m.ileduetsFor Americans: Just imagine a reverse case: your country purchasing a -let’s say- European aircraft as your major Air Defence asset that can only be repaired by EADS technicians and that some German chancellor is able to knock out with a click of a mouse. Would you really want to invest a couple of billions in a plane like this?
It can’t be that difficult to get the feeling why these gadgets that cause a delay in production and even have to be paid for are not really that appreciated over here.
m.ileduetsThere seems to be some misunderstanding: the Mirage III RS often caught us leftfooted, namely the Swiss (ground based) air defence, (DCA en français!) when we did excercises. It usually came very low and very fast and made some excellent quality pictures of our defence positions before we had time to react, meaning that the barrels of our guns usually pointed in a direction other than in front of the aircraft. I consider it an excellent aircraft for its time. Why should I’ve posted it under “favorite aircraft”? Please read carefully before insulting people…
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by Panther
It is, ofcourse, true that Ireland has no enemies which are possible invaders. However, that is also the case for many other countries around the world – and no reason to disregard the need for a basic air defence aircraft.
There are many other reasons for a country to maintain fast jets – CAS, Anti-Smuggling, Defence Forces Training, etc. etc…….and Ireland is no different in this regard.However, whether it is justifiable (at present) to spend large amounts on aircraft like the F16 or Gripen is the crux of the argument.
Perhaps, by at least having something like the L-159 or Hawk, it would provide some basic capabilities that are currently lacking – and maintain a pool of fast jet pilots – who, inturn, would require less training to move to the likes of the F16, if security conditions deteriorated and dictated such a requirement.
Generally I agree, the only problem, as pointed out before and by others as well is that Hawk and L-159 just don’t offer enough speed for the most pressing need: interception and air policing. In a peacefull environment these are the farmost important roles an air defence force is performing. Do it or leave it to others.
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by SOC
Why would this delay the whole program? US F-35s wouldn’t need this tamper-proof crap obviously, so why would their delivery or prices be affected?
Obviously because a US pilot might defect, too one day or another, or simply because a plane or two could get shot down or be lost over foreign territory for other reasons.
But the higher costs and the delay is certainly not exclusively caused by these “special requirements”.
m.ileduetsThe general content seems rather credible to me. There might be some arguable details in the report.
Even if the AMOS was not based on the Phoenix, it wouldn’t change anything: the US admin’s fears would just make a little less sense. They might suffer paranoia a little, I’m not here to argue the opposite. But their attempts to prevent reverse engineering can hardly be disputed.
This just makes the airplane a little more expensive and a little less attractive for potential customers for obvious other reasons. (Who wants a plane that can only be fixed after some LM engineers or Pentagon officials had their go?)
m.ileduetsIf they found somebody doing the air policing for them, this would seem the best option indeed.
m.ileduetsand even more news
Here’s some news that partially explains the delay and cost increase. It is also telling in demonstrating the amount of trust accredited to development partners and future clients:
January 2, 2004: The Pentagon is adding new security technology to the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which could cause a delay of up to a year in the program and increase the development cost by as much as $5 billion. Most of the increase is due to the usual problems of developing new technology (parts of it are turning out to be more expensive than the original estimates). Some of the price increase, though, is for new technology to hide the F-35’s secrets.
The big-ticket item in that category is technology to prevent reverse-engineering, a major concern since the F-35 will be the first stealth aircraft exported to other countries. There have been instances where advanced American fighters have found their way to unfriendly countries – the most notable being the defection of an Iranian F-14 crew to Russia, although some rumors persist that the Iranians only provided information on the Tomcat to Russia. This assisted the Soviets in developing the AA-9/R-33 Amos air-to-air missile, primarily used on the MiG-31 Foxhound aircraft. China has apparently acquired at least one F-16 from Pakistan, which was used for developing the J-10, a modified version of the cancelled IAI Lavi. This sort of thing is not new. A number of B-17s lost over Europe (some estimates are as high as forty) ended up in the hands of the Luftwaffe, and some were used to determine tactics to defeat it.
The United States has taken advantage of reverse-engineering or flying a captured or “acquired” aircraft on several occasions. A variety of MiGs and Sukhois (exact composition unknown) are currently housed around Nellis Air Force Base. Then there was the Mitsubishi A6M2 “Zeke” that was recovered after a crash in the Aleutian Islands in World War II. Recovered and repaired, it quickly gave up its secrets, and hastened the demise of Japanese Naval Aviation as an effective force in the Pacific War.
How might tamper-proofing be implemented in the JSF? The technology will probably fall into one or more of three areas: Obfuscating the avionics software, disabling the system that has been tampered with, and alerting the manufacturer and the United States that tampering has occurred. Protecting the software through obfuscation will probably be done via commercial programs like Dotfuscator, combined with locking away the source code. The Department of Defense and Lockheed will probably use a program like Dotfuscator Professional Edition from PreEmptive Solutions due to the advanced features such a program has for software obfuscation.
Other means to prevent reverse-engineering include disabling the system being tampered with. Perhaps the best example of such a disabling system are the Permissive Action Links (PALs) on nuclear weapons. Certain codes (or keys to the access panels) might be needed to access certain systems for maintenance (the radar for instance) – and if the code is wrong or the key is not used, the radar (or other system) would short out, rendering it useless. Alerting could be done by something as simple as a modified version of the LoJack system used for tracking stolen cars that would activate if access panels are removed without a representative from Lockheed (or the Department of Defense) deactivating the alarm. Some or all of the methods above may be used. It is safe to assume that the exact methods will be kept a closely-guarded secret.
Tamper-proofing the technology is an expense that could pay dividends down the road. Given the history of how aircraft have found their way to unauthorized users throughout the years, it will not be surprising to see more exported aircraft designed with an eye to prevent reverse-engineering. – Harold C. Hutchison
m.ileduetsPersonally I’d like to have one that consists of a hi-lo mix of F-18C’s and D’s with Gripens, not too bad considering they use similar engines (might as well replace it with exact ones).
This comes very close to how the Swiss AF could look like in the near future. But definitely not this 😉 :
training would be relegated to the Tucano for basic and advance
Your question is sort of highly hypothetical, since you don’t give any indication of budget limitations and threat analysis.
To defend against Bulgaria (if that’s your criterion) you could do with much less than your pick. Take a dozen Gripens.
m.ileduetsmore news
Mixed feelings all around, it seems, and another great example of the US defence industry and administration’s idea of a free market… like as if Norway is going to become part of the “axis of evil” soon. At least Canada doesn’t seem unhappy about their deal, yet:
U.S. hinders foreign bids on new jet:
Canadian firms aim for share of high-tech stealth contract 5 January 2004
Edmonton Journal
Copyright © 2004 Edmonton Journal
OTTAWA – The U.S. government’s reluctance to share sensitive information about a new high-tech stealth fighter jet is hurting the ability of
foreign companies, including Canadian ones, in bidding on the multibillion-dollar program.
Canada and seven other countries have contributed financial support to the development of the Pentagon’s Joint Strike Fighter in the hopes that their aerospace companies will get a piece of the $33-billion US project.
But some contributors, such as Norway, have found their industries all but frozen out of lucrative contracts, partly because they have run into a
U.S. wall of secrecy. Canadian aerospace industry officials also say they are facing difficulty in cutting through U.S. secrecy and red tape to get
information, but acknowledge more success than their foreign counterparts.
Over the last several years, the Americans have clamped down on the sharing of sensitive information amid concerns that such technological
data might fall into the wrong hands. But at the same time, the U.S. is also counting on foreign sales of the Joint Strike Fighter to reduce costs, and for that it needs to dole out contracts to the countries involved. The idea behind JSF is to produce in large quantities a high-tech stealth aircraft that is relatively affordable.
Up to 3,000 fighters will be built for the U.S. and Britain but sales could run as high as $1 trillion when purchases by American allies are
considered. Mike Slack, the Canadian Department of National Defence’s JSF project director, said the U.S. has taken major steps in putting in a system to allow other countries access to sensitive information concerning the jet. “That said, the situation is not absolutely perfect,” he acknowledged. “There are still areas that I think require further liberalization, and slowly but surely we’re making headway in some of those areas.” Slack said one of the problems is that there are several U.S. government agencies which oversee what information can be sent outside of the country.
In Norway, politicians have voiced their anger over the lack of contracts going to their country’s companies and have bluntly told the Americans that if the situation doesn’t improve its military may not buy the JSF. “Our companies have not had a chance to get access to the information necessary to compete in the areas they think they are competent,” said Christian Tybring-Gjedde, an assistant director general with Norway’s Defence department. Norwegian firms have won mainly low-level contracts. The U.S. has told Norway, which has invested $125 million in JSF development, that its companies have to be more competitive…
The Canadian government has invested $100 million in cash in the JSF program. It will also set aside $50 million to aid Canadian industry on development of JSF technology. So far, Canadian companies have received 56 contracts totalling more than $100 million. Slack stressed that Canada has not made any commitment to buy the
aircraft. He noted the Defence Department is happy with the number of contracts Canadian companies have received so far. “At this stage we’re not dissatisfied on the kind of return on investment we’re seeing ,” said Slack.
m.ileduetsFunny, in November I spent two weeks during my annual military training teaching recognition for Swiss air defence.
Power point presentations might be good to start with, but it makes a lot more sense to use film material for practice, as aircrafts will be flying (fast!!!) in real world, won’t they? This way one can also practice with movement, poor light conditions, sound etc.
We have special CD-ROMs which include short static presentations, practice mode and quizes. Unfortunately I couldn’t take them home to send you a sample…
Since my favorite one is already picked, here’s a tribute to a now retired aircraft that usually didn’t make us look good, as it caught us left footed time and again… It’s also tribute to a good photographer.
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by ****Ant
While the quoted support and maintenance cost of maintaining an advanced aircraft like the Gripen are thought of as low this is all in respect to the costs of other similar 4th Gen fighters ala F-16 and F/A-18 etc. The IAC could still come nowhere close to affording to maintain one squadron of Gripen, let alone even thinking about the purchasing price of the A/C themselves – the South African Gripens are thought to be in the range of $52-55 Million. Considering the rigmarole of the purchase of the Learjet in the Irish press and parliment (which was only $40 Mil) can you imagine what the response would be to the proposal of spending close to a billion to get and maintain a squadron of say 12-14 A/C for a ten year period? Unfortunatly it just isnt going to happen.(on a side note Panther = I just noticed ur reply to my previous post on another thread – My error for the Casa 295 – typo sorry. But I thought it was still just the single aicraft that had been equipped for the Oversea Surveillance mission. I wasnt aware that the second aircraft had been equpped similarly – thanks for pointing it out.)
I’m admittedly not very familiar with Irish budget reality and public opinion. Other investments certainly may have priority nowadays. But first of all one has to consider if the chosen plane would fullfill the task in mind. Both Hawk and L-159 are below Mach 1 aircrafts. They are good for training, close air support and anti-ship, but useless for interception. They would be too slow for intercepting aberrand civil jet aircrafts, let alone jet aircrafts with hostile intentions.
So I’d say save the money (probably the more likely course of action as you have pointed out) or invest a little more in sth. that serves its purpose.
I don’t know how the Gripen maintenance cost would compare with the Hawk or the L-159, but the difference can’t be that big. Further it seems to me that second hand A and B Gripen like the ones first offered to Hungary should be quite a bit cheaper than the ones offered to SA, which are going to be top of the line.
m.ileduetsWell, if training aircrafts do, there’s a couple of Swiss Hawks around, all in excellent conditions.
m.ileduetsSweden seems to be willing to make interesting deals and leases with their Gripens currently.
Why not opt for the A and B models Hungary rejected? They are rugged, easy to operate and low cost. They will work for another 20 years or more. Look how long the Austrian Drakens are in operation. Since the Irish probably only need them for air policing and home defence in a very unlikely event, NATO- compatibility shouldn’t be an issue. (Plus the Irish are familiar with the metric system 🙂 )
m.ileduetsBut any hopes were killed off by comments from outgoing U.S. Ambassador Craig Stapleton, who said Czech-U.S. relations could be affected by the Czech government’s final decision, she said. Stapleton’s comments were interpreted widely in the Czech press as a veiled threat. “At the moment I read what the U.S. ambassador said, it was quite clear that it would not be possible for the government to choose an American aircraft,” she said. “Ministers would be seen as being under pressure from America and accepting everything American. Any cabinet would be very afraid of this because of our experience with the Soviet Union, when everything recommended by them was immediately done.”
This analysis seems to reflect rather accurately why Stapleton’s bullying ultimately had the opposite effect of what the US tried to achieve, namely selling planes and creating closer ties with the Czech Republic.
Stapleton disregarded the fact that he was behaving just like the Sovjet ambassador used to do a couple of years ago.
I pointed this out a while ago already. I wonder why there seem to be people around here trying to justify his behavior. It’s really not the way you treat allies and it really isn’t in the interest of the US at all.
m.ileduets@ Sauron:
Please excuse us. Maybe it’s the holy days approaching or just our shattered, distorted and politically emasculated self-esteem that leads us to such outrageous acts. 😀
Sign In
