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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   
~Grin's~

As a British Man, living in Pitts, PA. I must at first point out that I am deeply troubled by the current events in regards to the F-35 Program, not merely regarding the issues which the British Government have dealt with, but the attitude directed to the British Members on this board by our American "Friends".

I would to like to clear this up for our American Friends, as a Computer Engineer and a Past Aircraft Engineer for Shorts Aerospace.

"Source Code"
Operational sovereignty, is the key term. The issue I believe arose not from the fact that the British Government wanted the whole source code, but they infact wanted the API data. API stands for "Application programming interface", if any of you folks are in the programming field, API's are the tools used by software designers to "use" features of the system, in the case of the F-35, these API's could be used upgrade the for instance the F-35 Radar GUI or even how the F-35's Computer deals with voice prompts.

E.g.
Radar Range [Hardware Firmware]
|
Radar Range API [Software]
|
F-35 Operating System [Software]

Without this developer tool, every time the RAF would want to change a feature, such as changing the "Threat" Icons on the Radar Interface, they would have to subcontract the USAF or Lockheed to edit the software and then send the patch to the RAF, or worse case, the USAF would have to install it.

Now, I dare say that this seems like a fair way to work a system? Well think about the fact that Lockheed will be dealing with more than 1,000 USAF/USN/USMC F-35's all with their own software changes/bugs/glitches etc Now you americans, which comes first, an American Problem or a British one?

Also, the comment about the F-35 being upgradable straight away is horse sh&t, firstly this aircraft is flyby wire, the computer system is designed to control said system, what if we want to put a 6 ton LGM shaped like a pig. It isn't like Windows, you can't right click on the desktop and change the background. The computer system will not be able to deal with this configuration, without knowing whats "pulled in", not to mention other details which the ground crew must notify the sytem of, this doesn't just include the flight management software, what if the muntion needs a special control interface, hell what if you need to use a second joystick to control it, the F-35 won't be able to do it because it would require either a patch to the core system, which requires a file within it to be either edited or created, or a complete redesign of the Muntions Subsystem.

That is where the API's come in. Once the RAF and BAE, have these API's they can firstly edit, upgrade, change, play with every item within the aircrafts framework, without those API's the RAF's would be restricted to muntions which USAF/Lockheed has either cleared the aircraft to carry or muntions already installed in the systems database. Now wouldn't it be a beaut of a Marketing Tool if Lockheed took its time clearing the F-35 for european/non american muntions?

That is why we demanded the Developer tools required to edit/change our aircraft. As for every one that talks about windows, when you buy windows, you have the developer API's preinstalled, that is why people OTHER that microsoft can create software for the Operating System.

Enjoy




posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Semperfoo,

You worry me. As it has already been mentioned, if the threat of losing secrets based on either the F-35 or F-22 was too great to export, as an american, please feel free to contact your Local State Rep.

The fact that the UK and other countries are in this program is two fold, firstly, the USAF wanted the F-35 to be the best they could get, the fact that it would cost an arm and a leg was the limiting factor, they needed to "sell" the aircraft to congress, they did this by offering the purposed aircraft to "Friendly" nations, this was used to help both reduce costs and increase US jobs due to increased production and support. The other reason is that a number of other nations need a replacement aircraft, in the F-16/F-18 category, the UK included.

Now, as for the secrets from the F-22 program being transfered to the F-35, to a limited degree, your correct. Some of the basic operating system, or all, from the F-22 may or may not be employed in the F-35, but I must warn you, that means nothing in terms of software, hell windows is still using software from 96' in its XP flagship. What does that give a protentual enemy? Nothing, it merely means that lockheed cut a corner, no secrets can be gained, software is nothing more than a tool used to "translate" what the hardware on the machine is doing, without either the hardware or software, all the person gets is a useless plane and non funtional software.

