US to withhold F-35 fighter software codes

[Orange Poodle]

Looks like the USA is not going to supply source codes for F35 software to anyone:

EXCLUSIVE-US to withhold F-35 fighter software codes - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters/2009/11/24/2009-11-24T191618Z_01_N24300896_RTRIDST_0_LOCKHEED-FIGHTER-EXCLUSIVE.html)

"That includes everybody," he said, acknowledging this was not entirely popular among core partners -- Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.

"Nobody's happy with it completely. but everybody's satisfied and understands," he said of withholding the code from partners and Israel, which also has sought the technology transfer as part of a possible purchase of up to 75 F-35s

Good to know where we stand..........

OP

[arandcee]

well that answers the question of what they'll do with the shed they kept the Chinooks in then! :}

[ORAC]

I won't bother going back and digging them out, but successive SecDefs have stated that access to the codes was a prerequisite for a UK purchase.

No codes - no UK F-35 buy.

I wonder if the government will stick by that or now back down?

[anotherthing]

Not the first time that they have done this - good to see what 'Special Relationship' really means. Blair really did make the UK Americas' lap dog

[VinRouge]

I am betting the source includes a routine for "No missile launch" and "Americans can turn the engine off mid flight" delivered by link 16 then? :}

[green granite]

Even more reason to stop the extradition of the guy who hacked into the Pentagon's computer, we need him to hack the source code. :E

[Flying Serpent]

What a GREAT idea Granite...get Gary McKinnon on the case.

:ok:

[Buster Hyman]

Big deal! China probably has it already...

[Cows getting bigger]

Old Gordo could be rubbing his hands here. An excellent excuse to duck out of the purchase saving squillions. he then decides there's no need for a carrier with no aircraft, another few squillion. No people required to man the non-existent kit, even more savings.

Of course, I could be wrong. :)

[Thor Nogson]

A quick question - without the opportunity to examine the source code, would it be possible to confirm airworthiness of the aircraft before entry into service?

TN

p.s. Green Granite :D

[Scotteo]

Not the first time that they have done this - good to see what 'Special Relationship' really means. Blair really did make the UK Americas' lap dog

Not forgeting our deceitful stab in the back from our 'pals' across the water back in the late 1940's during the contest of supersonic flight.

Britain has been Americas' lap dog before Blair was even born!

[Stuff]

Even with access to source code proving software correctness is almost impossible. It certainly isn't cheap in terms of man hours or money.

History has shown that software bugs will exist in almost all non-trivial code regardless of how much testing is implemented.

History's Worst Software Bugs (http://www.wired.com/software/coolapps/news/2005/11/69355)

I'm surprised the Airbus A320 crash at the French airshow didn't make the list but there are plenty of air and space examples in there.

Edit: Fixed the link

[Thor Nogson]

Even with access to source code proving software correctness is almost impossible. It certainly isn't cheap in terms of man hours or money.

I understand that. With 8 million lines of code, there will inevitably be some bugs, but my question is whether it can be certified as airworthy?

Can the MOD just take the manufacturers word for it? Are they allowed to?

TN

[Razor61]

Meanwhile Australia has just confirmed their order of the JSF will go ahead despite U.S. officials saying they will keep secret the sensitive software codes to be used in the radar-evading fighter, limiting the ability of investor
countries to maintain and upgrade the fighters without U.S. involvement.
The single-engine F-35 can switch quickly between air-to-ground and
air-to-air missions while still flying -- tricks heavily dependent on its 8
million lines of onboard software code.

(Australian news article).

[Gainesy]

The single-engine F-35 can switch quickly between air-to-ground and air-to-air missions while still flying


So could the Hunter.:rolleyes:

[The Real Slim Shady]

The single-engine F-35 can switch quickly between air-to-ground and
air-to-air missions while still flying -- tricks heavily dependent on its 8
million lines of onboard software code

The switch from air - to - air to air - to -ground, software dependant, could result, if it's a little "buggy," in the air - to - ground being a "once only - disassemble Johnny 5" style manoeuvre!

[Benjybh]

And, more importantly, the F/A-18!

[L J R]

..and most other aircraft that carried a-a and a-s stuff...(at the same time)

[walter kennedy]

Buster Hyman wrote:
<<Big deal! China probably has it already... >>
You hit the nail on the head, I think – trouble happened with another aircraft with the latest advanced avionics (can't remember off the top of my head just now – could have been an F16 or F18 variant?) - Israel supplied the software to China.
The USA can hardly give such software to some friendlies and not Israel, can it? Hence the new stuff can't go to anyone.

[glad rag]

I think you are missing the point Walter, by 9000 miles or so.:ouch::ouch::ouch:

[VIProds]

In the 90's Computer Companies would test just over 80% of software code, as it was just too expensive to test higher than that. By using the computer for all sorts of applications, the Customers would be testing the remaining 20% of code and discover any "bugs" that were still there. Once the bug was discovered by the Customers, a software update or patch would be sent out to all Customers. Thank goodness for all concerned that mainframe computers don't fly very high.

From what Thor Nogson says, if the source code has 8 million lines of code and if the same rational is still used, then there could still be over 1 million lines of code that has been untested and have bugs in the code.

[SPIT]

Typical of the YANKS , they always think they are special. Anyone can tell or give them something 'ie' Radar,Designs of Aircraft parts that could exceed the speed of sound ect,ect but they do not or will not reciprocate ??? :mad::mad::mad:

[glad rag]

It would also be really, really nice if someone could quantify just what we are buying under the stealth guise, and also show that "our" aircraft will not have any mysterious stealth performance failings in relation to the US aircraft..........:yuk:

[brickhistory]

SPIT, you left out the angled carrier deck, the mirrored (Fresnal?) carrier landing system, and the steam catapult.

Our 10 (or is it still 11?) CVNs do quite nicely with those, thanks!

So, how about that Marshall Plan, eh?


Bottom line, what was in the formal, signed agreement/contract?

[Cows getting bigger]

BH

On 27 May 2006, President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that "Both governments agree that the UK will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft."[101] On 12 December 2006, Lord Drayson signed an agreement which met the UK's demands for further participation, i.e., access to software source code and operational sovereignty. The agreement allows "an unbroken British chain of command" for operation of the aircraft. Drayson said Britain would "not be required to have a US citizen in our own operational chain of command".

Anyway, even if it has been agreed in the contract, I suspect the USA will do its usual thing and just ignore the rest of the world with a "sue me" attitude.

[Dengue_Dude]

. . . and there is nothing new under the sun

Ecclesiastes 1:9 Not that I'm particularly religious, but this was written thousands of years ago and is STILL as true as when it was written.

Frankly it may well be that our Procurement bods have learned nothing since the Chinook debacle.

It's no good rubbishing a nation because fools within each government and peripheral companies prat about and act like arses.

"Special Relationship" was useful from each viewpoint when it was useful. It's a political ping-pong ball that harps on about what amounts to historical events. BUT . . . have we forgotten so quickly stuff like the 9Ls the US supplied AND the satellite Int amongst loads of others?

Our country and certain "facilities" we can provide are useful to the US, it is naive to expect equality, it's not even reasonable.

Of course WE would never sell anything on to someone else having disabled important bits - hell, we learned it from the master, Bill Gates.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Dust off Replica Testbed and build our own............Forgot we're skint :rolleyes:

[brickhistory]

Cows, I'm far from knowledgable about the agreement actually signed between the UK and the US. I might also point out that there's a new President responsible for this now - without trying to get this thread thrown into JetBlast, I'm sure the Czechs and the Poles are a little unhappy about now as well.

My personal opinion is that if sharing the codes was part of the signed deal, then the UK should get them per the contract.

If not, then not.

Other than that, I'm just enjoying the "we're not appreciated" parade.

[eglnyt]

A quick question - without the opportunity to examine the source code, would it be possible to confirm airworthiness of the aircraft before entry into service?

All the standards I'm aware of would require access to the source code to assure software of the level of integrity required for flight control and avionics. That doesn't mean that it can't be assured if the US witholds the source code, just that the partners won't be able to assure it themselves independently.

It does mean that they'll have us over a barrel for future upgrades and no doubt they'll demand expensive annual maintenance fees because they know there's no possibility of competition.

[Two's in]

There are two issues here;

1. The Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) pertaining to the Code.

2. The export of a US Defense Article ie. the code.

1. If the IPR is not a shared asset (eg owned by Lockheed or a sub-contractor) its release and distribution is a matter of commercial agreement (or not in this case) and is nothing to do with vacuous politicians in monkey suits making promises they can't keep. The code is someone's property and earnings for the next 30 years - if you want it, you buy it, it's business.

2. If the code is deemed to contain material that the US regards as a Defense Article (what are the chances?) then any subsequent release to a Foreign Person must be controlled by an export license. If the US State Department decides it can't be exported, it can't be exported, business or not (see case 1). Sure the State Department can be "advised" about export release, but only if the US really wants to go there.

This is a really unique and new experience so you can see why everyone is totally surprised. This hasn't ever happened before, well apart from all the other times it has happened. Ask someone how much source code the MoD owns for the US bits of the Apache - it's a round number.

If access to the source was made a contractual liability it would be there. The fact that it isn't should tell you all you need to know.

PS. Good to see the Static Code Analysis flat-earthers are alive and well in the MoD.


Old news is so exciting.

[Cows getting bigger]

So the politicians were fibbing then? :eek: :)

[mr fish]

in these days of "chip" controlled kettles, cameras, can openers etc, could an aircraft WITHOUT computers in the loop be a viable system?

just for the record, what was the last mil airframe built without the benefit of flight control software?

don't flame me folks, i'm just curious to know how far we've really advanced!!!

[dctyke]

Mr Fish wrote:
'in these days of "chip" controlled kettles, cameras, can openers etc, could an aircraft WITHOUT computers in the loop be a viable system?'

Could well be if they ever dust off the idea of EMP weapons (if they ever did stop development).................. of course we could counter that by giving our tech filled aircraft a lovely thick coat of lead!

[Trojan1981]

Meanwhile Australia has just confirmed their order of the JSF will go ahead despite U.S. officials saying they will keep secret the sensitive software codes

and you think you're the lapdogs.....

Why are we still buying American equipment when the days of our involvment in American lead coalitions are probably numbered? If the current trend towards voting green continues in Australia, we will not be committing to any conflict beyond our shores soon.

[Rigga]

I can see the future handover ceremony now...

President Bliar moves to the front of the Grandstand, shakes the hand of the VP Customer Assurance (Exports and Rejects), takes the keys from him the for the EuAF's first F-35 and asks for the Log Book - only to be given the second copy of a piece of thin Pink Paper that says (in north americanese):

"We think the bits we didn't show you, when we built this aeroplane, are fine - No, Really! they are!! We wouldn't lie to you? our favourite and most trusted customer with a special relationship (Oh...where's the money?)

[Buster Hyman]

I reckon, in Oz, we can build our own! All those years of "Industry participation", must have taught us how to build these things...after all, we built the Boomerang & the Collins class Subs didn't we?................... :uhoh:

Umm...how much for a dozen again?:(

[Thelma Viaduct]

Will source codes restrictions prevent the UK from using asraam, modified meteor, SS and any other non-spam weapon?

[TBM-Legend]

SPIT - you don't like the American attitude to keeping their own developments like source codes etc. Don't buy the F-35, build your own!!!! No one makes you buy their stuff....:{

[pr00ne]

Er, forgive me for interrupting all this outrage, but a few questions?

Isn't the software code proprietary to the company that developed it?

Does the RAF have access to the ALL of C-130J software code?

Does the US military have access to ALL of the C-130J software code?

Same questions can be posed for C-17, AIM-120.

[Finnpog]

There might be a difference between the manufacturer not releasing all code to a customer as it is commercially highly sensitive, and a government slapping a No Foreigner restriction on a deal.

The Forbes article doesn't state which has occurred and flits between quoting the company rep and using the phrase 'The United States'.

If Drayson had secured access prior to signing the contract and now the deal is changed, the MoD should consider whether it is in the country's interests to bang out.

Perhaps BAe Systems and Rolls Royce need to with hold some of their 'bits' back and start the first North Atlantic trade war between the EUSSR and the US

[tucumseh]

To be fair to the likes of Drayson, when he made his promises he probably asked junior advisors what Government / MoD policy was. He’d have been told “Acquire source code and establish Software Support Cells. Bidders have to complete a Compliance Matrix – non complaint, no contract”.

But, like so much policy and regulations, it doesn’t keep up with technological advances or reflect reality. Or the fact that for 14 years our leaders have been systematically stripping MoD of the expertise and funding necessary to comply with this policy. Both Gray and Haddon-Cave reports dwell on this.

The last time I had to consider a SSC it soon became blindingly obvious that the only reason it was being pushed by the Service concerned was because the Military ILS Manager happened to be enthusiastic software amateur. When asked for a “sustainability plan” which involved a through-life guarantee of a fully staffed and funded SSC, the system toppled. In other words, a policy is only an aspiration until fully funded.

Yes, they may have set up an SSC, but the moment they had a funding or staffing problem, and a gap appeared in, for example, the configuration control audit trail, then you’d be in deep poo. This is precisely what happened on the likes of C130 and Nimrod; infinitely simpler systems.



This is part of a much larger problem. We, as a country, try to punch far above our weight, and the Government won’t (can’t) feed us enough to balance the scales at weigh-in.

[hulahoop7]

I'm just wondering if something has been lost in the detail here.

Programming source code, or making alterations to source code has to be strictly controlled. It’s recognised across the IT world as an essential element of good control and governance. There has to be a gate keeper, who checks the alteration, tests it in isolation, before allowing the change to occur. It is the foundation stone of ensuring that the systems work effectively and without bugs.

If you have all or one of the partner nations making alterations independently, then those aircraft will then have to be treated as independent entities as new central ‘updates’ will no longer be guaranteed compatible. It makes sense to have a central code processing centre.

To guarantee independent action, the UK would need to have assurance that it has the ability to make and process alterations whenever it wants, without asking permission from the US. This might mean that UK coders are integrated into the processing house structure, and that the UK retains a cold site within the UK which is capable of undertaking the work. In the event of a crisis, our coders can start up at the cold site, and make whatever alterations we choose.

Perhaps it is worth seeing the F35 as more akin to the iphone when O2 held the monopoly. We might be happy to join the ride, because you get a very slick product, with a huge support structure driving, and access to fantastic apps. But if your relationship with O2 turns sour and they start hitting you with huge bills, you want to know that you have the ability to ‘jail break’ the phone. But its probably far better to stay on the train, and work together.

[Modern Elmo]

I think you are missing the point Walter, by 9000 miles or so.

No, Walter is on point. A majpr reasons why the Bush Jr. admin. did not want to "sell" F-22's to Australia or Japan is that Israel also wanted or wants F-22's. ( The Israelis never actually pay for their aircraft. Calling the freebies "sales" is P.R. )

The problem is Israeli reverse engineering and subsequent sales to China. Japanese reverse engineering is also a potential problem.

And why should the USA entrust all to the EU provinces formerly known as UK?

[COLOR="Navy"]MiG-15 Design & Development:

In the immediate wake of World War II, the Soviet Union captured a wealth of German jet engine and aeronautical research. Utilizing this, they produced their first practical jet fighter, the MiG-9, in early 1946. While capable, this aircraft lacked the top speed of the standard American jets of the day, such as the P-80 Shooting Star. Though MiG-9 was operational, Russian designers continued to have issues perfecting the German HeS-011 axial-flow jet engine. As a result, airframe designs produced by Artem Mikoyan and Mikhail Gurevich's design bureau began to outpace the ability to produce engines to power them.

While the Soviets struggled with developing jet engines, the British had created advanced "centrifugal flow" engines. In 1946, Soviet aviation minister Mikhail Khrunichev and aircraft designer Alexander Yakovlev approached Premier Joseph Stalin with the suggestion of buying several British jet engines. Though not believing that the British would part with such advanced technology, Stalin gave them permission to contact London.

