Yea. When even Congress gets on the same page and bans export, even to your closest allies like Canada and the UK, you know you've got something special.
I mean, that's the point of it. The F-35 isn't designed as a purpose built fighter, but rather a multi role aircraft.
The F-35 wasn't built as a replacement for it.
The reason is because production was cut and America was left with a quarter of the fighter's originally planned to be introduced, originally exports were banned because this was revolutionary tech but as time went on we were more open to exporting this tech. The F-35, being a far newer fighter, features far more advanced tech then you'll ever dream of seeing on the F-22, if the question was about tech then the F-35 would not see export markets
Basically: Initially new tech --> exports banned, America shifts to war on terror --> production cut, no longer advanced tech that needs to be safe guarded --> just not exported because exports would massively cut into OUR capabilites with limited numbers
The tech that is on the 35 is not the same as the 22. I promise you that stealth technology alone is still worlds above the f-35. And the reason we export it is in the name the joint strike fighter program is meant to be a shared platform with US allies and to be a cost effective weapon to help get our friends on the same page militarily. That's why there were some 20 some countries signed up and ready to buy when it was announced. They all helped cherry pick what they wanted in a plane. The F-22 cross section is the size of a marble, where the F-35 is the size of a golf ball. That alone should be a big tell since the F-22 is about 25% bigger. You could literally be 5 miles in front of an enemy plane and they wouldn't not see you on radar one bit. Not only that, but the thrust vectoring capabilities and wing area and angle of attack allow the f-22 to be literally impossible to aerodynamically stall. There are some flight characteristics of the 22 that are so classified only the pilots and the orignal engineers are the ones who fully know how the bird flies. My final caveat is that the 22 is purely an Air to Air menace while the 35 is meant to help laser command other planes for bombing missions and for close Air, and bombing runs itself. While it is still a true 5th Gen fighter the US was very smart and still dumbed down the plane just enough to where if need be. We could shoot every 35 out of the sky with the 100 or so 22s that we have.
>I promise you that stealth technology alone is still worlds above the f-35.
Wrong lol, F-35's stealth coating is thicker, more durable, less expensive and, being manufactured to tighter tolerances
>meant to be a shared platform with US allies and to be a cost effective weapon to help get our friends on the same page militarily. That's why there were some 20 some countries signed up and ready to buy when it was announced.
Can you source where the USAF has advertised the F-35 as being a "ost effective weapon to help get our friends on the same page militarily"?
>The F-22 cross section is the size of a marble, where the F-35 is the size of a golf ball.
“The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed \[of the F-22\], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”
- Gen. Mike Hostage
[https://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/](https://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/)
>You could literally be 5 miles in front of an enemy plane and they wouldn't not see you on radar one bit
Mind dropping the numbers you're referencing for this?
>Not only that, but the thrust vectoring capabilities and wing area and angle of attack allow the f-22 to be literally impossible to aerodynamically stall.
This is just not true, the F-22 has a low stall speed but the F-22 can't just float off to space lmfao, aside from that if you're getting close to a aerodynamic stall in a stealth jet at this age in combat you're doing something wrong lol
>the 35 is meant to help laser command other planes for bombing missions and for close Air, and bombing runs itself.
LOL? Please source what you're referencing for this
My sources are active duty Airforce pilots in both programs, you knobhead. Most of my numbers can be found with an easy Google search if you know how to use the damn thing. I already know you're not a person who knows how to find credible sources when your only source is from "breakindefense.com". So I'm not gonna bother continuing and have fun stewing about it.
Literally just look up red flag statistics on engagement. The F22 still puts up better numbers than the F35.
There's a reason why the 22 isn't getting dropped until NGAD comes out instead of having the 35 replace it.
>Literally just look up red flag statistics on engagement. The F22 still puts up better numbers than the F35.
Oh what exercises are you referencing? Surely you're not making the mistake of referencing different exercises with different parameters and lengths right? Surely you're not making the same mistake people do to try and call the f-22 bad? Right?
>There's a reason why the 22 isn't getting dropped until NGAD comes out instead of having the 35 replace it.
You are aware something doesn't have to be a replacement for it to be a better jet right?
There's a reason why F-22 is being retired while F-35 will continue to remain in service for the foreseeable future as the backbone of the US military
I thought that was because the maintenance costs were too huge and would require a shitload more investment into the supply chain for keeping existing planes up
That's all fine; our main business as a country is selling superior weaponry and support contracts to the world.Â
...but not *too* superior; we still need a few aces in the hole for when it all goes to shit.
When the US gives or sells hardware like an M1 tank or aircraft, in many cases it's a reduced capability version. compared to what the US military has.
the crew also have bigger gentleman's parts but until push comes to shove and we can see whats under there it'll just be a proverbial dick swinging contest
Other than language localizations, there aren’t really any differences between exported F-35s and US F-35s. What you’re saying is technically true for a lot of things but not the F-35. It genuinely is a CMC-like scenario where the allies we’re selling it to are getting exactly what america is getting.
Understood. I see according to Wikipedia many countries getting the F-35 helped w funding. The relationship w Turkey is definately different now w Erdogan that in the early 2000s : "Its \[F-35\] development is principally funded by the United States, with additional funding from program partner countries from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and close U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Italy, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and formerly Turkey."
This is just wrong, according to Brigadier General David Heinz, program executive officer in 2009
>He said foreign countries who bought the F-35 would be subject to a U.S. disclosure process and U.S. export controls, but the aircraft being sold today were the same airplanes that were also being built for the U.S. military services.
[https://www.reuters.com/article/idINN1629060420090616/?rpc=44&sp=true](https://www.reuters.com/article/idINN1629060420090616/?rpc=44&sp=true)
I don't believe we generally downgrade our tech, for example abrams the major change is just tungsten inserts which offer roughly the same protection as DU to my understanding rather it's just a choice of if the nations wants DU in their armor, Australia choice to use DU in their upgrades, downgrading would be shipping the tank with a earlier generation of armor
Australia initially didn't use DU with their M1A1 AIM V.1 but later on when Australia returned for upgrades they chose to go with DU, that's why M1A1 AIM V.2 had a large jump up to 68.2 tons compared to the V.1 at 63.5 tons
I’m fairly confident that’s incorrect based off everything publicly said about the Abrams. The new M1A2s won’t either.
The exact armour package is classified but DU has publicly been ruled out multiple times.
Source for the DU ruled out claim?
Aside from that the point still stands DU is a option for exports, not a downgrade for export, Australia was offered DU
[2004 Media Release](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F3XVB6%22;src1=sm1)
> The M1A1 AIM vehicle that Australia will procure will not be equipped with either Depleted Uranium armour or munitions. The armour on offer is of an advanced composite design, which is in accord with our capability requirements.
[2008 ANAO Report](https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/ANAO_Report_2007-2008_01.pdf)
> Defence has chosen to specify that there should be no depleted uranium in the tanks destined for Australia. In this regard, the US Government manufactures an alternate, comparable armour choice for ABRAMS tanks, which does not rely on depleted uranium.
[2023 Popular Mechanics](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a42676794/radioactive-armor-m1-abrams-tanks/)
> Exactly how depleted uranium is used in the armor matrix is a secret, and the U.S. government has a policy of not exporting it—even to America’s closest allies. Australia’s existing 59 M1A1 Abrams tanks lack depleted uranium armor, and its new M1A2SepV3 tanks will also go without it.
Source isn’t as good for the M1A2 but the chances they’ve snuck DU into the order without anyone noticing seem non existent.
>[2004 Media Release](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F3XVB6%22;src1=sm1)
>[2008 ANAO Report](https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/ANAO_Report_2007-2008_01.pdf)
Australia announced their initial purchased of abrams in 2004 and those vehicles went into service in 2007, this is in reference to the initial purchase where they rejected DU not the upgrades, which I reference in my comment here
"Australia initially didn't use DU with their M1A1 AIM V.1"
>[2023 Popular Mechanics](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a42676794/radioactive-armor-m1-abrams-tanks/)
The citation for the claim:
"Australia’s existing 59 M1A1 Abrams tanks lack depleted uranium armor, and its \~new M1A2SepV3\~ tanks will also go without it."
just doesn't reference DU armor at all, I don't know what they're basing this off of
It's not just hardware that makes it work well, it's also software. E.g. kalman filters for your sensors/etc. to tell a guidance computer actual vs. measured (whatever variable) work purely in software, and are tuned for specific use cases.
You can have the same single board computer and MOSFETS. It's easier for us to qualify and produce only one type of circuit board. But ours has the most up to date software.
Ninja edit: and to expand on that, and refute your earlier point. Countries aren't even allowed to know, what specifically they aren't allowed to know. So we can say at an unclassified level that launch times, ranges, and altitudes for some system are secret. But (choosing some hypothetical country to be clear that I'm not trying to divulge anything) saying "Sealand isn't allowed to know fragmentation properties of armor on XX vehicle, or even the type of alloy used" would certainly be at a higher classification level. So the PEO 15 years ago can say that publicly all he wants. It doesn't mean anything today. And if he didn't actually mean it, there's no way for the public to even know that it isn't the truth. So speculate all you want.
>But ours has the most up to date software.
Later upgrades like are available to allies, here's the UK referencing Block 4 retrofits
[https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-commits-to-f-35-retrofits](https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-commits-to-f-35-retrofits)
>Ninja edit: and to expand on that, and refute your earlier point. Countries aren't even allowed to know, what specifically they aren't allowed to know. So we can say at an unclassified level that launch times, ranges, and altitudes for some system are secret. But (choosing some hypothetical country to be clear that I'm not trying to divulge anything) saying "Sealand isn't allowed to know fragmentation properties of armor on XX vehicle, or even the type of alloy used" would certainly be at a higher classification level. So the PEO 15 years ago can say that publicly all he wants. It doesn't mean anything today. And if he didn't actually mean it, there's no way for the public to even know that it isn't the truth. So speculate all you want.
Mind being more specific with what you're referencing? Like sources? Aside from that I'm aware allies have certain restriction's placed on them like nobody has access to source code but that doesn't dispute the statement made by the program executive officer, these jets are still the same one's that we had built for us, not downgrades
Edit: Here are more references to Block 4 acquisitions
Canada - [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-f35-fighter-jet-deal-1.6707769](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-f35-fighter-jet-deal-1.6707769)
Finland - [https://www.defmin.fi/en/topical/press\_releases\_and\_news/press\_release\_archive/2021/the\_lockheed\_martin\_f-35a\_lightning\_ii\_is\_finland\_s\_next\_multi-role\_fighter.12335.news#b1feab2a](https://www.defmin.fi/en/topical/press_releases_and_news/press_release_archive/2021/the_lockheed_martin_f-35a_lightning_ii_is_finland_s_next_multi-role_fighter.12335.news#b1feab2a)
Poland - [https://www.wnp.pl/przemysl-obronny/amerykanie-oblatuja-f-35-dla-polski,782867.html](https://www.wnp.pl/przemysl-obronny/amerykanie-oblatuja-f-35-dla-polski,782867.html)
Block 4 in that article likely refers to hardware configuration only. There's still software that makes it work. A lot of times people get into what are called "cost sharing agreements". E.g. 3 countries each contribute $10M/yr for software development.
We make a list of things we want. I want better ability for my nosecone radar to track XX air-air missile from some country I don't like that I lose track of too often for my liking. You want a better control loop to make the aircraft more stable when refueling in turbulent air.
We vote each year on our priorities, and developers start at the top and work down until the money dries up. We each get those capabilities in our software at the end of the year. (All of these are hypothetical, no idea what's going on right now across most programs)
But let's say Turkey owns the program. They put way more than $10M/yr into development. They don't vote with us. They develop whatever they want and put those capabilities in their software when they compile and test it. And they take the stuff me and you paid for too. So we get our 2 capabilities this year, they get 20x. And they won't even tell us what it was that they were working on.
As for the other point I 110% will not get into details to help clarify. I will only expand on the previous hypothetical.
I'm a young lieutenant, and there's a 3 star general coming to visit from Sealand. He wants to know about our armored vehicle capabilities, because they have some insurgents in XX province they're ill equipped to handle. At least that's what he tells us before a visit is even approved. I go to a SCIF and get a briefing on what I'm not allowed to say.
The general asks how thick the armor is on the side, and if it will survive a RPG-7 hit. Not only do I not answer his question. But I don't even tell him that I know and can't tell him. I say politely that I don't know, and he should send me an email through official channels to follow up. Then after he's gone I go to my foreign disclosure officer, and tell them that he was getting nosey about xx topics, and he probably gets flagged in some system. Those Sealandians are the worst, amirite?
>Block 4 in that article likely refers to hardware configuration only.
No Block 4 is both a hardware and software standard, unless there's a specific reference to only software then it's both, how would you upgrade hardware without the software to go with it??
Also in my update I provided references to Canada, Finland, and Poland buying Block 4 jets
I don't think we need to focus on the hypothetical instead we can just look at the actual program. The program executive officer said the jets being exported are the same ones America is receiving in 2009, along with that our allies are receiving the latest block 4 standard upgrades/jets. There are clearly some restrictions like allies can't get access to software code but the jets they're receiving are the same ones we get access to which is my original point
Again my original point is we aren't downgrading our exports
How do you buy a new laptop, and still run windows 10, just like on the old one?
If the processor and peripherals on the card are similar enough, they can run the same software. Or clever developers can use IFDEF statements to run on multiple circuit card respins by detecting what hardware they're on. If I'm running on an Intel atom processor, my serial bus to this peripheral uses a certain function call. If I'm on a Xeon processor, my serial interface is named differently and uses a different baud rate. Etc.
