US to withhold F-35 fighter software codes
 

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

"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

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

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?

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

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? :}

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

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

:ok:

Big deal! China probably has it already...

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. :)

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

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!

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

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

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

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).

So could the Hunter.:rolleyes:

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!

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

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

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.

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

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.

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:

Stealth...
 

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:

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?

BH

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.

Here we go again . . .
 

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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!!!

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!

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.

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?)

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?:(

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

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....:{

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.

NoForn
 

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