Much to their surprise, the new Labour government of Clement Atlee, which was friendlier towards the Soviets, agreed to the sale of several Rolls-Royce Nene engines along with a licensing agreement for overseas production. Bringing the engines to the Soviet Union, engine designer Vladimir Klimov immediately began reverse-engineering the design. The result was the Klimov RD-45. ...

]MiG-15 - Korean War MiG-15 Fighter (http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/militaryaircraft/p/MiG-15.htm/COLOR)

[ORAC]

Well, fair's fair, we gave it to the USA as well...... :cool:

[glad rag]

I think you are missing the point Walter, by 9000 miles or so.

No, Walter is on point.

Actually the point SHOULD be what we have signed up to buy (or not) under the contract....:ouch::ouch::ouch::ouch:

[West Coast]

Well, fair's fair, we gave it to the USA as well

How's that fence balancing act working for you?

Believe China is underway with the design of its 5th gen stealth fighter.
Bet the codes come with that for an extra few quid.


If the current trend towards voting green continues in Australia, we will not be committing to any conflict beyond our shores soon.

Never mind that 800 pound gorrilla that seems to tie up lots of your resources and strategic thought.

[Dengue_Dude]

Actually I missed this thought the first time around.

Is the 'missing' code actually REQUIRED for what we anticipate the aircraft's role to be?

There is masses of code in modern aircraft that has been left after development, some is for BIT checks/ maintenance reports etc etc. Some is for future functionality and so on. It does seem reasonable that some of it is kept confidential if not actually required.

We sold stuff to the Saudis which wasn't as capable as the RAF hardware, was there screaming and gnashing of teeth then? We were quite happy to take their money or oil chits.

Car manufacturers have lots of access codes to get 'inside' your engine management system and other equipment. They tend not to advertise how to access those - and nobody says a dicky bird.

Perhaps this is just one more storm in a teacup, stirred by moral entrepreneurs.

[Finnpog]

West Coast's 'balancing act' comment made me do something I haven't done in a while - think and consider an alternative view. I have just go off teh outrage bus - Sorry to disappoint folks.

The sell out of tech to the Soviet Union by left leaning politicans did result in the MiG 15's engine and the evolutions of it.
(I suppose there is irony around the MiG15 is the reverse engineering of the AA2 Atoll from a dud Sidewinder which was reportedly carried back in one. Thank God the Reds never got their hands on a B29.)

The UK can't moan in fairness about this - as the country is a province of the EUSSR, and there is no Special in the Special Relationship anymore.
Business is, after all, business.

'We' can't demand a special place in anyone's hearts if we are shown to have welched on the deal of confidentiality in the past. Similarly the US machine can't point too judgemental a finger eastwards across the atlantic whilst wearing the robes of a blushing virgin of innocence.

I suppose that this could be ironed out if the UK still had an organic arms industry which hadn't been sold or given to either the east or west - Could we adopt SAAB or Dassault?

I could still stand seeing some re-engined, glass cockpit Buccaneers in the strike / CAS role - make sure that they are amphibious for the CVSs.

[Green Flash]

Thank God the Reds never got their hands on a B29.)

Er, yes they did.

Russian B-29 Clone — The TU-4 Story, by Wayland Mayo, Page 10 (http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/03RelatedStories/03.03shortstories/03.03.10contss.htm)

[Modern Elmo]

It does seem reasonable that some of it is kept confidential if not actually required.

It doesn't matter whether or not the software is required for current functionality of the aircraft. Especially if the software is currently essential. That means its security is important.

In addition to security issues, there are property rights to consider.

The RAF or MoD doesn't have unlimited rights to modify the software. Neither does the USAF or the USN/USMC, without additional negotiations and payments due.

I'm quite sure that UK contracts for purchase of C-17's, C130's, F-4's or Douglas Dauntlesses have not included unlimited rights to modify things, at least without voiding warranties.

There's this tradition of Anglo-Saxon law and precedent. Or maybe that tradition is becoming obsolete because Anglo-Saxons are becoming obsolete, in the New World as well as the Old. From each according to his ability to each ... That's the new order, right?

If UK people want to hack F-35 systems and thereby void warranties, I suppose the UK is free to pursue that option.

[pr00ne]

Finnpog,

Your argument loses ALL credibility when you spout such nonsense as;

"as the country is a province of the EUSSR, and there is no Special in the Special Relationship anymore."

I think that you'll find that it still is rather special, which is why the UK is the only other Tier One partner and is intimately involved in developing the aircraft and all aspects of it's systems. We were a part of the down select from the XF-32 and XF-35 and a myriad of UK companies have been involved in the design concept from day one.

Source code software is commercial in confidence in extremis on a whole host of industrial projects from lifts, trains, fire protection systems, car engine management systems to all manner of military systems. Add in a state of the art stealth capability that is cutting edge and is it any wonder that Lockheed-Martin are keen to hold onto said source soft ware codes.

I recall a conversation with a VERY senior bod in Lockheed-Martin about ten years ago who made it plain that even the US military didn't have a cat in hells chance of obtaining C-130J source software code from his company.

As someone else alluded to earlier, what do you want the source code for anyway? The F-35 will be depot serviced at 3 locations worldwide and the sensitive bits will only be serviced by LM personnel.

[Safeware]

If you want to know what the MoD's latest position on software safety is, you need to get into this site's Standards Of Best Practice:https://ssei.org.uk/documents/

One of the key aspects with software safety on this scale isn't access to the source code per se, but confidence that the software is safe based on the processes used to develop it and the evidence presented about the product.

Having sufficient confidence (true confidence, not "it'll be ok because, gov...") will be the tricky bit.

sw

[knowitall]

What would we (UK) do with the source code anyway?

after not very much time you'd end up with (from a software POV) 2 completely differant aircraft

American JSF

and

British JSF


the 2 differant source codes would be incomptable, so if the yanks produce an update for AMRAAM it wouldn't work on British JSF's (or their customers) without the brits producing their own update

and if the brits integrate ASRAAM it wouldn't work on US JSF (or their customers) without producing their own update (likley?)

repeat ad infinitum

their really can only be one code to rule them all

by asking for 1xmoon (on a stick) and settling for less we (the UK) have either been very clever or very stupid and only time will tell

[Buster Hyman]

The problem is Israeli reverse engineering and subsequent sales to China. Japanese reverse engineering is also a potential problem.

And why should the USA entrust all to the EU provinces formerly known as UK?
Well, we don't do that in Oz. We do as we're told so, why aren't we getting it? ;)

[Trojan1981]

Never mind that 800 pound gorrilla that seems to tie up lots of your resources and strategic thought.

What are you talking about?:confused:

[ORAC]

after not very much time you'd end up with (from a software POV) 2 completely differant aircraft......American JSF.....and British JSF

I just love the gullibility of someone who thinks we'll be getting the same software/stealth/capability in the first place. :cool:

[t43562]

I am only a civilian software engineer - don't want to intrude too much but I can say why we need the source code.

There are always specific needs for each user that have to be customised. This often involves writing programs that interact with the system that you have purchased.

Usually one expects documentation to tell you how to do that but documentation is as hard to create as the actual software so there is never ever enough of it in any rapidly developing advanced system. In cases where people are not sure how to do something it's great to have the source code as a reference - in fact essential. It tells you what's really happening instead of the bull**** that the docs spout.

Code is always full of bugs - especially code from big companies. So being able to discover why something isn't working yourself without waiting for some overworked LM employee to get back to you is important.

It is scary for any company to hand over this kind of stuff but they want the defence contract and they are getting paid very well indeed so I think they can **** hand it over.

[green granite]

Can the MOD just take the manufacturers word for it? Are they allowed to?


Surely what is required is for LM to demonstrate that they have satisfactorily verified the integrity of the code by showing the verification methods used to the customer, if the customer is not happy with those verification processes then they need to point out what they consider is wrong with those methods and ask for it to be re-examined.

Do Airbus or Boeing release their source codes?

[Squidlord]

It's not ownership of, or an ability to change the source code that is the issue here (as some people seem to think). It's access to the source code to analyse it. Essentially, it is considered necessary to assure the safety of the aircraft.


Thor Nogson:

without the opportunity to examine the source code, would it be possible to confirm airworthiness of the aircraft before entry into service?

In principle, yes. In practice, it's likely to be much much harder (too hard?)

my question is whether it can be certified as airworthy?

Can the MOD just take the manufacturers word for it? Are they allowed to?

Possibly, no and no.



Two's in:

Ask someone how much source code the MoD owns for the US bits of the Apache - it's a round number.

As above, it's not ownership that's at stake here, it's access. But as you imply, the MoD has no access to the source code "for the US bits of the Apache". As a matter of interest, they did arrange access to the source code for the Flight Management Computer by a US company on their behalf.



pr00ne:

Isn't the software code proprietary to the company that developed it?

Does the RAF have access to the ALL of C-130J software code?

Does the US military have access to ALL of the C-130J software code?

Same questions can be posed for C-17, AIM-120.

Not sure of the relevance of these questions but I'll give one answer as a matter of interest. No, the RAF does not have access to C-130J software code ... but they did arrange it for UK companies acting on their behalf. This is despite:

I recall a conversation with a VERY senior bod in Lockheed-Martin about ten years ago who made it plain that even the US military didn't have a cat in hells chance of obtaining C-130J source software code from his company.

[Orange Poodle]

Surely one of the issues is that we are not just purchasing some of these aircraft, we are a contributing development partner.

Special relationship = one way street = load of bollaux

OP

[Tim McLelland]

Oh well, let's just hope it's enough to finally persuade our beloved government to dump this over-priced toy, stick with Typhoons and let the US be as snotty as they like. In fact while we're at it, maybe they could finish their murderous (and utterly pointless) crusade over in Afghanistan on their own too? Simples!

[Double Zero]

I can't imagine any particular scenario where we go to war in a way dramatically unpopular with the U.S; after all as I understand, they still have overide codes on our Sub' ICBM's ?

It would be polite to leave the bang-seats down to individual control though...

[Dengue_Dude]

Are you not alluding to the performance charactristics of the Jaguar?

[Double Zero]

Cirrus F,

The islander / Defender has a lot going for it, whichever way it takes off ( I trust the sternward option was tongue in cheek ) there is in fact another aircraft well proven at this sort of thing; it's called the Harrier, which although a British product is now a ' Boeing ' as 'British ' Aerspace has so many ' managers ' there's no-one left to build aircraft.

[Finnpog]

It's been a long time since I have lost ALL credibility. Hoorah (and how cute).

The world has changed since the UK went into the JSF project. The sovereign state has nor become part of the EU bloc.

We have seen over recent years that there is more of a drive to Euro projects (Typhoon, Tornado, Jaguar, Merlin, A400) than US - and then it's the things we needed but couldn't do (Chinook, Herk, Phantom, Sentry).

