If that’s what I signed up for and received then obviously I’d be happy. I wouldn’t be so stupid as to sign a document that wasn’t clear though, why do people continue to insist the UK government would? :confused:

Great – Now imagine this:-

What if you’d invested $2 Billion in a program and suddenly the vendor spends your money on locking you out of vital subsystems.

What are your political choices?

1. Publically state you can still use the item OK, and argue furiously with the vendor in private, and if you do not get satisfaction drastically reduce the number bought because you do not have total control over a defence asset.

2. Exit program, $2B poorer with egg all over your face.

3. Your happy with the lockout.

What evidence is there to support either of these choices?

Publically state you can still use the item OK and argue furiously with the vendor in private

Source

Operational sovereignty is defined as the UK having control over essential aspects of the aircraft so that it can be operated through life at the time of the UK’s choosing, says the Ministry of Defence. “We need to be able to integrate the JSF into the UK operating environment; operate, maintain, repair and upgrade the UK fleet to meet evolving through-life requirements; and certificate the aircraft as safe to fly,” Drayson says.

and

The U.K. Ministry of Defence wants access to technologies and secrets that will give it the means to maintain and upgrade its notional JSF fleet independent of the United States; the Defense Department in recent months has resisted releasing the technologies Britain seeks.

Aviation experts say the sticking points in deliberations likely have been British access to stealth technology, software source code underpinning the aircraft’s operations, and agreements on follow-on development of after-market capabilities that U.K. firms could manufacture and market around the world.

Negotiations intended to produce a tech transfer agreement fell apart on the eve of a high-level meeting in mid-June. However, subsequent deliberations set the stage for the London meeting — while U.S. officials were in England to view the Farnborough air show — that produced the agreement on the “statement of principles.”

“I think both sides feel that at the higher [political] level, issues of principle were resolved in discussions that took place. And both sides feel comfortable to push things back to the working level to work things out,” said a Pentagon official.

Now if the document had been cut and dried at the beginning then these discussions would not be required.
The only reason why these discussions occured is that something changed, As you rightly state the UK would be stupid to sign up for this if being locked out was in the original contract.

so what changed?, The anti-tamper changes were not in the original budget requests, which is strange in a program that everyone signed up for!. so this change occured ~2004 a decade after the program started, and within 6 months had the UK threatening to withdraw and go with Plan ‘B’ ( a Navalised Typhoon/or Rafale).

Assurances were made etc, an MOU was signed and now an announcement of no source codes are to be released to anyone.

Lets see if the UK purchases the previously expected 150 JSF’s:).

Recent speculation points to a reduction to ~50 units, with more mainstream commentators ststing that ~72 would be the lowest the UK could get by with the new carriers.

Lets wait and see shall we.

IF there’s a written agreement then all the UK has to do is produce it and case closed. So what’s all the fuss about?

You still havn’t answered the basic question, are you happy for BAE Systems/UK to have a black box on board US aircraft where the US has vague assurances that its all good?

Simple question your either Happy or Unhappy with that situation, which is it?

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.

The MOU is a secret document but here’s a insight to what it actually means from the UK minister who signed it..

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmdfence/177/6121906.htm

Q90 Mr Jenkin: Minister, just to underline your achievement, can I ask you to clarify one or two aspects of this. When you talk about “operational sovereignty of JSF” does that mean effectively once we have the aircraft we will be able to operate it indefinitely without recourse to US technical support?

Lord Drayson: No. The key principle of this whole project is the concept of economies of scale such that by all these nations pooling together you get a class of aircraft of such a size that the whole process is efficient. Now what we need to do is these nations stick together such that in future, as the aircraft gets upgraded and developed, we all benefit from the economies of scale and people do not go it alone to destroy economies of scale. However, at the same time, we need to be clear about, once we have got these aircraft, how we ensure that we have operational sovereignty on their upgrade in terms of weapons that we fit to it, its maintenance, how we repair and maintain it, and how we use it, how we put the mission objectives in the aircraft and these things. In other words, you have an important management job of maintaining the economies of scale and separating those economies of scale issues from technology transfer issues which deliver you operational sovereignty, that is about getting into the detail of the engineering issues within the aircraft, systems Through Life, specifying which affects which and making the right decisions about that.

