Mix-and-Match; Eastern aircraft with Western weapons and vice-versa

[kitnut617]

This thread falls nicely into something I've been developing.  I'm thinking of a Close Air Support Helicopter for Canadian Forces in Afganistan and all that was available at short notice was four Agusta Mangustas leased from the Italian Air Force.  On operations it was found that TOW missiles were a bit of overkill (and expensive) when shooting at men on donkeys so some ex-soviet UPK-23 gun pods found under an old tarp in a disused warehouse on the base, were fitted to the stub wings, the Mangusta having no gun of it's own.  Ammunition was supplied by the Polish contingent who were doing a tour of duty at the same time, these guys also doing a rudimentary check-over of the pods to see that they were fully functional.  They also supplied suitable electrical adapters for the wiring hook-up.

[Weaver]

Does the export of JAS-39 require US permission?

I know that RM12 is derived from F404, and SAAB is looking at F414 to power further JAS-39 development......

Inspired by glanini's Serbian JAS-39 profile, perhaps a JAS-39 equipped with "Epaulette" miniature radars and armed with R-73 as well as R-77 would be a more believable post-Cold War what-if?

Well IAI were offering a Kfir C.10 with the Volvo RM12, specifically because it wasn't subject to the same restrictions as the J-79......

THe general problem with mix and match on modern platforms is software. If the plane maker won't supply the source codes then the operator has to nicely ask their permission every time they want to change something. Having said that, since MIL.STD.1553B/C are widely understood standards, then if you removed a system entirely and replaced it with a new one that's also compatible, then it shouldn't make a difference (data is data). Whether manufacturers install trapdoor codes to prevent this is a matter of conjecture....

[elmayerle]

Does the export of JAS-39 require US permission?

Well IAI were offering a Kfir C.10 with the Volvo RM12, specifically because it wasn't subject to the same restrictions as the J-79......

The JAS-39's USA components/USA derived components do require export/re-export permission under the ITAR.  The RM12 would involve US technology and thus still require this permission.  As to how easy this is to gain really depends upon the State Dept. and everyone else involved in the ITAR world - often a very complicated and long list.

Trust me as someone who lived with ITAR for nearly four years, the US DoS paperwork is a right pain and a boring nightmare to read throguh, even though you have to.  Believe me, they do not make it easy and teh penalties for errors are severe, to say the least.

Moving on, I'm looking at doing Finnish export Harrier GR.52s with Soviet weapons as well as an Argentinian "Matador" carrying their indigenous Martin Pescador missiles with a guidance pod on the centerline hardpoint.  'Twould look good in malvinas markings.

[dy031101]

See here.

This is allegedly from Half-Life 2, planned for but ultimately removed from the retail game, seemingly based on (though perhaps not strictly being) a combination of the Ka-29/32, mission avionics and refuelling probe of the MH-53J Pave Low, as well as four Hydra 70 rocket pods.

[GTX]

Does the export of JAS-39 require US permission?

I know that RM12 is derived from F404, and SAAB is looking at F414 to power further JAS-39 development......

Inspired by glanini's Serbian JAS-39 profile, perhaps a JAS-39 equipped with "Epaulette" miniature radars and armed with R-73 as well as R-77 would be a more believable post-Cold War what-if?

The US derived parts due require US permission due to ITAR (that wonderful thing ).

Regards,

Greg

[dy031101]

The US derived parts due require US permission due to ITAR (that wonderful thing ).

Well I suppose they could try M88 in that scenario......

[elmayerle]

The US derived parts due require US permission due to ITAR (that wonderful thing ).

Bite your tongue!!  Based on my experiences with those rules on JSF, ITAR is a four-letter obscenity.

[GTX]

The US derived parts due require US permission due to ITAR (that wonderful thing ).

Bite your tongue!!  Based on my experiences with those rules on JSF, ITAR is a four-letter obscenity.

Oh, don't worry - I am more than familiar with the [Sarcasm On]'wonderful' [Sarcasm Off] world of ITAR - hence the 

Regards,

Greg

[Silver Fox]

The problem with integrating 'unauthorized' system upgrades in a bird like the F-16 might not be the weapons system. If the flight control computers don't know how to handle the effects of that new missile you've just mounted... you're flying a deathtrap. In modern FBW types, the weapons system updates the flight control software on weight, balance and other factors. You might try to fudge things by 'translating' the weapon type to something familiar and close... but it can still have unpredictable and dangerous results.