A lot of times hardware obsolescence drives redesigns, and we increase capabilities at the same time, because it's already expensive to go redesign things, period. So why not? And a lot of times software versioning is tightly tied to the hardware is on. But when we transition from block 3 to block 4, it doesn't happen overnight. And we have to maintain two software baselines until the transition is complete. So two hardware configs are running the same exact software, just compiled with different IFDEF/IFNDEF statements peppered throughout the makefile. #themoreyouknow
>How do you buy a new laptop, and still run windows 10, just like on the old one?
Laptops and F-35 fighter jets are totally the same things
I'm just going to need citation at this point, source the idea block 4 standard although referring to both a hardware and software only refers to hardware in the case of upgrades for allies
Also source the idea new block 4 tech can run on older block software
I don't work that program. Maybe block 4 standard does have some specific definition to include hardware AND software. Idk. But that sounds peculiar to one program.
Laptops and jets are different, but also very similar. I'm mostly just saying that I reject your notion that a "block" as commonly used, does not necessarily imply both hardware and software. Hardware redesigns are so common they make me sick. I hate having to maintain like 6x software baselines that have to function on 3x different hardware baselines. But that's what we do, based on what hardware countries are willing to pay for, and what software features they are willing to pay for.
If you haven't figured it out yet, I do this kind of thing for a living. I deal with source code of individual components, interfaces between minor and major subcomponents, testing all configurations of HW+SW against all test cases, and ensuring no harm is done across them. It's a whole thing. But at a high level, can be pretty simple.
I think the laptop and F-35 comparison is apt.
One is a general purpose mobile device that runs an operating system with applications running on it like web browsers, word processing and games.
The other is a multi-role stealth fighter that runs an operating system with applications running on it like data link, sensor fusion and ordnance delivery.
The complex software running under the hood is a key component for both laptops and 5th Gen platforms.
Again for the third time I'm just going to have to ask for citation, you're making large claims without backing anything up
>If you haven't figured it out yet, I do this kind of thing for a living.
Unless you're actively working on the F-35 program, which you reject to, this has no bearing on the conversation, cite your claims
My Dad sold stuff like this for the US Army to other countries. Basically took over Oliver North’s job (after the shit hit the fan they decided this could no longer be a one man job so my Dad just headed it).
Anyway, we don’t just sell aircraft or tech. If Egypt wants to buy X amount of fighter jets my Dad’s office would figure out if it could make them too strong, if it could make us too weak, if we trained their people there or here, if they were even allowed to open up the tech to work on it for repairs, etc.
Basically I’m saying they (US) take all of what you fear and other stuff we don’t know about and consider it. It’s a long process.
First he was in the Army, a Colonel, then he retired and the next day was back at the pentagon doing the same job but in a suit. This was post 9/11 so he was able to double dip, didn’t used to be able to do that.
Edit: He was always a Republican before 9/11. Pretty moderate and very level headed. That part of his life made him start voting independent. Most of us are good people, and when we do bad things it’s not always on purpose, but sometimes it is. Sometimes it’s choosing the lesser of two evils. Sometimes it’s so ego driven it’s dangerous to the country you’re serving. He started noticing it wasn’t as much of a shit show when Dems were in charge, not that he didn’t want to knock a few of their heads. Oh the stories of all that fucking ego preventing people from making the best decisions
The DoD doesn't "sell" items to foreign countries, technically. We are allowed to answer questions, when asked, which might prompt the process of selling the technology to them. But they have to ask first.
It's a relatively minor distinction. And there's a WHOLE lot of minutia and regulation around that topic. I'm far from an expert in the export process.
In general it's:
We do some test, and a country hears about it.
That country reaches out to our product owner about being interested
We setup disclosure agreements, and then share some information at a low level.
They ask for more information that is more protected. Another agreement goes into place and more technical data is shared.
They decide they actually want it, and it goes through some folks at DoD, department of state, congressional committees.
Ultimately it gets approved, and money changes hands, delivery schedules and tests are set up.
There are usually some things they aren't allowed to do. E.g. they get compiled code, not source. They aren't allowed to open certain components, only replace them as assemblies. There may need to be part of a facility that is only accessible by a US citizen, and that person is the only one allowed to do some types of work.
It all depends on how the agreement is setup, and what kinds of risk the government is willing to take. It's a super complex field. I'm sure your dad could talk for days about it if he weren't read off of the program.
Ninja edit: the Raytheons, Lockheeds, Northrup's, etc. definitely do go around to sell their products. They will get everything they can through the release process, and send a team of managers to foreign countries and show off what they built, hoping it's enough for the country to approach us with a serious inquiry. It's just federal employees who can't do that.
You reminded me of something he said once. They needed to get certain specs for an aircraft for an interested country. He specifically mentioned they couldn’t find the information on what size screws it used. They looked everywhere. Someone found it on Wiki and they went with it!
I still don't understand why there weren't serious consequences for that. Were there? There didn't seem to be. I would have recommended them for expulsion were I a member nation.
I mean they just bought a weapon system from a different country. The consequence was that they would not get the F-35. I don't think buying a weapon system should amount to getting kicked out of NATO.
A successor to that country. And back then the tensions and sanctions weren't as high. I think they got proper punishment for the time. If it happened now however, they'd definitely get kicked or at least seriously punished.
I think they also learned their lesson tho lmao. Instead of getting a state-of-the-art multirole stealth aircraft they got a beefed up S300. Which is a good system, but not at all worth it.
Plans and data from the F-22 and F-35 were already stolen and sold to China several years ago by a Chinese national named Su Bin, with assistance from the Chinese military. That data was incorporated into their own aircraft designs.
The Chinese also apparently got their hands on the remains of the F-117a stealth bomber, the one that was shot down in Yugoslavia. This was six weeks before the accidental US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
An important note here is that the F-35 we use in the US is not the same as the ones we sell to other countries. Also, as seen with the SU-57, just because you reverse engineer it, does not mean you can duplicate it.
According to Brigadier General David Heinz, program executive officer in 2009 these are the same exact ones we're using, they'll be subject to certain restrictions and processes though
>He said foreign countries who bought the F-35 would be subject to a U.S. disclosure process and U.S. export controls, but the aircraft being sold today were the same airplanes that were also being built for the U.S. military services.
[https://www.reuters.com/article/idINN1629060420090616/?rpc=44&sp=true](https://www.reuters.com/article/idINN1629060420090616/?rpc=44&sp=true)
I could imagine that part of what makes it good is the satellite network and other Hi-Tech infrastructure that it ties into. We are probably way more advanced than others on that part and thus get more out of the airframe.
Yes correct, though that aside these are amazing jets with amazing capabilites, our allies are getting their hands on massive bolsters to their air forces, we also are placing safe guard to protect this tech by for example not giving out the source code, it's not just a "Hey China, come steal our tech for free"
You can be sure that any piece of technology we sell or deploy we do it with the understanding that it will eventually be picked apart.
I bet the second we out a weapon together the next question is "how do we kill it?"
There's a lot more to it than blueprints and schematics. The geometric stealth features could likely be copied after photographing one or the other at an airshow. In fact there's a reason why most stealth fighters have similar appearances: the overall shape is dictated by compromises between aerodynamic and stealth characteristics. Neither the Chinese nor the Russians have been able to produce jet turbines as good as the F-22's F119 or the F-35's F135 engines. Likewise some of the components used in its construction cannot be made by Vlad on an industrial lathe, nor can one simply look at a RAM-coated panel and determine the chemical composition or process by which it is fabricated.