Now, I want to address the attitude, myself having worked in the aerospace industry, I am a little disturbed by the attitudes being displayed by a number of the American peers on this forum. I would ask that if you took the time to address the fact that a large section of your aerospace industry is either Asian owned or even European owned, your aircraft may as well come off the like with "honda" emblazed on the side. As for you "giving" us a free ride when it comes to aerospace technology, I have to say that in some areas the USA is caught lacking, now before Westpoint you can wave the F-22 Stars and Stripes Flag at me, I want to say that only america could afford to produce a pure fighter which has NO role in the current operations in both Iraq and Afghanstan, can any one say "Lame duck", its a 1980/90 designed aircraft, designed for a war, which at present isn't even on the horizon.

As for the RR engine, frankly in my opinion, if you are investing so much capital in an aircraft, you want two things, Quality and a Company Repair man closeby. That is why Lockheed has subcontracted large lots of its work to British Companies.

Enjoy



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   


You have voted InterestedBrit for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Nice one



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   


You have voted InterestedBrit for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


- its the most consistent and well thought out reply on the forum at the moment.


[edit on 13/1206/06 by neformore]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   


You have voted InterestedBrit for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


A logical and well put forward explanation... well done



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by InterestedBrit
...I have to say that in some areas the USA is caught lacking, now before Westpoint you can wave the F-22 Stars and Stripes Flag at me, I want to say that only america could afford to produce a pure fighter which has NO role in the current operations in both Iraq and Afghanstan, can any one say "Lame duck", its a 1980/90 designed aircraft, designed for a war, which at present isn't even on the horizon.


Umm… why mention me? As far as I'm concerned the US does not lead the world in all things related to aerospace defense but we do dominate in a good portion of the areas. Also, I'm going to go a bit off topic here but regardless of what you may think of the F-22 program it is the best A2A fighter out there and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Look at how the world was 20 years ago now you want to predict the next 30-40 and says it's not need? Fact is it's needed nw but I digress, it's nice to have an insurance policy that can cover ANYTHING.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
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]


Incorrect Westy. BAe is a Stand-Alone British civil and military engineering company that has several manufacturing bases dotted throughout the world, but mainly in the US of A.

But if you bother to read what BAe actually does, you may be surprised to learn that this British company is the preferred sub-contractor for many of the major components for the JSF, including many of the computer systems.

Funny how Lockheed-Martin prefers British contractors to those based in the US. That alone Westy, should tell you something.

I have also visited LMT's main site and was surprised to see the number of projects that LMT do for us so Westy, I suppose that you could say that LM works for us


I for one, am grateful that this minor glitch in our relationship has now or appears now to be ironed out.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
Incorrect Westy. BAe is a Stand-Alone British civil and military engineering company that has several manufacturing bases dotted throughout the world, but mainly in the US of A.


When did I ever say otherwise? BAE is a subcontractor for the F-35, it provides key components, just like Northrop for example.


Originally posted by fritz
Funny how Lockheed-Martin prefers British contractors to those based in the US. That alone Westy, should tell you something.


Yeah, it tells me that BAE was the right company for the job, and it also tells me that the defense department gives waivers to BAE which allows them to partake and build US systems and handle sensitive information. Mainly because it is British. If we wanted to we could shut it out of our defense market, but we don't, maybe that should tell YOU something.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
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]


Westy old chap, I sincerely hope that the answer to your question about when you said what, can be found in the above quote from you.

As to you attempting to turn my post round on me sorry old bean, that won't work either.

BAe being one of the major contractors on the JSF only tells me one thing Westy, and that is you guys simply cannot make do without British expertise much in the same way we Brits cannot cope without your Trident technology, submarines and the servicing thereof!



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
Westy old chap, I sincerely hope that the answer to your question about when you said what, can be found in the above quote from you.


No it can't, I said nothing in that post about BAE not being a British company or that it is not an independent company. And the F-35 is still Lockheed's bird, they decide who gets to build what.


Originally posted by fritz
BAe being one of the major contractors on the JSF only tells me one thing Westy, and that is you guys simply cannot make do without British expertise...


Maybe, maybe not, but you're naive if you think that US government doesn't bend rules for BAE because they're British. Rules and laws that keep foreign companies out, except for BAE that is.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
As I said earlier, with regards to BAe being a shareholder in several US interests, I do believe they are a stakeholder in Lockheed Martin...