I'll bet GD/LM have coded the flight control protocols so that integration of new weapons is virtually impossible without their input... at least on certain export versions.

[jcf]

The US derived parts due require US permission due to ITAR (that wonderful thing ).

Bite your tongue!!  Based on my experiences with those rules on JSF, ITAR is a four-letter obscenity.

Oh, don't worry - I am more than familiar with the [Sarcasm On]'wonderful' [Sarcasm Off] world of ITAR - hence the 

Regards,

Greg

Great system innit? I had my ITAR fun on Wedgetail and 787. 

[Weaver]

ITAR costs you in the US business too: UK aerospace buyers now treat US suppliers as the last option if ITAR's involved. I've heard of one case where they decided it was easier/cheaper to get a small batch of "size-and-a-half" parts made locally, including getting the local manufacturer approved for aerospace supply from scratch, rather than go to the US manufacturer who makes the rest of the range in bulk, purely because of ITAR. So not only has it cost the US business, but it's created a brand new competitor, because that little engineering company are sure as hell going to exploit their BAE approval and position outside of ITAR for all it's worth now.

This isn't rumour mill stuff either, it's straight from buyers who I deal with in person.

[elmayerle]

The thing about ITAR is that it's run/administered by Department of State bureaucrats instead of someone with any sense or competence.  You have to be able to cite agreement(s) and paragraphs(s) just to export data to a co-worker from another country who might even be co-located close to you or you have to swear that the data does not contain any ITAR data.  I suspect that my present employer (Sikorsky) has run into some of this with overseas sales and will run into more now that they're building aircraft (or at least major portions of them) overseas.

[kitnut617]

I wasn't sure what ITAR was -- until I just did a goggle on it.  But without reading a whole slew of regulations (it reminds me of the building code book I have to use where one regulation section practically cancels out another), in a nutshell, how does this effect US based companies from selling their product to another country ?

[elmayerle]

I wasn't sure what ITAR was -- until I just did a goggle on it.  But without reading a whole slew of regulations (it reminds me of the building code book I have to use where one regulation section practically cancels out another), in a nutshell, how does this effect US based companies from selling their product to another country ?

Basically (and this is from the US PoV), it affects companies selling military or dual-use goods in that agreements have to be arrived at, and approved by the US DoS stating precisely what can be exported and to whom and this is monitored and there are horrendous penalties for violating these rules.  On a "simple" sale, this isn't too bad but on major multi-national development programs (JSF, from my own experience), it can be a right pain because every major document and every computer model put out for release or sharing has to have all the appropriate viewers listed as well as the documents (down to the paragraphs) that allow this.  To be able to add this information, you have to be trained and certified as a Technology Transfer Coordinator (TTC) and after the initial four-hour training and certification there's recurring training and certification every year.  And you *really* want to list things carefully 'cause the penalties for a first-time violation are draconian ($1million+ in fines, loss of cleaerance, likely loss of job, and potential jail time).

[Weaver]

It means that any material or information which is classified as "military tech" according to a ridiculously wide definition can't be exported out of the USA or given to non-US nationals within the USA (unless they've been specially cleared) without permissions and paperwork signed in quadruplicate-squared from the US government, and without a similar condition being imposed on the receiver. The latter means that even non-US companies located outside the USA still have to jump through the ITAR BS even if all they've done is buy some standard stuff from a US supplier.

In the example I cited, the part in question was a simple bolt. One size was too short, the next size up was too long, they couldn't be cut for some reason (surface coating?) and the project (a UAV) was weight-critical, so they wanted a size-and-a-half one making. The problem then was that the rest of the range wasn't subject to ITAR because they'd been first-certified by Boeing for an airliner, but because the new bolt was going to be first-certified for a military project, the full weight of ITAR would fall upon it from a great height, even though:

a) it was just a bolt, that any dodgy nation with aerospace aspirations could knock out in five minutes,

b) the rest of the range were perfectly capable of being used on military projects, even though they were deemed ITAR-exempt.


ITAR needs a serious re-write.....