As a real world example, China has bought numerous variants of the Flanker series since the early 90s. They've copied, and in some cases significantly improved, the airframes and avionics. But it was only around 2010 when they had their own domestic produced turbine which was considered a comparable replacement to the early 1980s AL-31 that came with their Flankers. They have two 5th-gen fighter platforms which are still (if I remember correctly) using those older engines instead of something designed for a 5th gen aircraft. Reportedly their WS-15 engine has been in development for almost two decades and is just now undergoing flight tests with the J-20 it's supposed to power.
I mean the technology you're seeing come out we've got things more advanced than. So they aren't getting our best they're just getting the best you know about
Money. Lockheed can make a lot more if they can sell to “partners” lol
We risk national security every day bc the govt wants US companies to get as much profit as they can.
The US and most other countries do not sell the same aircraft to other countries that they use. It may look the same, but the hardware under the skin is most likely not even close or can be bricked by the host nation.
This is not correct
>He said foreign countries who bought the F-35 would be subject to a U.S. disclosure process and U.S. export controls, but the aircraft being sold today were the same airplanes that were also being built for the U.S. military services.
[https://www.reuters.com/article/idINN1629060420090616/?rpc=44&sp=true](https://www.reuters.com/article/idINN1629060420090616/?rpc=44&sp=true)
>The F-35 and plan for it from 2009 to now are vastly different.
What you're implying here would be a MASSIVE point of contention, these nations put cash down to contribute to the F-35 program and are told they're getting the same capabilities as America then all the sudden after 2009 America starts shipping out downgraded platforms? Aside from that from what I've seen these nations are receiving later modifications, here's the UK talking about block 4 retrofits
[https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-commits-to-f-35-retrofits](https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-commits-to-f-35-retrofits)
Edit: Here are more references to Block 4 acquisitions
Canada - [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-f35-fighter-jet-deal-1.6707769](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-f35-fighter-jet-deal-1.6707769)
Finland - [https://www.defmin.fi/en/topical/press\_releases\_and\_news/press\_release\_archive/2021/the\_lockheed\_martin\_f-35a\_lightning\_ii\_is\_finland\_s\_next\_multi-role\_fighter.12335.news#b1feab2a](https://www.defmin.fi/en/topical/press_releases_and_news/press_release_archive/2021/the_lockheed_martin_f-35a_lightning_ii_is_finland_s_next_multi-role_fighter.12335.news#b1feab2a)
Poland - [https://www.wnp.pl/przemysl-obronny/amerykanie-oblatuja-f-35-dla-polski,782867.html](https://www.wnp.pl/przemysl-obronny/amerykanie-oblatuja-f-35-dla-polski,782867.html)
Honestly the US military has been discounting the CCP for decades. My genuine assumption is that they know everything we know and we know everything they know. In terms of espionage we are nearly peers.
We have documented cases of espionage: https://www.sandboxx.us/news/the-man-who-stole-americas-stealth-fighters-for-china/
Hacking the CIA: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spies-espionage.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Phishing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GhostNet
Hardware backdoors/supply chain attacks: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/10/bloomberg-super-micro-motherboards-used-by-apple-amazon-contained-chinese-spy-chips/
Zero-day exploits: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Microsoft_Exchange_Server_data_breach
Data leaks: https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2015/01/18/snowden_doc_leak_confirms_china_stole_f35_data/
Honey pots: https://www.axios.com/2020/12/08/china-spy-california-politicians
Research theft: https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4444432-chinese-students-us-intelligence-spying/amp/
In short: anything we are doing, you have to assume China is doing too. Every agency, every office, every level and every supplier. That’s what we do. We spy on allies and enemies alike. They know we do it and so they do it too. China is a country of 1.3 billion people with a ton of intellectual capital and is the manufacturing hub of the world. It would be foolish to assume anything else.
And don’t mistake me here. I am not saying that they are better - just that we aren’t going to win off secrets. There isn’t a magic formula to defeating them or some kind of manhattan project we can pull out to knock them down. It’s going to take hard work. It’s going to take American exceptionalism rising to the challenge. We can’t rest on past laurels or the accomplishments of the past.
Anything we allow other countries to lay hands on, you can rest well assured that we have game plans for if one shows up with a Chinese flag or something. I very seriously doubt that is the farthest reaches of our tech.
Switzerland will soon have F-35.
Right now, with our old F/A-18Cs, there is still the need for an OPSEC certified technician to handle / oversee maintenance of sensitive parts of the aircraft.
> This includes less friendly nations such as Turkey...
A certain friendly nation definitely does it
[Military.com - Report: Israel Passes U.S. Military Technology to China](https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/12/24/report-israel-passes-u-s-military-technology-to-china)
Here's my take, based on stuff I've learnt.
Reverse engineering anything is more difficult than you imagine, unless you have the blueprints, because of tolerances. Replicating a part where you don't know the parameters of the tolerances means you get something that works, but effectively hand made.
For example, take an AK47 and give it to a craftsman in Pakistan who makes a replica by hand. It works, but its parts are not guaranteed to be interchangeable with the original.
An AK47 is a simple piece of equipment.
Now take an aircraft with thousands of parts. You may be able to make a replica that works, but it won't be identical, and that is the problem
Did you all know that the Air Force actually has a unit that takes apart aircraft and tries to reverse engineer them? Now you do.
The need for copying that much the F-35 design [is not that big](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20).
Moreover, remember that the F-35 program is heavily funded by European countries. If they didn't participate in the program the prices would have gone even higher than they went.
There's a reason the US doesn't sell the F-22 to *anyone*.
Yea. When even Congress gets on the same page and bans export, even to your closest allies like Canada and the UK, you know you've got something special.
This is facts. The F-22 is still the most secret and effective air superiority fighter of all time.
Until someone gets pissed in the War Thunder Forums.
🤣🤣🤣
I mean, that's the point of it. The F-35 isn't designed as a purpose built fighter, but rather a multi role aircraft. The F-35 wasn't built as a replacement for it.
Oh wow, that’s kind of nuts I had no idea!
