DailyTech - Australia, UK Demand Joint Strike Fighter Software

Submit News

Science Australia, UK Demand Joint Strike Fighter Software
Sven Olsen (Blog) - March 16, 2006 4:32 AM

E-mail

del.icio.us

53 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Mar 17 at 4:38 PM

The most ambitious military program to date might have a problem over intellectual property

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is the future military aircraft designed to replace most of the US and UK fighter fleet by 2011. Developed between the US Air Force, the US Marines, the US Navy, the UK Royal Air Force and the UK Royal Navy, the fighter is expected to be the low cost all purpose strike attack aircraft. Unfortunately, the UK's $2B USD investment so far may all be for naught; there is a large discrepancy between the US and the UK over the software that runs the aircraft. According to The Telegraph:

Without full access to computer software, the next-generation aircraft would effectively remain under the control of the Americans and could be "switched off" without warning.

If the US and the UK cannot come to a conclusion on this issue of the fighter software, the UK may scrap plans to purchase 150 of the aircraft. Australia has expressed similar doubts with plans to purchase 100 aircraft on the table.

Ultimately, for any country to have invested billions of dollars at this point it seems like a fairly large oversight to not have the details of a virtual kill switch hammered out. Even if the software described by The Telegraph is less critical than described, there is still concern that without access to full documentation and source code that the aircraft might fall into compulsive maintenance control to the US only. If the US is the only country with access to programmable code on the F-35 JSF, countries who buy the plane would still depend on US companies to localize or make changes to the software.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not a new issue

By Mclendo06 on 3/16/2006 9:18:49 AM , Rating: 2

This isn't a new issue at all. The United States has exported high-technology aircraft for a long time and I don't know of any of them that can be operational without some sort of US support. If it isn't avionics and fire control software, then it's spare parts. For instance, Iran has a whole squadron of F-14's. They just can't fly them because we stopped supporting them with spares as soon as the Ayatollah took over. The JSF is an extremely high-technology stealth aircraft. So far, the US is the only country with stealth aircraft. Therefore, we are going to take every step possible to maintain a high level of control over any stealth aircraft that we export. That includes exporting them to only a couple of countries (UK and Italy may be all) and controlling things like the software and detailed engineering designs.

RE: Not a new issue

By TomZ on 3/16/2006 9:23:49 AM , Rating: 2

So what are the odds the US will provide the software?

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By Spinne on 3/16/2006 9:33:31 AM , Rating: 2

I highly doubt it, the Brit contribution is a measely 2 bill and the Australian contribution is even smaller.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By masher2

(blog) on 3/16/2006 9:35:39 AM , Rating: 3

Actually, its nearly a given that the US *will* provide it. The Telegraph is, in its usual fashion, merely trying to dramatize what is essentially a non-story.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By NotFlatusTDM on 3/16/2006 9:55:13 AM , Rating: 4

Yeah, the US actually trusts Britan and Australia. It's not like they are dealing with France.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By cpeter38 on 3/16/2006 10:04:51 AM , Rating: 3

ROFLMAO!

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By z3R0C00L on 3/16/2006 11:10:14 AM , Rating: 3

I think it's about time every country around the world bands together with it's own currency and drives the United States into poverty then buy all of it's assets and rip apart it's empire.

I'm sick of the arrogant imperialistic attitude. We, the world, are stronger.. you'd better take note of that before you keep bullying us around.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By Mclendo06 on 3/16/2006 11:32:34 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
We, the world, are stronger.. you'd better take note of that before you keep bullying us around.

I realize that with globalization the United States will eventually lose it's dominance of the global economy (granted that is happening already-China is buying a lot of US assets). However, controlling military exports isn't bullying other countries around, it's prudence. I doubt that the United States has an effective defense against the JSF seeing as how to my knowledge there is no effective way to detect a stealth aircraft. It seems sensible, then, that the US would take steps to assure that these aircraft could not be used against us. That is why American corporations are responsible for supporting basically every American made military jet aircraft that has been exported to foreign countries.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By lodine on 3/16/2006 12:54:59 PM , Rating: 2

Not sure stealth craft are as undetecable as we may think. When an F-117 was brought down in the Balkans there was a rumor that it was from a new russian SAM.

