JwcookHow many cars can you install your own Turbo Chargers and Inter Coolers and after market stuff without voiding the warranty ?
You have the wrong idea about what is required, these upgrade comments are totally false.
I think the more accurate analogy is:-
“How many cars have the bonnet (‘Hood’ for the colonials) welded shut and have to be sent to the US for major services and possibly each year purchase a software key to continue normal operations?”.
As the buyer your restricted to fluffy dice and seat cover maintenance, and if your in a ‘special relationship’ we can let you fit a radio and tune a few stations (as long as its one of the vendors, because the implementation of other radios is hampered by propriety API’s).
It has nothing to do with adding turbo chargers, it has to do with ensuring there isn’t a policeman under the bonnet taking notes and holding the throttle and brake cables in the event of you using the car in a way the vendor disapproves of.
Cheers
JwcookI don’t think the UK received source codes for the AIM9L, Phalanx or the satellites that provided imagery during the Falkland campaign.
I think you will find the code for the Aim9L was released, actually the Germans improved it and that’s how the Aim9M was born.
BTW Do you have a source for that satellite imagery claim?, its been mentioned before but never attributed to anyone, so where did it come from?.
Cheers
JwcookCompletely irrelevant. You keep trying to veer away from reality and try to make the arguement into what *should* be. I couldn’t care less what *should* be. I’m more interested in what *is*. And what the MoD said was,
“JSF is progressing well and the UK currently has the JSF data needed at this stage of the programme, and is confident that in future we will continue to receive the data needed to ensure that our requirements for Operational Sovereignty will be met. “
Clear enough?
Yes very clear, but lets break this statement down:-
the UK currently has the JSF data needed at this stage of the programme
That stage is just at the ‘test stage’ with no aircraft on UK soil, without a complete production aircraft with vague assurances being given.
So the value of “all the data needed” is pretty poor, and means very little.
and is confident that in future we will continue to receive the data
Note the word confident, not the words certain, sure or guarenteed.
These words would have been very easy to use, ‘confident’ means theres something ambigious, with an uncertain outcome.
needed to ensure that our requirements for Operational Sovereignty will be met
Note the words needed, and requirements, that this is needed and they are measured to a set of requirements.
So to sum up the statement actually says..
We have very little at the moment, which we really hope will get better, as we do rather need it so we can operate the bloody things we paid for.
So its clear to me that you have jumped on a weak arguement and shouting it in large red letters doesn’t make your arguement any better.
Cheers
JwcookAfter you see that it meets all requirements will you eat your cynical hat ?
And when it doesn’t will you eat your tin foil hat?:D
It has already missed some requirements.
Please note – Changing the the requirements doesn’t mean the performance meets the requirements, it means the requirements meet the performance.
Subtle but important.
JwcookAnyone have more info about this?
Ok a quick rundown of this thread:-
Firstly it won’tnevercan’t happen, apparently special relationship wouldn’t let it, apparently access isnt really required, apparently it wasn’t specificly mentioned in the contract, apparently we should just trust….
Once you got all that in mind then you realise that all thats keeping those Chinooks on the ground is British skeptisism of the USA unstained track record.
LOL
I’m sure it was all those nasty pommys fault.
JwcookWhy would there be French code in a US invented and created system? There isn’t. It’s a US system. It’s a poor analogy. A better one would be would I lose sleep at night if we didn’t have the complete design package for every aspect (no matter how small) of the EH101 they wanted to use for the new presidential helicopter. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.
There’s no reason aircraft couldn’t be set up to use either system without the need to divulge the complete code base of either the GPS system or Galileo. I know my Polar GPS receiver didn’t come with the complete Navstar code base and yet, miracle of miracles, I can still use it.
Poor analogy or not – do know why the Europeans developed the Galileo system?( because of lack of access to the GPS code base and a rather nasty “Selective Availability” feature built in). do you know why some US officials threated to shoot down Galileo?.:eek:
Hmmm apparently they don’t share your your liberal hippish views.
I was under the impression that ToT for the US101 was complete!, basically the source code, All other systems were US designed and built, so someone over there was losing sleep about that and took this operational sovereignty thing seriously, I suppose it all depends which way its operating.;).
Cheers
JwcookNice to see you have such a finely tuned radar when it comes to judging people. Must be nice to live in that ivory tower.
Give me a little credit I got it ~60% right 🙂 and only got the 2 minor ones wrong…
Wrong = evolution and flags…
Right = Right wing, gun toting, anti healthcare.
Re the JSF – Have you actually tried to think what your position would be if the situation was reversed?, i.e french code in all the US GPS systems.
I can see this being an issue with the US as the European Galileo system comes online, and this has system caused previous tension with the US.
