Forum: F-35 Lightning II

I think JeffB has a point but has presented it too strongly.

I would certainly consider it within the realm of possibility that LM has inserted some type of 'kills witch' in the -35 that would protect the US from its misuse. As I think most of us would agree, a country HAS to prize its own security above all else or it isn't likely to remain around for long. No one is likely to confirm or deny this officially, so I'm not sure there's a point in speculating further past the point that it's possible.

At the same time, however, the very high maintenance needs of modern fighters means that the US wouldn't necessarily have to engage in this kind of sabotage. It could simply stop providing support and the abilities of this asset would likely degrade quickly.

Where I think JeffB has overstated his case is to say that the ONLY reason that source code is not provided is to cover up degradation of export variants. As others have correctly pointed out, there are many, many reasons why source code would not be provided. There are different levels of access; access for day-to-day maintainability; access for upgrading and integration; and access to the intimate workings of the system. While partners will buy the aircraft, it certainly doesn't follow that they've bought access to every part of the program. As long as these things are made clear up front, friendships don't have to be tested.

I think the analogy that many have provided is correct - the fact that you've bought a consumer software product doesn't mean that you've purchased an understanding of how it was put together. As long as you have access to the bits you need to use it in the way promised, the deal seems fair. Some people might only need a superficial user interface. Others might need a developer's toolkit. But only a few are going to have full access.

JeffB seems to take this as a slap in the face and I can understand his position. Buying the -35 does mean trusting in an ongoing and positive relationship with the US to protect one's own ability to defend sovereignty which is a limit to that sovereignty.

F-16.net Sponsor

There are a lot of ways to distinguish one platform from another. You can vary the individual parts by customer so that everyone has some telltale characteristic in its implementation. The real danger is that it could be the downfall of your own ally if the enemy ever learnt these secrets.

For pretty much all FMS sales, after the LOA (Letter of Agreement) and contracts are signed there is a definitization confference, during which every aspect of the program is discussed in excruciating detail to ensure both parties clearly understand exactly what will be delivered, down to how many of each spare part, terms of warranties, how many of each bomb and bullet. There is no way that a customer will get any "dumbed down" weapon system without their clear understanding and agreement.

psychmike wrote:

I would certainly consider it within the realm of possibility that LM has inserted some type of 'kills witch' in the -35 that would protect the US from its misuse.

Can you imagine what would happen if someone discovered such kill-switch? What would happen to F-35 sales? Are there similar kill-switches on the other aircrafts or other military equipment? Army and military equipment is bought to secure independence of your country. Would you buy military equipment from the US even if it means that you are 100% dependent on them?

I have to jump in on the 'kill switch' notion. Just like exec mentions, can you imagine the consequence if we EVER did something like that? Our loss of credibility would be extreme. While it sounds reasonable at the conspiracy-level, it would be just plain ridiculous. If we had ever installed kill switches, do you think we would have let the Iranians keep flying F-4s & F-14s? What about the Venezuelans and their F-16s? What if country Red ever got got their hands on it - we'd instantly lose our allies. Should we kill switch our own jets just in case the South rises again - or we go Blue state vs. Red State? I mean really . . .

If such technology existed you'd think the Russians would have shut down the SAMs in Georgia.

Some software code is easier to crack Twisted Evil

than others: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-13265.html

Australia 'cracked top-secret US jet fighter codes' By Don Woolford AAP September 20, 2007

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22451478-2,00.html

"KIM Beazley has told how Australia cracked top-secret American combat aircraft codes while he was defence minister in the 1980s. "We spied on them and we extracted the codes," Mr Beazley told Parliament during his valedictory speech today.

Mr Beazley, who was defence minister from 1984 to 1990, said that when he took over the job he soon learned that the radar on Australia's Hornets could not identify most potentially hostile aircraft in the region. In other words, Australia's frontline fighter could not shoot down enemies in the region."

jeffb wrote:

Don’t call me mate a-hole, I don’t know you.

Oh dear - keep your tin foil hat on flower - isnt it Ironic how every Aussie ive met uses the word mate in every 2nd sentence - its not always spoken to a "mate" in that context is it!.
Rolling Eyes

Yeah, I completely agree that public knowledge of a secret kill switch would immeasurably damage America's reputation with allies. All I was acknowledging was that it is within the realm of possibility. More than that, it really doesn't allow for much further discussion because it can't reasonably be confirmed or completely denied.

