back to article US: BAE 'could have' pirated our secret Stealth 3.0 tech sauce

Global arms and aerospace colossus BAE Systems this week released a high-profile audit into its internal ethics and served it up with a big slice of humble pie as it promised to be a better corporate citizen in future. But even as BAE sought to draw a veil over previous alleged indiscretions, it emerged that US officials have …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Re: ethics of BAe

Why is anyone surprised? Just look at what they produce. And then remember that they are a publicly traded company and as such are mandated by law to be sociopathic.

They are merchants of death and you people actually think there is a rational discussion over business ethics to be had here.

0
0
Paris Hilton

not much of an article to get excited about - but 1 CLASSIC phrase!

"scantily-clad practitioners in the field of negotiable companionship" resulted in spattered spam sandwich in this office, going to take ages to clean this keyboard now...

PH 'cos I wonder about her negotiating skills

0
0
Black Helicopters

@Pete W

"Joint" as in "Joint Service", actually - the F35 is to be deployed by both the US Air Force and the US Navy. An aircraft capable of both air-to-air and air-to-ground is either 'multi-role' or 'swing-role' (the new name for

'multi-role').

And the airframe was NOT developed solely by the infamous Skunk Works - that is more LM PR spin. There have been LM "technical specialists" working on the eastern side of the Atlantic for many years now, certainly from before JSF was conceived.

And as a self-appointed 'JSF expert' you must surely have heard of the F-35B, as intended for the Royal Navy, no? The one with the moving tailpipe? The moving tailpipe designed by BAe? Nothing to do with GD, methinks. And what the heck is "their model 200"? Do you mean the Gulfstream 200 civil business jet? Funny, I don't recall seeing any bizjets doing VTOLs recently...

I wonder how pleased the Russian aerospace companies were when the two Germanies 'reunited' and then sent lots of ex-East German armed forces (all WarPac kit built by the USSR) over to America... there are several ex-(East) German helicopters and aircraft flying around American airspace with American identity codes... but you don't get to hear the Russians complain, do you?

And I question your suggestion that BAe is any more of a security risk than any American organisation; when was the last time BAe lost radioactive material from a top-secret research base, or allowed foreign nationals access to secret data to show what a wonderful job they were doing (only for the foreigner to photocopy said data and tuck it into his briefcase in full view of security cameras... ain't hindsight wonderful!)

There are, of course, many other examples of where the superior American way of doing things has let secrets (and worse!) loose but they get conveniently forgotten every time there's an election looming in the good ole US-of-A...

As an aside, I used to work as a full-time, "company employee" for BAe, on a site that housed a "joint development" team from Lockheed Martin (and that was in 1994, fact-lovers!) so I have personal experieince of how long they've been working with/ripping off BAe.

When trying to audit IT kit in the rooms the LM team used, they would not allow myself and another 'company man' in as they decided we were a security risk.

Instead they let a BAe-employed Contractor in, on the grounds that they had seen him before... I'm not saying that he *was* a risk, but his first loyalty was to his own pocket. So who was the bigger risk? Someone employed by LM's "partner" or someone working purely for himself?

0
0

re: mendacity

He's got a bee up his butt.

Maybe he has reason for that, but I think it may be driving his interpretation rather than being a datapoint to consider for him.

0
0
Coat

@Anonymous Coward - My Response

>> "Joint" as in "Joint Service", actually - the F35 is to be deployed by both the US Air Force and the US Navy. An aircraft capable of both air-to-air and air-to-ground is either 'multi-role' or 'swing-role' (the new name for 'multi-role').

You forgot the U.S. Marines, they use the JSF as well. What, your calling me out on phraseology? That's pathetic. Oh, "Joint role" vs. "Joint Service"... you don't seem to get my point, which is that the word "joint" was intended to reference their use across multiple branches of military(s), NOT to symbolize a multinational development effort (regardless of whether you believe such an effort existed).

>> And as a self-appointed 'JSF expert' you must surely have heard of the F-35B, as intended for the Royal Navy, no? The one with the moving tailpipe? The moving tailpipe designed by BAe? Nothing to do with GD, methinks. And what the heck is "their model 200"? Do you mean the Gulfstream 200 civil business jet? Funny, I don't recall seeing any bizjets doing VTOLs recently...

I meant their Model 200 experimental aircraft. It's not exactly top secret, take 5 minutes and do your own research.

I never claimed to be an expert, I only asserted that another individuals statement was incorrect. For example, "the JSF can't super-cruise", do you disagree with this statement?

The F-35B isn't intended for the Royal Navy, That's a deliberate oversimplification. I believe that it's actually intended for 8 (possibly more) nations militarys. I also believe that the largest customer nation is the United States (combined purchases of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marines). If it was "intended" for any specific nation, surely it would be for the largest customer, eh? Not a little Island which outgrew it's glory days centuries ago (that should spark some flames).

>> As an aside, I used to work as a full-time, "company employee" for BAe, on a site that housed a "joint development" team from Lockheed Martin (and that was in 1994, fact-lovers!) so I have personal experieince of how long they've been working with/ripping off BAe.

"fact-lovers!" You have to be kidding me, just because you say it doesn't make it fact.

If you were in fact an employee of BAE, then haven't you just illustrated that they employ individuals who can't be trusted to keep your mouth shut?

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums