now i see you are still carrying on about codes, isnt the the uk gov good enough for you ?
“The U.S. government has guaranteed operational sovereignty. It [code] is being overplayed.”

That MOD statement is a veiled warning, that’s why the 2006 agreement is explicitly mentioned;), there is a lot going on with regard to OS and its getting quite heated.

In the mean time

the UK continues to work closely with the US to secure the commitments it requires with regards to operational sovereignty—that is to say the ability to operate, repair and maintain UK assets at a time of its choosing and through life.

on 23 January 2010

We also note that there still appear to be outstanding issues concerning technology transfer for the JSF, which are of key importance to the success of the programme.

UK parliament

Which means the 2006 basis of the agreement is still being renegotiated:eek:

Which means the UK hasn’t yet got the commitments required, funny because your asserting the US has guaranteed operational sovereignty :rolleyes:. so one of you is wrong and there’s no prizes for which one I think it is..

This “negotiation” is now reflected in the UK revised purchasing plans, with only 3 JSF ordered in 2012 with a further purchase decision delayed till 2015 – stunning huh!!

Why have a three year gap in procurement to evaluate the “operational aspects”, – watch this space as this is one thing which will lead the UK to bail out of the program.

Cheers

This is a problem moving forward as once a software upgrade is available and a customer has modified the core code, the customer has to validate the old code with new code out of there own pocket.

Surely some customers can add object code to the F-35?

That’s not the problem… its what’s in the core code that’s the problem, imagine a certain code received by your EW system that’s set to render your aircraft ‘safe’ or to nose dive into the ground, now that impacts operational sovereignty doesn’t it.

Or the core code might have ‘difficulty’ with any non US weapons, that would take ages to fix, thus giving a competitive advantage to the US…

I not saying they would do something so underhand and sly.. < Cough> McMahon Act < Cough>

Cheers

ok, you have said twice that we were to get the f-35 in 2010
its time to put up a link to back yourself, as i have read nothing of the sort and suspect that you are guessing

Not guessing at all, first delivery of operational aircraft was anticipated in fiscal 2007 for the US.
source below

Australian deliveries were due in 2010
Source JSF MOU Page 88

I think your confusing the Defence 2000 White Paper said that
provision had been made in the Defence Capability Plan for “up to 100 new
combat aircraft”, which should be in service by 2012.

Cheers

OK time to prove what your saying, show me any source whatsoever for this…. My info is very different…

on what point ?

See below in red

..we have the source codes we need and are working on our regional software

Try that one first so you don’t get muddled…

Cheers

A surprise to whom?
Cost is not the only metric by which a Government chooses a capability…

it had to have an IOC date in 2010, which Government directed…

You just shot your own argument down!.. Well its 2010 and where’s the capability which government directed?, its one reason why the Typhoon was rejected for air6000, as it couldn’t make the capability date!!.

So there’s one surprise that blind freddy could have forcast – JSF late.

(BTW IMHO the F-111 was useless anyway… I never thought it should have carried on as long as it did..)

I never said anything about this issue in 2002. But as to manufacturers promises, perhaps you’d care to assess how EADS, Airbus or NH Industries has delivered on it’s promises, compared to L-M?.

Eurofighter doesn’t ask for billions up front for R&D, and then use that money to make systems designed specifically to keep you out, and then refuse to give you the source code during test and eval.
Its one of the oldest cons in the book. drawn in with a big promise, and a little money, then draw them in more and more because they would have wasted the initial deposit, the final result is not what you wanted at 3x the price. I don’t blame LM as such – its the suckers who believed them and planned the defence acquisitions on power point presentations.

Australia hasn’t even signed an acquisition contract with L-M yet and you are already blaming them… Again, committed is an interesting term, given that as of March 2010, not one single acquisition contract has yet been signed for the F-35, by Australia…

LOL your not serious are you? I have posted several comments previously from the head of the RAAF and the defence minister no less – stating exactly that we are committed..

Cheers

now now, cooky, lets be fair and not spin it,

Well the JSF includes an number of as yet unsigned exports included, which unfairly reduces the totals given, Eurofighter hope to have 300 exports in the next decade should those be added???.:rolleyes:

Apples with apples

Competent assessment of contenders?

$4 billion unforeseen extra costs for super hornets to bridge the gap says otherwise.

especially when the contenders where benchmarked at 2002 capability and that price.