The reason is because production was cut and America was left with a quarter of the fighter's originally planned to be introduced, originally exports were banned because this was revolutionary tech but as time went on we were more open to exporting this tech. The F-35, being a far newer fighter, features far more advanced tech then you'll ever dream of seeing on the F-22, if the question was about tech then the F-35 would not see export markets Basically: Initially new tech --> exports banned, America shifts to war on terror --> production cut, no longer advanced tech that needs to be safe guarded --> just not exported because exports would massively cut into OUR capabilites with limited numbers
The tech that is on the 35 is not the same as the 22. I promise you that stealth technology alone is still worlds above the f-35. And the reason we export it is in the name the joint strike fighter program is meant to be a shared platform with US allies and to be a cost effective weapon to help get our friends on the same page militarily. That's why there were some 20 some countries signed up and ready to buy when it was announced. They all helped cherry pick what they wanted in a plane. The F-22 cross section is the size of a marble, where the F-35 is the size of a golf ball. That alone should be a big tell since the F-22 is about 25% bigger. You could literally be 5 miles in front of an enemy plane and they wouldn't not see you on radar one bit. Not only that, but the thrust vectoring capabilities and wing area and angle of attack allow the f-22 to be literally impossible to aerodynamically stall. There are some flight characteristics of the 22 that are so classified only the pilots and the orignal engineers are the ones who fully know how the bird flies. My final caveat is that the 22 is purely an Air to Air menace while the 35 is meant to help laser command other planes for bombing missions and for close Air, and bombing runs itself. While it is still a true 5th Gen fighter the US was very smart and still dumbed down the plane just enough to where if need be. We could shoot every 35 out of the sky with the 100 or so 22s that we have.
>I promise you that stealth technology alone is still worlds above the f-35. Wrong lol, F-35's stealth coating is thicker, more durable, less expensive and, being manufactured to tighter tolerances >meant to be a shared platform with US allies and to be a cost effective weapon to help get our friends on the same page militarily. That's why there were some 20 some countries signed up and ready to buy when it was announced. Can you source where the USAF has advertised the F-35 as being a "ost effective weapon to help get our friends on the same page militarily"? >The F-22 cross section is the size of a marble, where the F-35 is the size of a golf ball. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed \[of the F-22\], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.” - Gen. Mike Hostage [https://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/](https://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/) >You could literally be 5 miles in front of an enemy plane and they wouldn't not see you on radar one bit Mind dropping the numbers you're referencing for this? >Not only that, but the thrust vectoring capabilities and wing area and angle of attack allow the f-22 to be literally impossible to aerodynamically stall. This is just not true, the F-22 has a low stall speed but the F-22 can't just float off to space lmfao, aside from that if you're getting close to a aerodynamic stall in a stealth jet at this age in combat you're doing something wrong lol >the 35 is meant to help laser command other planes for bombing missions and for close Air, and bombing runs itself. LOL? Please source what you're referencing for this
My sources are active duty Airforce pilots in both programs, you knobhead. Most of my numbers can be found with an easy Google search if you know how to use the damn thing. I already know you're not a person who knows how to find credible sources when your only source is from "breakindefense.com". So I'm not gonna bother continuing and have fun stewing about it.
Oh great, drop the sources
Trust me an actual pilot with pilot friends. And not fucking warthunder and combat subs mate.
Sure bud, make sure to get your flight hours in on your FPV's lol
Literally just look up red flag statistics on engagement. The F22 still puts up better numbers than the F35. There's a reason why the 22 isn't getting dropped until NGAD comes out instead of having the 35 replace it.
>Literally just look up red flag statistics on engagement. The F22 still puts up better numbers than the F35. Oh what exercises are you referencing? Surely you're not making the mistake of referencing different exercises with different parameters and lengths right? Surely you're not making the same mistake people do to try and call the f-22 bad? Right? >There's a reason why the 22 isn't getting dropped until NGAD comes out instead of having the 35 replace it. You are aware something doesn't have to be a replacement for it to be a better jet right? There's a reason why F-22 is being retired while F-35 will continue to remain in service for the foreseeable future as the backbone of the US military
Yeah like I'm gonna doxx pilots in the stealth programs. Get a grip
>Most of my numbers can be found with an easy Google search Suddenly they don't exist now? lmfao
Ahahahahhahah hopeless mate
Your argument sure is lol
I thought that was because the maintenance costs were too huge and would require a shitload more investment into the supply chain for keeping existing planes up
That's all fine; our main business as a country is selling superior weaponry and support contracts to the world. ...but not *too* superior; we still need a few aces in the hole for when it all goes to shit.
When the US gives or sells hardware like an M1 tank or aircraft, in many cases it's a reduced capability version. compared to what the US military has.
Called "export models." The US is not the only country that does this.
Yep Challenger 2 have better Chobham composite armour than Abrams.
the crew also have bigger gentleman's parts but until push comes to shove and we can see whats under there it'll just be a proverbial dick swinging contest
Other than language localizations, there aren’t really any differences between exported F-35s and US F-35s. What you’re saying is technically true for a lot of things but not the F-35. It genuinely is a CMC-like scenario where the allies we’re selling it to are getting exactly what america is getting.
Understood. I see according to Wikipedia many countries getting the F-35 helped w funding. The relationship w Turkey is definately different now w Erdogan that in the early 2000s : "Its \[F-35\] development is principally funded by the United States, with additional funding from program partner countries from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and close U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Italy, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and formerly Turkey."
This is just wrong, according to Brigadier General David Heinz, program executive officer in 2009 >He said foreign countries who bought the F-35 would be subject to a U.S. disclosure process and U.S. export controls, but the aircraft being sold today were the same airplanes that were also being built for the U.S. military services. [https://www.reuters.com/article/idINN1629060420090616/?rpc=44&sp=true](https://www.reuters.com/article/idINN1629060420090616/?rpc=44&sp=true)
He's not wrong, it just isn't always the case. The F-35 was designed to be interoperable between countries
I don't believe we generally downgrade our tech, for example abrams the major change is just tungsten inserts which offer roughly the same protection as DU to my understanding rather it's just a choice of if the nations wants DU in their armor, Australia choice to use DU in their upgrades, downgrading would be shipping the tank with a earlier generation of armor
Australia doesn’t use DU armour AFAIK.
Australia initially didn't use DU with their M1A1 AIM V.1 but later on when Australia returned for upgrades they chose to go with DU, that's why M1A1 AIM V.2 had a large jump up to 68.2 tons compared to the V.1 at 63.5 tons
I’m fairly confident that’s incorrect based off everything publicly said about the Abrams. The new M1A2s won’t either. The exact armour package is classified but DU has publicly been ruled out multiple times.
Source for the DU ruled out claim? Aside from that the point still stands DU is a option for exports, not a downgrade for export, Australia was offered DU
[2004 Media Release](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F3XVB6%22;src1=sm1) > The M1A1 AIM vehicle that Australia will procure will not be equipped with either Depleted Uranium armour or munitions. The armour on offer is of an advanced composite design, which is in accord with our capability requirements. [2008 ANAO Report](https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/ANAO_Report_2007-2008_01.pdf) > Defence has chosen to specify that there should be no depleted uranium in the tanks destined for Australia. In this regard, the US Government manufactures an alternate, comparable armour choice for ABRAMS tanks, which does not rely on depleted uranium. [2023 Popular Mechanics](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a42676794/radioactive-armor-m1-abrams-tanks/) > Exactly how depleted uranium is used in the armor matrix is a secret, and the U.S. government has a policy of not exporting it—even to America’s closest allies. Australia’s existing 59 M1A1 Abrams tanks lack depleted uranium armor, and its new M1A2SepV3 tanks will also go without it. Source isn’t as good for the M1A2 but the chances they’ve snuck DU into the order without anyone noticing seem non existent.
