Future of JSF?

Dr Phobus

New Member
Crusader2000 said:
Funny, seems like the US sells large numbers on Blackhawks, Seahawks, and Apaches. Let's not forget that we will more than likely be moving away from Helocopters anyways in the coming decades. With the advent of VTOL Aircraft like the VC-22 Osprey. Which, the US dominates I mite add! As for the commerical side. That will be much more competitive internationally no doubt. Also, with the F-22 and forthing coming JSF. I think Military Avaition Market is well covered too! While the US can't clearly lead everywhere..............its place of top is assured for the forseeable future!:D
there large internal market helps, however, do not put too much stoke in the osprey, its exspensive and complexed, do not hold your breath for big international sales. The only new helo under construction is S-92 cyclone, the others are all up-dates of older designs.

The american helo indutsry will struggle against eurocopter and agusta westland, they will not fold, nor will they be domainted but neaver will they be world dominant again. NH-90, EH 101, Lynx 300 series, Tiger, and a varient of smaller EC designs. The Korenians want co-development with EC on there new tactical tranport the Eh 101 sold to japan and too USA, almost no new major orders from EU nations on american helo's save up-graded chinooks. And japan are building there own gunship.
 
Last edited:

Crusader2000

Banned Member
Dr Phobus said:
there large internal market helps, however, do not put too much stoke in the osprey, its exspensive and complexed, do not hold your breath for big international sales. The only new helo under construction is S-92 cyclone, the others are all up-dates of older designs.

The american helo indutsry will struggle against eurocopter and agusta westland, they will not fold, nor will they be domainted but neaver will they be world dominant again. NH-90, EH 101, Lynx 300 series, Tiger, and a varient of smaller EC designs. The Korenians want co-development with EC on there new tactical tranport the Eh 101 sold to japan and too USA, almost no new major orders from EU nations on american helo's save up-graded chinooks. And japan are building there own gunship.

Sorry, I guess we will just have to disagree? Personally, in the next 10-15 years. I see both the Osprey and JSF Programs as being widely successful! As they say "time will tell" :rolleyes: Respectfully
 

rossfrb_1

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #23
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/us-warned-that-15b-fighter-jet-deal-is-in-danger/2006/03/15/1142098528306.html
"
US warned that $15b fighter jet deal is in danger
By Craig Skehan
March 16, 2006

AUSTRALIA has warned that it will not proceed with plans to buy the new Joint Strike Fighter aircraft from the United States for up to $15 billion unless there are further guarantees on technology transfers.
This was made clear in evidence to the US Senate armed forces committee this week. The US Government must approve the provision of sensitive military data to foreign countries that buy US hardware.
Intense negotiations are expected in coming months before Australia agrees to sign a memorandum of understanding, due by December, covering the production phase of the controversial fighter acquisition to replace the RAAF's ageing F/A-18s and F-111s.
Australia has paid more than $200 million towards the cost of developing the Joint Strike Fighter.
Britain, which has undertaken to provide $US2 billion ($2.7 billion) towards the aircraft's development, said this week that it might pull out of the project because Rolls-Royce had been barred from building back-up engines.
Britain was already upset over US restrictions on technology transfers. "Without the technology transfer to give us aircraft that are fit to fight on our terms, we will not be able to buy this aircraft," Britain's Defence Procurement Minister, Lord Drayson, said.
As well as hearing Britain's complaints, the committee yesterday took testimony on Australia's concerns. The head of the Defence Force staff at the Australian embassy in Washington, Rear Admiral Raydon Gates, told the committee that Australia would insist on transfers of specific data and technology.
After his appearance, Admiral Gates said': "Guaranteed access to necessary JSF data and technology to allow Australia to operate and support the JSF will be required before we join the next phase of the project."
Admiral Gates told ABC radio yesterday that US laws had to be changed to allow the sharing of the sensitive technology Australian needed to operate and service the fighters.
But he said getting Washington to do so could be a "hard road". Admiral Gates said the delivery of the fighters on time and on budget was crucial to avoid a gap in replacing Australia's F/A-18 and F-111 aircraft.
The director-general of the RAAF's new air capability project, Air Commodore John Harvey, who also also testified in Washington before the Senate committee, later described the dropping of a key aspect of the stealth rating for the aircraft as a "recategorisation" of terminology. He said the aircraft's capability had not changed and it was still "performing to requirements".
The Defence Department in Canberra suggested that the US had "changed the publicly releasable information concerning JSF stealth characteristics".
Air Power Australia, which publishes a professional journal and is a critic of the JSF program, has accused Australian defence officials of having misled the Government about the JSF'S stealth capability, its ability to avoid enemy radar. Another potential row is looming over Australian industry participation."



Are they just playing hardball, or is this a serious threat to pull out?
This sounds very similar to what the UK MOD was recently threatening - that seems to have gone all quiet now.


rb
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
rossfrb_1 said:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/us-warned-that-15b-fighter-jet-deal-is-in-danger/2006/03/15/1142098528306.html
"
US warned that $15b fighter jet deal is in danger
By Craig Skehan
March 16, 2006

AUSTRALIA has warned that it will not proceed with plans to buy the new Joint Strike Fighter aircraft from the United States for up to $15 billion unless there are further guarantees on technology transfers.
This was made clear in evidence to the US Senate armed forces committee this week. The US Government must approve the provision of sensitive military data to foreign countries that buy US hardware.
Intense negotiations are expected in coming months before Australia agrees to sign a memorandum of understanding, due by December, covering the production phase of the controversial fighter acquisition to replace the RAAF's ageing F/A-18s and F-111s.
Australia has paid more than $200 million towards the cost of developing the Joint Strike Fighter.
Britain, which has undertaken to provide $US2 billion ($2.7 billion) towards the aircraft's development, said this week that it might pull out of the project because Rolls-Royce had been barred from building back-up engines.
Britain was already upset over US restrictions on technology transfers. "Without the technology transfer to give us aircraft that are fit to fight on our terms, we will not be able to buy this aircraft," Britain's Defence Procurement Minister, Lord Drayson, said.
As well as hearing Britain's complaints, the committee yesterday took testimony on Australia's concerns. The head of the Defence Force staff at the Australian embassy in Washington, Rear Admiral Raydon Gates, told the committee that Australia would insist on transfers of specific data and technology.
After his appearance, Admiral Gates said': "Guaranteed access to necessary JSF data and technology to allow Australia to operate and support the JSF will be required before we join the next phase of the project."
Admiral Gates told ABC radio yesterday that US laws had to be changed to allow the sharing of the sensitive technology Australian needed to operate and service the fighters.
But he said getting Washington to do so could be a "hard road". Admiral Gates said the delivery of the fighters on time and on budget was crucial to avoid a gap in replacing Australia's F/A-18 and F-111 aircraft.
The director-general of the RAAF's new air capability project, Air Commodore John Harvey, who also also testified in Washington before the Senate committee, later described the dropping of a key aspect of the stealth rating for the aircraft as a "recategorisation" of terminology. He said the aircraft's capability had not changed and it was still "performing to requirements".
The Defence Department in Canberra suggested that the US had "changed the publicly releasable information concerning JSF stealth characteristics".
Air Power Australia, which publishes a professional journal and is a critic of the JSF program, has accused Australian defence officials of having misled the Government about the JSF'S stealth capability, its ability to avoid enemy radar. Another potential row is looming over Australian industry participation."



Are they just playing hardball, or is this a serious threat to pull out?
This sounds very similar to what the UK MOD was recently threatening - that seems to have gone all quiet now.


rb
Actually the same day Australia said this the British (to the same committe) said that either the info is released or we pull out.


Lord Drayson was in Washington to discuss ongoing disputes over the aircraft. He said: "Without the technology transfer to give us aircraft that are fit to fight on our terms, we will not be able to buy this aircraft."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4807710.stm
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Whiskyjack said:
Actually the same day Australia said this the British (to the same committe) said that either the info is released or we pull out.


Lord Drayson was in Washington to discuss ongoing disputes over the aircraft. He said: "Without the technology transfer to give us aircraft that are fit to fight on our terms, we will not be able to buy this aircraft."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4807710.stm
About time too. America has been extremely churlish about this issue. Fancy the nerve of attempting to insist it's own allies, purchase not only downgraded "export" versions of aircraft they operate, but then refuse to allow them access to the software codes and LO maintenance tech needed for the Country to successfully operate it's OWN aircraft.

For Countries that aren't as close, fine. Who can honestly envisage a scenario that will EVER be a national security issue for the USA if Australia or Great Britain have access to this technology???

All potential current buyers should band together and use their combined purchasing power to get America to change it's mind. The loss of orders, for potentially 1500-2000 aircraft will SURELY make the US change it's mind.

If other aircraft are chosen and purchased over this issue en masse, it'll be one of the biggest blows the US defence industry has ever faced. And one of the biggest GAIN's for Euro/Asian defence industries, something the US should truly fear...
 

Rich

Member
Its hard to get a grip on exactly what is going on with this program. While we have special "relationships" with Australia and Britain once we sell them the advanced versions of JSF all the other involved countries will be crying for them.

In my opinion exceptions should be made for these two nations, "tho no-one is asking me". The special relationship is one reason but the others are its in their interests to safeguard the technology. And its in our defense interests for both countries to have a top tier system.
 

vinnanater

New Member
Future of JSF

Rich said:
Its hard to get a grip on exactly what is going on with this program. While we have special "relationships" with Australia and Britain once we sell them the advanced versions of JSF all the other involved countries will be crying for them.

In my opinion exceptions should be made for these two nations, "tho no-one is asking me". The special relationship is one reason but the others are its in their interests to safeguard the technology. And its in our defense interests for both countries to have a top tier system.
Hi Everyone,

I have been reading the different threads on this site for a while, but this is my first post, so take it easy on me If I goof up.
I work at LM Aero in Fort Worth, Tx on the F-22, but I keep up with F-35 news and happenings too.
From what I hear, tech transfer issues on the JSF have mainly to do with one thing, and that is the source code. Other issues like co-production, the second engine..etc, are really just non-issues that will be worked out I am sure.
So back to hyper-sensitive technology issues. The problem here is not with the "special relationship" between US and it's two major allies, there has never been a question about loyalty and trust between our respective governments and our people. What is going on here is the issue of multinational companies involved in this project. There are some in Congress that look at some European companies that are also involved or interested in doing business with companies from China and other countries that might potentially be our adversaries in the future. I believe BAE is also working with Thales on some projects, and Thales in turn has been wanting to business with the Chinese. Also let us not forget there was a major push in Europe not too long ago to end arms embargo to China. To put this in a little better perspective, there was an issue recently with Israel ("our staunch ally") wanting to sell some fairly sensitive radar equpment to one of these countries. My response here is not meant to name each and every company and instances where this may have happened or could happen. The point is once the horse is out of the barn then you can't corral it back, that is what this all about and that is what the US lawmakers are concerned about. They want the issue scrutinized and fully addressed "before" the proverbial horse has fled. After all in the law makers' minds, with a program with the life expectancy of the JSF, what is losing an order of a few airplanes (yes I say "few" with tongue in cheek), if it means avoiding the possibility of that technology facing us on the battle field a few years from now. Some of this thinking makes sense, but it also get the votes when election time comes along. So again in the end this is not about trust and the special relationship between US and it's major allies. It is all about part national security, part politics and part multinational companies involved in global and sometimes porous business dealings.
 

rossfrb_1

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #28
vinnanater said:
Hi Everyone,

I have been reading the different threads on this site for a while, but this is my first post, so take it easy on me If I goof up.
I work at LM Aero in Fort Worth, Tx on the F-22, but I keep up with F-35 news and happenings too.
From what I hear, tech transfer issues on the JSF have mainly to do with one thing, and that is the source code. Other issues like co-production, the second engine..etc, are really just non-issues that will be worked out I am sure.
{snip}
Thanks for that post.
As an aside - it has been claimed that the US wouldn't sell the F-22 to Australia, others say yes they would. From your perspective, what do you think (or have heard)?
In addition, would similar technology transfer issues (source code) be involved with the F-22?

cheers
rb
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
vinnanater said:
It is all about part national security, part politics and part multinational companies involved in global and sometimes porous business dealings.
nice cap off of whats involved btw...

rossfrb_1 said:
it has been claimed that the US wouldn't sell the F-22 to Australia, others say yes they would. From your perspective, what do you think (or have heard)?
more than a claim.

I sat in a room with 450 other people in ADF and the aviation industry whilst Richard Armitage reinforced that the US would favourably look at F-22's for Oz if we determined a strategic imperative.

The fact that we haven't looked at F-22's beyond the assessment stage (and we did do comparative assessment) is beyond the purvue of this forum but revolves around issues of force relevance as well as cost.
 
Last edited:

tphuang

Super Moderator
i'm just wondering here. The British are claiming that they are just asking for what they signed up for? Did the contract stipulate that Australia would get the source code for JSF? My personal opinion is that all the British are asking for is the source code, not the ToT for the stealth technology, but just code. While it is still important and cost a lot of money, it would not be that helpful to say China or Russia if they actually got their hands on it.

Also, I was arguing with certain people a while back on the cost of JSF
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_005258.php
"The sophisticated, radar-evading F-35 will cost an estimated $256 billion for the 2,593 jets that the United States and Britain plan to buy."
that works out ot be about 100 million each. Is that just the cost of the planes or what else does that include? I got trashed on another forum because I did not think F-35 could be cheaper than 60 million each.
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
headsup

Britain sees progress in F-35 tech transfer talks


By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Britain is more optimistic about the prospects of buying the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter after crucial talks with U.S. officials over technology transfers went well, a British embassy spokesman said on Monday.

The sophisticated, radar-evading F-35 will cost an estimated $256 billion for the 2,593 jets that the United States and Britain plan to buy. Britain alone would likely spend $25 billion to buy and maintain its F-35 aircraft over the next 40 years, cording to the Pentagon.

Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin Corp. is the prime contractor for the F-35, and Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp., was chosen to build the plane's initial engine.

Britain's top arms buyer, Lord Drayson, told a U.S. Senate committee last week that his country would be unable to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on buying the aircraft unless the United States improved access to some of its classified technology.

Embassy spokesman Steve Atkins said Drayson had "extremely constructive" talks with top U.S. officials after his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee and progress had been made, although some areas still needed work.

"We are more optimistic that we can find a way through that will meet our requirements, and look to move forward now with greater confidence toward the next key milestone in the program signing of the MOU," he said.

Drayson met with Pentagon and State Department officials during his week in Washington, including the U.S. Defense Department's chief arms buyer, Kenneth Krieg.

"It was a productive meeting," said Krieg's spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin, noting the two men met and spoke frequently.

She said the United States had provided more information on technology issues "than ever before" to Britain, given its large role in funding development of the new fighter.

Britain has committed $2 billion to developing the fighter, more than twice the money provided by the other seven international partners working on the F-35 with Washington.