"information suggest that the F-117A was tracked by an old Soviet radar - a mid-1950s radar operating in 165-190cm wavelength range"

http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117down.htm

though I can't vouch for the authenticity of the site.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By masher2

(blog) on 3/16/2006 1:10:12 PM , Rating: 2

Just to correct a few points-- stealth aircraft are not "undetectable", they just present a very small radar image...and most of that image is reflected away from the transmitter.

Low-frequency radar dating from the 1940s-50s is indeed somewhat less susceptible to the effects used by stealth aircraft. However, those radars are far less accurate, and cannot usually pinpoint an aircraft well enough to allow a lock. They're also far larger, and thus more vulnerable to attack and countermeasures.

A multilateration-based ESM system can also locate a stealth aircraft...but those are passive devices and not strictly radar at all.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By Mclendo06 on 3/16/2006 1:13:23 PM , Rating: 2

Yes, an F-117 was shot down in the Balkans. This was because at the time that it was illuminated by radar, its weapons bays were open which foiled its stealthy radar signature. Missiles and bombs are not stealthy, so they must be carried internally in a stealth aircraft's weapon bays. While these bays are open (which shouldn't be very long), the aircraft is not stealthy. I don't know for sure, but I have heard from folks I know from the air force that this is what allowed this particular aircraft to be shot down. It is also worth noting that the F-117 is not the stealthiest aircraft in the US arsenal anymore. It is flat surfaced because that was the only type of shape for which radar signatures could be modeled by computer at the time. Curved surfaces have since found their way to stealth aircraft (i.e. F/A-22 and JSF)

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By FoxFour on 3/16/2006 1:16:00 PM , Rating: 2

Any stealth plane can be tracked by any radar gear, under the right conditions. "Stealthy" doesn't guarantee "invisible". The F-117 has to be flown very carefully to minimize its radar return. A very small mistake in positioning or aspect can lead to detection.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By jskirwin on 3/16/2006 12:57:51 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
I'm sick of the arrogant imperialistic attitude.

Uhm, if we were really imperialist, you'd be dead, too afraid to say anything or possibly both.

America is about as imperialist as Elton John is heterosexual. Isolationism is growing in the US - and the last time that happened the World Economy collapsed, Europe and Asia went fascist and we ended up sacrificing half a million men to clean up the mess "The World" started.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By Wonga on 3/16/2006 1:57:18 PM , Rating: 2

I agree that the US isn't imperialistic, but try not to overdramatise the US role in World War II. Yes, the Axis would surely have won if the US hadn't intervened, but many countries lost millions of people, not just the Americans who 'cleaned up the mess'. Only a few nations in Europe had fascist leaders - unfortunately, those countries also had significant industrial manpower.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By masher2

(blog) on 3/16/2006 3:02:15 PM , Rating: 2

> "I agree that the US isn't imperialistic, but try not to overdramatise the US role in World War II"

That would be difficult to do. Yes, many Allied nations lost millions of people, but nearly all those were on their own soil, in defense of their own nation. No nation had more casualties than the US, fighting to defend OTHER nations.

I won't even mention the billions spent on the Marshall Plan, to rebuild post-war Europe.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By KristopherKubicki

(blog) on 3/16/2006 3:49:10 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
No nation had more casualties than the US, fighting to defend OTHER nations.

Masher I usually agree with you, but not on this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualti...

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By masher2

(blog) on 3/16/2006 3:53:09 PM , Rating: 2

> "Masher I usually agree with you, but not on this one:"

Those figures agree with me. The only Allied nations with more military casualties than the US were China and the USSR...both of which occurred nearly all their losses within their own borders.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By masher2

(blog) on 3/16/2006 3:55:10 PM , Rating: 2

> "...both of which occurred nearly all their losses within their own borders."

God, did I actually type such a clumsy phrase? Kris, you got to give us an edit function here...

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By KristopherKubicki

(blog) on 3/16/2006 4:12:52 PM , Rating: 2

OK I see what you mean now.

quote:
No nation had more casualties than the US, fighting to defend OTHER nations.