The fact that Iran continues to fly the F-14 doesn't entirely preclude the possibility of sabotage. Such sabotage doesn't have to result in total failure but could result in failure of specific systems, even better if it plausibly looks like a normal failure mode. Again, all of this is just wild speculation!

M.

VprWzl wrote:

I have to jump in on the 'kill switch' notion. Just like exec mentions, can you imagine the consequence if we EVER did something like that? Our loss of credibility would be extreme. While it sounds reasonable at the conspiracy-level, it would be just plain ridiculous. If we had ever installed kill switches, do you think we would have let the Iranians keep flying F-4s & F-14s?

Letting a 2 bit 3rd world tin horn nation to continue to fly a handful of nice a/c would not create the necessity of using a so called kill switch IMHO. Even if the USA had went to war with Iran at that time I still do not see that as a reason to reveal such a thing if we had it. And personally I think we are a bunch of fools if we do not have it. I also think it's even more foolish to think that nations do NOT have these type things on certain weapons systems they export. If we have it, it should only be revealed in the event of a major war. Not some mop up skirmish conflict.

What about the Venezuelans and their F-16s? What if country Red ever got got their hands on it - we'd instantly lose our allies. Should we kill switch our own jets just in case the South rises again - or we go Blue state vs. Red State? I mean really . . .

Havin it makes perfect sense. Again, revealing it over some tin horn no body makes no sense.

If such technology existed you'd think the Russians would have shut down the SAMs in Georgia.

No I wouldn't. They would keep the secret for the same reasons we would when fighting a nation with an army a soild 3 thousand or so strong lol The outcome was never in question and only a fool would reveal such a secret over that. It would be kind of like nukes. Used only as a last resort.

Read I think was a Tom Clancy novel, but not sure it was him, and the Japs were the big arms supplier to the US at the time and low and behold WWlll broke out against them and they had such a switch in all the missiles we had been buying from them since we had long since stopped making things, kind of like the way we're heading now. The missiles all went the wrong way and we were up the creek without a paddle for a while.

Having a screw it up switch of some type makes perfect sense. Especially if you happen to be a nation that exports extremely high tech and reliable weapons all over the world. Like the USA does now. I'll say it again. If we do NOT have such a thing, we are complete fools. There is no need to ever reveal it or use it unless a WWlll type scenario breaks out, and then who cares if the bad guys find out we just disabled their weapons? And I'd be willing to bet that the good guys on our side would be plenty thankful that we had and used it if it saved their nation and millions of their citizens.

Beazz

Beazz

OK WH Export Changes, LockMar CEO Urges Hill By Colin Clark Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/31/ok-wh ... z0yFpbDMcd

"In an exclusive interview with DoD Buzz, Lockheed Martin CEO Bob Stevens says he hopes Congress looks favorably on the Obama administration’s proposed arms export control reforms because it will make U.S. companies more competitive, help generate U.S. jobs and better protect crucial U.S. technology.

The administration announced roll-out of its first tranche of substantial changes yesterday, none of them requiring congressional approval. Jim Jones, the president’s national security advisor, plugged the changes in an opinion piece in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal.

Congressional aides have indicated deep unease with some of the administration’s more ambitious proposals, such as a single agency overseeing arms export licenses and merging the State and Commerce departments lists governing what is subject to an arms export license.

Stevens said he believes “we have the resources, the understanding” to create a single list of technologies and “to safeguard and to protect them.”

U.S. competitiveness should also drive arms export changes, he said: “It’s also in the interest of members of Congress and the administration and people like me in the industry to work on ways we can be more competitive.”

I asked Stevens what he would tell a senator or congressman to allay fears that they might end up voting for changes that might lead to the loss of crucial American technology.

He said he hoped “that we can turn to facts and look to history and the experience we have had over the last couple of decades and recognize that the world is changing. Today much technology is already available on a global basis.” His comments echo those of former Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre a decade ago, as well those of an influential Defense Science Board report at the time. But key lawmakers remain wary of changes that might lead to shifts in what committees would oversee arms exports and in what technologies would be subject to arms export licensing.