Irwin said U.S. officials would continue working with Britain and its other partners on the technology transfer issues, with an eye to wrapping up MOU negotiations in June, allowing national reviews ahead of a December signature.

Overall, she said, more than 1,000 technology transfers related to the F-35 had been approved, but there were "still a small number that are still under review."
On Monday, Fitch Ratings raised Lockheed Martin's debt ratings to "A-minus" from "BBB-plus," citing the company's stable outlook for some of its largest defense programs, cash generation and financial flexibility.
 

vinnanater

New Member
GF is correct, I have been to some briefings, and Lockheed (along with DODs blessing) will be interested in selling to a select few US allies (Japan was mentioned, UK and Oz were very remote possibilities), it came straight from one of the Program VPs, the gist was we are "actively" persuing foreign sales opportunities of the F-22. However, personally I am not sure if Oz or UK will be interested in the F-22. I would think they(in Oz's case ) want something that would be a direct replacement or an advancement over the F-111. The proposed FB-22 would have been a good candidate, but that is dead for now!
Our view is that any possible foreign sales will come to fruition once the aircraft has been in operation, and has publicly "demonstrated" what it can do. What hurts the plane is that there is a lot of capability it has that has not been disclosed for general public discussion, it truly is a tranformational airplane. The pilots we talk to are very very impressed with this plane, the F-15 as good as it is, is "just no match" to the F-22.
Ofcourse if there are any foreign sales the spectre of technology transfer and source code etc., will rise again, such is the nature of this business, nobody wants to give an inch more then they have to.
 

vinnanater

New Member
tphuang said:
i'm just wondering here. The British are claiming that they are just asking for what they signed up for? Did the contract stipulate that Australia would get the source code for JSF? My personal opinion is that all the British are asking for is the source code, not the ToT for the stealth technology, but just code. While it is still important and cost a lot of money, it would not be that helpful to say China or Russia if they actually got their hands on it.

Also, I was arguing with certain people a while back on the cost of JSF
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_005258.php
"The sophisticated, radar-evading F-35 will cost an estimated $256 billion for the 2,593 jets that the United States and Britain plan to buy."
that works out ot be about 100 million each. Is that just the cost of the planes or what else does that include? I got trashed on another forum because I did not think F-35 could be cheaper than 60 million each.

I will address two things here....

Source code IS very important. The JSF and F-22 are literally flying computers and are fusing multiple disciplines of a weapons platform. You have the flight controls, weapons controls, data links, multiple sensors...and so on. All this is combined into a package that the pilot can "work" with and do his job. Any country or company would love to have their hands on the source of an advanced and fullly integrated avionics package. The airframe is secondary anymore, yes, stealth is nice and so is manueverabilty...etc, but as we know, a lot of countries can build fairly capable airframes anymore! What really makes a diff. is the sensor suite (radar and other active and passive sensors), the data links AND finally the "brain power", in other words the computers and the software to collect all the information and prioritize and present it in a coherent way to the pilot and in some cases to other "clients" in the air and on the ground, the "software" is doing all this while taking care of other mundane tasks of actually helping to fly the plane and evade threats...etc. To put it simply, take the example of the Indian Air Force, they have taken some very capable Russian airframes and with the help of some European firms and their own home grown solutions in the sensors and avionics area have come up with a weapons system that is believed to be better than what even the Russians have in their inventory. I think you get my point. If you have the source code of an advanced avionics package it can be tailored to fit another airframe, provided you have access to the avionics hardware that can take advantage of the software.

Secondly, you mentioned the total program cost of JSF and per plane price breakdown. Without, looking into all the details at the business office I would venture to say that when the total program costs are talked about, usually they are talking about the total cost of ownership, ie, included in there is the initial airframe purchase price, spares, additional options added to base weapons package, possibily cost of support and training agreements..the list can get long and nasty, and I have not even mentioned any development costs, they may or not be included in the total program cost. Whereas, when a per plane price is "advertised", usually that is the price of an airplane that a customer pays on delivery after the plane has rolled off the factory floor and gone through the initial pre-delivery flight test. In short the price of a newly delivered plane and fully fitted (and ready to go to war) plane are two different things and are addressed differently, it all depends on who is talking and whether you support or oppose a program. It certainly gives the politicians and the media something to play with and use as they see fit. ;)
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
vinnanater said:
I will address two things here....

