Britain told "No Access" to F-35 Software codes
Discussion
SmoothCriminal said:
tuffer said:
Isn't this the exact same problem we had with the special forces Chinooks that ended up sat in a hanger at Boscombe Down for years?
I'm sure it was the otherway round, we wanted our own software for them so didn't buy the American spec ones and let some muppet in whitehall organise the avionics specification hence why it got messed up.Let the Americans do it at least you'll know it will work.
SmoothCriminal said:
tuffer said:
Isn't this the exact same problem we had with the special forces Chinooks that ended up sat in a hanger at Boscombe Down for years?
I'm sure it was the otherway round, we wanted our own software for them so didn't buy the American spec ones and let some muppet in whitehall organise the avionics specification hence why it got messed up.Let the Americans do it at least you'll know it will work.
k-up. We asked Boeing to write special software for us. We gave them a spec for it. They said the spec was rubbish and wouldn't work. We said we knew best and were paying for it. They wrote it, met the spec. It didn't work. Actually the helicopters worked just fine, the problem was that the MoD couldn't work out how to flight approve them 
. Boeing reckon the USAF wouldn't have had an issue flying them.Edit to add the following quote:
House of Commons Public Accounts Committee said:
We examined the procurement of these eight helicopters in
our report on Battlefield Helicopters and considered it to be one of the worst examples of
equipment procurement that we had ever seen.
The MoD has a history of long delays and cost increases within its procurement
projects. Even by these standards, the Chinook Mk3 project has been a catalogue of errors
from the start. The original contract was ill defined, preventing easy access to software
source code that was key to enabling certification for airworthiness. Further operational
requirements and difficult commercial negotiations led to a five year period of protracted
negotiation and slow decision making under a project known as Fix to Field.
our report on Battlefield Helicopters and considered it to be one of the worst examples of
equipment procurement that we had ever seen.
The MoD has a history of long delays and cost increases within its procurement
projects. Even by these standards, the Chinook Mk3 project has been a catalogue of errors
from the start. The original contract was ill defined, preventing easy access to software
source code that was key to enabling certification for airworthiness. Further operational
requirements and difficult commercial negotiations led to a five year period of protracted
negotiation and slow decision making under a project known as Fix to Field.
Edited by fadeaway on Wednesday 25th November 17:38
The spec was bad, most likely because it was done by consensus.
I never saw a Chinook spec, but it was typical for general messages to be propagated requesting views on system requirements.
Now one would think, that there would be a group of people who knew the technology, and that the task would be delegated to them. Perhaps the group would liaise with pilots, manufacturers, technology experts, and then come to their own informed position. Ultimately one person would be responsible for the requirement being correct.
Nope. I cant say it for sure, but looking at the events I saw, I'd say the effort was not particularly focussed. Run by idiots, more concerned about career moves, bonuses and image. Much of the rest is simply because there are just too many people. If they had less it would be better, and further, if they had someone who knew the detail, who cared and was responsible, it would be better still.
Another huge problem is that the whole procurement process has been cut into, hacked about, undermined and generally screwed with, that things regularly go spectacularly wrong.
I don't need Prince sodding 2 to know that.
The trouble is that no-one who cares actually wants it, and who would? It can't be changed.
Quite rightly, the only people who do want it are the prime contractors (IBM/BAE/Raytheon/yada/yada/yada) with huge pound/dollar signs in their eyes.
I think much of this is reflected in the general malaise for the UK. The focus is on recruiting spectacular individuals. It's not about team building, even remotely. I'm not a football expert, even remotely, but I know you can't make a good football team out of eleven strikers.
I never saw a Chinook spec, but it was typical for general messages to be propagated requesting views on system requirements.
Now one would think, that there would be a group of people who knew the technology, and that the task would be delegated to them. Perhaps the group would liaise with pilots, manufacturers, technology experts, and then come to their own informed position. Ultimately one person would be responsible for the requirement being correct.
Nope. I cant say it for sure, but looking at the events I saw, I'd say the effort was not particularly focussed. Run by idiots, more concerned about career moves, bonuses and image. Much of the rest is simply because there are just too many people. If they had less it would be better, and further, if they had someone who knew the detail, who cared and was responsible, it would be better still.
Another huge problem is that the whole procurement process has been cut into, hacked about, undermined and generally screwed with, that things regularly go spectacularly wrong.
I don't need Prince sodding 2 to know that.
The trouble is that no-one who cares actually wants it, and who would? It can't be changed.
Quite rightly, the only people who do want it are the prime contractors (IBM/BAE/Raytheon/yada/yada/yada) with huge pound/dollar signs in their eyes.
I think much of this is reflected in the general malaise for the UK. The focus is on recruiting spectacular individuals. It's not about team building, even remotely. I'm not a football expert, even remotely, but I know you can't make a good football team out of eleven strikers.
Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 25th November 19:00
perdu said:
Seems to be part one of the inevitable payback for "Winky" and co giving away all British Sovereignty to his European cronies.
If the US gave us access we would then just hand it over to some unelected undemocratic tw@t in Brussels, then bend over and say "take me again..."
I would love us to have the code "as advertised" but Britain today isn't the country it was when the deal was negotiated.
Unless we can break some of the chains we are set to be treated this way from now on, get used to it.
Cant agree more... cant blame them really... as the UK is now becoming more part of the european state and not actually our own country.... they have a relationship with UK not Europe.If the US gave us access we would then just hand it over to some unelected undemocratic tw@t in Brussels, then bend over and say "take me again..."
I would love us to have the code "as advertised" but Britain today isn't the country it was when the deal was negotiated.
