Can USA Jammed/Hacked Pakistan's F-16 ?

[gambit]

You know. You are extremely shallow. So here is what I pick. I choose not to click.

Now, a hardware level kill switch embedded in silicon will still function because LRUs are changed from spares that are still provided by the supplier. Nice attempt at a lot of things in one post, I must say. But you still haven't made any convincing argument.

And yes, if the access is not intended, if you never expected the backdoor to be there in the first place, and if the backdoor is used to pull a fast one on you, that is a defect in your house. Because your house is meant to protect you as much as it provides a dwelling for you.

This is why I said earlier that no amount of reasoning and logic will suffice.

What you asked for requires at least two lines of manufacturing: One for domestic and one for foreign sales.

This is the only way to keep smart people in all countries that flies the F-16 from discovering our ability to 'hack' their F-16s.

This complicates everything from CEO down to Production. The domestic line must be constantly monitored to prevent cross contamination from the foreign sales parts. Else we would make our F-16s vulnerable to 'hacking'.

This means the conspiracy is global and time spanned over decades. This would make foreign sales of the F-15 and F-16 more expensive than the F-22 and F-35.

I do not care to change your mind. This is not about you. When I debate someone, it is about the silent readers out there, NEVER about the other person. Let the readers make up their minds. Sure, there will be allies for your point of view, as there will be for mine.

I haven't even posed the most outrageous questions yet.

No, we cannot mind control the F-16 pilots of other countries via their helmets. That is the official position.

 

[CriticalThought]

This is why I said earlier that no amount of reasoning and logic will suffice.

What you asked for requires at least two lines of manufacturing: One for domestic and one for foreign sales.

This is the only way to keep smart people in all countries that flies the F-16 from discovering our ability to 'hack' their F-16s.

This complicates everything from CEO down to Production. The domestic line must be constantly monitored to prevent cross contamination from the foreign sales parts. Else we would make our F-16s vulnerable to 'hacking'.

This means the conspiracy is global and time spanned over decades. This would make foreign sales of the F-15 and F-16 more expensive than the F-22 and F-35.

I do not care to change your mind. This is not about you. When I debate someone, it is about the silent readers out there, NEVER about the other person. Let the readers make up their minds. Sure, there will be allies for your point of view, as there will be for mine.


No, we cannot mind control the F-16 pilots of other countries via their helmets. That is the official position.

And yet there is documented evidence of military products being diluted for export

http://ausairpower.net/TE-Sidewinder-94.html

While the AIM-9L fulfilled the role of the frontline all aspect dogfight missile, a need still existed for a second tier weapon for use in less demanding situations, and also suitable for export to less than absolutely trusted allies. This requirement was fulfilled by the AIM-9P family, derivatives of the AIM-9J/N.

Surely, this complicates the production line, increases costs. But why should US manufacturers care if the cost is passed on to the customer?

No, we cannot mind control the F-16 pilots of other countries via their helmets. That is the official position.

This is my outrageous assertion.

The diagram is my conceptualization of the internals of APG-68, since I am not privy to the actual system architecture. The receiver writes incoming signals to the system bus, where a micro-controller mediates access to/from the rest of the hardware. As soon as the microcontroller sees a certain sequence of incoming signals, it can:

1. Clear the system bus.
2. Put some other signals on the system bus.
3. Do nothing.

This is the most basic control that I would put into the radar if I were selling it to 'less than reliable allies'. I am sure the engineers at the likes of Northrop and LM are a million times more intelligent, knowledgeable, and creative. It would be easy to put controls into any device that processes incoming signals, and it would be the prudent thing to do. I would be accusing America of idiocy and naivete if I said such safeguards are not considered or implemented.

The entire RX/Microcontroller/Bus package would be inside a sealed container where it is not accessible by technicians performing line replacement. In order to detect it, an elaborate test inside an EM anechoic chamber would need to be setup, and its complexity would be the same as trying to break encryption. There can be trillions up trillions of combinations and no one can try out all of them.

 

[Raider 21]

Please don't act as his personal secretary. I haven't even posed the most outrageous questions yet. He is trying desperately to reaffirm the official position of everything is milk and honey.

Behave yourself CT. I'm not acting like his personal secretary. Watch your tone.

 

[CriticalThought]

Behave yourself CT. I'm not acting like his personal secretary. Watch your tone.

OK. I apologize.

 

[VCheng]

What you asked for requires at least two lines of manufacturing: One for domestic and one for foreign sales.

Not really. Every version can get its own software package to make the hardware work as planned, no more and no less. PAF F-16s require encryption keys. Israelis F-16s do not. (As an analogy, Notepad, WordPad and MS Word all run in the same environment on the same PC.)

 

[Rafi]

Not really. Every version can get its own software package to make the hardware work as planned, no more and no less. PAF F-16s require encryption keys. Israelis F-16s do not. (As an analogy, Notepad, WordPad and MS Word all run in the same environment on the same PC.)

I totally endorse the emissary here, he being the emissary of the great white father, is privy to the occult majesty of the inner workings of King Arthur and the Knights of the round table, (of which George Washington was also a member).