Source code IS very important. The JSF and F-22 are literally flying computers and are fusing multiple disciplines of a weapons platform. You have the flight controls, weapons controls, data links, multiple sensors...and so on. All this is combined into a package that the pilot can "work" with and do his job. Any country or company would love to have their hands on the source of an advanced and fullly integrated avionics package. The airframe is secondary anymore, yes, stealth is nice and so is manueverabilty...etc, but as we know, a lot of countries can build fairly capable airframes anymore! What really makes a diff. is the sensor suite (radar and other active and passive sensors), the data links AND finally the "brain power", in other words the computers and the software to collect all the information and prioritize and present it in a coherent way to the pilot and in some cases to other "clients" in the air and on the ground, the "software" is doing all this while taking care of other mundane tasks of actually helping to fly the plane and evade threats...etc. To put it simply, take the example of the Indian Air Force, they have taken some very capable Russian airframes and with the help of some European firms and their own home grown solutions in the sensors and avionics area have come up with a weapons system that is believed to be better than what even the Russians have in their inventory. I think you get my point. If you have the source code of an advanced avionics package it can be tailored to fit another airframe, provided you have access to the avionics hardware that can take advantage of the software.
yeah, I understand what you are saying. I actually have a decent idea of the kind of software required on something like that. What I'm saying is that the source code for different parts of JSF are designed for a very specific role. If you take this and try to put it on a different plane, you are going to have a hard time modifying it to the point that it works unless you are the original developer. I remember a friend of my who worked for a company that develops operating system for a very specific control system on F-16. After talking to him, the impression I got was that the amount of work required to put that code on another fighter would be astronomical, because you would have to find a part on that other fighter that performs the same task and even after that, it would take a lot of modification. The other issue is language compatibility. As far as I know, the source code on a Chinese fighter like J-10 and on JSF are written in completely different languages. In fact, they are so different, it's not easy to interface them. Anyway, what I'm saying is that there is a host of issues from software point of view that it's not a matter of as soon as China gets it, it will be able to use it.
Secondly, you mentioned the total program cost of JSF and per plane price breakdown. Without, looking into all the details at the business office I would venture to say that when the total program costs are talked about, usually they are talking about the total cost of ownership, ie, included in there is the initial airframe purchase price, spares, additional options added to base weapons package, possibily cost of support and training agreements..the list can get long and nasty, and I have not even mentioned any development costs, they may or not be included in the total program cost. Whereas, when a per plane price is "advertised", usually that is the price of an airplane that a customer pays on delivery after the plane has rolled off the factory floor and gone through the initial pre-delivery flight test. In short the price of a newly delivered plane and fully fitted (and ready to go to war) plane are two different things and are addressed differently, it all depends on who is talking and whether you support or oppose a program. It certainly gives the politicians and the media something to play with and use as they see fit. ;)
thanks a lot:)
 

vinnanater

New Member
tphuang said:
yeah, I understand what you are saying. I actually have a decent idea of the kind of software required on something like that. What I'm saying is that the source code for different parts of JSF are designed for a very specific role. If you take this and try to put it on a different plane, you are going to have a hard time modifying it to the point that it works unless you are the original developer. I remember a friend of my who worked for a company that develops operating system for a very specific control system on F-16. After talking to him, the impression I got was that the amount of work required to put that code on another fighter would be astronomical, because you would have to find a part on that other fighter that performs the same task and even after that, it would take a lot of modification. The other issue is language compatibility. As far as I know, the source code on a Chinese fighter like J-10 and on JSF are written in completely different languages. In fact, they are so different, it's not easy to interface them. Anyway, what I'm saying is that there is a host of issues from software point of view that it's not a matter of as soon as China gets it, it will be able to use it.

thanks a lot:)

two things to respond here...!

Why would the Brits be so adamant about wanting the source if it was so much harder for them to work on it than the "original developer" to modify the code for them, why not just have the original vendor do it for them if the need arises...or are they planning to abandon the "special relationship" with the U.S., I suggest that once someone has the overall system logic map of an avionics package AND the source code for the algorhythms supporting it, it does not take a genius to modify and adapt it.

So, I come to your second point of a totally different airframe and avionics equipment. Yes, the original source code of one airplane is not going to be totally "plug and play" in another airframe and avionics package, yes it may take converting the code to another "computer language"...what will it be? ADA, C, C++, Fortran, Assembler...or some home grown language??no BIG DEAL. If you would read my previous reply again, you might see my emphasis was on total packages and how the whole system works as an independent platform and also as a part of a whole vast array of other land, air and sea weapon systems. We are not talking about how some discrete part of a subsystem works and the software for it. Really, we are talking about the logical "blue print" of an advance weapons system and how it integrates with the rest of the armed forces of that country. For a potential adversary the best thing to get a hold of is the documentation of a logical map of the system and the supporting source code, short of that, source code will do nicely...I am sure you have heard of the term "reverse engineering" ;), there are quite a few companies AND host countries that are very good at it.
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
vinnanater said:
two things to respond here...!

Why would the Brits be so adamant about wanting the source if it was so much harder for them to work on it than the "original developer" to modify the code for them, why not just have the original vendor do it for them if the need arises...or are they planning to abandon the "special relationship" with the U.S., I suggest that once someone has the overall system logic map of an avionics package AND the source code for the algorhythms supporting it, it does not take a genius to modify and adapt it.

