Jump to content

Hate to wake up a dead subject but F14" "


Gentoo87

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, umkhunto said:


This also needs to be put to bed. Not ED, nor the 3rd parties, need a license to make any of the modules. There isn't a legal president at all that will a) either prevent them from representing an aircraft in the sim nor b) make them liable for any litigation. This has been stated multiples by ED and 3rd parties. The bottom line is if they have the data, they can make it. What a license does do though, gives them support from the manufacturer for data and SME input, that's all. If HB had the data for the D, there is sweet nothing NG can do to stop them to produce it as a module for DCS.

 

Actually, Cease and Desist orders are very much a thing, and often involve stiff fines if they're not obeyed. Also, these contracts with the manufacturers are a thing that groups like Razbam have had to go through, and like I said, if the manufacturer says 'no you cannot do this', and it's clearly spelled out in whatever contract is signed, then you must obey them. Remember that when it comes to the F-14D, the US Government is deathly afraid of any usable data getting out, and winding up in Iran. Reasons be darned, but that's the facts. So ultimately, as much as any of us want the F-14D, or for that matter, any and all existing aircraft currently or formally in service with full clickable cockpits, just using the data available (pictures and public information), is not going to produce a detailed enough product.

 

I strongly recommend watching TheChieftains video "The Joys of Researching Tanks", as it gives a good insight as to what anyone would have to go through as far as the research is concerned, and bare in mind, he talks about it in the context of a 15vs15 arcade tank game. This is stuff that would be taken up to 11 for a detailed simulator like DCS.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unknown.png

 

Update:

 

Ok...so we finally get an answer, the Department of the Navy was more then happy to give us the document and redact info on the IRST system...the work of which had already been done and finished however at the last minute a federal statue that prohibits them from release otherwise unclassified aerospace meterials came into effect and the request got denied, blame the ITAR.

 

We could appeal this but 22 USC 2751 is pretty rock solid.

 

TLDR, the documents are unclassifed...but due to this statue, the US DoD isn't letting the Navy release them anyway 

 

I would go to argue this is akin to the Russian Government not allowing any documents to be released on their aircraft if they're still in service...EVEN if the documents are well know...such as the first Mig 29s and Su-27s ect. 


Edited by Southernbear
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Southernbear said:

unknown.png

 

Update:

 

Ok...so we finally get an answer, the Department of the Navy was more then happy to give us the document and redact info on the IRST system...the work of which had already been done and finished however at the last minute a federal statue that prohibits them from release otherwise unclassified aerospace meterials came into effect and the request got denied, blame the ITAR.

 

We could appeal this but 22 USC 2751 is pretty rock solid.

 

TLDR, the documents are unclassifed...but due to this statue, the US DoD isn't letting the Navy release them anyway 

 

I would go to argue this is akin to the Russian Government not allowing any documents to be released on their aircraft if they're still in service...EVEN if the documents are well know...such as the first Mig 29s and Su-27s ect. 

 

damn 😞 

7700k @5ghz, 32gb 3200mhz ram, 2080ti, nvme drives, valve index vr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Southernbear said:

Ok...so we finally get an answer, the Department of the Navy was more then happy to give us the document and redact info on the IRST system...the work of which had already been done and finished however at the last minute a federal statue that prohibits them from release otherwise unclassified aerospace meterials came into effect and the request got denied, blame the ITAR.

 

Go figure. The dolts in DC kill the ST21 project, force the retirement of the F-14, and then this. So about the only way HB could make the D, is to hire someone with an idetic memory to take a trip to the US Navy Archives where they can read the information, and report back....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, maybe in another 10 years 😛

 

On a serious note, I wonder why they're holding this back if its unclassified? I mean, if anyone can go read it (without taking pictures or making copies ofc), then what's so wrong with allowing HB access to the documents in order to simulate the F-14D ?

 

If the documents were classified, I could understand it, but since they're not it just appears unnecessary.