The comma there screws everything up :-P

As far as an edit function goes, we don't have plans for one in the near future because of the whole moderation thing. We might go the digg route and give people 3 minutes of edit time, at which time no one can moderate that comment.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By Netscorer on 3/16/2006 8:51:14 PM , Rating: 2

Sorry but you are dead wrong.
Look up how many soldiers Russians lost just storming the Berlin. I am not even mentioning any other notable battles.

American influence was significant and it's help crucial to the victory but it's losses do not even start to come into a comparison with other nations and the biggest and most decisive battles were fought and won on the Eastern front, not the Western.

Also, ask yourself why America only intervened in 1943, when the tide of the war already turned against Germany and its allies?
I doubt it was because they suddenly wanted to free all these nice Europian nations. It was simply to prevent Russians to overtake Europe and create one big and scary USSRE (United Soviet Socialistic Republics of Europe).

Cheers,

netscorer.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By masher2

(blog) on 3/16/2006 10:01:09 PM , Rating: 2

> "Also, ask yourself why America only intervened in 1943..."

Is this a joke? The US intervened Dec 8, 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor. A point in time in which the "tides of war" were most certainly with the Axis powers.

> "Look up how many soldiers Russians lost just storming the Berlin..."

70,000. An additional 110,000 dead in the Vistula-Oder Offensive, and 350-400K dead in the Prussian Offensive. However, if you remove from those figures those killed while fighting on soil which became part of the Soviet empire at wars end, the figure is less than the 400K+ US losses in WW2.

The whole reason the Soviets had such heavy losses in the Battle of Berlin was because they rushed headlong in, simply to beat their own Allies, hoping to gain the prize. A suicidal land-grab rush doesn't exactly qualify as "defending other nations" now does it?

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By smitty3268 on 3/16/2006 4:35:57 PM , Rating: 2

Yes, many Allied nations lost millions of people, but nearly all those were on their own soil, in defense of their own nation. No nation had more casualties than the US, fighting to defend OTHER nations.

While I agree with some of what you said, lets not try and pretend we did all that out of the goodness of our hearts. We were very isolationist back then, which is why we didn't get involved until after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. So I think it is wrong to say we didn't fight only for the defense of our nation, it just happened that all the fighting occured on other countries soil because the Axis countries didn't have the power to invade North America. And the Marshall Plan was always meant to help America in the long run by creating a buffer between us and the USSR - stronger allies are always good.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By Zoomer on 3/17/2006 9:32:47 AM , Rating: 2

I'm not american, but you must remember why the us was relucatant to join the war.

World War I. Hmm, sounds like a sequel there.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By Wonga on 3/16/2006 5:00:47 PM , Rating: 2

Don't get me wrong, the US suffered large losses helping other people, but so did many others - the British for instance trying to defend France and to liberate the Netherlands. Germany had declared war on the US, so if the US didn't send the military in when they did, the battle would have been brought to their land. Anyway, my main point wasn't to say who sacrificed what, but rather that it wasn't just because of all Europeans that the US had to come in and help defeat fascism.

Oh, and the money spent on rebuilding post-war Europe was sizable and appreciated to be sure, but the reason for doing that was to prevent another world war America would be dragged into, by preventing another fascist regime springing up AND by keeping communism confined to Eastern Europe.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By masher2

(blog) on 3/16/2006 10:09:47 PM , Rating: 2

> "Oh, and the money spent on rebuilding post-war Europe was sizable and appreciated to be sure, but the reason for doing that was to prevent another world war..."

The Marshall Plan was sold to American voters as a humanitarian measure, first and foremost. They approved it as such.

> "the British for instance trying to defend France and to liberate the Netherlands"

Britain declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland, as it was required to do under the "Polish-British Defense Pact" treaty it had signed. Defending France had nothing to do with it.

France, for its part, did not honor its treaties with Poland, and provided only a token resistance to Poland in 1939.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By Wonga on 3/17/2006 1:39:08 PM , Rating: 2

Yes, Britain declared war on Germany, along with France, when Poland was invaded. Then a British expeditionary force was sent to fight with the French and was deployed to protect the French borders (unsuccessfully).