So, I come to your second point of a totally different airframe and avionics equipment. Yes, the original source code of one airplane is not going to be totally "plug and play" in another airframe and avionics package, yes it may take converting the code to another "computer language"...what will it be? ADA, C, C++, Fortran, Assembler...or some home grown language??no BIG DEAL. If you would read my previous reply again, you might see my emphasis was on total packages and how the whole system works as an independent platform and also as a part of a whole vast array of other land, air and sea weapon systems. We are not talking about how some discrete part of a subsystem works and the software for it. Really, we are talking about the logical "blue print" of an advance weapons system and how it integrates with the rest of the armed forces of that country. For a potential adversary the best thing to get a hold of is the documentation of a logical map of the system and the supporting source code, short of that, source code will do nicely...I am sure you have heard of the term "reverse engineering" ;), there are quite a few companies AND host countries that are very good at it.
I think this will be my last post on this issue, since neither you or I are going to change our mind.

You listed some good points. I would say that getting a blue print of the architecture of a huge software system like F-22 would be more helpful than getting the actual code. But then again, the design of the Chinese systems have been developed too, maybe they are most likely not equal to the American counterparts, it would cost a lot to the development process to modify the old design so that it will incorporate the more advanced system. Basically, I'm agreeing with you that it would be a nice system to study with.

As for the brits, I'm guessing they would be asking for the entire software package, with a clear interface and documentation of what each component does and they would know exactly what each piece of the code do in the overall scheme. I doubt the Chinese would get anything close to that even if they manage to steal the code somehow. Ever tried to figure out what a code does if you are not given the right documentation and nothing to test it on? You can probably program the same thing yourself faster than actually trying to figure it out. With the brits, they would definitely be able to contact their American counterparts all the time for any clarification on what each part does. Chinese would not have this luxury as you can imagine. Also, if you have the JSF to test with, you can gain a better understanding of what each part of the code does (actually this is normally what people do to figure out how certain part of the program works). Again, this would not be available to the Chinese.

If the code for one part of JSF is given to a different plane, that part would most likely not exist or have different physical properties than the one on JSF. Basically, I'm saying that the code for individual subcomponents are not really that useful.
 

vinnanater

New Member
tphuang said:
....Basically, I'm agreeing with you that it would be a nice system to study with......


.....If the code for one part of JSF is given to a different plane, that part would most likely not exist or have different physical properties than the one on JSF. Basically, I'm saying that the code for individual subcomponents are not really that useful.....

Yeah we are probably more in agreement than not...just few minor points are probably in contention.

And, yes, I have said before, as you state....source code for a discrete component is pretty much worthless. It is the overall logic map and the supporting algorhythms of a weapons sytem that matter. Source code only helps in decrypting the system.

Anyway, nice discussion :)
 

Glider

New Member
I am a little out of my deapth here but can I suggest that one reason why the UK would want the code is that we have a reputation for modifying planes that we have purchased and to do that we would need the code. We also have a habit of keeping things in service longer than the USA and would not want to be held ransom to companies 'encouraging' to buy their latest toys. Skyflash missiles instead of later Sparrows is a small example.
 

Kurt Plummer

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Rossfrb_1,

I have long since known that the Brits wanted FACO because that's the only way that they will get the kinds of source code authority on the avionics package and the single loom layup of large scale monolithic composites which are the baseline behind which you create aspect adaptive LO.

And they will never get it because 150-200 jets for the JCA requirement is just not enough to be handing over the keys to U.S. LO. And BAe's status as a member of EADS Eurofighter 'commission', along with Janes quoted statements by EADS and Thales about wanting BAe to bring U.S. LO to the table have more or less assured that there will never be sufficient compartmentalization to allow this to happen.

You need only look at the JTIDS/MIDS (now 2 generations behind the SOA) hassle to see what happens when proprietary techniques as much as product is handed over.

>>
The reasons I don't believe it is true.
A) I haven't read about this anywhere else
>>

The Brits NEED to be regional salesmen for the JSF to be able to afford their own. Unfortunately, the best they could /ever/ hope for would be associate-contractor equivalents to the SABCA/Fokker teaming of the 1980s whereby a central 'bundle' of key subassemblies were sent over from GDFW and the main integration of key assemblies was still largely based on U.S. exclusive hardware (or hardware which had already been replaced in the actives as with the APG-66/68). Which is to say that all the key elements of the JSF data package and all the highest value subassemblies would remain totally U.S. sourced (for profit as well as security reasons). Of course what most people don't know is that 'offsets' are really just a mirage, at best used to provide reasonable fiscal surety for FMS loans, as the customer nation typically ends up paying anywheres from a 120 to 200 percent markup in the for-value trades. At the same time, multiple assembly lines also require multiple parts sourcings and subassembly integration tails (you ought to see what they have to do to bring Airbus widebody fuselage subs out from Germany and down to Toulon and then inland) which means that the total efficiency of the line goes down and if /someone/ isn't subsidizing the whole process, you end up with massive overheads.

>>
B) RAF/RN defence policy is so STOVL oriented - there are no competitors, the poms just couldn't pull out.
>>

STOVL actually decreases U.S. military capability by allowing the USMC to give up being a permanent RAG to the USN. Something they would /dearly/ love to do now that USN Reserves are half what they used to be and the Squids are determined to never again be 'gap' toothed embarrassed by a 30 day void of operations capability between 9/11 and 10/10 so that one squadron in each MAW is now effectively 'always carqualled' for emergency deployment to stiffen USN capabilities.

