"F-35 computer woes" Topic

F-35 computer woes

link

What is fascinating is how much control Lockheed Martin maintains over the jet despite it being the property of sovereign governments.

F-35 computer woes

link

What is fascinating is how much control Lockheed Martin maintains over the jet despite it being the property of sovereign governments.

Through binding legal agreements LockMart requires purchasers of the F-35 not to alter or modify its highly complex and elaborate software in any way, shape or form.

Maintaining proprietary control is not just for the sake of its bottom line; it would also prevent headaches that may arise when unauthorized software fixes by third parties create more problems than they solve.

Boeing maintains control/ownership of the Apache software and the Army maintainers are not even authorized to load canned upgrades. My eldest flys the AH-64E and he and his buddies detest Boeing for any number of maintenance and design issues.

Golly! Science-fiction writers are right, corporations will take over the world.

it would also prevent headaches that may arise when unauthorized software fixes by third parties create more problems than they solve.

Whilst completely placing sovereign air defence in the effective control of Lockmart.

It also gives control of sale of old equipment to defence companies instead of the owner – eg a deal to sell 12 old Israeli F-16s to NATO partner Croatia fell through because US law doesn't allow resale of equipment that's modified.

So the Israelis could only sell the F-16s if they returned them to their original 1987 configuration. The Croats would then have had to pay Lockmart half a billion dollars in updating them to a modern state, thus doubling the cost of acquisition and also voiding the Israeli guarantee.

Not surprisingly deal fell through and Croatia's air defence is handled by 3 operational MiG-21Bis supported by 4 unarmed MiG-21UM trainers (which I suspect will be 0 aircraft by the time COVID has done its damage and Croatian air defence will be handled by Hungary or Italy).

Portugal on the other hand was allowed to sell a total of 17 F-16s to Romania because the deal was totally approved by Lockmart and Lockheed would get follow on business from Romania.

These kind of risks to sovereign defence happen all the time. Indeed the new Australian submarine program has already come afoul of what the French contractor expects in terms of workshare.

This is the big risk with modern military equipment – it's become a case of defence capability becoming completely dependent on the vendor.

Would Ford or any other auto maker honor its warranty to maintain your car if you see fit to customize or modify it beyond the factory specs?

Why should defense industries be held to a different standard?

Because defending the country is a lot different than the supporting the joys of suburban living.

Note that defence vendors in the USA and many western countries dictate terms all the time. This compromises defence capability – look at the delays to Australian naval air defence capability because the politicised vendor couldn't deliver air warfare destroyers on time or budget but couldn't be held to account either and held the RAN over a barrel of a gun.

Or look at Boeing a company that has been described as political lobby group that happen to makes airplanes.

It's compromising your defence when they can't deliver functional KC-46 tanker on time.

Yet they went nuts to ensure Airbus didn't get the contract including having the competition restarted when Airbus won it and then convincing key parties to make all matter of exclusions and rigging to ensure Boeing won.

link

The vendors should be there to support defence forces, not there to gorge on captive and highly politicised markets.

Eisenhower's warning still rings true to this day!

---

Oh and in the Israel-Croatian example I gave, there was no Lockmart guarantee involved, the Israelis were guaranteeing 3 years operations themselves.

It did involve Lockmart losing money to Israel and in the long term sales of anywhere up to 300+ ex-Israeli F-16s as they're retired (though most countries won't touch these with a barge pole due to age and high usage in combat situations).

Yet defense companies – like auto makers or any other type of company – have boards of directors, answer to shareholders, and need to jealously protect intellectual property.

Defence companies shouldn't be compromising national security in search of shareholder returns.

Alas they own so many decision makers including procurement officers and bureaucrats who get plump private sector jobs after leaving the public sector.

"Compromising" is perhaps too strong a word. Private companies often walk a fine line between making profits and serving the public good. This may result in a bit of frustration due to the constraints involved like in your examples, but nothing's "compromised" when looking at the big picture.

To solve your problem, the obvious solution is to nationalize defense firms so that they're state-owned.