There is good reason for companies such as Lockheed to lobby for changes to the arms export control regime. Today, 14 percent of Lockheed’s sales are to international customers. “We believe that will grow to about 20 percent over the next few years,” Stevens said. Among the key Lockheed systems affected are the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-16, missile defense and commercial satellites, he added.

Another reason for reform — time is a component of competitiveness, Stevens noted. Critics have long complained that the current arms export system takes too long and is too uncertain in its outcomes.

In the long run, Stevens said the new system proposed by the administration would do a much better job of protecting truly sensitive technologies as it would focus more resources on fewer targets.

Finally, I asked him about the long-delayed arms export treaties with Britain and Australia languishing in the Senate, where they await ratification. He hopes they get ratified soon, as they will “be a stepping stone for a process we can rigorously police so trade can occur more fluidly and in no way damage the security of the United States.“

jeffb wrote:

No, that’s not it. As above, the intellectual property is covered by all the secrecy and patent agreements that come with this “designed to be exportable” aircraft.

You all know that the US regularly downgrades export military equipment. Can any of you actually provide evidence that these machines won’t be dumbed down for export as per usual?

So is the iphone's operating system and software all open source? Its an export item isn't it?

Truth is, many operators WOULD NOT WANT and WOULD NOT REQUEST the source code of the F-35's systems, because it basically restricts them from being able to receive future updates from LM.
As an operator, for every patch, hotfix, block upgrade, etc that comes from the manufacturer you would have to analyse every piece of code changed and re-integrate/re-test it with any customisations you've made. With 10 million lines of code, not even remotely a viable option.

On top of that, you have to request an extremely detailed list of changes from LM, down to the coding level, which they are not going to provide to you for free.

The coding access partner countries have been given is all they would have requested.

Some Software Babble for ye: CrossTalk Dec 2007

http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2 ... Novak.html

Performance-Based Software Sustainment for the F-35 Lightning II Lloyd Huff, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics George Novak, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics

"The complexity and sophistication of F-35 Air System software and the multiplicity of F-35 missions, versions, and customers, combined with a performance-based contract structure, present unprecedented software sustainment challenges. Understanding how F-35 software will be sustained is the focus of ongoing analysis and planning. This article describes some of the revolutionary conclusions and products of that analysis and provides a look forward to performance-based sustainment of software for the multinational F-35 fleet....

...1. Strive for Commonality
The JSF program, from its inception, has been built upon the following four pillars: affordability, lethality, survivability, and supportability. The extent to which a common software baseline is retained across F-35 variants and F-35 international partners will directly affect overall affordability and supportability. While air system software is tailorable and compatible with each owning service’s support environments, continued emphasis on commonality will maximize affordability and supportability for all system users. A common solution, employing minimal infrastructure, provides best value sustainment capability at minimum cost to all parties.

The ultimate goal of all participants, therefore, is to reach consensus on a common sustainment solution and, thereby, minimize the incidence of multiple system/software configurations. However, some unique capabilities will be necessary to satisfy specific operational needs, address sovereign requirements, and alleviate political and industrial concerns. Unique software capabilities will typically occur in two areas: in the AV Mission Systems software configuration (specifically, in weapons controls, pilot-vehicle interface, and communications/ interoperability), or as additions to the F-35 software integration and test supporting infrastructure. In either event, F-35 partner countries will have the opportunity to have their changes considered for inclusion in the common baseline before steps are taken to assess the cost and impacts of a unique software change. Any unique functionality will be encapsulated to minimize re-verification expense and the cost will be borne by the partner/partners involved on a pay-to-be-different basis...."

How the JSF Has SHAPED YOUR PLM {Product Life Cycle Management} By Kevin Kelly, Sr. Editor

http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/090606.html

"...A key challenge, however, was developing a computer program that could handle the complex data and modeling systems needed to bring a machine with 1.5 million parts and 3.5 terabytes of corresponding data per unit to fruition, while complying with the U.S. government's International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR)—a law that provides the President with the sole discretion on the exportation of defense-related articles and services. ITAR required Lockheed to limit shared data to only those areas which the partners are involved: "Certain partners are allowed to see only what they need to see to design their portion of the aircraft. The classified components are only seen by those who are cleared to see those components of the aircraft, but the structure itself can be seen by everyone," says Joe Fowler, director of PDM implementation for Lockheed Martin...."

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Oz $60Mil F-35As 'NOT AS STEALTHY' - WHAT?