 

I guess the FOIA isn't worth much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if DCS could use sensitive documentation to model things and there was no threat of legal action taken against the developers, it's in ED's and a lot of 3rd party developers' interests to maintain good relationships with government agencies and militaries, since some are current or potential customers.

  • Like 4

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2021 at 3:43 AM, Southernbear said:

unknown.png

 

Update:

 

Ok...so we finally get an answer, the Department of the Navy was more then happy to give us the document and redact info on the IRST system...the work of which had already been done and finished however at the last minute a federal statue that prohibits them from release otherwise unclassified aerospace meterials came into effect and the request got denied, blame the ITAR.

 

We could appeal this but 22 USC 2751 is pretty rock solid.

 

TLDR, the documents are unclassifed...but due to this statue, the US DoD isn't letting the Navy release them anyway 

 

I would go to argue this is akin to the Russian Government not allowing any documents to be released on their aircraft if they're still in service...EVEN if the documents are well know...such as the first Mig 29s and Su-27s ect. 

 

 

 

what about F14B(U)? supplemental manual Any issues with getting that unclassified too?

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2021 at 6:00 PM, Harker said:

Even if DCS could use sensitive documentation to model things and there was no threat of legal action taken against the developers, it's in ED's and a lot of 3rd party developers' interests to maintain good relationships with government agencies and militaries, since some are current or potential customers.

 

That's the kicker. If the USN says no, there's not much ED can do, especially if they're trying to compete for simulator software contracts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2021 at 10:48 AM, Hummingbird said:

why they're holding this back if its unclassified?

Unclassified means very very little in this context. The vast majority of documents needed for a DCS level module aside from a few specific airframes are unclassified. But the fact that something is unclassified won't necessarily mean that the information is also suitable for public dissemination. The majority of useful data is under the much larger 'Controlled Unclassified Information' umbrella term, which has things that wouldn't be as damaging to national security were they leaked to the public or became publically known as actually classified documents but their very nature and the information contained within them still makes officials more comfortable if these docs aren't  in the public domain.

 

The other issue are export controls. If something is export controlled it may be publically available in the US, to US persons but that doesn't mean that a foreign developer without valid certifications can legally purchase it and even with a certificate, it may be impossible to use the data in it. ITAR and other export regulations aren't necessarily rooted in logic nor do they provide any sort of actual benefit. They can apply to a plethora of different things and even to objects and data that are specifically marketed to civilians in the US, such as NVGs that are manufactured for the general public. US persons can buy them, but they aren't allowed to sell them oversees, upload technical data or videos of the NODs in use or allow non US persons to try them if they visit the US. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

US persons can buy them, but they aren't allowed to sell them oversees, upload technical data or videos of the NODs in use or allow non US persons to try them if they visit the US. 

Yup! At my university in the US we have a lab that has students try on NVG/Thermal optics to see how stuff looks in them. Only US citizens can partake in the lab, no foreign students. I thought it was was but strange at first but now I understand 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2021 at 6:46 PM, Tank50us said:

 

That's the kicker. If the USN says no, there's not much ED can do, especially if they're trying to compete for simulator software contracts

 

On 8/7/2021 at 10:10 AM, Kev2go said:

 

 

what about F14B(U)? supplemental manual Any issues with getting that unclassified too?

The USN was happy to supply us the documents and the redaction was already complete but it was someone from the DoD went to the department of International Traffic in Arms Regulations and they invoked 22 USC 2751.

 

as for the F-14B(U) the Upgrade program was a way to bring existing F-14Bs to F-14D functionality aside from the HUDs (Sparrowhawk/Kaiser) being slightly different, a lot of the same info for a B(U) was in and needed from the manual we were trying to access. In effect, the F-14B(U) doesn't have it's own manual if that makes sense. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/29/2021 at 8:43 AM, Southernbear said:

unknown.png

 

Update:

 

Ok...so we finally get an answer, the Department of the Navy was more then happy to give us the document and redact info on the IRST system...the work of which had already been done and finished however at the last minute a federal statue that prohibits them from release otherwise unclassified aerospace meterials came into effect and the request got denied, blame the ITAR.

 

We could appeal this but 22 USC 2751 is pretty rock solid.

 

TLDR, the documents are unclassifed...but due to this statue, the US DoD isn't letting the Navy release them anyway 

 

I would go to argue this is akin to the Russian Government not allowing any documents to be released on their aircraft if they're still in service...EVEN if the documents are well know...such as the first Mig 29s and Su-27s ect. 

 

I was pointed to this thread by another member because I thought the FOIA process was quite interesting.

 

You mentioned that the documents in question are unclassified, specifically NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1A (1997).  I received a response to an FOIA request for the same manual back in 2014.  The response stated the manual was confidential and as a result being withheld completely.  It's possible that during the intervening years the manual has subsequently been declassified, however I'd be surprised if that was the case, so when you say "the documents are unclassifed", I assume you mean after redaction of systems and modes pertaining to the APG-71, ALR-67, ALQ-165 ASPJ, AIM-7M, AIM-9M etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2021 at 5:02 AM, Blaze1 said:

I was pointed to this thread by another member because I thought the FOIA process was quite interesting.

 

You mentioned that the documents in question are unclassified, specifically NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1A (1997).  I received a response to an FOIA request for the same manual back in 2014.  The response stated the manual was confidential and as a result being withheld completely.  It's possible that during the intervening years the manual has subsequently been declassified, however I'd be surprised if that was the case, so when you say "the documents are unclassifed", I assume you mean after redaction of systems and modes pertaining to the APG-71, ALR-67, ALQ-165 ASPJ, AIM-7M, AIM-9M etc?


While I can't speak with absolute precision without seeing the full conversation chain, for "confidential" manuals the declassification schedule is normally ten years.  At that point, a review is normally performed and the document is cleared, or gets another ten years tacked on.  In this case, you put in a request on a document in the second window (2007-2017).  

After the second window, any question on ability to release generally gets picked up under one of the nine exemptions until it hits MDR eligible at 25 years; but, in this case, under 10 USC 130, all of the required parties could sign off and still have it be a "no".  The fact that it's an exemption, and not maintained as confidential, does confirm that the materials are in fact unclassified- that is to say, someone within the DoD or a contractor under their auspices could review the manuals in part or whole without any redaction or need for individual clearance, similar to an unclassified -1 with the destruction control instructions on the cover, but they're not shipping it to outside parties (ie, the general public).  

 

FOIA can be an absolute treasure, or an absolute ____show, depending on what it is you're after.   At one point, I had a chase for a particular report that had been fully declassified in the 90s, only to be reclassified five years later,  get denied for unredacted release at 39 years- until I got the original USAF/DIA officer who declassified it all those years ago get involved to prepare the review request.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lunaticfringe said:


While I can't speak with absolute precision without seeing the full conversation chain, for "confidential" manuals the declassification schedule is normally ten years.  At that point, a review is normally performed and the document is cleared, or gets another ten years tacked on.  In this case, you put in a request on a document in the second window (2007-2017).  

After the second window, any question on ability to release generally gets picked up under one of the nine exemptions until it hits MDR eligible at 25 years; but, in this case, under 10 USC 130, all of the required parties could sign off and still have it be a "no".  The fact that it's an exemption, and not maintained as confidential, does confirm that the materials are in fact unclassified- that is to say, someone within the DoD or a contractor under their auspices could review the manuals in part or whole without any redaction or need for individual clearance, similar to an unclassified -1 with the destruction control instructions on the cover, but they're not shipping it to outside parties (ie, the general public).  

 

FOIA can be an absolute treasure, or an absolute ____show, depending on what it is you're after.   At one point, I had a chase for a particular report that had been fully declassified in the 90s, only to be reclassified five years later,  get denied for unredacted release at 39 years- until I got the original USAF/DIA officer who declassified it all those years ago get involved to prepare the review request.  