The US stance is ultimatley counter productive as with GPSgalileo the JSF will find it has European competitors just because of these type of ToT issues.
Cheers
JwcookAnd this is the problem. The UK assumes that because the US may not want them to have the source code that it means we think they can’t be trusted. Has nothing to do with that. The more people know a thing the more likely it is to be compromised. Not a difficult concept. Giving it to you when you don’t actually NEED it just to assuage your feelings would be just plain dumb. What is dumber still is UK insistance just so they’ll feel better because they don’t actully NEED it.
OK I’m reading between the lines – I know this is just a stab in the dark, and off topic, but I’m visualising you as a right wing, NRA member, who opposes free health care almost as much as Darwins theory of Evolution and has one or more US flags hanging off your porch.
I think that maybe these things which are colouring your world view or is my sterotypical radar way off the money:D
I’m not having a go and no offence is intended – its just the impression I’m getting!
If I’m right then its obvious I’ll have to change the way I present my arguments to you.
Cheers
JwcookWhereas the Euros are more than happy to call the US liars. I have an idea, show the relevant paragraph. Oh, that’s right we can’t. Suspiciously convenient wouldn’t you say?
Can you provide an example were have the Euro’s called the US liars and been mistaken?.:D
Thats the whole point of this arguement, your looking at this with blinkers on.
Its a question of trust, and we are questioning the wisdom of putting trust in the US because of the list of historic self interest overiding any and all alliences.
Stop trying to take the moral high ground from the gutter as it just makes me laugh.
Cheers
JwcookYou believe your best allies would do something like this to you. ‘Special’ relationship indeed.
LOL I take it you are from the US… You have a history of doing so.. for example:-
I linked you earlier to Tube_Alloys where the UK gave all its (more advanced) research into Atomic weapons to the US for the Manhatten project, and supplied 24 of the best in that field to continue the work.
Then after the war the US passed the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act)
One of the provisions of the Act was a strict ban on the release of atomic technology to other powers, even to allies. This served to galvanize countries such as the United Kingdom, which had supplied personnel and information to the Manhattan Project team into constructing their own nuclear weapons.
So yes I think the US would screw another friendly nation over – even a “special relationship” case, and I only think that because they actually did it.
So IMHO you have a rather weak case there, and shows once again that a product of the selective history taught over there isn’t shy about repeating rubbish.
Do try to keep up.:rolleyes:
Cheers
Jwcook“The current F-22A modernization plan will result in
34 Block 20 aircraft used for test and training,
63 combat-coded Block 30s fielded with Increment 3.1,
83 combat-coded Block 35s fielded with Increment 3.2, and
3 Edwards AFB-test coded aircraft.Consideration is also being given to upgrade the 63 Block 30s to the most capable Block 35 configuration.”
Approximaty 20% of the total F-22 force of ~180 is only for training.
Has the program been funded for any of the upgrades? or is it ~40% of the F-22 to be used only for training?
Cheers
JwcookApparently the first ~63 F-22’s have different structural makeup, therefor different stress limits/structure lifetimes/equipment inclusions.
The amount of work required to strip down and ‘commonise’ ~34 these airframes would be more than new build airframes.
So these airframes are training/display airframes, they would be a maintanence nightmare on deployment.
I guess thats the price you pay for concurrent production and development, but its a lesson learned the hard way and can be avoided in future programs…..
Oh my giddy aunt!… doesn’t the JSF do just that??:diablo: – Incredable!
Incredable they got the partners to buy any of the test airframes.:eek:
Cheers
JwcookBringing early blocks of F-22 up to a common standard can be used to satisfy both #2 and #3. The issue of which improvements are incorporated and the schedule to induct airplanes into depot becomes an internal battle of priorities within AFMC.
I was under the impression that ~63 F-22 cannot be brought upto a common standard and will not be combat coded!.
The other 100 odd can be upgraded but at a high cost.
Cheers
JwcookYou are probably exaggerating here
Well probably isn’t good enough, without the source codes you would not find out till it really mattered.
Would you feel comfortable with ‘probably’ if it was a UK black box in a US fighter?.
That is the point, not commercially sensitive code, not the threat of passing secrets, not anti-competative behaviour, nor industrial esponage, that’s all a load of Bollaux.
Its about operational sovereignty, the code may be there and never be used, but its the fact that the allies won’t be allowed to look and know for certain.
Are we all clear now?
JwcookI’m still unconvinced that for integration you need the source code
You don’t need source code for Weapons intergration, But you do need access to it to ensure that your not getting a trojan horse as an added bonus buried in the core software.
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.
There are two schools of thought here, one is to trust the Americans to do the right thing or get access to ensure they do the right thing.
Most people from the US tend to side with the first:confused:.
Cheers
Sign In