Yes, France had to secure their borders, first and foremost, which wasn't successful - quite difficult with a highly mobilised aggressive neighbour next door. A hell of a lot of French died overall.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By masher2

(blog) on 3/17/2006 4:04:14 PM , Rating: 2

> "Yes, France had to secure their borders, first and foremost, which wasn't successful - quite difficult with a highly mobilised aggressive neighbour next door. A hell of a lot of French died overall."

And a hell of a lot less would have died, had France followed its obligations, and stopped Hitler early. History is clear...France _never_ intended to adhere to the treaty it signed and defend Poland fully. France wanted to give some of Poland to Hitler, in the hopes it would pacify him.

It was only when it became clear that Hitler wouldn't stop with just part of Poland, and would likely consume all of Europe-- that France suddenly remembered their obligation to Poland.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By Wonga on 3/16/2006 5:01:51 PM , Rating: 2

Oops, someone said the same in the meantime :)

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By masher2

(blog) on 3/16/2006 11:36:59 AM , Rating: 2

> "I'm sick of the arrogant imperialistic attitude..."

I'm quite sure whichever country you reside in has military secrets, and a process to ensure they remain so. So thanks for the object lesson in hypocrisy.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By Kishkumen on 3/16/2006 11:57:01 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
I think it's about time every country around the world bands together

How's that going by the way? Have you got the dwarves and elves to stop blowing each other up yet over their petty religious disagreements?

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By masher2

(blog) on 3/16/2006 12:29:50 PM , Rating: 2

> " Have you got the dwarves and elves to stop blowing each other up yet over their petty religious disagreements?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4417096.stm

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By ceefka on 3/16/2006 2:58:28 PM , Rating: 2

It's still a long way to the United States of Europe. We ditched our constitution last time we had a chance to have one. That would have been a beginning. Europe is not a country but a group of (small) countries.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By FoxFour on 3/16/2006 1:09:45 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
So far, the US is the only country with stealth aircraft.

You'll need to provide a better definition of "stealth aircraft" to make that claim acceptable.

The Eurofighter Typhoon incorporates stealth technologies (low frontal radar cross-section, supercruise capability, powerful passive sensor gear).

Russia's Su-37 is purported to be as stealthy as the F-22, though that remains to be proven (and the aircraft is not into production yet since Russia has no money).

Yes, the F-117 and B-2 are in a class of their own. But no, the US is not the only nation possessing aircraft with stealth capabilities.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By KIJ on 3/16/2006 5:03:53 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
That includes exporting them to only a couple of countries (UK and Italy may be all) and controlling things like the software and detailed engineering designs.

Guess you’re wrong about this one. Denmark and Danish companies is also participating in the development of JSF, and is also considering it as a possibility, when the successor of our F16 fighters has to be found. The other options are the Swedish Saab Gripen and Eurofighter Tycoon, but its well known that people in Danish Air Force and the Danish industry wants the JSF.

Parent

RE: Not a new issue

By Clauzii on 3/16/2006 7:37:26 PM , Rating: 2

And in Denmark we don´t have such a big need for ultra advanced stealth and weapons. Also I think the price of JSF will be more tolerable.

To the main issue: I Do not like the idea of "hidden" software controlled by US only. All source should be open to the countrys bying the plane.

On a Top Secret level of course :)

Parent

ROFL

By astrodemoniac on 3/16/2006 4:53:26 AM , Rating: 2

Haahahhahahahhahhahahahahahaha... Like buying a car and the salesman keeping a copy of the key :-)

RE: ROFL

By BillyBatson on 3/16/2006 5:39:07 AM , Rating: 2

not just the key but the keyless entry controller aswell, so he can pop your trunk from 50 feet away lol

Parent

RE: ROFL

By masher2

(blog) on 3/16/2006 8:56:35 AM , Rating: 2

> "like buying a car and the salesman keeping a copy of the key :-) "

Err, for nearly all makes and models-- they DO keep a key. Or at least the pattern and keycode required to make a duplicate.

Parent

So is the US military trying to emulate Micro$oft?

By stupid on 3/16/2006 11:07:11 AM , Rating: 2

Just read the subject title.

RE: So is the US military trying to emulate Micro$oft?

