 U.S. denies Canada info needed to maintain jets Although Canada is spending more than $500 million on the development of an American-built stealth fighter aircraft and is considering earmarking billions of dollars more to purchase the planes, the U.S. won't be sharing key software needed to maintain thCommentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
Who voted on this?
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
congress.
The US then can do nothing but watch as our secrets are traded to our adversaries.
The solution is to never transfer those secrets in the first place.
For Canada this is not a big deal as, practically speaking, Canada lacks the facilities to do this kind of work anyway.
I hate to say this, but this also reflects the fact that the USA's close allies are not so close to us anymore. The anti-American vitriol streaming out of Europe over the past eight years did not fall upon deaf ears. The attitude of the European Union towards American firms, such as Microsoft, also does not go unnoticed.
And, given the current economic climate, Obama will act to protect American jobs wherever necessary and I will credit him with keeping that promise from his election campaign. This action effectively prevents our allies from developing competing fighters using technology that was developed in the USA.
Though I can see why countries do not want the USA holding any power cards, since the USA likes to use them against its allies. I could see the USA using the codes to try and strong arm its allies.
Our own Government did the exact same thing when we attempted to sell the new patrol frigates. We tried to sell other countries the frigates without alot of the weapons and operations packages, and as you can see it's been a rousing success.
We never sold one frigate outside Canada.
Hell, better yet, develop a high performance UAV that can outperform the current generation of fighters (and if it was small enough, it would be pretty stealthy too). While we're at it, we can develop a super long range UAV to patrol the Arctic and our coastlines as well.
Withholding critical weapons information and packages isn't just an American policy. Although, these policies usually tend to backfire when trying to drum up new customers for your product.
Our own Government did the exact same thing when we attempted to sell the new patrol frigates. We tried to sell other countries the frigates without alot of the weapons and operations packages, and as you can see it's been a rousing success.
We never sold one frigate outside Canada.
Weapons systems? They're not even Canadian.
Phalanx - US (General Dynamics)
57mm - Swedish (Bofors)
Harpoons - US (Boeing)
Sea Sparrow - US (Raytheon)
Operations packages are a mixed bag.
I'd more suspect it was the cost with our bloated labour costs.
The problem the US has had in the past is that our 'very close allies' have a nagging tendency to sell our critical technology to other countries despite agreements saying they would not do so. While the US has very strict laws on this topic our allies tend not to. The problem occurs when US technology is exported from, say, Britain to China and the export is in concurrence with UK law but in contravention of the agreement that made the tech available to the UK.
The US then can do nothing but watch as our secrets are traded to our adversaries.
The solution is to never transfer those secrets in the first place.
For Canada this is not a big deal as, practically speaking, Canada lacks the facilities to do this kind of work anyway.
I hate to say this, but this also reflects the fact that the USA's close allies are not so close to us anymore. The anti-American vitriol streaming out of Europe over the past eight years did not fall upon deaf ears. The attitude of the European Union towards American firms, such as Microsoft, also does not go unnoticed.
And, given the current economic climate, Obama will act to protect American jobs wherever necessary and I will credit him with keeping that promise from his election campaign. This action effectively prevents our allies from developing competing fighters using technology that was developed in the USA.
Bullshit. Canada DOES have the facilities, first of all. Bombardier Aerospace is the 3rd largest aerospace manufacturer in the world and we also have Magellan aerospace conglomerate, CAE, etc, not to mention several foreign subsidiaries. Its true they have to ship all the spare parts by dogsled and the hangars are just really big igloos insulated with whale blubber, but many moons ago, our wisest elders figured out a way make your magical flying machines up here in the land of year-round snow.
Second, can you give me one example of where something as sophisticated as a fighter plane was resold by a US ally to an enemy? The US does a pretty good job of doing that itself (Iranian F-14s anyone?) and its really only an issue when you are giving a country rights to produce your aircraft or arms under license, which is not applicable to JSF. No nation is going to buy second-hand planes that dont have any support from the manufacturer, how would they support the fleet with spare parts?
Whats really unique here is that there is no separation between the hardware and software. In the past, when the US wanted to sell F16s or F15s to countries of questionable loyalty, they sold them the airframe and 'dumbed down' electronics. Even trusted allies had the option of buying the plane and installing their OWN electronics and mission systems to meet their own requirements. The article suggests that JSF customers like Canada will NOT be able to install or upgrade the computers, which I dont like.
This is really about :
1) protecting US business interests by forcing JSF purchasers to deal exclusively with US-based aerospace for the JSF lifetime service support
2)US having leverage over its allies.
Bullshit. Canada DOES have the facilities, first of all. Bombardier Aerospace is the 3rd largest aerospace manufacturer in the world and we also have Magellan aerospace conglomerate, CAE, etc, not to mention several foreign subsidiaries. Its true they have to ship all the spare parts by dogsled and the hangars are just really big igloos insulated with whale blubber, but many moons ago, our wisest elders figured out a way make your magical flying machines up here in the land of year-round snow.
Second, can you give me one example of where something as sophisticated as a fighter plane was resold by a US ally to an enemy? The US does a pretty good job of doing that itself (Iranian F-14s anyone?) and its really only an issue when you are giving a country rights to produce your aircraft or arms under license, which is not applicable to JSF. No nation is going to buy second-hand planes that dont have any support from the manufacturer, how would they support the fleet with spare parts?