Now, I have been mooching around trying to see if a list of shareholders could be found, but I can't seem to locate one. I do remember though, on reading LM website last year, that there was a mention of BAe being a significant stakeholder.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   

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


Deepest darkest? I dont think so, if america seen it fit for british jets to have a "technical" glitch on the eve of a british attack against say an american ally I'm sure it wouldnt bat an eyelid at the idea.




Well we funded the damn project! how about lets not be to greedy.

Yes and the two BILLION yes BILLION dollars didnt pay for some of it?



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.

We have the tech, the money (if we gave up on the idea of trusting american companies) but lack the political will.


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...

So UK $2B didnt "pay" for anyting did it? Lol whos paying for my meals? Maritime london ltd thank you very much, we payed 2 billion of OUR money for this aircraft and frankly we'd expect a little leeway considering we've followed you in EVERY fight ever since world war 2, but I guess oil does run thicker than blood doesnt it.


[quoe]
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]
Lol yes lets see the US congress aprove ANOTHER 4 billion on ANOTHER project. Frankly we already DO have an alternative , the rafeale at the moment would be a fine buy and if need be we can reconfigure the Typhoon. But then again that would take us closer to europe rather than america, can america allow itself to be isolated?


ape

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
hmm ok so so the US and UK have ironed out the differences aside from this forum, still alot of arrogant brits. So what exactly is going to be shared? will it be the API data as suggested? or everything that is involved with the aircraft since 'strict secrecy' was apart of this misunderstanding that was solved, if this is the case and what american posters have been pointing out is that if all tech is handed over for a mere 2 bill than you brits seriously have 1 upped the US in regards to playing hardball. 40 billion dollar compared to 2 bill? look at what you're getting you certainly better appreciate this, like originally stated this is LOCKHEED'S BIRD. they decide who is involved the UK has just scored. NOT to mention all the R&D done on the F-22 from which the JSF derived in which you didn't contribute anything to. If it wasn't for the masterminds that developed the F-22 the F-35 wouldn't nearly be as deadly.


I would also like to add the the american posters aside from 1 ( who was pissed off about the insults ) have been civil and respectfull to all of the british posters , we dont take cheap shots and insult you just because your british we judge you along the lines of the amount of information you provide in your posts without being a jackass.


2 billion is chump change in regards to this subject, look how much the US has to put into this just to get it develped and out of the hangar.

if u wanna put it in simpleton terms, the US has just bought about 4 large pizzas some spicey chicken wings, cinnasitx and a bottle of coke, the total cost of all this ( not including other countries just contributions from these 2 countries ), the total for the meal is 42 bucks, the US pays 40, UK pays 2, the US then proceeds in giving the UK all the pizza,cinnastix,chickenwings and coke it can handle, talk about friendship and love... the US loves the UK WITH A CAPITAL L.





[edit on 13-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 13-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
ape aka monkeyboy


the total cost of the project is $40 billion, yes the UK as contributed (over) $2 billion so far and are adding more!!

other country's have put into the project also (please don't discount them), therefore the US are not covering ALL the costs, infact by the end of it i guess the US will probably be funding for about 70/75% of the costs to the JSF project.

but all of us agree the US are mainly funding the project, but britain is 'highly' involved in the development of the project.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by st3ve_o]


ape

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
yes and thats just with this project, the JSF derived from the F-22, if you get all the tech from the JSF you are going to have some really good insight about the F-22, somthing that took many years and many US taxpayer dollars and something your country had nothing to do with. this is top notch US technology IMO 2 bill is not worth it, the US could still sell the planes IMO if they wanted to even with holding back technology.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Deepest darkest? I dont think so, if america seen it fit for british jets to have a "technical" glitch on the eve of a british attack against say an american ally I'm sure it wouldnt bat an eyelid at the idea.


Just keep reaching. If its that big of a problem then build your own craft.



Yes and the two BILLION yes BILLION dollars didnt pay for some of it?


I was simply pointing out that without the $$$35,575,000,000$$$ That the US forked over, this program would be going NO WHERE!. Could britian have afforded that all on there own? Doubt it! could the US have afforded to do this whole project on their own? They basically did. Thats FACT!