By masher2

(blog) on 3/16/2006 11:10:49 AM , Rating: 2

I find that you can always discount anything said by a person who spells 'Microsoft' with dollar signs. Thanks for confirming this general rule.

Parent

RE: So is the US military trying to emulate Micro$oft?

By Mudvillager on 3/16/2006 1:53:16 PM , Rating: 2

I couldn't agree more, masher2.

Parent

Not that unusual

By obeseotron on 3/16/2006 12:59:30 PM , Rating: 2

I'm sorta surprised that we're giving the British a raw deal on the JSF, but it's pretty common for the US and Russia to degrade the quality of their most advanced systems before exporting them. Must be irritating for the UK, they follow whatever insane course of action the idiot in the white house dreams up without a peep, and they still get screwed.

RE: Not that unusual

By masher2

(blog) on 3/16/2006 2:53:21 PM , Rating: 2

Of course, had you bothered to investigate the issue even slightly, instead of having your opinion fed to you by the media, you would have realized Britain isn't "getting a raw deal". Quite the opposite, in fact.

Parent

RE: Not that unusual

By Brassbud on 3/17/2006 3:09:13 AM , Rating: 2

Actually, since most countries purchase US planes awhile after their initial production, many of the fighters the US exports are in fact more capable than their American counterparts.

In regards to the articles topic, anyone that has followed any military aircraft development over the last decade knows that this is far from news, and in fact was one of the intial debates with the JSF.

Lastly, to the person that suggested the World "ban together" to bring down the US, don't you think your attitude opposses your idea that the US should give all their good technology away?

Parent

Clear the air...

By stmok on 3/16/2006 5:51:54 PM , Rating: 2

So let's clear the air...

(1) Stealth is a simplified term for the average Jane/Joe and journalists out there.

The proper term is Low Obserability. LO for short.

To measure how stealthy something is, you try an figure out its Radar Cross Section or RCS. The lower the RCS is, the harder to detect the aircraft or vehicle in question. The concept behind RCS originated from a Russian mathematician.

He documented the original theory and the mathematics behind it. It was a US mathematician and Lockheed Martin who bothered to pick it up and wrote a bit of software on how to calculate the RCS on the computer. (It was primitive back then, because of the First Generation nature...So its all non-aerodynamic shapes and angles).

Lowering RCS does not mean you can make a plane completely invisible. You can make it such that enemy detection systems will have a hard time keeping track or unable to lock on to you to fire a weapon at you. If you stray close enough to a enemy system, you will be picked up.

(2) The F-117 was shotdown because of the human factor.

(a) The Pilot flew to a target using the same route! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! In war, you NEVER fly back in the same path as you did previously! Otherwise, the bad guys will be prepared for you!

(b) Since the route was re-used, its not hard to prep some defences against the threat. As well, having intelligence (your spy network) confirm that the aircraft is flying over where you are, makes it easier!

(c) A MiG-21 was tasked to intercept the F-117. It was not able to attain lock (radar or IR), so the pilot attacked it with guns visually (mark-one eyeball). When you punch holes into the F-117's skin, you reduce its "Stealthiness" or increase its RCS. This makes it more detectable by old SAMs like the Russian SA-6 systems.

End result? F-117 down.

But then, you have to think about the entire career of the F-117. Only one has been downed by enemy fire since it was put into service? That's pretty impressive for an early generation stealth solution!

(3) Regarding the JSF.

(a) Only UK's Navy and RAF will be using the JSF to replace its Harrier fleet. The Eurofighter Typhoon will be the mainstay of the RAF. It ain't going anywhere.

(b) Australia will replace its entire fleet of F/A-18s and F-111 with the JSF.

(c) The LO (stealthiness) of the JSF is nowhere on the level of the F-117 or F/A-22 Raptor. It is specifically tune at certain frequencies to handle against surface to air threats, NOT airborne radars of enemy fighters OR AWACS systems. As a result the JSF is the "Celeron or Sempron" of the stealth fighter market. Its the "poor man's stealth fighter".

Think about it, US is not gonna give ANYONE their latest stealth technology that's in the F/A-22 Raptor...That'll be like shooting yourself in the FOOT!