At the same time, the -original- USMC order was for something like 680 jets. The requirement is now down to 305. And Assault carriers have neither the facilities (JP and engine cells and avionics stocks/weapons magazines) to support more than their typical 8 aircraft detachments. Nor the flexibility (single axis deck) to support joint helo/STOVL ops.

Even on a purely up and away level, the STOVL variant's performance is little better than an HII's and will likely get /worse/ as continued weight problems (they shaved 2,500lbs but the original overage was 3,400-3,700 which means they are right on the bleeding edge of their alloted 10% growth margin) manifest themselves through delivery.

When you have recovery problems with more than GBU-31 and AMRAAM and you can only go about 400-450nm against a USAF/USN requirement for 650-700nm; AND you are probe limiting to the boom tanker force, you have no reason to brag about contributing to the warfighter by virtue of your 'uniqueness'.

Lastly, the Brits will not be FACO'ing the STOVL version, they will be building the most-demanded variant (cheapest at around 65 million flyaway) which is the CTOL.

Which is where Americans stand up and say "Enough!" You paid 2 billion out of a 45 billion dollar development effort. You get a VLO STOVL _which we don't need_ without having paid for the full R&D. And now you want a piece of the pie for the versions that formerly would have (FOAS) been an RAF buy but which now your are trying to leverage via 'licensed distributor' sales so that you can also compete on the export market with the Flubber?

No sir. We would be better off leaving the British to (remember the Jaguar!) suck up to the French on Rafale N/M. Not least because that jet, with AMSAR technology and BVRAAM (and AASM and ARMIGER and SCALP) is easily the match of the JSF _against any but VLO threats_. And after all 'we're all friends here aren't we?'. Snort.

>>
C) Talk of modifying the Typhoon for carrier use seems just too preposterous. There'd have to be a major design overhaul just on the landing gear alone.
>>

More than that once you take into account all likely operating conditions (precision land doesn't obviate vertical loads on a heaving deck. Corrosion proofing and drains in a marine environment may require changes in up to 20% of the structures, greater operational reserves for blue water ops means that you have to qualify specific combinations of external fuel and heavy weight munitions at _higher descent rates_ for a given view-over-nose AOA.). My question then being 'why do they want to'? It's clear that the Franco German EU-alliance (what Britain fought two world wars to prevent now a military-economic reality) will rule the landed force structure. But do you realize what 'taking what's left' will /mean/?

When a President asks "Where's the nearest carrier?" the USN /groans/. Because by their very 'presence' they triple if not quintuple their operating costs for no real-war gain in prestige. This is why their R&D programs are full of bogus numbers for planes that cost more than they can buy enough to fill their decks with. This is why we have 12 carriers with 40 airframe airwings instead of 15 with 70-90. This is why the USN ops cycle on -replacement- airframes is once every ten years instead of once every 20-40 (given ANG handmedowns) for the USAF.

And this is what you deem you 'have to have' for your own security? Bah. You'll end up protecting post-NATO EUropean interests without any thanks whatsoever.

A wiser move would be to drop manned and even deck-launch aircraft /altogether/. Instead investing in UAVs which can be launched from CG/DDG type assets and then combining them with high efficiency, small size, scramjet technology so that you can put RSTA only over the beach. And then fire-to-depth weapons which arrive faster and _are cheaper_ than manned airpower.

A recent Raytheon restock++ on 2,200 Blk.IV Tomahawks ran us 1.6 billion dollars. The day you need to fight a Falklands type campaign with more than that _and no help_ will be a dark day indeed.

>>
But I'm sure the poms, prolly just like everyone else (non US) who have signed up, are probably getting cheesed off over the technology transfer issues. I suspect that this story may be one way for the poms to let the yanks know that they are getting pissed off.
>>

The safety of a secret is directly relateable to the SQUARE of the number of people who know it. Which means that 'if'-

1. U.S. LO technology is more capable than what other countries can develop (i.e. we have something beyond the basic bluff shapes which are readily visible) the more people we sell it to, the shorter it's operational utility window will be in 'fighting the good fight'.

2. If it costs 104 million dollars per plane (PAUC now before Congress) WHY would you want to pay for the silver bullet when 'Day 2' you can go in with your Flubbers or Rafales as readily as you did with Tornados in DS?

Wanting military technology purely to keep up with the Jones' has to be balanced against what you will pay YOURSELF to have it. And what the proliferation of said tech will mean to the escalation of effective countermeasures to it.

ARGUMENT:
In the end, I think the Brits know this. I think they have seen the writing on the wall for a long time now and the combination of what Iraq is doing to them and U.S., budgetarily. As well as what the 'go right young man!' lag on schedules means when M-THEL is _already_ shooting artillery rounds out of the sky. And Neuron is looking to bypass Gen-5 with Gen-6, purely on the hubris of what is effective vs. what is affordable airpower (UCAVs win both).