Whats really unique here is that there is no separation between the hardware and software. In the past, when the US wanted to sell F16s or F15s to countries of questionable loyalty, they sold them the airframe and 'dumbed down' electronics. Even trusted allies had the option of buying the plane and installing their OWN electronics and mission systems to meet their own requirements. The article suggests that JSF customers like Canada will NOT be able to install or upgrade the computers, which I dont like.
This is really about :
1) protecting US business interests by forcing JSF purchasers to deal exclusively with US-based aerospace for the JSF lifetime service support
2)US having leverage over its allies.
The Interior of our Walls melting doesn't really constitute "Indoor Plumbing". At least not in the rest of the world.
The problem the US has had in the past is that our 'very close allies' have a nagging tendency to sell our critical technology to other countries despite agreements saying they would not do so. While the US has very strict laws on this topic our allies tend not to. The problem occurs when US technology is exported from, say, Britain to China and the export is in concurrence with UK law but in contravention of the agreement that made the tech available to the UK.
The US then can do nothing but watch as our secrets are traded to our adversaries.
The solution is to never transfer those secrets in the first place.
For Canada this is not a big deal as, practically speaking, Canada lacks the facilities to do this kind of work anyway.
I hate to say this, but this also reflects the fact that the USA's close allies are not so close to us anymore. The anti-American vitriol streaming out of Europe over the past eight years did not fall upon deaf ears. The attitude of the European Union towards American firms, such as Microsoft, also does not go unnoticed.
And, given the current economic climate, Obama will act to protect American jobs wherever necessary and I will credit him with keeping that promise from his election campaign. This action effectively prevents our allies from developing competing fighters using technology that was developed in the USA.
Here's an answer for you, Screw the US, Well buy the Euorfighter. You lose several ways. Youweaken the ties between allies, you lose the jobs that those would provide. So you want to repiar tjhose ties by punitve measures agaisnt long standing allies? Nice work
Why exactly are we getting our soldiers killed in Afghanistan since again?
So this is how you treat your allies, You think there's "Anti-Americanism" now wait till you start yanking the chain of the other western nations. Frankly were better off with Ties to Europe now.
Withholding critical weapons information and packages isn't just an American policy. Although, these policies usually tend to backfire when trying to drum up new customers for your product.
Our own Government did the exact same thing when we attempted to sell the new patrol frigates. We tried to sell other countries the frigates without alot of the weapons and operations packages, and as you can see it's been a rousing success.
We never sold one frigate outside Canada.
Weapons systems? They're not even Canadian.
Phalanx - US (General Dynamics)
57mm - Swedish (Bofors)
Harpoons - US (Boeing)
Sea Sparrow - US (Raytheon)
Operations packages are a mixed bag.
I'd more suspect it was the cost with our bloated labour costs.
We may have a mixed bag for weapons but the software that runs them is Canadian and we wouldn't sell anything that we'd developed to another country. So I can't see why the hell we're getting so pissy about the yanks doing the same thing.
Withholding critical weapons information and packages isn't just an American policy. Although, these policies usually tend to backfire when trying to drum up new customers for your product.
Our own Government did the exact same thing when we attempted to sell the new patrol frigates. We tried to sell other countries the frigates without alot of the weapons and operations packages, and as you can see it's been a rousing success.
We never sold one frigate outside Canada.
Weapons systems? They're not even Canadian.
Phalanx - US (General Dynamics)
57mm - Swedish (Bofors)
Harpoons - US (Boeing)
Sea Sparrow - US (Raytheon)
Operations packages are a mixed bag.
I'd more suspect it was the cost with our bloated labour costs.
We may have a mixed bag for weapons but the software that runs them is Canadian and we wouldn't sell anything that we'd developed to another country. So I can't see why the hell we're getting so pissy about the yanks doing the same thing.
Difference being they are willing to Sell us something, just not the Know How to Maintain it.
Canada hasn't exactly top of the class on screening who it gives citizenship to or how we police our borders.
Now we have 'security specialists' spilling their unsupported beans on how bad our guys are in Afghanistan. We are hardly rock solid on internal security.
And this is a software key, if we need to upgrade we go back to the contractor.
Another anti-American storm in a tea cup.
If you give these other nations access to the codes, what's there to stop them from developing their own upgrades and develop new software from the already existing software codes? The United States, whenever they sold F-14 or F-15s, they dumbed down the software and some of the hardware, in case an Iran type situation occurred. The Soviets did the same when they sold their military equipment (rightfully so because they were intelligence gold mines when the Israelis captured, or scavenged from them)
So basically, we're upset that the Americans are not letting us develop our own software codes for a research project that they probably have invested the most money into. So alternative proposals is "Buy the Eurofighter or the Typhoon" which will probably do the SAME EXACT THING.
And, best of all. Guess who already knew we weren't getting the codes?
"However, Canada's Defence Department says it is not concerned. Defence spokeswoman Lianne LeBel said Tuesday that Canada knew it would not be provided with the codes for the aircraft, also known as the JSF, and that did not have any impact on its involvement in the fighter program."