I have read most of the replys on this subject and have yet read what should have been salient point from the begining. The softwear in question was developed by Lockheed Martin (not the US government) and is their proprietary properity. Even the US government does not have the right to change it. Any modification to the softwear must be accomplished by, or in accordance with, Lockheed Martin.

Depends entirely on the contract between USG and LM.

I’d love to get that PM as well, if possible. 🙂

US law does not allow the USG to give away the intellectual property rights of private individuals or corporations to any third party, treaty or no treaty. It is regrettable that someone in the US Department of State negotiated to provide data in a manner contrary to US law.

Releasing source code does not relinquish or abolish intellectual property. Those are very different things. The UK would only need to acquire the IP if they wanted to change the mode and scope of distribution or publication themselves.

Hmm,

I’m guessing the fact that we’re not interested in harming our allies would be a major reason. That’d be a sure way to lose out on a huge arms market, if such a thing were done, as all credibility would be lost.

For a real life application I wouldn’t necessarily think in terms of direct conflict (although I wouldn’t rule it out as far as military contingency planning is concerned).

Imagine Israel wanted to attack Iran through Turkey and the US rather wouldn’t have Turkey using their F-16s or F-35s to intercept trespassing Israeli planes or take anyone’s side.

Another instance where I’ve been thinking about such functions had been Iranian F-14s. Imagine their RWR (or even FCR) had some kind of shutdown trigger embedded upon encountering specific information. Should the planes fall into the hand of averse powers, they could be easily dispatched and taken out of the fight by simply transmitting a specific signal.

LOL, sounds like I struck a nerve there. 😉

Nah, I just thought you started another round of factless polemics and derision there, so I joined in.

And? Was there something in the article they lied about? Do tell.

Remember that stance next time a GAO report comes up. 😉

Seems like they tried to do that at one point with the F-22. Maybe that’s what you’re thinking of? :confused:

I found it. March 1st, 2009:

Cost data on the first Joint Strike Fighters to roll off the production line is now available. The six aircraft in LRIP-2 came in below projections, Davis says. Officials are now quoting cost in 2014 dollars to ensure that potential partners can properly weigh their options; a range of cost figures cited in various years have muddied the ability to make apples-to-apples comparisons, Davis says. In 2014 dollars, the CTOLs in LRIP-2 cost about $70 million without engine and Stovls cost about $80 million without engine.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw030209p1.xml&headline=New%20Leadership%20Takes%20Over%20JSF%20Program

I found that quite confusing. What where the very first LRIP-2 projections by the program office and did those include the engine? And how much is a F135 unit expected to cost?

I think this is muddled dangerously enough that I am tempted to suspect them of dropping the engine from the budget sheet (“Hey, that’s not the plane per se, right? The engine is an option, right?”) and magically coming in under budget per LRIP-2 plane.

Anyone have all the numbers to contrast them?