So, let's take the USAF program officers word for it when he says that (far from the original 2,938 originally asked for) '1,600 is the point where cost and inventory graphlines start to separate'. Now factor in multi-carriage IAMs like the GBU-39 and Iraq. So that you have roughly 1,100 F-35As, 305 F-35B and 170 (that's right One Seven Ought) F-35C.

WHO ELSE IS GOING TO BUY THE REMAINDER WHEN DEWS AND UCAVS PROMISE TO CHANGE THE WAY AIRWARS ARE FOUGHT TOWARDS 'PURELY AT COST' SACRIFICIAL GAMBIT?

i.e. The USAF 'offer of early lots to speed the production rate' sounds more and more like highest-ticket attempts to sell airframes to help layoff the costs of the JSF _three planes one name_ R&D process. So that FMS purchasers, far from getting 28-32-35 million dollar airframes (1994 program start) or 45-50 million dollar airframes (2001 SDD award quote by Roche) or even 65-73 million dollar airframes (CBO/CRS numbers in 1997) are in fact paying up to 110-115 million bucks each. BEFORE ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION (2013 IOC will likely be closer to 150 million).

I personally don't see 4,000 airframes out there. I don't see more than 500-750 /added onto/ the final U.S. purchase numbers.

Which means 'The City' (British equivalent to 'The Street') are probably trying to create deliberate friction as face-saving (don't want to look like a bunch of Frenchmen do'ya?:``) prior to backing away from the program altogether.

The sad part being that this was all known a long time ago. I forget which SecAF (Hornburg?) it was that retired because he foresaw that "The ABL and F-22 are the only good things coming out of the pipe...". i.e. the only useful weapons systems. Weapons systems which, by themselves could change the face of how we did business.

Yet Congress wanted the JSF because it was a high-inventory purchase which was (at the time) exportable to help with home pork and foreign trade imbalance.

The Air Services (three Air Forces, one nation, what a waste) wanted it because that way they could ensure their little-boys-toys club priveleges at that the Congressional beggars table every FY.

And Industry wanted it because they make money off of suffering 'potential or implied' that is uncontrolled arms export and the 'generation after next' response to destabilizing escalation of technology.

And we are left with a commitment to 257 billion dollars that now NO ONE wants. Because the imminent collapse of the U.S. inventory purchase (if not economy) has left foreign sales holding the bag on a 'cheap' fighter which is so no longer.

CONCLUSION:
Assuming I didn't have any directed energy weapons research worth a damn but I -could- get my hands on target drone/recce drone baseline stuff (plateau'd since the late 60s), if I wanted to buy a stealth killer system I would take the mean cost of the jet and divide it by the average number of AAM it carried, plus two.

Then I would create a truck-catapult launched turbo-SAM with secure networking and the ability to hunt-as-skirmish-line sweep with mixed RF/EO seekers. And cap my price for this system which is capable of both _reattack and recovery_ and at the cost/AAM total number.

For a 50 million dollar Flanker 'with all the fixings', that's about 3.3 million dollars per unit for 15 units (2 more than a Flanker can shoot down). For a JSF, that's probably closer to 17 million dollars (per recoverable missile) for Six such weapons.

And while I would not necessarily 'win' an air war, I would still do better than say the Serbians did with their paired MiG launches by inadequately trained (I stop short of saying cowardly for the odds were typically 4 vs. 40 out of a total 70 vs. 400 commitment). Simply because robots have nothing to live for. And they can afford to be thrown away in significantly larger force /or/ engagement fractions than any manned system could.

It is when you stop to THINK about what this and the followon DEWS mean, that you start to realize what an incredibly poor choice the JSF is. Solely as a Federal Dole paid into the Sky Knight unions orphans and widows fund.


KPl.
 

Supe

New Member
Kurt Plummer said:
R

No sir. We would be better off leaving the British to (remember the Jaguar!) suck up to the French on Rafale N/M. Not least because that jet, with AMSAR technology and BVRAAM (and AASM and ARMIGER and SCALP) is easily the match of the JSF _against any but VLO threats_. And after all 'we're all friends here aren't we?'. Snort.


And this is what you deem you 'have to have' for your own security? Bah. You'll end up protecting post-NATO EUropean interests without any thanks whatsoever.

A wiser move would be to drop manned and even deck-launch aircraft /altogether/. Instead investing in UAVs which can be launched from CG/DDG type assets and then combining them with high efficiency, small size, scramjet technology so that you can put RSTA only over the beach. And then fire-to-depth weapons which arrive faster and _are cheaper_ than manned airpower.
Interesting. Much more useful than DDG types (space requirements?), would be the benefit of using an evolved 'pocket carrier' with native amphibious capability, which would fit British doctrine quite well. (space for helos/expeditionary force/ucavs/ and a great asset in peackeeping - enforcing operations/battle management? etc). I can envisage this as what the RAN will be using future LHD's for. For the cost of two CVF's the Brits (at a guess) could probably buy three perhaps four of these 'pocket carriers'.

Just on UCAVs though. Are they secure assets? You wouldn't want jamming/cracking of communication protocols to render them useless or worse, be employed against you. Are these platforms of sufficient maturity?
 
Top