(4) This article from The Telegraph is nonsense. You do realise that current American-made planes sold to clients around the world would have the same "kill switch" nonsense. And yet, there hasn't been anything like that happening! See how the Journalist don't know shit?

Australia uses F/A-18s and F-111s for the last 15yrs+. Both are American made solutions. (Heck, we even nab those F-111 airframes as soon as the USAF retired them!) We've never had a nonsensical issue with built-in kill switches.

This is some made up BS to hype up a story that isn't even worth telling to begin with!

RE: Clear the air...

By stmok on 3/16/2006 5:52:43 PM , Rating: 2

Sorry

Low Obserability => Low Observability

Parent

RE: Clear the air...

By The Cheeba on 3/16/2006 6:26:40 PM , Rating: 2

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote... british newspapers are the king of trash reporting anyway.

however, i think the point about "compulsive maintenence" addressed in this article (not the british one) is correct. The f-111s used by australia right now have to be serviced by US companies if i am not mistaken becaues they do not have the software code for those planes either.

correct me if i am wrong though, but i think the whole hoopla is really about not getting stuck with having americans service the aircraft, not really about americans being able to turn it off in mid air.

Parent

What happened to the Eurofighter?

By nrb on 3/16/2006 7:53:07 AM , Rating: 2

(blink)

Hang on a minute, last time I heard the UK fighter fleet was going to be replaced by the Typhoon/Eurofighter. Have they really abandoned that in favour of an american plane? I can't believe that, the tabloids would have been screaming about it for weeks.

RE: What happened to the Eurofighter?

By ronster on 3/16/2006 7:58:19 AM , Rating: 2

The RAF frontline fighter is to be the EF/Typhoon and the first few are actually in service now.

The JSF is primarily intended to replace both the Royal Navy and RAF Harrier jump-jets.

Parent

USA in WW2

By StumpyNL on 3/17/2006 9:40:33 AM , Rating: 2

I know this is a bit of a late reply but I just had to post my comment about the role of the USA in World War II in Europe.

Let's get this straight. If you want to thank a nation for defeating Nazi-Germany you'll have to thank the USSR (nowadays Russia). 80 percent of the German Wehrmacht was defeated by the Russians. June the 6th 1944? Don't get me wrong, but there were like 5 to 10 Allied divisions who participated there. When Hitler attacked the USSR he used 152 divisions. 3.500.000 German soldiers. THAT was the scale of the battles in Russia. The thing is, Russia would have won the war even without US support. As mentioned before the USA began to interfere with the war in Europe because they didn't want a communistic Europe. The role of the US in Asia/Pacific was much more different of course.

RE: USA in WW2

By masher2

(blog) on 3/17/2006 4:38:35 PM , Rating: 2

> "The thing is, Russia would have won the war even without US support."

What total nonsense. The USSR would have been easily defeated with US intervention. Even if you forget the direct military supplies and aid given to the USSR (did you forget about 'Lend-Lease'?), and the fact the US kept Japan off their back, you have to realize that Germany was developing military technology at a far faster pace than was Russia.

Had the US not intervened, not only would Germany had more resources fighting an opponent with fewer, but the war would have drug on long enough for them to totally eclipse the USSR in military technology. Jet fighters, guided munitions, tanks...even potentially nuclear weapons (had the US not disrupted Hitler's a-bomb plans)

The tide of the battle turned only after the US entered. And ALL the Soviet advances against the Wehrmacht occurred after the US contribution had begun to turn the tide.

Furthermore, war is about far more than just raw numbers of battles and casualties. The US supplied the Soviet Union with technology transfers, raw materials, and finished munitions. Furthermore, it disrupted German strategic resources and manufacturing capabilities to a far larger degree than a simple casualty count indicates.

I find it simply amazing anyone could make the statement that the Allied effort would have succeeded without the US. Do they teach nothing about WW2 in schools these days? Even WITH the US, it was touch and go for a while. Without US intervention, it would have been hopeless, plain and simple.

Parent

eh?

By ronster on 3/16/2006 7:24:58 AM , Rating: 2

I don't see where this notion of a "kill switch" come from? All the article seems to suggest is the onboard software has to be maintained by the US, thus introducing costs and delays.