.

I think that Britain should cut it's connections to America and build connections with Russia atleast that way we get cool Russian kit like Mig-29's, Mig-31 and Su-27/30/etc .

And you know what the real funny thing is we British refure to sell our military equipment to the chinese as not to offend the Americans. what a joke Britain has become.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
as for joint strike fighter ^american, american, american^, read this:-


What about it? The F-35 is as national as any program. This partnership is just an agreement that for funding a combined 10% of the total R/D cost of a US product and program you'll get an exported version of said product. The fact that LM is subsidizing the manufacture and development of some specialized components to foreign companies is nothing new or ground braking, it's the name of the game nowadays. If LM wanted to they could have cancelled their contracts to BAE or the USG could of banned BAE from the program, it's up to us to decide who's in, that goes for countries too.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join