US to withhold F-35 fighter software codes
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
It would be polite to leave the bang-seats down to individual control though...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Finnpog; 27th Nov 2009 at 20:18.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And another thing ....
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 ...
To get back on timeline, more flight test aircraft are also needed.
"Trubble at 't mill" ahead indeed, unless Avweek's another rumour network ...
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just popped over and had a read of that. Not easy times.
Whilst I have chuntered about the situation, having seen this photo
I do think that it would not look out of place in an episode of Battlestar Galactica.
Whilst I have chuntered about the situation, having seen this photo
I do think that it would not look out of place in an episode of Battlestar Galactica.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Elmo:
You already do, and without the software, the machine is just so much junk.
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.
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!
Evertonian
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!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.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.
Last edited by Jofm5; 30th Nov 2009 at 03:42.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: somewhere special
Age: 46
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?