As the sole Tier 1 mate, in at $1Bn as opposed to Italy's measly $800M (figures from jsf.com) then 'our' access to the F35 will / should be more privileged than anyone else's' save the US. (A few extra Hundred Millions from Turkey, Denmark & Norway too).

Now if BAE Systems take the learning and reverse engineer it for evolution into the next new euro-stealth alongside Panavia / Sepecat / Eurofighter / EADS then the commercially sensitive innovations will leak away to the nasty foreigners - and hence a strengthening of the NoForn.

At the point at which my credibility evaporated I said that the 'special' in 'special relationship' was not there...and that is because we now have a more special relationship with the EU.

A singular EU defence / offence framework will see a NATO-Light and the associated drive to interoperability - so maybe we have been forced towards a TTFN position for procurement.

Maybe I read it incorrectly...maybe not.

[Sunfish]

The issue is called in official channels "Operational Sovereignty". Without source code for the aircraft you have no operational sovereignty over its use, meaning America can unilaterally prevent you using the aircraft if it wanted to. I'm wouldn't know if it can be done instantaneously or not, but it certainly can be done. Ask the Iranians what happened after the Shah was deposed when they tried to use the Tomcat weapons system? I think they lost at least Two aircraft that way.

Making the statement that American/British/Australian interests will always synchronise during the life cycle of the aircraft is highly dangerous.

By not investing in, and having access to, the source code effectively now means that whatever future the British Military aviation industry thought it had is now gone. It is condemned forever to build components only, because the real knowledge is encapsulated in the software, and you cannot catch up, especially after the USA keeps investing in the software for the next Twenty years. Furthemore, if you think you are going to integrate home grown ordnance, think again. You just lost that industry as well.

Arguments about patents and intellectual property are specious. All countries reserve the right to ignore patents for defence purposes.

As for software bugs, yes they do exist. apart from the well known incident when F22 Fighters crossed the International dateline, guess what happened the first time an (Australian) F18 attempted to fire a Sidewinder missile in the Southern Hemisphere?

One solution to this mess would be to put the software in escrow - meaning that you could have access to it in extremis.

[Jig Peter]

Whatever the software code availability ins 'n outs - has anybody on here had a thought about Avweek's 24th November report that the JSF program (sic) is 16 (that's one-six/sixteen) billion dollars over cost?
To get back on timeline, more flight test aircraft are also needed.
"Trubble at 't mill" ahead indeed, unless Avweek's another rumour network ...

[Finnpog]

I just popped over and had a read of that. Not easy times.
Whilst I have chuntered about the situation, having seen this photo
http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/defense_images/Fighters/F-35AedwardsUSAF.jpg
I do think that it would not look out of place in an episode of Battlestar Galactica.

[Bledlow]

Finnpog,

we've signed up for $2bn (Tier 1), Italy for $1bn, Netherlands for $800mn (both Tier 2).
Next is Turkey for $175mn - Tier 3. Canada, Australia, Denmark & Norway for slightly less.

JSF.mil > Program > International Participation (http://www.jsf.mil/program/prog_intl.htm)

[Modern Elmo]

By not investing in, and having access to, the source code effectively now means that whatever future the British Military aviation industry thought it had is now gone. It is condemned forever to build components only,


F-35 software does not consist of a single, unitary software load. There's lots of software embedded in component subsystems, most notably the radar, engine management, and E/O tracking/threat warning systems.

And what about the RAF's Typhoon? is that merely a component?



because the real knowledge is encapsulated in the software

You've seen the future. All hardware is about to de-materialize into software.

We'll ride in software cars and airplanes fueled by software, eat software, and live in software houses, which will be heated or cooled by software.

and you cannot catch up ...

You're right. There's no hope for Britain. No more aviation industry, and no more BritishF-35 sorties if the US Dept. of Def. sends its super secret ABORT MISSION signal to UK F-35's.

Boo hoo hoo.

[Sunfish]

Elmo:

We'll ride in software cars and airplanes fueled by software, eat software, and live in software houses, which will be heated or cooled by software.


You already do, and without the software, the machine is just so much junk.

[brickhistory]

What does the signed agreement/contract state?

All else is wasted electrons.

[PTT]

It's ok, there are plenty to go around :ok:

[TBM-Legend]

:{:{:{:{if you have a problem with source codes, don't buy anything not requiring your 'own' design....

bring back the TSR-2..:{

I bet you haven't given the cloth heads the source codes for the Typhoooons!:suspect:

[Buster Hyman]

I thought about the escrow option Sunfish, but if they're unwilling to hand over the codes for their Allies, then a third party has a snowballs chance of getting their hands on it!

[Jofm5]

My experience as a software developer of 21years is the basis for my answer, my reason for perusing the forums is my goal to fly (a student at the moment) - Just thought I would say :) .

I observe from the above the general admonishment at the lack of desire to provide the "software" which I read as source code to the F35 project. I also acknowledge the question of whether it can be used to justify an aircrafts airworthiness (I presume as a criteria for acceptance).

Airworthiness and software dont really mix, there may be certain revisions of software accpected for airworthiness purposes but each revision, compatibility may need to be tested etc for insurance purposes as there is no simple answer to airworthiness and software compatibility in any respect.

If I may provide a little background and I apologise if I am trying to teach some to suck eggs..

Since the 70's software development moved from the procedural paradigm to the object orientated paradigm, to put this into laymens terms when working in an object orientated environment both the code and data are encapsulated together into a class (e.g. a rudder) that has parameters and functions that are expected of that object and have predicted outputs.

