quadbikeErrrr… I think you have it round the wrong way….Google the “Maud report” or the project “Tube Alloys” link MAUD Report
Quick history lesson..
1941 British decide to build a nuclear bomb, and rough out plans.
1942 Churchill and Roosevelt informal agreement to move research to somehere safe and Manhatten project started.
1943 24 british scientists transfer to US for the now “US atomic bomb program”, and transfer the UK plans to build the bomb to the US.1945-2009 history/US public perception rewritten to exclude non US involvement in anything anywhere.
LOL So what your actually saying is the country that gave the US nuclear weapons can’t be trusted with source codes!!!!!.You have to admit how easily a inconveinent fact or change of perspective can totally annihilate your flawed argument.
Cheers
If you read what I said, I said UK do not trust the US which gives its nuclear missiles and the U.S does not Trust the UK enough to give Source Codes. The distrust is mutual.
I am still waiting on swerve to post the extract where the Minister clearly says yes about the Source Code.
For example if a certian IFF code is received by the JSF then it could be programmed to shut down the radar, start transmitting “here I am” over all frequencies and finally sets the engine to idle… this is the sort of thing you might not want embedded in your costly new fighter.
You believe your best allies would do something like this to you. ‘Special’ relationship indeed.
quadbikeWe have an absolutely unequivocal answer by Lord Drayson when he was asked if source code was included. He said yes, it was. In the exchange in Parliament JW Cook posted, he was not asked about source code, & his failure to mention it is therefore of no significance.
Ah. We should blame our shortsightedness & blind trust, should we? So if you’re robbed, it’s your fault for not protecting yourself adequately, & the robber is entirely blameless. Do you live by that principle? Do you steal everything that isn’t bolted down, because if it isn’t secure, the owner is to blame for not protecting it? Would you not go to the police if you were the victim of a crime, because it’s always the victims fault?
Q91 Mr Jenkin: I am distressed I asked you a yes/no question and you answered no and then gave me a very long explanation. We are talking about critically the source codes in the critical flight safety software which enables the aircraft to be reloaded with software before each flight. It is as basic as that. If we did not have operational sovereignty we would not even be able to fly the aircraft, would we?
Lord Drayson: With respect, you are now asking a completely different question. This is not the same thing. I answered you directly, the importance for us, like all the other nations in the future is it is really important that we recognise the economies of scale point
There he clearly mentions source code and he does not answer directly. If you have a link to where he said yes about source codes kindly give.
Secondly if you do not lock your door when you leave the house then you really cannot blame the robber alone.
quadbikeIt’s nothing to do with Lockheed. LM was not a party to the agreement. What part of “government” don’t you understand? And what smear campaign? As far as I can see the smearing here is being done by those who are in effect accusing Lord Drayson of lying.
I expect that the USA will not deny the agreement committed them to releasing source code, as they will not want to tell any lies which the UK could refute by releasing the agreement. I also expect that they will not confirm the terms of the agreement, & will lean hard on the British government not to publish it, reminding them that it’s a confidential agreement. Gottit? The only documents that say exactly what has been agreed are not open. The only thing we know about the contents is what Lord Drayson said – which nobody has ever denied any of.
I would not be surprised if he got US agreement to say what he did by telling the US it was politically necessary to say enough to get British parliamentary approval.
We clearly do not know if the source codes were part of the agreement. Some of us are speculating that by not sharing the source code they are going to compromise British Security. In the interview posted above by Jwcook the Minister clearly does not say anything about source codes. They are probably only needed for integration of newer weapons.
Q91 Mr Jenkin: I am distressed I asked you a yes/no question and you answered no and then gave me a very long explanation. We are talking about critically the source codes in the critical flight safety software which enables the aircraft to be reloaded with software before each flight. It is as basic as that. If we did not have operational sovereignty we would not even be able to fly the aircraft, would we?
Lord Drayson: With respect, you are now asking a completely different question. This is not the same thing. I answered you directly, the importance for us, like all the other nations in the future is it is really important that we recognise the economies of scale point—
Note that he does not answer the direct question which points to the Source Codes, he cleverly ducks it and says in the next questions that to fly from mission to mission UK won’t need the help of US passport holders. He most likely think that source code is not important for that.
Because there wasn’t a trust deficit – until now. In the past, the USA has trusted us, & we’ve trusted them – see above, re. missiles. In those circumstances, it’s not surprising there’s no legally binding agreement laying out every jot & tittle. Past practice suggested it was neither necessary, nor desirable, since flexible informal agreements had always worked well. Why would we expect the USA all of a sudden to turn rogue, & go back on the latest of the many such mutually satisfactory deal
So if this ever becomes an issue of national security for the U.K they should blame there shortsightedness and blind trust more than anything else.
Dammit man, read what has been written. There is no such specific contract! There is an intergovernmental agreement from when the UK joined the programme, & a second one negotiated in 2006. Neither civil nor corporate law applies to such an agreement.
Since we do not know if Source Codes were part of the agreement I think its clearly wrong to blame the other side.
quadbikeThe ability to maintain and upgrade seems to be the wording.
However the implimentation of the ~2004 JSF antitamper technology which cost over a Billion US$, seems to have put a wall around some code/black boxes, with the US giving API’s(routines which intereface with the H/W), but without giving insight to how the core operates.This change seems relativly recent in this program and may have taken some partners by surprise.
The withdrawal of the UK from a program where it has spent Billions is unthinkable (great marketing BTW), the political fallout would give the opposition a big stick to beat any government that admits they were sold a multi billion $ pup.
So it does not clearly state Source Code.
That depends on if there are any easter eggs in there or bad code, without access (access in this case is is defined by ability to see what the code does and if there are any nasties in there, not design authority).
If the US has put something in there to flick off any systemoffensive capability at their will, then yes this obviously would affect day to day operations. remember what these things are for, national defence and the application of military force for the interest of the UK, now if this ever differs from the US then there is a huge hole in the ability of the UK to guarentee independant operations (remember Suez).
It seems that you do not trust the country which even gives you nuclear missiles to use. It applies to Americans not trusting their JSF partners as well, then again if there was a trust deficit why did the UK jump on the JSF ship in the first place. If they have not asked about Source Code and specifics before they entered the cotnract they only have themselves to blame.
Now in which Guantanamo court would this fair and transparent hearing be held?.
The US national interest would override any foreign military agreement, so it would be a counter productive action to publically go for ineffective court action.
I think it would come under Civil/Corporate law and atleast you will be given a compensation of some kind.
This is precisely the the trouble, I can load linux on my PC and see what the source code is.. so I have an alternative for my home computer, but not for the piffiling matter of national defence where I have to trust in a foreign power who states its all good, no worries.
So my simple question stands – If BAE systems has source code for JSF subsystems that have the potential to cripple a JSF at the will of the UK government – should they share it with the US?, or should they be allowed to invoke commercial confidentiality clauses.
No one on the “large fries” side of the pond seems to to be worried as long as they hold all the cards.
You can of course have an alternative if you have the will and money to have it. A close sourced F 35 may better serve the UK than an open sourced alternative like a carrier capable Typhoon.
Sometimes switching from Windows to open source is counter productive. Just ask the Munich city council 🙂
quadbikeYou’re missing the main point here.
THE USA AGREED TO HAND THE SOURCE CODE OVER!
An agreement is an agreement. Saying “No, it isn’t fair, we’ve changed our minds” is just plain wrong. Bringing up lots of irrelevant tosh & false analogies adds nothing to the debate. We didn’t pay for the right to use a copy, we paid for access to the original.
You say they have quoting your Minister. But is there any official document saying so that is available in the public realm, while the Americans have not denied it yet, expect Lockheed to do so as the smear campaign picks up.
quadbikeThere are numerous threads in the same topic, see the F 35 source code thread.
quadbikeOK lets run this by you….
I have a software package I’d like you to install to your computer, I assure you it is benign, and will not hamper your computers operation…:D
Although I havn’t finished it yet – It will be the best thing ever! its fifth generation protection designed to protect you against hostile external forces.
Testing has been a little slow – so if you could chip in a couple of hundred dollars I’ll give you a early delivery slot, please note early delivery slots are more expensive -but hey!!!..
I can’t tell you whats in the package, but rest assured its all good. :diablo:
The cost is only 50 dollars (in then year 1984 dollars, with testing and forcast cost growth its only about $100), outside accounting firms are estimating its over $250 a copy, but they are all wrong.. as explained by the our latest inhouse cost forcasts which is $300 minus the cost saving programs were initiating next week, where we “imagine” its going to save over $250 dollars per unit, so were right on track for the $50 target
Now how do you feel about that?.. Good deal or what?.Or using your ‘very little to worry about’ statement how about the UK holds all the software as part of its 5% funding of the program and restricts the US access.
Why don’t you try arguing this around the other way (just imagine the UK holding the software and the USA being ‘untrusted’) and see if it makes any sense.
Cheers
Very Well Written but you have sidestepped the question I posed.
a. Was Source Code Part of the Original Agreement ?
b. Is Source Code Necessary for the day today operations and maintenance of the fighter ?
c. Swerve said that in 2006 the U.S agreed to give the source code as per a British Minister, in this case why is there no furore in the part of the British government now. Sferrin has a point why is there no threat of legal action ?
d. The Price and delays you mentioned in your reply are good points but regardless the current issue we are dealing with is source codes, my question was would you need the source code of windows to use it effectively the answer is no.
quadbikeThe mayority of soldiers are ordinary people. The single attempt failed for that reason and Jelzin could succeed and there are many more examples like that. None is able to rule against the will of the own population for long.
This may be true. But it is still unfair to blame a people for the action of am oppressive regime.
quadbikeThe SU collapsed by that in the end due to the shortage of support from the working force f.e..
Shortage of support from the Red Army.
quadbikeSaab’s view on technology transfer, 8ak interviews Pär Rohman
27 Nov 2009 8ak: With the amendments to DPP 2008 made this November the priority of the nation has moved away from research to transfer of technology. This is one area where European companies can stand a chance to win against U.S. companies who are disadvantaged by their country’s stringent export control and monitoring restrictions.
Pär Rohman, Vice President, Industrial Cooperation, Saab was in India for the CII/CAPS Seminar on Energising Indian Aerospace on Nov 19 and made a presentation (download) on transfer of technology. Manu Sood, Editor, 8ak had the opportunity to interview him.
8ak: India has had a lot of problems with ToT in the past. How can Saab help address these issues?
Rohman: The main problems India had are a foreign country’s government intervening to deny access to technologies, the vendor’s reluctance to part with technology fearing cannibalisation and the inability to absorb technology. Saab has a different approach based on long-term partnership and mutual growth. Saab has a proven model that enables the receiver to utilize and apply the technologies transferred. This means that it involves much more than just “technical information”.With the Swedish Prime Minister and defence delegation’s visit there has been an inter-government commitment to partner with Indian defence and neither country is bound by a third country’s dictats. In terms of ToT, Saab’s approach is unique. We don’t just give away the technology, we partner with you to build on and further develop in collaboration right from the start. This will give the Indian firm the ability to maintain and modify the system.
8ak: What is in it for Saab?
Rohman: Your recent article mentioned the Swedish minister suggesting that Sweden is looking at India not as a buyer but as a long term partner and the same is true for Saab. We believe the relationship will be for mutual benefit. So while we transfer technology, we gain new knowledge in the process and at the same time benefit from India’s engineering & software expertise and low operating costs. This will help Saab further develop the products and jointly market it globally for export.8ak: Have you successfully implemented such programs in other countries?
Rohman: Yes. For the Gripen alone, we have successful offset programs in e.g Hungary and South Africa.8ak: Do you have a preference for public or private sector in terms of ToT?
Rohman: We have relations with the major Indian DPSUs, so will do as directed by the terms of the RFP.At the seminar, a question raised was lessons India should learn from the Embraer’s success. My view is that it proves privatisation works but requires long-term, government support. If you look around globally, all major successful companies have transformed themselves in to systems integrators. There are significant lessons for India.
8ak: What are the problems that Saab faces in India in terms of ToT?
Rohman: The biggest problem is FIPB’s 26% cap on FDI which is discriminatory and adds to the country risk. As benchmark, 2 countries with successful defence programs Brazil and Dubai both have a much higher 49% cap. At 26% the best foreign companies will either not bid or be in a position where they are forced to part with technologies. Neither of these have worked for India in the past.
http://www.8ak.in/documents/SAAB%20CII%20ToT%20ParRohman%20091119.pdf
quadbikeIt may well be a mock up but its hardly wooden see the rivets and the distinct metallic shine on the engine.
quadbikeI think the above fears are stretching it a bit too far. Lockheed has said they will setup this facility where all F 35s will get their software updates. If you are on the right side of U.S which the U.K atleast is always, you have very little to worry. You really don’t need the source code to use Windows 🙂 even server versions, like that as long as you keep your F 35 codes updated it will not hamper operations.
quadbikeReplace UK by India and it applies to the MMRCA as well.
I do not think Boeing or Lockheed will lie to India about giving them Source Code (i do not believe Lockheed and US officals lied to JSF partners either) and India has other choices. There will be no point in India selecting an American jet despite all these and then whining about it. Just the way some Europeans are doing about the F 35.
If we want American it will come with strings, don’t care don’t complain after. 🙂
quadbikeNo need to do so. They suffer from their mistakes already.
It is not their mistake majority of these people are oppressed and they are so impoverished to take up arms and fight their masters. At-least please do not say they are responsible for the actions of their oppressors. 🙁
quadbikeYeah tell the above to the North Koreans ^^^ and the Burmeese.
Sign In