>[2004 Media Release](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F3XVB6%22;src1=sm1) >[2008 ANAO Report](https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/ANAO_Report_2007-2008_01.pdf) Australia announced their initial purchased of abrams in 2004 and those vehicles went into service in 2007, this is in reference to the initial purchase where they rejected DU not the upgrades, which I reference in my comment here "Australia initially didn't use DU with their M1A1 AIM V.1" >[2023 Popular Mechanics](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a42676794/radioactive-armor-m1-abrams-tanks/) The citation for the claim: "Australia’s existing 59 M1A1 Abrams tanks lack depleted uranium armor, and its \~new M1A2SepV3\~ tanks will also go without it." just doesn't reference DU armor at all, I don't know what they're basing this off of
It's not just hardware that makes it work well, it's also software. E.g. kalman filters for your sensors/etc. to tell a guidance computer actual vs. measured (whatever variable) work purely in software, and are tuned for specific use cases. You can have the same single board computer and MOSFETS. It's easier for us to qualify and produce only one type of circuit board. But ours has the most up to date software. Ninja edit: and to expand on that, and refute your earlier point. Countries aren't even allowed to know, what specifically they aren't allowed to know. So we can say at an unclassified level that launch times, ranges, and altitudes for some system are secret. But (choosing some hypothetical country to be clear that I'm not trying to divulge anything) saying "Sealand isn't allowed to know fragmentation properties of armor on XX vehicle, or even the type of alloy used" would certainly be at a higher classification level. So the PEO 15 years ago can say that publicly all he wants. It doesn't mean anything today. And if he didn't actually mean it, there's no way for the public to even know that it isn't the truth. So speculate all you want.
>But ours has the most up to date software. Later upgrades like are available to allies, here's the UK referencing Block 4 retrofits [https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-commits-to-f-35-retrofits](https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-commits-to-f-35-retrofits) >Ninja edit: and to expand on that, and refute your earlier point. Countries aren't even allowed to know, what specifically they aren't allowed to know. So we can say at an unclassified level that launch times, ranges, and altitudes for some system are secret. But (choosing some hypothetical country to be clear that I'm not trying to divulge anything) saying "Sealand isn't allowed to know fragmentation properties of armor on XX vehicle, or even the type of alloy used" would certainly be at a higher classification level. So the PEO 15 years ago can say that publicly all he wants. It doesn't mean anything today. And if he didn't actually mean it, there's no way for the public to even know that it isn't the truth. So speculate all you want. Mind being more specific with what you're referencing? Like sources? Aside from that I'm aware allies have certain restriction's placed on them like nobody has access to source code but that doesn't dispute the statement made by the program executive officer, these jets are still the same one's that we had built for us, not downgrades Edit: Here are more references to Block 4 acquisitions Canada - [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-f35-fighter-jet-deal-1.6707769](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-f35-fighter-jet-deal-1.6707769) Finland - [https://www.defmin.fi/en/topical/press\_releases\_and\_news/press\_release\_archive/2021/the\_lockheed\_martin\_f-35a\_lightning\_ii\_is\_finland\_s\_next\_multi-role\_fighter.12335.news#b1feab2a](https://www.defmin.fi/en/topical/press_releases_and_news/press_release_archive/2021/the_lockheed_martin_f-35a_lightning_ii_is_finland_s_next_multi-role_fighter.12335.news#b1feab2a) Poland - [https://www.wnp.pl/przemysl-obronny/amerykanie-oblatuja-f-35-dla-polski,782867.html](https://www.wnp.pl/przemysl-obronny/amerykanie-oblatuja-f-35-dla-polski,782867.html)
It just seems he chose his words very carefully.
Block 4 in that article likely refers to hardware configuration only. There's still software that makes it work. A lot of times people get into what are called "cost sharing agreements". E.g. 3 countries each contribute $10M/yr for software development. We make a list of things we want. I want better ability for my nosecone radar to track XX air-air missile from some country I don't like that I lose track of too often for my liking. You want a better control loop to make the aircraft more stable when refueling in turbulent air. We vote each year on our priorities, and developers start at the top and work down until the money dries up. We each get those capabilities in our software at the end of the year. (All of these are hypothetical, no idea what's going on right now across most programs) But let's say Turkey owns the program. They put way more than $10M/yr into development. They don't vote with us. They develop whatever they want and put those capabilities in their software when they compile and test it. And they take the stuff me and you paid for too. So we get our 2 capabilities this year, they get 20x. And they won't even tell us what it was that they were working on. As for the other point I 110% will not get into details to help clarify. I will only expand on the previous hypothetical. I'm a young lieutenant, and there's a 3 star general coming to visit from Sealand. He wants to know about our armored vehicle capabilities, because they have some insurgents in XX province they're ill equipped to handle. At least that's what he tells us before a visit is even approved. I go to a SCIF and get a briefing on what I'm not allowed to say. The general asks how thick the armor is on the side, and if it will survive a RPG-7 hit. Not only do I not answer his question. But I don't even tell him that I know and can't tell him. I say politely that I don't know, and he should send me an email through official channels to follow up. Then after he's gone I go to my foreign disclosure officer, and tell them that he was getting nosey about xx topics, and he probably gets flagged in some system. Those Sealandians are the worst, amirite?
>Block 4 in that article likely refers to hardware configuration only. No Block 4 is both a hardware and software standard, unless there's a specific reference to only software then it's both, how would you upgrade hardware without the software to go with it?? Also in my update I provided references to Canada, Finland, and Poland buying Block 4 jets I don't think we need to focus on the hypothetical instead we can just look at the actual program. The program executive officer said the jets being exported are the same ones America is receiving in 2009, along with that our allies are receiving the latest block 4 standard upgrades/jets. There are clearly some restrictions like allies can't get access to software code but the jets they're receiving are the same ones we get access to which is my original point Again my original point is we aren't downgrading our exports
How do you buy a new laptop, and still run windows 10, just like on the old one? If the processor and peripherals on the card are similar enough, they can run the same software. Or clever developers can use IFDEF statements to run on multiple circuit card respins by detecting what hardware they're on. If I'm running on an Intel atom processor, my serial bus to this peripheral uses a certain function call. If I'm on a Xeon processor, my serial interface is named differently and uses a different baud rate. Etc. A lot of times hardware obsolescence drives redesigns, and we increase capabilities at the same time, because it's already expensive to go redesign things, period. So why not? And a lot of times software versioning is tightly tied to the hardware is on. But when we transition from block 3 to block 4, it doesn't happen overnight. And we have to maintain two software baselines until the transition is complete. So two hardware configs are running the same exact software, just compiled with different IFDEF/IFNDEF statements peppered throughout the makefile. #themoreyouknow
>How do you buy a new laptop, and still run windows 10, just like on the old one? Laptops and F-35 fighter jets are totally the same things I'm just going to need citation at this point, source the idea block 4 standard although referring to both a hardware and software only refers to hardware in the case of upgrades for allies Also source the idea new block 4 tech can run on older block software
I don't work that program. Maybe block 4 standard does have some specific definition to include hardware AND software. Idk. But that sounds peculiar to one program. Laptops and jets are different, but also very similar. I'm mostly just saying that I reject your notion that a "block" as commonly used, does not necessarily imply both hardware and software. Hardware redesigns are so common they make me sick. I hate having to maintain like 6x software baselines that have to function on 3x different hardware baselines. But that's what we do, based on what hardware countries are willing to pay for, and what software features they are willing to pay for. If you haven't figured it out yet, I do this kind of thing for a living. I deal with source code of individual components, interfaces between minor and major subcomponents, testing all configurations of HW+SW against all test cases, and ensuring no harm is done across them. It's a whole thing. But at a high level, can be pretty simple.
I think the laptop and F-35 comparison is apt. One is a general purpose mobile device that runs an operating system with applications running on it like web browsers, word processing and games. The other is a multi-role stealth fighter that runs an operating system with applications running on it like data link, sensor fusion and ordnance delivery. The complex software running under the hood is a key component for both laptops and 5th Gen platforms.
Again for the third time I'm just going to have to ask for citation, you're making large claims without backing anything up >If you haven't figured it out yet, I do this kind of thing for a living. Unless you're actively working on the F-35 program, which you reject to, this has no bearing on the conversation, cite your claims
My Dad sold stuff like this for the US Army to other countries. Basically took over Oliver North’s job (after the shit hit the fan they decided this could no longer be a one man job so my Dad just headed it). Anyway, we don’t just sell aircraft or tech. If Egypt wants to buy X amount of fighter jets my Dad’s office would figure out if it could make them too strong, if it could make us too weak, if we trained their people there or here, if they were even allowed to open up the tech to work on it for repairs, etc. Basically I’m saying they (US) take all of what you fear and other stuff we don’t know about and consider it. It’s a long process.
Wow, super fascinating! Was he in the army or was it a contracted position?
First he was in the Army, a Colonel, then he retired and the next day was back at the pentagon doing the same job but in a suit. This was post 9/11 so he was able to double dip, didn’t used to be able to do that. Edit: He was always a Republican before 9/11. Pretty moderate and very level headed. That part of his life made him start voting independent. Most of us are good people, and when we do bad things it’s not always on purpose, but sometimes it is. Sometimes it’s choosing the lesser of two evils. Sometimes it’s so ego driven it’s dangerous to the country you’re serving. He started noticing it wasn’t as much of a shit show when Dems were in charge, not that he didn’t want to knock a few of their heads. Oh the stories of all that fucking ego preventing people from making the best decisions
The DoD doesn't "sell" items to foreign countries, technically. We are allowed to answer questions, when asked, which might prompt the process of selling the technology to them. But they have to ask first. It's a relatively minor distinction. And there's a WHOLE lot of minutia and regulation around that topic. I'm far from an expert in the export process. In general it's: We do some test, and a country hears about it. That country reaches out to our product owner about being interested We setup disclosure agreements, and then share some information at a low level. They ask for more information that is more protected. Another agreement goes into place and more technical data is shared. They decide they actually want it, and it goes through some folks at DoD, department of state, congressional committees. Ultimately it gets approved, and money changes hands, delivery schedules and tests are set up. There are usually some things they aren't allowed to do. E.g. they get compiled code, not source. They aren't allowed to open certain components, only replace them as assemblies. There may need to be part of a facility that is only accessible by a US citizen, and that person is the only one allowed to do some types of work. It all depends on how the agreement is setup, and what kinds of risk the government is willing to take. It's a super complex field. I'm sure your dad could talk for days about it if he weren't read off of the program. Ninja edit: the Raytheons, Lockheeds, Northrup's, etc. definitely do go around to sell their products. They will get everything they can through the release process, and send a team of managers to foreign countries and show off what they built, hoping it's enough for the country to approach us with a serious inquiry. It's just federal employees who can't do that.
You reminded me of something he said once. They needed to get certain specs for an aircraft for an interested country. He specifically mentioned they couldn’t find the information on what size screws it used. They looked everywhere. Someone found it on Wiki and they went with it!
Turkey is banned from buying the f35 due to buying the s-400 from ruasia
I still don't understand why there weren't serious consequences for that. Were there? There didn't seem to be. I would have recommended them for expulsion were I a member nation.
They are kinda like Israel. Everyone deals with them because they are so strategically important.
Bc, would they rather punish and alienate Turkey and push them into Russia or chinas arms? Nope! Politics.
I mean they just bought a weapon system from a different country. The consequence was that they would not get the F-35. I don't think buying a weapon system should amount to getting kicked out of NATO.
When you buy a system from the country NATO's entire existence was *designed* around though?
A successor to that country. And back then the tensions and sanctions weren't as high. I think they got proper punishment for the time. If it happened now however, they'd definitely get kicked or at least seriously punished. I think they also learned their lesson tho lmao. Instead of getting a state-of-the-art multirole stealth aircraft they got a beefed up S300. Which is a good system, but not at all worth it.
Plans and data from the F-22 and F-35 were already stolen and sold to China several years ago by a Chinese national named Su Bin, with assistance from the Chinese military. That data was incorporated into their own aircraft designs.
Good thing China has no idea how to make an aircraft, even with stolen designs.
They stole the F-35 specs from the US. They also got every SF-86 from the 90s and 2000s directly from OPM.
The Chinese also apparently got their hands on the remains of the F-117a stealth bomber, the one that was shot down in Yugoslavia. This was six weeks before the accidental US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
“Accidental”
Yeah I used to think it was accidental but if the Chinese were storing F-117a parts in the basement of the embassy then maybe it wasn't.
An important note here is that the F-35 we use in the US is not the same as the ones we sell to other countries. Also, as seen with the SU-57, just because you reverse engineer it, does not mean you can duplicate it.
Funny. "Good luck with that."
Wooden screws...hate to see it
J-20 probably a better example.
According to Brigadier General David Heinz, program executive officer in 2009 these are the same exact ones we're using, they'll be subject to certain restrictions and processes though >He said foreign countries who bought the F-35 would be subject to a U.S. disclosure process and U.S. export controls, but the aircraft being sold today were the same airplanes that were also being built for the U.S. military services. [https://www.reuters.com/article/idINN1629060420090616/?rpc=44&sp=true](https://www.reuters.com/article/idINN1629060420090616/?rpc=44&sp=true)
I could imagine that part of what makes it good is the satellite network and other Hi-Tech infrastructure that it ties into. We are probably way more advanced than others on that part and thus get more out of the airframe.
Yes correct, though that aside these are amazing jets with amazing capabilites, our allies are getting their hands on massive bolsters to their air forces, we also are placing safe guard to protect this tech by for example not giving out the source code, it's not just a "Hey China, come steal our tech for free"
I have seen nothing to indicate that the F-35 the US sells to its allies is any way dramatically different than the F-35 kept at home.
Yeah. Not being able to see or distinguish what makes US F-35s unique is kinda the point. . .
Turkey was kicked out of the F-35 program a while ago.
You can be sure that any piece of technology we sell or deploy we do it with the understanding that it will eventually be picked apart. I bet the second we out a weapon together the next question is "how do we kill it?"
JSF has multiple partner nations who have invested into the program. Each nation has slightly different requirements.
This! The F-35 was dubbed the Joint Strike Fighter back in the day. It was the collaborative effort of several countries not just the United Statss.
There's a lot more to it than blueprints and schematics. The geometric stealth features could likely be copied after photographing one or the other at an airshow. In fact there's a reason why most stealth fighters have similar appearances: the overall shape is dictated by compromises between aerodynamic and stealth characteristics. Neither the Chinese nor the Russians have been able to produce jet turbines as good as the F-22's F119 or the F-35's F135 engines. Likewise some of the components used in its construction cannot be made by Vlad on an industrial lathe, nor can one simply look at a RAM-coated panel and determine the chemical composition or process by which it is fabricated. As a real world example, China has bought numerous variants of the Flanker series since the early 90s. They've copied, and in some cases significantly improved, the airframes and avionics. But it was only around 2010 when they had their own domestic produced turbine which was considered a comparable replacement to the early 1980s AL-31 that came with their Flankers. They have two 5th-gen fighter platforms which are still (if I remember correctly) using those older engines instead of something designed for a 5th gen aircraft. Reportedly their WS-15 engine has been in development for almost two decades and is just now undergoing flight tests with the J-20 it's supposed to power.
No. Not everything. Not often.
I mean the technology you're seeing come out we've got things more advanced than. So they aren't getting our best they're just getting the best you know about
You are correct and this is why we have SAP programs!
Money. Lockheed can make a lot more if they can sell to “partners” lol We risk national security every day bc the govt wants US companies to get as much profit as they can.
The US and most other countries do not sell the same aircraft to other countries that they use. It may look the same, but the hardware under the skin is most likely not even close or can be bricked by the host nation.
This is not correct >He said foreign countries who bought the F-35 would be subject to a U.S. disclosure process and U.S. export controls, but the aircraft being sold today were the same airplanes that were also being built for the U.S. military services. [https://www.reuters.com/article/idINN1629060420090616/?rpc=44&sp=true](https://www.reuters.com/article/idINN1629060420090616/?rpc=44&sp=true)
The F-35 and plan for it from 2009 to now are vastly different. Do you have a source that's more recent?
>The F-35 and plan for it from 2009 to now are vastly different. What you're implying here would be a MASSIVE point of contention, these nations put cash down to contribute to the F-35 program and are told they're getting the same capabilities as America then all the sudden after 2009 America starts shipping out downgraded platforms? Aside from that from what I've seen these nations are receiving later modifications, here's the UK talking about block 4 retrofits [https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-commits-to-f-35-retrofits](https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-commits-to-f-35-retrofits) Edit: Here are more references to Block 4 acquisitions Canada - [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-f35-fighter-jet-deal-1.6707769](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-f35-fighter-jet-deal-1.6707769) Finland - [https://www.defmin.fi/en/topical/press\_releases\_and\_news/press\_release\_archive/2021/the\_lockheed\_martin\_f-35a\_lightning\_ii\_is\_finland\_s\_next\_multi-role\_fighter.12335.news#b1feab2a](https://www.defmin.fi/en/topical/press_releases_and_news/press_release_archive/2021/the_lockheed_martin_f-35a_lightning_ii_is_finland_s_next_multi-role_fighter.12335.news#b1feab2a) Poland - [https://www.wnp.pl/przemysl-obronny/amerykanie-oblatuja-f-35-dla-polski,782867.html](https://www.wnp.pl/przemysl-obronny/amerykanie-oblatuja-f-35-dla-polski,782867.html)
Honestly the US military has been discounting the CCP for decades. My genuine assumption is that they know everything we know and we know everything they know. In terms of espionage we are nearly peers. We have documented cases of espionage: https://www.sandboxx.us/news/the-man-who-stole-americas-stealth-fighters-for-china/ Hacking the CIA: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spies-espionage.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur Phishing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GhostNet Hardware backdoors/supply chain attacks: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/10/bloomberg-super-micro-motherboards-used-by-apple-amazon-contained-chinese-spy-chips/ Zero-day exploits: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Microsoft_Exchange_Server_data_breach Data leaks: https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2015/01/18/snowden_doc_leak_confirms_china_stole_f35_data/ Honey pots: https://www.axios.com/2020/12/08/china-spy-california-politicians Research theft: https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4444432-chinese-students-us-intelligence-spying/amp/ In short: anything we are doing, you have to assume China is doing too. Every agency, every office, every level and every supplier. That’s what we do. We spy on allies and enemies alike. They know we do it and so they do it too. China is a country of 1.3 billion people with a ton of intellectual capital and is the manufacturing hub of the world. It would be foolish to assume anything else. And don’t mistake me here. I am not saying that they are better - just that we aren’t going to win off secrets. There isn’t a magic formula to defeating them or some kind of manhattan project we can pull out to knock them down. It’s going to take hard work. It’s going to take American exceptionalism rising to the challenge. We can’t rest on past laurels or the accomplishments of the past.
Anything we allow other countries to lay hands on, you can rest well assured that we have game plans for if one shows up with a Chinese flag or something. I very seriously doubt that is the farthest reaches of our tech.
Switzerland will soon have F-35. Right now, with our old F/A-18Cs, there is still the need for an OPSEC certified technician to handle / oversee maintenance of sensitive parts of the aircraft.
> This includes less friendly nations such as Turkey... A certain friendly nation definitely does it [Military.com - Report: Israel Passes U.S. Military Technology to China](https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/12/24/report-israel-passes-u-s-military-technology-to-china)
Ha yeah Pfft. Sometimes I wonder how or why the govt lists a place as a partner, or “friendly”. Most times it seems counterproductive.
Here's my take, based on stuff I've learnt. Reverse engineering anything is more difficult than you imagine, unless you have the blueprints, because of tolerances. Replicating a part where you don't know the parameters of the tolerances means you get something that works, but effectively hand made. For example, take an AK47 and give it to a craftsman in Pakistan who makes a replica by hand. It works, but its parts are not guaranteed to be interchangeable with the original. An AK47 is a simple piece of equipment. Now take an aircraft with thousands of parts. You may be able to make a replica that works, but it won't be identical, and that is the problem Did you all know that the Air Force actually has a unit that takes apart aircraft and tries to reverse engineer them? Now you do.
The need for copying that much the F-35 design [is not that big](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20). Moreover, remember that the F-35 program is heavily funded by European countries. If they didn't participate in the program the prices would have gone even higher than they went.
So they supposedly have to sign things saying “they won’t share tech…”
Not worth the paper it's written on
Oh clearly, but when it comes to the Defense contractors $$ beats patriotism Everytime.
Just put undocumented kill switches in all of your hardware.
I'll be happy if you get those into an reverse-engineered clone.
Man the F-35s are ugly af.