The object orientated paradigm was embraced whole heartedly by the various military organisations (and commercially) as it allows each individual real life object to be designed as such - e.g. if you think simply a rudder was designed to behave as a rudder, each rudder class could be individually be checked to see if it behaved like a rudder by putting it into a test environment and feeding it parameters - from the inputs you have expected outputs you can check against.

Encapsulation in this manner has added benefits in that should you change anything to do with the rudder you need only perform the extensive tests on the rudder classes to check the input and output parameters. If the test harness for the rudder class passes all parameters it should not have any impact on the overall software environment however it is not uncommon for full regression tests to be performed.


With encapsulation being the key to the modern programming paradigms, it is not unusual to publish a class, its interfaces and what they do, but not necessarily how it goes about accomplishing this.

Whilst I cannot relate to who has what contract with whom, if there is a smart algorithm hidden in certain classes within the source code then I am not entirely suprised it is hidden. The whole point of object orientated programming is that as a subscriber you need to know a given instance of a class (an object) behaves in a particular way when provided parameters, you do not need to know the implementation as to how or why but just how to provide the paramters. This is the concept of using librarys of code (and pre-dates object orientation).

Publishing the class model of the above is often referred to as the API - the applications programming interface - you get given the details as to the input and expected output but not the detail as to what goes on inbetween. Each developer need not know how each component works but what is expected..

Getting the full source code as to how and why something works is a nice to have, if you have found a flaw in for example the rudder then you can reverse engineer what is there and try improve to adapt to your requirements. However, reverse engineering code takes on average (in my experience) around 2-3 times more effort than starting from scratch as you are required to figure out what was trying to be achieved in the first place.

My whole point in writing the above is it may not necessarily be that the software is being witheld but the implementation. I can agree with those that feel if you have paid for the F35 then you should get all that goes with it, however if given the published API for the hardware you should be able to write any software you like regardless of implementation - if you want to write some software to work outside the published limits then that is a bespoke environment.

Apologies to all in that I dont have a military or "true" aviation background but I thought I may add some value to this discussion.

[Sunfish]

It's not about the reliability of the software, it's primarily about the vendor being able to disable your new toy at a distance if they want to.

The secondary question is the integration of home developed weapons systems, although that may be "do-able" if there are published API's (application programming interfaces) for the various systems, like some PC programs have.

More than that, I would not know.

[Modern Elmo]

I can't imagine any particular scenario where we go to war in a way dramatically unpopular with the U.S; after all as I understand, they still have overide codes on our Sub' ICBM's ?

If 00^2 has heard it, it's a proven fact.

Test and reverse engineer all you like, you'll never find the MISSION ABORT "Easter egg" in British F-35's!

[polyglory]

Put it this way in plain Colonial English, there had not better be one.
:rolleyes:

[Herc-u-lease]

Modern elmo,

I can't work out if you're being sarcastic or just plain crass, the type written word doesn't show inflection very well. please tell me its USA sarcasm.

I've been reluctant to post on here as there has been some good knowledgeable posts in amongst a lot of uninformed waffle. Source code is not the be all and end all; there are ways to demonstrate the software is acceptably safe without the UK needing it be delivered to them. This is dependent on which standard/rules the UK wants to conform to - the case for SCA is no longer a foregone conclusion.

as for the magic code which tells aircraft to switch off. really?......really? and how would that work then? Say, if you chose to operate with no active or passive transmission devices? do they put the magic code in C130 too? what about F-15?
what happens if the magic code accidentally operated mid-flight in a peace-time mission? I can only assume you are joking?

[PTT]

as for the magic code which tells aircraft to switch off. really?......really? and how would that work then? Say, if you chose to operate with no active or passive transmission devices?
Easy enough. You don't even need a trojan horse in the aircraft There are plenty of receivers on the aircraft, code is transmitted by radio. received and processed, and the code can work in many ways:
Virus which reverses control movements
Virus which removes protection from electrical generation systems, causing overheat and probably system shutdown or electrical fire
Virus which kills the FADEC
the list goes on.
The point is all you need is to know how to get around the protection systems (a back door, which almost all software developers create) and you can do what you like.

It may sound far-fetched and Clancy-esque, but it is well within the bounds of current technology.

[The Oberon]

As has been referred to it's not only not getting what you want but getting things that you don't want. It would not be the first time that hidden memory functions have been installed in warning / ESM systems so that when the hardware is returned for repair, everything you have monitored is downloaded and analysed.

[Gravelbelly]

Confession - I've spent over twenty years as a software engineer; over a decade of that was developing avionics software for fighter radars.

Encapsulation in this manner has added benefits in that should you change anything to do with the rudder you need only perform the extensive tests on the rudder classes to check the input and output parameters. If the test harness for the rudder class passes all parameters it should not have any impact on the overall software environment however it is not uncommon for full regression tests to be performed. <nice explanation, but minor nit: try object oriented, not orientated. You'll be mentioning transportation next :cool:>

Except that we're not talking about civilian programming environments here, we're talking about hard-real-time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_computing#Hard_and_soft_real-time_systems) embedded systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_systems) programming, in a multiprocessor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiprocessor) environment...

If one process decides to become a cycle-intensive resource hog, lower-priority tasks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTOS#Scheduling) can suddenly find themselves starved of resource (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_starvation). It all depends on how close to the edge you're running; e.g. "income a pound, expenditure 99p = happiness; expenditure 101p = misery". Typically the contract specifies a healthy margin at the start, but these things can get eaten up over time.

