SBD-3
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2
- Thread starter ejaz007
- Start date
S-A-B-E-R->
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,115
- Reaction score
- 0
what the heck
what does afti has over the blk52+?
SBD-3
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2008
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
notorious_eagle
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,666
- Reaction score
- 34
- Country
- Location
DANGER-ZONE
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 3,754
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Falcons in Saudi during Al Saqroor Excercise
This one is not from SA but from personal album of Sqn.Ldr F.Nadeem on FB and the falcon is stationed at home base.
Shahzad Sultan
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 60
- Reaction score
- 0
What is the difference b/w Block 50 & 52 ?
Abu Zolfiqar
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,555
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
key difference is the engine
Block-50 uses F110-GE-129
Block 52 uses F100-PW-229
lattter being lighter and more powerful than the earlier F100 variants
krash
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,885
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
- Location
Essentially these are not separate blocks i.e. its block 50/52. Onwards from block 25 the F-16s came with two engine options, general electric and pratt and whitney engines. Designations for blocks from then on came in dual numbers: 30/32, 40/42, 50/52 and 50/52+. The blocks ending in a '0', e.g. block 50, are powered by general electric engines. Where as the aircraft from blocks ending in '2', e.g. block 52, are powered by pratt and whitney engines.
Manticore
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 10,115
- Reaction score
- 114
- Country
- Location
http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...mlu-specifications-36-blk-52-prospects-6.html
ive just posted them here
Shahzad Sultan
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 60
- Reaction score
- 0
Thanks buddy i have already read the same
monitor
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 8,570
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
It seems relevant Since we were discussing bugs and restrictions, I saw the following may be It doesn't show use in aircraft but certainly shows other scenarios.
High-tech warfare: Something wrong with our **** chips today | The Economist
Something wrong with our **** chips today
Kill switches are changing the conduct and politics of war
Apr 7th 2011 | from the print edition
IN THE 1991 Gulf war Iraqs armed forces used American-made colour photocopiers to produce their battle plans. That was a mistake. The circuitry in some of them contained concealed transmitters that revealed their position to American electronic-warfare aircraft, making bomb and missile strikes more precise. The operation, described by David Lindahl, a specialist at the Swedish Defence Research Agency, a government think-tank, highlights a secret front in high-tech warfare: turning enemy assets into liabilities.
The internet and the growing complexity of electronic circuitry have made it much easier to install what are known as kill switches and back doors, which may disable, betray or blow up the devices in which they are installed. Chips can easily contain 2 billion transistors, leaving plenty of scope to design a few that operate secretly. Testing even a handful of them for anomalies requires weeks of work.
Kill switches and other remote controls are on the minds of Western governments pondering whether to send weapons such as sophisticated anti-tank missiles, normally tightly policed, to rebels in Libya. Keeping tabs on when and where they are fired will allay fears that they could end up in terrorist hands. Such efforts would not even need to be kept secret. A former CIA official says the rebels could be told: Look, were going to give you this, but we want to be able to control it.
Related topics
Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA, United States)
Circuit engineering
Electrical engineering
Engineering
Integrated circuits
That lesson was first learned in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when America supplied Stinger missiles to help Afghan fighters against Soviet helicopter gunships, only to have to comb the regions arms bazaars in later years to buy them back (some were then booby-trapped and sold again, to deter anyone tempted to use them).
America worries about becoming the victim of kill switches itself. Six years ago a report by Americas Defence Science Board, an official advisory body, said unauthorised design inclusions in foreign-made chips could help an outside power gain a measure of control over critical American hardware.
Chips off the home block
In response, America has launched schemes such as the Trusted Foundry Programme, which certifies secure, domestic facilities for the manufacture of the most critical microchips. The Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a Pentagon outfit devoted to expanding the militarys technological abilities, will spend at least $20m this year on ways to identify rogue microchips. The Army Research Office is holding a closed conference on kill switches in mid-April.
Farinaz Koushanfar, a DARPA-funded expert at Texass Rice University, says microchip designers would like to be able to switch off their products in the wild, in case the contractors that make the chips produce some extra ones to sell on the sly. She designs active hardware metering chips that, in devices connected to the internet, can remotely identify them and if necessary switch them off.
An obvious countermeasure is to keep critical defence equipment off the net. But that is only a partial solution. Chips can be designed to break down at a certain date. An innocent-looking component or even a bit of soldering can be a disguised antenna. When it receives the right radio signal, from, say, a mobile-phone network, aircraft or satellite, the device may blow up, shut down, or work differently.
Old-fashioned spying can reveal technological weaknesses too. Mr Lindahl says Sweden obtained detailed information on circuitry in a heat-seeking missile that at least one potential adversary might, in wartime, shoot at one of its eight C-130 Hercules military-transport planes. A slight but precise change in the ejection tempo of the decoy flares would direct those missiles towards the flame, not the aircraft.
Such tricks may be handy in dealing with unreliable allies as well as foes, but they can also hamper Western efforts to contain risk in unstable countries. Pakistan has blocked American efforts to safeguard its nuclear facilities. The countrys former ambassador to the United Nations, Munir Akram, cites fears that such measures will include secret remote controls to shut the nuclear programme down. A European defence official says even video surveillance cameras can intercept or disrupt communications. To avoid such threats, Pakistani engineers laboriously disassemble foreign components and replicate them.
Wesley Clark, a retired general who once headed NATOs forces, says that rampant fears of kill switches make American-backed defence co-operation agreements a harder sell. David Kay, a notable United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, bemoans scepticism and paranoia. You just cant trust anybody these days, even in the weapons business.
from the print edition | International
High-tech warfare: Something wrong with our **** chips today | The Economist
Something wrong with our **** chips today
Kill switches are changing the conduct and politics of war
Apr 7th 2011 | from the print edition
IN THE 1991 Gulf war Iraqs armed forces used American-made colour photocopiers to produce their battle plans. That was a mistake. The circuitry in some of them contained concealed transmitters that revealed their position to American electronic-warfare aircraft, making bomb and missile strikes more precise. The operation, described by David Lindahl, a specialist at the Swedish Defence Research Agency, a government think-tank, highlights a secret front in high-tech warfare: turning enemy assets into liabilities.
The internet and the growing complexity of electronic circuitry have made it much easier to install what are known as kill switches and back doors, which may disable, betray or blow up the devices in which they are installed. Chips can easily contain 2 billion transistors, leaving plenty of scope to design a few that operate secretly. Testing even a handful of them for anomalies requires weeks of work.
Kill switches and other remote controls are on the minds of Western governments pondering whether to send weapons such as sophisticated anti-tank missiles, normally tightly policed, to rebels in Libya. Keeping tabs on when and where they are fired will allay fears that they could end up in terrorist hands. Such efforts would not even need to be kept secret. A former CIA official says the rebels could be told: Look, were going to give you this, but we want to be able to control it.
Related topics
Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA, United States)
Circuit engineering
Electrical engineering
Engineering
Integrated circuits
That lesson was first learned in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when America supplied Stinger missiles to help Afghan fighters against Soviet helicopter gunships, only to have to comb the regions arms bazaars in later years to buy them back (some were then booby-trapped and sold again, to deter anyone tempted to use them).
America worries about becoming the victim of kill switches itself. Six years ago a report by Americas Defence Science Board, an official advisory body, said unauthorised design inclusions in foreign-made chips could help an outside power gain a measure of control over critical American hardware.
Chips off the home block
In response, America has launched schemes such as the Trusted Foundry Programme, which certifies secure, domestic facilities for the manufacture of the most critical microchips. The Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a Pentagon outfit devoted to expanding the militarys technological abilities, will spend at least $20m this year on ways to identify rogue microchips. The Army Research Office is holding a closed conference on kill switches in mid-April.
Farinaz Koushanfar, a DARPA-funded expert at Texass Rice University, says microchip designers would like to be able to switch off their products in the wild, in case the contractors that make the chips produce some extra ones to sell on the sly. She designs active hardware metering chips that, in devices connected to the internet, can remotely identify them and if necessary switch them off.
An obvious countermeasure is to keep critical defence equipment off the net. But that is only a partial solution. Chips can be designed to break down at a certain date. An innocent-looking component or even a bit of soldering can be a disguised antenna. When it receives the right radio signal, from, say, a mobile-phone network, aircraft or satellite, the device may blow up, shut down, or work differently.
Old-fashioned spying can reveal technological weaknesses too. Mr Lindahl says Sweden obtained detailed information on circuitry in a heat-seeking missile that at least one potential adversary might, in wartime, shoot at one of its eight C-130 Hercules military-transport planes. A slight but precise change in the ejection tempo of the decoy flares would direct those missiles towards the flame, not the aircraft.
Such tricks may be handy in dealing with unreliable allies as well as foes, but they can also hamper Western efforts to contain risk in unstable countries. Pakistan has blocked American efforts to safeguard its nuclear facilities. The countrys former ambassador to the United Nations, Munir Akram, cites fears that such measures will include secret remote controls to shut the nuclear programme down. A European defence official says even video surveillance cameras can intercept or disrupt communications. To avoid such threats, Pakistani engineers laboriously disassemble foreign components and replicate them.
Wesley Clark, a retired general who once headed NATOs forces, says that rampant fears of kill switches make American-backed defence co-operation agreements a harder sell. David Kay, a notable United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, bemoans scepticism and paranoia. You just cant trust anybody these days, even in the weapons business.
from the print edition | International
krash
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,885
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
- Location
I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt that story mate.........
Donatello
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 10,531
- Reaction score
- 23
- Country
- Location
No need to seriously seriously doubt anything....
As an electronics engineer i can assure you that it is very easy to design entire systems on a single chip.
Infact, Photocopiers have capability to make copies secretly.......it came as part of deal so copyright could be respected......so administrators can later retrieve them if needed.
US could have easily designed such a system. They will never give a clean product to a country they see as their future combat enemy.
krash
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,885
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
- Location
Yeah but the whole story of the americans installing those chips on the exact same photocopier on which those plans were photocopied is a bit ludicrous. Or had they installed those chips on every single photocopier shipped to Iraq? Or maybe more believable somehow planted those chips when the photocopiers were shipped to the known customer, in this case the higher Iraqi military offices. But still it sounds a bit not too plausible.
Similar threads
- Article
