Article

2006-03-15 Down Under

Aust. & U.K Fighter purchase off if Stealth secrets not shared

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Oztralian 2006-03-15 17:51|| || Front Page|| [11136 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 American taxpayers have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on stealth technology. This is before the first aircraft even rolled off the assembly line. There is no way we should be handing source code over to anyone. Even the Brits and the Australians. As far as I'm concerned, they're welcome to buy fighter aircraft from other countries. Maybe they'll get stealth technology from these suppliers.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-03-15 18:30|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-03-15 18:30|| Front Page Top

#2 Australia, OK. UK, No way.

UK is no longer an independent country, it is an appendage of the EU and will do France's bidding. France is an enemy who would give stealth to China in a nanosecond. The UK needs to decide which side it wants to be on. And so far, it has chosen Europe.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-15 18:51|| 2006-03-15 18:51|| Front Page Top

#3 Let's remember where the Brits were last summer with selling military items to China, shall we?

They joined their PU comrades to propose lifting the ban.

Posted by Captain America 2006-03-15 18:52|| 2006-03-15 18:52|| Front Page Top

#4 software codes

Yet another article that says more about the ignorance of the writer than it does about the subject matter. If he is referring to codes in the sense of passwords, then Australia is absolutely correct in demanding them. If he is referring to the code, i.e. the source code, then that is an entirely different matter. As a general rule only one entity should own any particular source code and I'd question why the Australians want it. If, in fact, they do, because the difference between code and codes changes the meaning of most of the article.

And BTW, the headline and first sentence are highly misleading, since the issue appears to be about the aircraft's systems, not its stealth technology.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-03-15 19:22|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-03-15 19:22|| Front Page Top

#5 NS: Australia, OK. UK, No way.

Australia has said it will not get involved if China invades Taiwan and the US intervenes. I don't know if this means that the US will not be able to use its bases in Australia. But it sure doesn't make me want to risk handing over stealth technology to Australia.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-03-15 19:28|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-03-15 19:28|| Front Page Top

#6 link

For example, Britain is seeking full independent maintainability and control over its F-35 fighters - and one of the most critical and contested areas lies in the plane's massive software source code. Since software will run so many aspects of the F-35's operations, access to the source code is necessary in order to debug many flaws, and may be required to integrate new weapons.

At the same time, the plane's dependence on software makes protecting the securtity of that source code an absolute must. To have even parts of it fall into hostile hands could be a disaster of the first magnitude. On the American side, there is also the quasi-protectionist angle of not wishing to have others copy the software and develop spin-off products in future that are based on US work. Even attempting to scrutinize that would be a challenge, however, and creates intrusiveness, approval, and friction problems of its own.

Posted by john 2006-03-15 19:34|| 2006-03-15 19:34|| Front Page Top

#7 Article: On the American side, there is also the quasi-protectionist angle of not wishing to have others copy the software and develop spin-off products in future that are based on US work.

Quasi-protectionist angle? There's nothing protectionistic about retaining sole access to proprietary intellectual property on which one has spent hundreds of billions of dollars. Levying high tariffs on imports - that's protectionistic. Not handing out your source code to your competitors - that's merely keeping a tight rein on your personal property.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-03-15 20:12|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-03-15 20:12|| Front Page Top

#8 Zhang, its a common practice to give favoured customers access to the source for debugging purposes, even the arch-copyright protectionist Microsoft does it.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-03-15 20:41|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-03-15 20:41|| Front Page Top

#9 On the subject of Aussies and source code: here's a gem of a story. One of those apocryphal stories that is just too good to fact-check.

Posted by xbalanke 2006-03-15 20:48|| 2006-03-15 20:48|| Front Page Top

#10 Damn uppity anglos want dibs on our anti-grav technology!

Posted by DanNY 2006-03-15 21:29|| 2006-03-15 21:29|| Front Page Top

#11 These are negotiating tactics, this has become common since European intervention in the industry a la Airbus, and will be par for the course for many programs to come (commercial and military).

Posted by bombay">bombay 2006-03-15 21:45|| 2006-03-15 21:45|| Front Page Top

#12 Bombay, your absolutely right on this one. China set the standard for ripping off technology secrets from others. Now, it would appear, the Brits and Aussies are following suit.

I hope the US holds firm on this and similar.

Posted by Captain America 2006-03-15 23:12|| 2006-03-15 23:12|| Front Page Top

23:57 gromgoru
23:57 JosephMendiola
23:52 tipper
23:52 2b
23:48 2b
23:47 trailing wife
23:43 3dc
23:42 3dc
23:40 Frank G
23:40 Frank G
23:34 Frank G
23:32 gromgoru
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:25 gromgoru
23:23 Glert Thetch2165
23:22 gromgoru
23:17 Glert Thetch2165
23:16 Pappy
23:14 Glert Thetch2165
23:14 Captain America
23:12 Captain America
23:04 Alaska Paul
22:51 BA
22:49 badanov