Always good to hear from you on these matters lunaticfringe.👍

 

For some of the older -1A manuals, there's a printed notice stating they're exempt for the GDS (General Declassification Review), but have a specific declassification date marked e.g "Declassify on 31 December 1985".  From around 1979 or 1980, this method of establishing a specific declassification date seems to have been abolished and in its place a date given for a declassification review.

 

The exemption does imply that the manual is unclassified.  The response I received in 2014 that it was being withheld because it was classified was "FOIA Exemption 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (1)" as well as "FOIA Exemption 3, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (3) Specifically, 10 USC § 130" with this second exemption being used for export controlled items.  The original poster (Southernbear) mentioned the requester had asked for a redacted version of the manual.  I wondered if the unclassified status was applied to this redacted version, but I don't think the FOIA review & response process works like that.

 

I hear what your saying about the FOIA process.  I just posted on a discord channel a couple of days ago about some of the issues with it.  Someone recently asked NATEC for a copy of an A-6 manual and was denied (NATEC does have the copy).  I know for a fact that this manual is a available to the public in a government library archive (I think a navy museum) and the public are free to make copies of it.  This isn't the first instance either, so it appears the various agencies on occasion lack clear communicate paths concerning the status of the manuals they control.

 

BTW how did you manage to get in contact with the specific officer responsible for the review?


Edited by Blaze1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blaze1 said:

BTW how did you manage to get in contact with the specific officer responsible for the review?

 

Realizing we were acquainted through on my moonlighting/hobby gig after the fact through a working group email chain.  Expressed my exasperation as to how I was having trouble getting something so old and clearly worked through, and he piped up stating that he'd been the original declassifying reviewer for the exact materials I was looking for.  Got me in contact with some folks on AF historical side who would conconcur with our mutual assessment on public importance, and that was that.  

 

Life can be funny like that sometimes. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this thread still going? As IronMike stated in the other thread, data can be unclassified but still not legally available. The way I interpreted that statement is that you can have legal access to declassified documents, but as soon as you use it in a commercial venture this is where you start getting into murky legal waters unless you have specific permissions to do so. 

 


Edited by Lurker
  • Like 2

Specs: Win10, i5-13600KF, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lunaticfringe said:

 

Realizing we were acquainted through on my moonlighting/hobby gig after the fact through a working group email chain.  Expressed my exasperation as to how I was having trouble getting something so old and clearly worked through, and he piped up stating that he'd been the original declassifying reviewer for the exact materials I was looking for.  Got me in contact with some folks on AF historical side who would conconcur with our mutual assessment on public importance, and that was that.  

 

Life can be funny like that sometimes. 

Well isn't that a stroke of good fortune!😃

 

 

47 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Why is this thread still going? Seriously guys, the F14D is not going to happen. As IronMike stated in the other thread, data can be unclassified but still not legally available. 

Because the thread has moved on from "Why can't HB do an F-14D sim".  😉


Edited by Blaze1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Why is this thread still going? As IronMike stated in the other thread, data can be unclassified but still not legally available. The way I interpreted that statement is that you can have legal access to declassified documents, but as soon as you use it in a commercial venture this is where you start getting into murky legal waters unless you have specific permissions to do so. 

 

 

If you're referring to the -1A, there's no distinction made between commercial and none commercial matters.  The technical data is simply export controlled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Blaze1:

 I know for a fact that this manual is a available to the public in a government library archive (I think a navy museum) and the public are free to make copies of it.

 

There is a difference between public in "US citizens" and public as in "won't mind if you mail a copy to North Korea". Though it's debatable, if in today's world that regulation is sensible or even effective, it still is in place. So a document can be de-classified and available to NATO Partners, military contractors etc., de-classified and available to the public but restricted for foreign countries or countries under ITAR, or de-classified and publicly available to everyone.

Some stuff is sold worldwide by Amazon, as print on demand, but fortunately it is more complicated than just "de-classified".


Edited by shagrat
Typos corrected

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...