Unless we can break some of the chains we are set to be treated this way from now on, get used to it.
telecat said:
Despite been told the RAF and FAA would have access to the codes and the supply of UK expertise to the F35 programme it seems the US is about to renege on it's promise.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230724/UK...
Time to dust off the Sea Harrier??
Anyone surprised? Miles M52 anyone?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230724/UK...
Time to dust off the Sea Harrier??
Jonny671 said:
Whats wrong with the Typhoon?
Wasn't designed to fly off a carrier; it's a big job to navalise an aircraft like that. We would probably be better off buying the Rafale. At least then we would be able to better split the cost of the new carriers with France and we would have access to a more fully featured AEW&C platform.bobthemonkey said:
Jonny671 said:
Whats wrong with the Typhoon?
Wasn't designed to fly off a carrier; it's a big job to navalise an aircraft like that. We would probably be better off buying the Rafale. At least then we would be able to better split the cost of the new carriers with France and we would have access to a more fully featured AEW&C platform.I love the Typhoon since seeing it at an Airshow and thought it was very impressive.
The Rafale, is that the French version of the F35?
Jonny671 said:
bobthemonkey said:
Jonny671 said:
Whats wrong with the Typhoon?
Wasn't designed to fly off a carrier; it's a big job to navalise an aircraft like that. We would probably be better off buying the Rafale. At least then we would be able to better split the cost of the new carriers with France and we would have access to a more fully featured AEW&C platform.I love the Typhoon since seeing it at an Airshow and thought it was very impressive.
The Rafale, is that the French version of the F35?
French were in on the early phases of the Eurofighter programme, but pulled out and decided to build Rafale instead. It's a similar idea to Typhoon, though I believe lighter and cheaper, plus they got it in service years earlier, and have a navalised version with uprated undercarriage, tail hook, etc.
F-35 is way more advanced, it's stealthy, has a very advanced sensor suite, and is intended to be available in 3 versions, the standard land based one, the STOVL version for the US marines, and a maritime version for the US Navy. The UK are buying the STOVL, mainly because more of it is made in the UK I believe (the lift fan system is made by Rolls Royce).
F-35 is way more advanced, it's stealthy, has a very advanced sensor suite, and is intended to be available in 3 versions, the standard land based one, the STOVL version for the US marines, and a maritime version for the US Navy. The UK are buying the STOVL, mainly because more of it is made in the UK I believe (the lift fan system is made by Rolls Royce).
Jonny671 said:
Whats wrong with the Typhoon?
In my opinion not a lot, except that it was late, and many people argue that it's irrelevant because of it's lack of stealth. Somehow, the machine got through without being converted to a stealth multirole machine along the way. That is an admirable end. Had we switched focus along the way, it would only have been because we were following the leader.It would take effort to make it suitable for a carrier, but I still think that's worth it. I mean, you don't get anything without some sort of effort.
I despise the way the UK increasingly just buys it's military hardware from other countries. I don't think we should support Rafale, except where it actually meets a specific need. Rafale and the Typhoon are opponents, and Typhoon would win out. If nothing else, the French have already taken more than enough British high technology business, in the name of "sharing".
We should back the Typhoon to the hilt, even though the Americans have some superior technology.
More significantly we should build an aerospace industry capable of integrating our own top level technology, like aircraft carriers, and aeroplanes.
We are slightly behind the curve as set by the US. But I say so what. We can't take on the US at war, but in business, there is no reason why not, their products are very expensive. Maintaining our independence in this way also allows us to determine our own future.
I think we ought to be thinking about developing a new battlefield helicopter myself. Such a machine should be somewhere between the Chinook and the Apache, but without the complexity of the Osprey. It would stop the squaddies loosing their limbs. Something like a more aggressive land oriented Merlin.
Edited by dilbert on Thursday 26th November 13:02
dilbert said:
Jonny671 said:
Whats wrong with the Typhoon?
In my opinion not a lot, except that it was late, and many people argue that it's irrelevant because of it's lack of stealth. Somehow, the machine got through without being converted to a stealth multirole machine along the way. That is an admirable end. Had we switched focus along the way, it would only have been because we were following the leader.It would take effort to make it suitable for a carrier, but I still think that's worth it. I mean, you don't get anything without some sort of effort.
I despise the way the UK increasingly just buys it's military hardware from other countries. I don't think we should support Rafale, except where it actually meets a specific need. Rafale and the Typhoon are opponents, and Typhoon would win out. If nothing else, the French have already taken more than enough British high technology business, in the name of "sharing".
We should back the Typhoon to the hilt, even though the Americans have some superior technology.
More significantly we should build an aerospace industry capable of integrating our own top level technology, like aircraft carriers, and aeroplanes.
We are slightly behind the curve as set by the US. But I say so what. We can't take on the US at war, but in business, there is no reason why not, their products are very expensive. Maintaining our independence in this way also allows us to determine our own future.
I think we ought to be thinking about developing a new battlefield helicopter myself. Such a machine should be somewhere between the Chinook and the Apache, but without the complexity of the Osprey. It would stop the squaddies loosing their limbs.
Edited by dilbert on Thursday 26th November 12:58
- Typhoon II - Late and overspent
- Nimrod refits - Late, overspent, found to be dangerous. Read the official report, it makes harrowing reading
- Astute - Very late massively over-spent
- SA80 - jammed, had to be re-engineered by HK.
- BOWMAN radio system - Too fragile, too heavy, ability to call in air-support deleted.
- Blue screen problems with the PMS on one of the recent surface ships - can't remember which now Ocean or T45.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff