Home » Air » US Guards JSF Crown Jewels

US Guards JSF Crown Jewels

By Colin Clark Tuesday, November 24th, 2009 4:41 pm
Posted in Air, Cyber Security, International, Naval, Policy, Rumors

The Pentagon, after years and years of deliberation and heavy pressure from Britain, has finally decided it will not share the all-important computer source code for the Joint Strike Fighter.

Sharing source code would, in the words of one close observer of the program, “turn the British JSF into a Trojan Horse.” The message this source would send the British: “Yes we love you… but who are those third party nationals from the EU working for you? And how do we know we can trust them?”

British officials had threatened to pull out of the program if the US did not share the source code, but they are unlikely to go that far given how much political and financial capital they have committed to the project. There is also the fact, as one congressional source noted, that the British want what is commonly called the ITAR treaty approved by the Senate.

In August 2006, the US and UK concluded a technology transfer agreement for the F-35. One year later, the Bush administration sent a draft ITAR treaty in June to the Senate for ratification.

Now we hear that the Senate is moving with all deliberate speed to hold a final hearing on the ITAR treaty sometime before Christmas.

That will put the British in a very awkward position vis-à-vis the treaty, which would provide them benefits far beyond the JSF program. “The special relationship works both ways. If they are granted the ITAR treaties and then snub the JSF over the source code, it would be perceived as Britain putting the special relationship in jeopardy,” the congressional source said.

Reuters’ Jim Wolf broke the story about the source code. He interviewed Jon Schreiber, who handles international affairs for the JSF program.

“Nobody’s happy with it completely. but everybody’s satisfied and understands,” Wolf quoted Schreiber. The ban on sharing the source code applies to all allies, including Australia and Israel.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	@E_L_P November 24th, 2009 at 11:56 pm Colin, This one really isn’t any kind of issue. The memorandum of understanding by the JSF partners agrees to a lot of things. The big one being the goal of “jointness”. They signed up for the MOU and really can’t complain. The goal is to go to war as a coalition in one kind of fighter. That does no good to jointness if everyone has their own home grown software solution that makes alterations. So really no big deal. There are differences to partner nation JSFs. But that is another story. Where “configuration” is the word to watch for. http://tinyurl.com/ydwnwl2
	Zach November 25th, 2009 at 4:19 am We consider these guys our key allies, yet we don’t trust them? I guess they aren’t that “key” after all. This just makes us weaker not having our allies in top notch… Yay for paranoia…
	Think Defence November 25th, 2009 at 9:00 am Whilst it might not mean that much in an operational sense it means an awful lot in the political and industrial sense. For the UK to continue with a programme over which we do not have sovereign control, that is going to be late and hugely over budget and contrary to an agreement between two heads of state is a significant challenge. The UK is going to be having an election early next year, the nations finances are in the toilet and there are much more useful things to be spending several billion pounds on. The UK JCA programme has not actually committed to the F35 but simply named it as the preferred option. The F18 and Rafale M remain serious and viable options.
	Paulvers November 25th, 2009 at 12:30 pm have you read this : FLIGHT TEST: Dassault Rafale — Rampant Rafale By Peter Collins http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/09/3...
	Scott Isaacs November 25th, 2009 at 3:09 pm Great Britain will buy in and have F-35 JSFs. They are our #1, go-to ally and they are not going to risk that position by balking at acquiring a plane that is absolutely crucial to the integration of Great Britain’s air force in any effort by the United States and its allies to secure air superiority. If they were to pass on the JSF it would allow other countries that are desperate to become closer allies that the United States relies on implicitly to make significant progress towards eclipsing them. Look at the geopolitics of it: Britain will cease to be an actor on the world stage if it ceases to share the special relationship it has as America’s right hand and Britain is not going to risk a curtailing of its operational ability like that over the source code for a fighter aircraft. Get real, people.
	Think Defence November 25th, 2009 at 4:45 pm The UK is not simply buying a pair of trainers, it is participating in a multinational inddustrial project, one which we have contributed $2billion to and one which we are the only Tier 1 Partner Oh, and finally This is a copy of a statement to the House of Lords from the UK Secretary of State for Defence “We have always been clear that the UK would sign the MoU only if we were satisfied that we would have operational sovereignty of our aircraft. We have today received the necessary assurances from the US on technology transfer, which we would require to operate the aircraft safely and maintain, repair and upgrade it over its operational life”
	Scott Isaacs November 25th, 2009 at 3:00 pm We have enough trouble in-house with regards to having important technology stolen by espionage agents from a number of countries but most successfully from China. With as much work as we do to try to weed out potential information leaks, it would be completely idiotic to willingly hand over the source code to Britain when we know for a fact that their security protocol is not as stringent as our own and is far more likely to result in the loss of proprietary defense technology. No offense to Great Britain but the involvement of their third parties in their defense industry is too great a risk.
	roland November 25th, 2009 at 4:32 pm Well if you buy/sell addidas you never share with the customer how it was made. You just sell them. Same thing on the F-22 and F-23 and any planes. There is copyrights. But if we do this we should also be carefull with the relationship with the old allies like Britain. They are our ally.
	Zach November 26th, 2009 at 12:43 am Well surely we could have some security adviser in place to guard the secrets? Have him/her have the UK make changes before we trade the information? The UK has been our best ally for MANY years, especially when the rest of the world turned their backs on us when we asked for help (Iraq, and now Afghanistan). They need to be rewarded, and this would be a awesome way.
	Zach November 26th, 2009 at 12:47 am Also with all these reports about the US losing its dominance (which is kinda easy for a blind man to see and even clearer to our enemies especially China which pretty much bought our military). We should start beefing up our allies, and reaching out to new allies.
	Aron November 26th, 2009 at 1:52 am I think the only 3 countries on the JSF list I would trust with highly classified stuff is Britain, Norway and the Aussies. Israel has proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted. Just look at all the US stuff they have given China. Not to mention all the spying they do on America.
	Tortsman November 25th, 2009 at 10:12 pm Comparing the manufacture of Addidas shoes to the JOINT Strike Fighter shows a patent misunderstanding of the problem for the Brits. You see the purchaser of the Addidas Shoe does not poor their hard earned into the design, manufacture and marketing of the product. So it makes sense that you keep your manufacturing/trade secrets under your hat. But when the British people have invested financially, politically and technologically to the joint project it is a slap in the face to say we like you, we need you, we just don’t trust you!!!
	Zach November 26th, 2009 at 3:18 am Why Norway?
	RSF November 25th, 2009 at 11:42 pm Both the Russians with the Flanker, and now Saab with the Gripen NG are giving access to code when selling their fighters to customers. The Chinese went one further with the JF-17 (which Pakistan is buying), by going with open architecture C++ programing language. It should be interesting to see how the UK views Israel being given the opportunity to customize their F-35’s with native avionics and weapons (which requires access to the code), while denying this same level of access to the only other Level one “partner nation” in the program.
	William C. November 26th, 2009 at 7:48 am Yet we haven’t sold either the F-22 and the YF-23 was just a prototype. The F-35 will be the first 5th generation fighter to be exported, or stealth aircraft for that matter. Naturally we must take precautions. Speaking of F-23 I wish there was some reason we could have produced both the F-22 and F-23. Both were amazing designs.
	Io205 November 26th, 2009 at 8:50 am Well, this could be expected. I think it has gone far enough and as a Dutch guy I think we should drop the JSF. It isn’t worth the trouble and the dollars.
	VengerUK November 26th, 2009 at 6:52 pm Dear Sir / Madam. Being British i was very dismayed about the above announcement regarding the source code. But… I can understand it from both sides of the ocean. The current administration (hopefully not for much longer) is geared towards Europe and not the USA. Even though i trust our military i dont trust the political elite, they pander to Europe too much and need to grow some balls. We’ve been active participants in both Gulf Wars to a level far higher then our European neighbours etc. Hopefully next year 2010 we can change the leadership and have a better bilateral agreement on technologies etc.
	roland November 26th, 2009 at 11:40 pm Just give the british what they need. They are good allies and they can be trusted.
	freefallingbomb November 26th, 2009 at 7:12 pm To the poster “Io205” : You wrote: “I think it has gone far enough and as a Dutch guy I think we should drop the JSF. It isn’t worth the trouble and the dollars.” For the price of each single F-35 (currently 69,3 millon $ – 122 million $ , and still rising fast like an overclocked taximeter to an estimated 200 million $ per aircraft, after all the fixes are paid for) you could buy – or build, in the Netherlands… – 3 – 4,4 superior performing Russian Su-35’s (for only 45 million $ – 65 million $ apiece), stuff them with 100 % Dutch electronics and avionics (Philips, Signaal, Tele Atlas, etc.), whose source code couldn’t POSSIBLY be more familiar to you, and – voilá! – suddenly have simply THE BEST FIGHTER PLANE THAT EVER EXISTED ON EARTH , until some other nation emulates you (forever count out the U.S. Americans on doing that). Think about it, and then E-Mail that suggestion, with compliments from me, to your Defense Minister, Mr. Eimert van Middelkoop!
	freefallingbomb November 27th, 2009 at 3:24 pm Well, we Europeans also believe that whenever we hand over a military or industrial secret to our U.S. American counterparts, it lands first on an “Israeli” desk, then on a Chinese desk, and only after that on the first U.S. American desk. And we know that there is nothing you will ever do against that! You’re not really free to avoid that from happening…
	Uncle Sam November 27th, 2009 at 3:27 pm Good dog!
	Dan November 27th, 2009 at 4:16 pm Ladies, Ladies… calm yourselves… we are talking about source code, not compiled code. Compiled code is what runs on the computer, source code is what is used to write it. You can have the compiled code and not be able to change it… If you have the source code you have the key and you can see exactly how the code was written.
	DPG November 27th, 2009 at 5:18 pm That may well be the final nail in the F-35 coffin for us Brits as we have previously insisted upon having those source codes. In addition the rising cost and delays in the ‘hardly tested’ F-35 program are making it a riskier proposition with every month that passes without significant flight test activity to prove the makers extravagant claims. It started off with a price tag of about $40 million and what is it up to now? $100 million? The writing is on the wall for the F-35, it’s too expensive, too late but it’s like the blind leading the blind and it is a ‘must succeed’ program for the US, as that popular saying goes, ‘It’s too big to fail’. Just like Dubai maybe??
	PROUD TO BE A YANK November 27th, 2009 at 6:22 pm I’m sorry, my dearest of all Anglo cousins and staunchest ally, but you know, the truth is: I don’t trust you! Would you please pre-pay now all the F-35’s you ordered, in 2050 dollars ( = when / if you get the planes) ? And don’t forget to send thousands of more Brits to all our battle-fronts! ALWAYS remember our “special relationship” …!!! Yippee Ki Yay !!!
	G-2 Guy November 27th, 2009 at 7:27 pm Ok everyone … bottom line is this .…. this is exactly what happens when you get a room full of General Officers full of bright ideas who move forward on these projects without including thier Security Specialists … mainly thier Foreign Disclosure Officers. Oh wait a minute, Generals and Colonels know everything, thats what they leave the war college believing. I’ve seen this happen a thousand times over and over again … NEVER plan a Combined Operation or Cooperative Project like this without your friendly neighborhood Foreign Disclosure Officer (FDO) in the loop from start to finish .….. that includes tyhe drafting of an agreement or MOU.
	Mark M November 28th, 2009 at 2:23 am People in the UK talk about trust? Have you seen the track record of BAE lately? Corruption and kickbacks in deals with Saudi Arabia, Hungary, Austria, Czech Rep, South Africa, Tanzania…should I go on? What about BAE’s “stiff-arming” of the DSS and the Pentagon during their audit of the F-35 program a while back? “Privileged and not available,” to the US on a US program…right, trust goes both way.
	Scott Isaacs November 28th, 2009 at 2:46 pm You don’t have to take Israel’s technology transfer personally… it’s their largest revenue stream for exports. Why else do you think they take it, produce a knockoff and sell it?
	Scott Isaacs November 28th, 2009 at 2:50 pm You’ve lost your marbles if you think the Russian aerospace industry can produce anything superior to the F-35, friend.
	F-35 MAKING COWBOY November 29th, 2009 at 12:33 am To Mk. M.: YESSIR !!! Show it to them!!! These ingrates constantly forget that without us they would now have a Kaiser-Wilhelm-II-Square or Adolf-Hitler-Square where formerly was Picadilly Circus! And later they refused to join us in Vietnam either! They also lied to us about Iran courting Communism under Mosaddeq and tricked us into World War One, killing MILLIONS of us, with their Zimmermann telegram ploy! We ALWAYS get duped by them! But what if we simply ORDERED Buckingham Palace to buy three times – or TEN TIMES !!! – more F-35’s at ANY PRICE we wish – and without our source codes, naturally, and never delivered them? They wouldn’t even have any other option but to obey us! Why? Because otherwise we “leak” the definitive evidence that the Queen herself pushed the button on Lady Di and Blair on 7 / 7 / 05, he he he! Cheer up, Tommies, powder your nose and put up a Colgate smile for our annual one-big-happy-Anglo-family photography!
	freefallingbomb November 29th, 2009 at 1:15 am Part I : To the poster “Scott Isaacs”, who wrote: “You’ve lost your marbles if you think the Russian aerospace industry can produce anything superior to the F-35, friend.” and to the poster Mr. Byron Skinner, who wrote (in another thread) : “The Mig 35 doesn’t yet exist the Russians and Indians who will ‘co-build’ the Mig 35 are saying not to expect anything till 2020–2025 since the technology of both the F-22 and F-35 originated in the mid 1980’s by the time the Mig-35 does show up the American technology will be going on 50 years old.” (Continued)
	F-35 MAKING COWBOY November 29th, 2009 at 1:16 am Part II : Gentlemen: Your sweet sexy F-35 was S-O-V-I-E-T before it was even Federal Russian, and only lastly “U.S. American” !!! The genial Soviets had merely called it “Yakovlev Yak-141 ‘Freestyle’ ” ! “For specialized development of the F-35B STOVL variant, Lockheed consulted with the Yakovlev Design Bureau, purchasing design data from their development of the Yakovlev Yak-141 ‘Freestyle’.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Joint_Strike_Fi... And: (Continued)
	freefallingbomb November 29th, 2009 at 1:18 am Part III : “A considerable amount of time was spent in the development of a flat, rectangular nozzle similar to that later employed on the American F-22 Raptor.” … “On 26 September 1991, Sinitsyn made the first vertical landing on the Soviet aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov (ex-Baku) in 48–2. An hour later, Vladimir A. Yakimov landed 48–3 on the same deck.” (Continued)
	F-35 MAKING COWBOY November 29th, 2009 at 1:19 am Part IV : “Lockheed-Martin, which was in the process of developing the X-35 for the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter program, quickly stepped forward, and with their assistance 48–2 was displayed at the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992. Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed-Martin for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. Planned modifications for the proposed Yak-141M included an increase in STOL weight to 21.500 kg (47.400 lb). One of the prototypes would have been a dual-control trainer. … The partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed-Martin until June 1994.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141 (Continued)
	freefallingbomb November 29th, 2009 at 1:20 am Part V : Having positively determined that such an aeronautical abortion could never fly, let alone fight, in 1991 the Soviets obviously lost all interest in it, cancelled the project and strongly recommended it to you U.S. Americans. And you, like anxious little ducklings, FELL FLAT for the wily Russian bear’s ruse and invested xillions of dollars into it, during almost 20 years, as well as your / our allies did… for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !!! Yup, keep talking about losing one’s marbles… Cover your head in ashes, you gullible (photo-)copy-cats!!! Why, do you think, are the Russians in no hurry now to develop a counterpart to the F-22 and to the F-35 , LOLLLLL ??!
	JTF536 November 29th, 2009 at 12:33 pm 1. This nut “Freefallingbomb” sounds like an 85-year old grandmother who’s just discovered speed. Stop babbling and chill out. 2. The Brits have no choice but to continue with the F-35 purchase. The other fighters mentioned (and particularly the ludicrous notion of a Dutch avionics-equipped Russian fighter!) are simply not viable alternatives. Checkmate, USA.
	Zach November 30th, 2009 at 5:09 am They are developing a counterpart to the F-22… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA
	Daniel Russ December 1st, 2009 at 4:23 pm The Yak-38 and the 141 Freestyle don’t have near the capabilities of the F-35. They are first gen STOVL. All this talk about how the F-35 is a derivative of the Soviet designs is poppycock, pure and simple. The plane itself is less important than the fact that it is a missile and digital information platform. Respectfully, Daniel Russ Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com.
	nh1 December 1st, 2009 at 7:34 pm It’s a bad idea to “share” anything defense related with any other countries, because it will jeopardize our self sufficiency. We never know how the relationships with our current allies will be in the future therefore it’s best to be self sufficient in defense.
	nh1 December 1st, 2009 at 7:37 pm I agree 100%
	B Lucciotti December 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm Come on, guys…this is England, Australia and Isreal we’re talking about here…our ONLY dependable allies in this ever dangerous world.…its not like our security is all that great.….how many Muslem spys in our Govt already have access to these secrets, God only knows.….hell, we can’t even screen out dangerous extremeists from our own military, nor can we provide efficient security for White House Social events. I say, give them the code, if it will keep them on our side…God knows we need dependable allies.…
	Richard Crouch December 3rd, 2009 at 5:39 pm Why not Canada?
	Livvinit2damach December 3rd, 2009 at 6:08 pm It is amazing how short the memory of the US Military decision maker can be. Who developed the very concept of a vertical take off aircraft? Who first tested and proved the idea? Who designed, built and flew the first successful vertical take off fighter. Who used it in the falklands against much faster mirage aircraft, and showed the world just how powerful the concept was. That’s right sportsfans, the British! And what did they do with all this fantastic technology once they had it? They gave it all to the Americans! No questions about security or mistrust, no. Following that, the US and UK worked in harmony, and made it even better. Isn’t it just possible the same could happen again? The US and UK are great allies. Possibly the best. This sort of exaggerated paranoia will only damage a perfect friendship. The US military need to learn to trust it’s friends. For if you never learn to trust your friends, you’ll only ever have enemies…
	guest December 3rd, 2009 at 9:18 pm Why bother? Just buy it from the Chinese who probably already have it. But seriously, this will cause great problems. After the Chinook disaster, in which the brits didn’t buy the (expensive) software but decided to make their own (great failure) They are not likely to have that happen again. There are cheaper alternatives that perform just as well (Saab). If the Brits bail out, so will a lot of other nations like the Netherlands.
	Bill R. December 4th, 2009 at 5:54 am This reminds me of an old joke we had in BBN — you can buy a better packet switch but you won’t pay any more for it. The bigger problem than ITAR is that DoD does not have a coherent policy for managing software and its reuse. Failing to share software with our allies just puts a big “not-invented-here” fence around Distribution D government and its contractors only rights. You might as well be buying a restricted node lock license for each computer on each aircraft. Why even bother delivering the source code to the government at all ? So the Brits have two choices — they can rewrite the entire package and probably deploy it on their own national systems — so then you have to make sure that the over-the-air interfaces are compatible. Or they find some other way to work around the source code restriction. Think wrappers. Think integrating mainframes in an enterprise environment. Lots of good work for the Silicon Glen. As far as the IA objections — I have a hard time believing that you can’t protect your national systems with the right locks on the front door. If you find out that your programmers have put in back doors, fire ‘em and revoke their clearances.
	Youralltards January 6th, 2010 at 9:48 pm I like how this gets down to SCREW AMERICA!!! FLANKERS BEAT EVERYTHING!! 1. Russia = more broke than America.… Russia is currently … what? The world’s 5th ranked economy? Russians just ordered their first flankers in over 20 years! SU-35s! All 40 something of them! To counter our entire fleet of F-22s? 2. PAK Fighter DOESNT EXIST…it might exist in 2025 but not today, not tomorrow, not in 2010 or probably 2011. The components for the PAK is there but it doesnt exist as a fighter. Google it and read how every single year since 1999 Russians been claiming the PAK fighter will fly the next year and will be production 5 years from that date and how every year Russian generals change their stories. Russians always boast WE HAVE MYTHICAL FIGHTERS THAT WE HAVE NO PROOF OF WILL BLOW AWAY YOUR FIGHTERS! 3. I’m sure when PAK comes out it will be advanced but whos to say when PAK comes out we wont have a successor to the F-22? 4. Contrary to all the JSF bashers, JSF is pretty good. With high off bore sight AIM-9 and AIM-120D with near 120 mile range. And the JSF’s revolutionary 360 degree optical sensors. It can literally target and shoot aircraft thats behind it. So while your flanker has to manuever behind the JSF, I can turn tail and fly away and defeat your missile shot while still shoot mine at you. 3. Russia .… is pretty poor.… how is it going to afford a stealth fighter? A fifth generation fighter has to have a certain degree of stealth absorbing material to be considered fifth generation. How are two major world powers but not superpowers going to afford that? The US spent probably close to a trillion perfecting stealth technology over several airframes and over hundreds of aircrafts to get to where we are. Are the Russians and Indians over a few years without anything except the Mig 1.55 demonstrator going to perfect stealth technology akin to the F-22? I think not. The JSF has its issues but it does not play second fiddle to the Flanker. The Flanker is a air superiority fighter, the JSF is a multi role fighter, even if the Flanker is more agile has longer range, it really doesnt matter if I can see you before you see me and shoot you with my back turned to you. So if you wanna criticize the program, do so, but dont use the same old RUSSKIES WILL CRUSH YOU WITH THE SECRET UNKNOWN MYTHICAL ADVANCE FIGHTERS THAT THEY BOAST ALL THE TIME BUT NEVER HAVE ANY PROOF AND HAVE BEEN BOASTING FOR A DECADE AND WILL KEEP ON BOASTING FOR 2 MORE DECADES BEFORE IT FLIES! So please Freefall take your RUSSIA = No.1 trolling to youtube where all the other America Haters live.