Through his connections with the Deputy Grand Wizard of the Grand Assembly of the Witches of Eastwick (also known as the CEO of LM, he is able to share this highly classified brain fart with us today.

For this favour upon the lowly sub human degenerates of the Indus, I am personally eternally grateful.

All hail the great and wonderful emissary with the magic passport.

 

[gambit]

And yet there is documented evidence of military products being diluted for export

http://ausairpower.net/TE-Sidewinder-94.html

Surely, this complicates the production line, increases costs. But why should US manufacturers care if the cost is passed on to the customer?

A degraded version is not the same as what are being proposed here, which is 'at will' taking control of the jet. Speculations ranged from disabling certain features to actually controlling the jet's flight control system.

A V8, V10, and V12 are physically distinct engines. However, we can disable the fuel-air mixtures into specific cylinders under specific situations, aka 'cylinder deactivation' for decreased fuel consumption. So now we can have a V12 that have the same performance as a V10 or a V8 or even a V6.

What is being proposed here is that when there is a need, someone outside the car can remotely call up cylinder deactivation at his convenience.

This is my outrageous assertion.

Yup...It is outrageous and silly, especially as you admitted that you have no technical details about the radar system at all. But precisely because you are ignorant of the system, you are free to speculate to your heart's content and there is nothing I or even the talented engineers of Boeing or LM can convince you out of your delusions. Short of revealing trade and/or national security secrets, no amount of reasoning or logic will suffice.

For countries that must import their defense, it is actually more prudent to be honest with them when they are less than reliable allies. I will sell you the A/B versions as I build the C/D for my use. You can buy from the other side but then you would still be in the same dilemma of and about trust. What make you think the other side will not do the things you suspect me of doing?

Let us take this bit from your source...

In comparison with its cousin, it is less agile but still a very effective missile.

You have a choice of either buy the degraded version or be defenseless. Am being upfront about what you need and available products.

While it is technically feasible, it make no sense for me to have two lines of production where one line is secret to prospective customers. It klomplikate my life to have one diversion line where the products are modified and must be constantly monitored as to where they are going, and then hide that fact from prospective customers. Why not just be honest about everything? You think we do not know anything about each other regarding what we are?

PAF F-16 hacked/bugged/jammed = Fake Moon Landings.

 

[CriticalThought]

While it is technically feasible, it make no sense for me to have two lines of production where one line is secret to prospective customers. It klomplikate my life to have one diversion line where the products are modified and must be constantly monitored as to where they are going, and then hide that fact from prospective customers. Why not just be honest about everything? You think we do not know anything about each other regarding what we are?

PAF F-16 hacked/bugged/jammed = Fake Moon Landings.

But you don't need two production lines. First of all, let's be realistic, how many APG-68s are in existence? A couple hundred or less? Certainly not in the tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands. Second, cost is no issue. These are state of the art military systems for national security and nations are willing to pay top dollars.

Thirdly, the manufacturing line for silicon is a mixture of automated and manual stations. At each step, predefined steps/instructions are followed.

Now, what happened when Pakistan placed an order for Block52s? They were delivered an initial batch of 2. Two!!! Is it hard to keep track of special logic within two specimens of your product? Or even eighteen? Definitely NOT!!! How would one organize the production line? Let's review how the semiconductor manufacturing process works:

https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0433873A2/en

A logic circuit design is developed in an initial step on an appropriate computer aided design (CAD) system usually in a graphical representation. Next, a simulation step is used to verify the correct functionality. Typically, several iterations between these first two steps are required to obtain the desired functionality. Upon obtaining the desired functionality, a physical representation, or design layout, is made providing the exact locations of all the polygons forming the respective areas that the transistors and resistors occupy. Depending on the circuit complexity, the entire circuit may be re-simulated with additional information based on the design layout. For example, the layout resistance and capacitance are typically required to predict the level of performance in high speed integrated circuits. At this point, the physical or hardware processing begins with the generation of masks in accordance with the design layout and their use in diffusions, and patterning of various layers in the actual fabrication process of producing the physical integrated circuit.

For a completely customized circuit wherein none of the circuit elements in the design layout have been prearranged, the designer of an integrated circuit may work at the transistor level representation which includes the transistors and resistors and their circuit interconnection. For the design of application specific integrated circuits (ASIC's), the design is simplified because the ASIC vendor supplies a set of circuit building blocks, called macrocells or macros. To achieve the desired functionality for an integrated circuit, these macros are located on a common chip and are connected together by conductive paths. Thus, the circuit designer is no longer burdened by the details of the transistor level representation.

The difference between a compromised vs non-compromised radar is simply a matter of selecting the right macros at design time. Once the appropriate circuit layout is selected, the actual lithography is automated.

Here is the thing. When you talk about 'klomplikations' of product line, you argue against your own self. Building degraded versions of something is not easier/harder than building backdoor versions. It is a matter of appropriately setting up the production line. Money is not an issue, nor is time. Nations pay through their noses, and they must wait for as long as LM makes them wait.

Here is the crux of your argument: if someone is not privy to technical details, they should close their minds and accept the 'official spiel'. Well, that's exactly how one hands over security to others. That said, you are correct when you dismissively talk about nations that must import their defense. Your politicians have used even more trite and dismissive language towards Pakistan.

And for my fellow countrymen, the real take away from this entire thread is this: we are dogs eating out of the hands of those from whom we import our security. We are dependent on what they tell us, and we are dependent on how they restrict us. Until and unless we, and especially our leadership, recognize this and rise above our current status, we will never be able to safeguard our vital interests. We will continue to be manipulated by India and blackmailed by America.

 

[gambit]

Here is the crux of your argument: if someone is not privy to technical details, they should close their minds and accept the 'official spiel'.

Not at all. You should open your minds to reason and logic, and that includes even the absurd.

So now what should Pakistan do? Produce your own defense? Absolutely. It takes approximately ten yrs to field a combat jet fighter and that assume you already have all the supporting infrastructures such as a diverse manufacturing base, an educated population, and a steadily growing economy even thru the usual up/down cycles. Have you done research on the ratio of countries that can produce their defense and export the products vs the countries that must import their defense? I will give a clue: Most countries in the world cannot afford to produce rifles, let alone a jet fighter.

There is no defense against your paranoia. No amount of reasoning and logic will work. Even Dracula is fended off with garlic and sunlight.

 

[CriticalThought]

Not at all. You should open your minds to reason and logic, and that includes even the absurd.

So now what should Pakistan do? Produce your own defense? Absolutely. It takes approximately ten yrs to field a combat jet fighter and that assume you already have all the supporting infrastructures such as a diverse manufacturing base, an educated population, and a steadily growing economy even thru the usual up/down cycles. Have you done research on the ratio of countries that can produce their defense and export the products vs the countries that must import their defense? I will give a clue: Most countries in the world cannot afford to produce rifles, let alone a jet fighter.

There is no defense against your paranoia. No amount of reasoning and logic will work. Even Dracula is fended off with garlic and sunlight.

Of course you will paint a morose picture of economy, education, and timelines. But the very first step towards making a change is to accept that we need the change. Otherwise the status quo remains. And that's my main motivation here. Making more people wake up and realize the threats we are facing.

 

[Beast]

So much worry about American stuff? Don't buy made in america. Problem solved.

 

[gambit]

Of course you will paint a morose picture of economy, education, and timelines. But the very first step towards making a change is to accept that we need the change. Otherwise the status quo remains. And that's my main motivation here. Making more people wake up and realize the threats we are facing.

Morose? How about reality that you cannot deny? What make you think Russia or China will not do what you suspects US of doing?

 

[CriticalThought]

Morose? How about reality that you cannot deny? What make you think Russia or China will not do what you suspects US of doing?

You know what. I think I've been watching too much Ghost Busters. Even the one with the four ladies in it.

But just before I drop out of the discussion, the same applies to everyone, but some people call us Iron Brothers and some others call us terrorists.

 

[VCheng]

So much worry about American stuff? Don't buy made in america. Problem solved.

A simple and elegant solution, no doubt.

Morose? How about reality that you cannot deny? What make you think Russia or China will not do what you suspects US of doing?

These days, everybody does it.

Okay. There are a few other ways (apart from the mission planning keys referred to above):
1. Firstly, the US has the IFF codes of the Pakistani F-16 fleet. If those IFF codes were ever to 'make their way' into an enemy aircraft, then the enemy aircraft, when it is detected by a PAF F-16 on radar, will show up as a friendly plane. The PAF F-16 will not be able to lock on or fire a guided missile at this aircraft. This applies to any aircraft or radar that Pakistan procures from the US.

2. Secondly, and this is quite specific to F-16 Block 52s: these aircraft carry a 'primitive' version of the F-35's ALIS system. Look up the capabilities of the F-35 ALIS and how it has left many F-35 customers worried. The system basically keeps the F-35 always connected to lockheed martin's networks. The F-35 is a sensor truck and all the different signals picked up by its sensors (ELINT, optical, radar tracks) are relayed in realtime to lockheed martin's network. This basically turns every F-35 in the world into a listening station for the USAF. Lockheed will be able to know exactly where every F-35 is at any point of time, what it is doing, and what its sensors are seeing. You can see where this is going.... Lockheed will be able to push over-the-air software updates to the F-35, just like apple pushes them to your iphone, and it isn't possible for a user to disconnect their F-35s from this system.
A very, very primitive version of this system exists in the F-16 Block 52. This ensures that the US is able to maintain control over any aircraft sold by them, which they are able to justify by the law that someone pointed out earlier in this thread.

It depends on which precise version of the F-16 is being talked about. For example, Pakistani F-16s require encryption keys, while Israeli ones do not.

 

[gambit]

But just before I drop out of the discussion, the same applies to everyone, but some people call us Iron Brothers and some others call us terrorists.

You believe China meant it when the Chinese goobermint called Pakistan 'brother'? I have the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge. Interest in buying?

There goes the old saying: Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never harm me.

If names will never harm you, neither will it help you, especially when you are in need. If you suspect US built F-16, you might want to do the same for the JF-17.