For instance - Tranche 1 Typhoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon_variants#Tranche_1) is running software written in C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_%28programming_language%29) and assembler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_language#Assembly_language), delivered late 90s / early 00s, designed early 90s, running on processors that were bleeding edge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_edge) back then, but unbelievably slow now. To fit the algorithms into the space and time available meant some fairly intense optimisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler_optimization) (and I mean that in the sense that the difference between unoptimised and "the best the that rather good optimising C compiler could manage" got us a 3% speedup).

We tried to generate object oriented (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming_language), reusable, loosely coupled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loosely_coupled), encapsulated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encapsulation_%28computer_science%29#Encapsulation) code - but didn't always manage it.

Meanwhile, do a search on "priority inversion" and "Mars Rover" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_inversion)...

The point is all you need is to know how to get around the protection systems (a back door, which almost all software developers create) and you can do what you like

Wow, you must think that life's like 24, and it just takes a few keystrokes to break into a system and subvert it.

No, software developers don't "almost always" create back doors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_%28computing%29). I've certainly never done it, but then I've specialised in embedded systems for most of my twenty years. Most "back doors" are just default passwords that incompetent managers forget to change, or passwords that morons write down or give out. The rest are mostly just unpublished APIs used for test purposes; e.g. command-line options that don't get into the user documentation (e.g. a Hi-fi firm I worked for used shift-F12 to switch on debug mode in its software installation tool; it gave you more of an insight into what was going on, but was hardly "God mode"). Another example are "cheats" for games software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheat_%28video_games%29#History) - if you want to test a particular feature in the game by running through it multiple times, you don't want to have to force the tester to take half-an-hour of play between each run of the test.

The delights of embedded systems with cycle periods of a few milliseconds (such as EW or radar systems which sample well into the kHz, over bandwidths well into the MHz) is that the million-to-one coincidence data set generally turns up in the first few minutes. You don't program in mysterious back doors based on funny codes, because nature has the nasty habit of generating just the wrong sequence of numbers. You don't allow mysterious program update mechanisms, because you don't want the bloke on the flight line to magically uninstall radar software v1.1, and it is assumed that if you want to carry out a software update, removing the LRI and connecting to it with a damn great 50-pin connector is not unreasonable. You don't have "unpublicised user accounts with admin privilege", because there aren't any user accounts. Up until the late 1990s, it was unlikely that there was even an operating system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_operating_system).

So: no, I don't think that there's a magic "disable the system" back door built in to the software. If one were needed, it would have to be a contracted and specified requirement on the system - kind of hard to keep secret. One hint, and you get into all sorts of billion-dollar contractual obligations, let alone the diplomatic issues.

For instance - do you think that the US has a "back door" built into the UK strategic deterrent control software? Or not?

[PTT]

Gravelbelly - no, I don't think life's like 24 :rolleyes:

Herc asked for the how's and I provided hypotheticals. Yes, there are other considerations, but "back door" is a generally-known public term which painted the appropriate picture. The actual method of opening said orifice will vary, and nobody suggested that sending the word "Rosebud" to the jet will shut it down. APIs were something akin to what I am talking about, and perfectly reasonable as an access method for your "God-mode".
As to whether I think such a thing exists, probably not, but I didn't suggest otherwise in my previous post, did I? Perhaps try reading a post for what it is (a hypothetical response to a hypothetical question) instead of wading in with your "I'm so well informed" size 9's and trying to out-gabble everyone present :ok:

[wingnut135]

I think that about says it all...there's been lots of boo-hooing based on an article that may or may not be enitreley accurate, spun to achieve a certain message, or just plain bollocks. Most of you reading this will have been in a position to "know" at some point in your career and will have read something you knew was patently false in the press but that struck great, anguish-filled chords in the editorial pages (or, dare I say, the blogosphere). At that point, you probably rolled your eyes and commented to your co-workers about the press adn those who believe them. I guess I'd just question how factual the statements we're using to castigate our allies are?

I will say it has been fun reading the thread, though...very impressive that folks have lost all credibility along the way! :}

[Gravelbelly]

Perhaps reading a post for what it is (a hypothetical response to a hypothetical question) instead of wading in with your "I'm so well informed" size 9's

My apologies. My size 8s waded in when someone offered the following opinion; I thought it better to reply before anyone took it seriously.

The point is all you need is to know how to get around the protection systems (a back door, which almost all software developers create) andyou can do what you like

In a spirit of fairness, I could make a slightly plausible but somewhat inaccurate assertion in a confident tone, you can knock it down comprehensively, I'll claim that I only included it as a hypothetical, and we'll be even. :hmm:

Tell you what, I'll add links to the more jargon-laced parts of the post :}

[PTT]

In a spirit of fairness, I could make a slightly plausible but somewhat inaccurate assertion in a confident tone, you can knock it down comprehensively, I'll claim that I only included it as a hypothetical, and we'll be even.
One word: context. It's one that often gets missed in forum discussions as people tend to take things a quote at a time and deconstruct arguments. Herc asked how, and I said it was technically possible. If you know otherwise then feel free to show the world your brand new quantum cryptography method. :}
Apart from that this is in danger of being both off-topic and getting personal.

[Scotteo]

Erm ladies... let me interupt this "mines bigger than yours" agruement by adding, before it all ends in tears:

"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.

This remains the basis of the agreements reached with the US in 2006. " -

Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued Dec. 1, 2009