	chuteok January 7th, 2010 at 7:29 am Well listen guys I understand the paranoia this will create with some, but Australia as well has had those codes for some time, we do “a fair bit of work” on the JSF. Australia is one of the USA ‘s most trusted allies and would have gotten some F-22’s if Obama had not vetoed it. Why, the sea lanes here, proximity to SEA/China etc, there are massive bases set in Australia {and Area 51–1/2 is here at a place called Woomera Rocket Range} up for Marine Divisions with all the gear in place, they arrive the stuff is here, we run the Elint , Sigint here for the US as well as the important comms for the BOOMER fleet.
	chuteok January 7th, 2010 at 7:31 am Part 3 The Brit Govt has justdone a hachet job on 7 Sqns in the RAF only to give 2 Typhoon Sqns back and are closing bases galore, they are broke {Blair and the rest of the socialist morons}, The Navy was toget 2 carriers for the JSF, now 1 , the other will be a Helo carrier saving them some billions, they cannot afford the new Astute Subs or Type 45 frigates..they are in a jam, but they ARE YOU ALLIES!!! Israel has put more systems into Chinese, Pakistani, Indian waeponry than I know of , are they the No 1 ally of the US.
	chuteok January 7th, 2010 at 7:31 am Part 5 Now off track a bit BUT::::::: read below and study your Mil history Lets see who wrote “we lots Millions in World War 1″ careful with your history, you entered the War late , the first battle you fought was green US troops being trained by Aussies, and getting ready They were doing fine both Army US/OZ getting on well , Pershing wanting self control over his men {not so bad as Australia finally got it after inept Brit Generals caused mayhem} the US fought alongside Australians 1s,t at the Battle of Le Hamel and did ok, it was planned for 90 mins it went 93, and was planned as the first use of Inf/tank and Artillery combined at once, with airl resuply too I might add. It became to blueprint for all future battels against braking the Hindenburg Line
	chuteok January 7th, 2010 at 7:32 am part 6 Britain only several years ago was finally able to pay off LEND LEASE from World War 2, that tiny Island had to pay back every dammcent to the US..how would you feel with the size of your poulation then being up against it and having that caveat on your head , and Russia never bothered,to pay the massive Lend Lease to them did it! UK { I am an Aussie} had land , banks, and funds that wer emade forfiet to the USA. , They lost everything they owned inthe US So do not have a shot at a country that was fighting from the start of the War {WW1} to the finish, and also from 1939 to 45 {not 42–45 as the US did} All our nations were hurt, but that is what it took to finish it off, even the Germans who had surendered said arm us and we will fight the Russians {not a bad idea at the time}, as my Grandfather fought in 1919 against the Revolution in Russia after WW1 back to the topic JSF…a waiting game, and be brave buy the EADS Tanker and stop the Boeing crap
	chuteok January 7th, 2010 at 7:30 am PART 2 Global Hawk was 1/3rd OZ input {electronics} . Now think about this, the JSF has a worldwide Network system that can help any JSF anywhere with a problem and send a fix, but it still needs the codes to do major work, Imagine sending a JSF {or 2–3 a} all the way back to the US for a 1 day fix from 11–000 miles. Trust is key, allies are allies. Yes I can understand EU, they screw with our commodities on the open market as well as they do you, but even they have seen the light on Mil matters no matter a semi socailist Govt or a right wing one. .Australia always wanted the updated F-111 to keep going, hell no other plane flying can still do its mission, Super Hornet with latest gen systems are a good fix with some F-22’s in there, but the JSF has been a bit of a “plnker’ for years, though many great innovations have come from building it. Harrier, A-10 were all going to go..I do not see that happening in the near future can you?
	Goof Ball January 21st, 2010 at 10:58 pm If I’m not mistaken, we share SLBM (submarine launched nuclear ballistic missile), submarine, and nuclear reactor technology with Great Britain, and have for years. Is the F-35 more advanced and dangerous that that? Of is it an Air Force problem?