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—

Q92 Mr Jenkin: I am sorry, that is not the question I am asking. Are we going to be able to fly this aircraft independently of US technical support, ie we are not going to be dependent upon US passport holders or US subcontractors in order to fly this aircraft from mission to mission?

Lord Drayson: I am sorry, I thought I had answered that very clearly, absolutely, yes.

Q93 Mr Jenkin: For how long?

Lord Drayson: We have a clear unbroken chain of command of UK citizens.

Q94 Mr Jenkin: I am not asking about chain of command, I am asking about technical support.

Lord Drayson: I am talking about all aspects of technology necessary to do what you have just described. There are some aspects which are of a level of classification and secrecy that that know-how cannot be in industry, therefore they need to be in the heads of RAF officers or UK civil servants but not US citizens. Therefore, to make it an absolutely crystal clear test that in the future you can judge me on, the British aircraft carriers in the future with the British JSFs flying on them, they do not have to have a US citizen on board that aircraft carrier to be able to load, maintain, fly these.

Q95 Mr Jenkin: Are these necessary assurances that you refer to contained within the Memorandum of Understanding?

Lord Drayson: Yes.

Q96 Mr Jenkin: Your co-signatory is?

Lord Drayson: The United States.

Q97 Chairman: Is it Gordon England?

Lord Drayson: Yes, Gordon England.

Q98 Mr Jenkin: There is absolutely no question of any misunderstanding in the United States that they have not given us what you think they have given us?

Lord Drayson: I am absolutely clear on that.

Q99 Mr Jenkin: Do you think the Congress will accept that as well?

Lord Drayson: Yes.

Mr Jenkin: Thank you very much, Minister.

Now there does seem to be two different ideas of what access is really there, only the MOU contains the details.
But an unbroken UK chain of command does imply that the UK has access to anything which could hamper its operational ability, if source code has this ‘potential’ which it clearly does, then it therefore must be included in the MOU.

If it isn’t included then the UK does clearly does not have operational sovereignty.

That all seems pretty simple.

Cheers

I 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.

OK 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

Not seeing any lawyers mentioned there. I also don’t see mentioned any reference to ALL source code.

Lord Drayson said :-

Lord Drayson: Once we have got these aircraft, how we ensure that we have operational sovereignty on their upgrade in terms of weapons that we fit to it, its maintenance, how we repair and maintain it, and how we use it, how we put the mission objectives in the aircraft and these things. In other words, you have an important management job of maintaining the economies of scale and separating those economies of scale issues from technology transfer issues which deliver you operational sovereignty, that is about getting into the detail of the engineering issues within the aircraft, systems Through Life, specifying which affects which and making the right decisions about that.

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—

Q92 Mr Jenkin: I am sorry, that is not the question I am asking. Are we going to be able to fly this aircraft independently of US technical support, ie we are not going to be dependent upon US passport holders or US subcontractors in order to fly this aircraft from mission to mission?

Lord Drayson: I am sorry, I thought I had answered that very clearly, absolutely, yes.

Source UK Select Committee on Defence Minutes of Evidence

Without the source code the UK cannot be sure that there are no easter eggs in that code, whereby the US could change the aircrafts performance negatively in the event that USA interests compromised by an independant UK action.

How does the UK upgrade the source code independantly if its not available.

How does the UK ensure that it can intergrate a new system as an urgent operational requirement without US ‘help’, and how can the UK be sure that the US would not ‘delay’ any intergration of a non us weapon as a marketing ploy where an alternative US weapon would be made available sooner.

The test of fairness is :-
Is the UK withholding anything that the US see’s as a risk to its operational sovereignty of the JSF, I think its a fair bet that the US would not have this ‘little’ problem.

Cheers

[QUOTE=Dare2;1485447]

No it doesn’t it only implies a value know for beingthat of F-22, in another

stament L-M says it as it is.

Re the definition of supercruise..

Even at Mach 1.5, says Gen. Mushala, the F-22’s engines are operating below military power. The programme office has selected Mach 1.5 as the threshold for supercruise “because nobody else can do it.”

Source http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3126/is_630_54/ai_n28730865/
Dated 1999

Since the Typhoon can meet this old definition* it has now been increased to M1.7 😉 LOL

* the Mach 1.5 figure for the Typhoon would be on present engines, no EFT’s and less than half internal fuel. (i.e. running away from the fight), near term growth engines would allow it to do the same going into the fight.

Cheers