We have the tech, the money (if we gave up on the idea of trusting american companies) but lack the political will.


I support you.. Do it! Instead of leaching off us..




So UK $2B didnt "pay" for anyting did it? Lol whos paying for my meals? Maritime london ltd thank you very much, we payed 2 billion of OUR money for this aircraft and frankly we'd expect a little leeway considering we've followed you in EVERY fight ever since world war 2, but I guess oil does run thicker than blood doesnt it.


Well aside from the fact that my sarcasm sailed right over your head. $$$2,000,000,000 would have gotten what done exactly? Especially when we're talking about a program thats worth $$$45,000,000,000$$$ Its NET worth being more once you consider all the hundreds of billions the US (MY COUNTRY) poured into other technologys that are to be incoporated into this air craft! Save your $2 Billion speach for another day. You get no sympathy here.




Lol yes lets see the US congress aprove ANOTHER 4 billion on ANOTHER project. Frankly we already DO have an alternative , the rafeale at the moment would be a fine buy and if need be we can reconfigure the Typhoon. But then again that would take us closer to europe rather than america, can america allow itself to be isolated?


See but then you guys would actually have to do some work on an aircraft instead of having the US do it for you. And thats the truth. US technology or european technology? US paying for it all or you haveing to invest more then 2 bill on your own program? I dont blame britain for doing it(drinking mommas milk). Hell if you can get away with it why not? But I dont have to like it either. And as an american I dont like it at all. So instead of getting all excited for you brits, I bitch about it!


And the war thing, save it. That has nothing to do with the thread. Ive said it before and ill say it again. Our military budget is roughly $$$560,000,000,000$$$ to think the most powerful military force on the face of the earth cant take out a third world power without 7 thousand british soldiers is ludacris. I do however have great respect for the british armed forces and thank them for all there help. But I think you get the idea.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   
to the above member, you sound like an angry person and judging by the gun in your picture somebody i wouldn't like to meet


as for your points, i suggest you take a look at technology’s that the United States have taken from Great Britain in the past, equipment that the United States still buys off not only Britain but Europe too. How many things operated by the British armed forces that have been bought directly from the United States?, i can think of 2 - Trident/JSF.....i can make a huge list if you wish of technologys/equipment the United States have bought from the United Kingdom and even greater list from Europe
so please stop these tears about how the US are handfeeding the UK and how we are a burden on you with our so called ‘friendship’ between both nations, because:-

1) you are certainly are not feeding us.

2) if it was left to me we‘d stuff our so called friendship and leave you in the middle-east tomorrow and let you to sort out your own problems.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by Sepiroth]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
friendship? the only friendship between us is both our leaders like bumming each other


ape

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
excuse me buying equipment and certain technologys have nothing to do with actually incorperating that technology and developing highly advanced aircraft such as the f-22 which the JSF derived, Look at the amount of money the US has invested in this and how much technology is actually US technology hence the disagreement about the contract.

2 billion IMO still does not cut it at all when you look at the big picture here that amount of money does not justify the UK acquiring advanced US technology especially technology previously developed that is being incorperated into the JSF which is american innovation and only american. I would like to think the US would prefer to keep it's edge in regards to air dominance and as the UK are US allies we still compete in regards to weapons technology and aerospace.

infact I doubt the UK would of even pulled out, the US should of called the bluff.

go ahead and cut out of the middle east, you have your own jihadist problem in the Uk you should deal with, the london bombings and that mindstate has already take root, If you want to be a smart ass about things then I guess the US hesitance in regards to sensitive information with the UK canbe explained very easily, the US knows the Uk will be taken over by a bunch of crazy muslims in the future and doesnt wanna take any chances ;-(. hey if u want to take it down a notch we can.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
oh right, so only american developed technologies matter right?


so what happens when britain spends a few billion like on V/STOL/radar, then we give it the US for less amount than what we spent on it, is that okay then?

ps:- ive noticed you've changed and edited your post since i replyed, i wish used the quote button now.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by st3ve_o]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join