What's new

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

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

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.

Find a short plank and take a long walk. Because now you are treading very, very dangerous tragedy. No Pakistani on this forum, including myself, will tolerate jests on this topic. The Thunder is our pride, and I look forward to the day when it blasts an American F-16 out of the skies.
 
Find a short plank and take a long walk. Because now you are treading very, very dangerous tragedy. No Pakistani on this forum, including myself, will tolerate jests on this topic. The Thunder is our pride, and I look forward to the day when it blasts an American F-16 out of the skies.
Spare me, son. I got stick time. You ain't. I know what 9g feels like. You only know how to steer a car thru a roundabout. I been to Red Flag. You barely know to walk thru an airport. :rolleyes:
 
Spare me, son. I got stick time. You ain't. I know what 9g feels like. You only know how to steer a car thru a roundabout. I been to Red Flag. You barely know to walk thru an airport. :rolleyes:

Well grandpa, time to take your medicine.
 
Well grandpa, time to take your medicine.
Can you please stop this. This is not the sort of conversation to be had on this board. It discourages pekple from coming to share their knowledge. The fact remains that US will not compromise its whole defence aviation industry to stop PAF from flying against IAF. If you are planning to fight the USAF then your 75 F16s wont last very long even if the US loses twice that number they will crush you into the ground and then some more. There is an explanation by gambit over how it works by degrading the function of the Radar and perhaps the percormance of the .missiles.
A
 
Can you please stop this. This is not the sort of conversation to be had on this board. It discourages pekple from coming to share their knowledge. The fact remains that US will not compromise its whole defence aviation industry to stop PAF from flying against IAF. If you are planning to fight the USAF then your 75 F16s wont last very long even if the US loses twice that number they will crush you into the ground and then some more. There is an explanation by gambit over how it works by degrading the function of the Radar and perhaps the percormance of the .missiles.
A

Kindly stop spreading misinformation. Throughout the debate this person has made representations that I have one by one shown false. The matter of degraded performance was shown by myself. I have said it elsewhere, I will say it here. You, dear Sir, act like a mentally subjugated slave of foreign masters. Unfortunate that we have your likes amongst us, but we must live with what we have.

You have chosen to quote one particular post in a long discussion. The post has a context, a rationale, and a justification.

If people want to share the official spiel on the forum, and you are dying to read it, fine by me. But if they are going to strut about while doing it, they might get unflattering replies as well. And it wouldn't be a great loss if they basically stop reaffirming the supposed ethical standards of LM et al.
 
Kindly stop spreading misinformation. Throughout the debate this person has made representations that I have one by one shown false. The matter of degraded performance was shown by myself. I have said it elsewhere, I will say it here. You, dear Sir, act like a mentally subjugated slave of foreign masters. Unfortunate that we have your likes amongst us, but we must live with what we have.

You have chosen to quote one particular post in a long discussion. The post has a context, a rationale, and a justification.

If people want to share the official spiel on the forum, and you are dying to read it, fine by me. But if they are going to strut about while doing it, they might get unflattering replies as well. And it wouldn't be a great loss if they basically stop reaffirming the supposed ethical standards of LM et al.
Do you think I am that stupid that I would read one post and not the response and the context of it and thhe ongoing diatribe for the last 3 pages before I make an observation. My observation is very simple. From being a debate it has turned into a name calling fest. You have a view point and soxdoes he. It is obvious you want to stick to your view point and he will stick to his. Gambit might not remember that I had a debate with him many years ago about the 9/11 saga and we had very diverging views. So in a case like that you disengage because continuing on does not achieve anything more than name calling. I firmly believe that professional members irrespective of any nation should be given respect for their services. You can have a differing opinion to them but respect them for who they are. This is all I say. Agree to disagree and move on. This is how you keep people engaged but name calling and unnecessarily pointless debate will always leave an unsavoury flavour to the debate.
A
 
Do you think I am that stupid that I would read one post and not the response and the context of it and thhe ongoing diatribe for the last 3 pages before I make an observation. My observation is very simple. From being a debate it has turned into a name calling fest. You have a view point and soxdoes he. It is obvious you want to stick to your view point and he will stick to his. Gambit might not remember that I had a debate with him many years ago about the 9/11 saga and we had very diverging views. So in a case like that you disengage because continuing on does not achieve anything more than name calling. I firmly believe that professional members irrespective of any nation should be given respect for their services. You can have a differing opinion to them but respect them for who they are. This is all I say. Agree to disagree and move on. This is how you keep people engaged but name calling and unnecessarily pointless debate will always leave an unsavoury flavour to the debate.
A

OK. Understood. I move on. But professional members should show sensitivity towards our strategic relations with other nations.
 
OK. Understood. I move on. But professional members should show sensitivity towards our strategic relations with other nations.

You should at least consider the ramifications of what @araz confirmed about my post about the encryption keys, what that means in the context of your discussion, and where they may or may not be used.

(Oh, and remember that your opponent in the discussion above only has end-user level experience with US F-16s, which have a very different configuration than that of PAF F-16s. This fact alone has ramifications too.)
 
Last edited:
You should at least consider the ramifications of what @araz confirmed about my post about the encryption keys, what that means in the context of your discussion, and where they may or may not be used.

(Oh, and remember that your opponent in the discussion above only has end-user level experience with US F-16s, which have a very different configuration than that of PAF F-16s. This fact alone has ramifications too.)

The emissary has spoken, and his word is law.
 
OK. Understood. I move on. But professional members should show sensitivity towards our strategic relations with other nations.
Let other nations fight their own battles. You have a vision which relates to the interest of your nations. There are other nationals here to defend their own nations. This is the rule little brother. We look after our interests and any interest which is of mutual benefit. Pak Sino relations are not going to be hurt by what US has to say. Similarly US Pak relatikns have a sphere of their own amd their own mutual interests.
A
 
Kindly stop spreading misinformation. Throughout the debate this person has made representations that I have one by one shown false.
What you presented was nothing more than your own unsubstantiated paranoia. Degraded versions of systems to sell is NOT uncommon, even in the civilian industries. Even RR have different versions of their autos for clients of varying wealth. Degraded versions of combat systems are NOT the same as what is speculated here, which is 'AT WILL disabling of features, which you had nothing more than a silly drawing. In your paranoia, it is convenient that the speculations are only directed at US and no one else.

The problem for people like me, who have actual experience in the subjects, is that there is no way we can counter your brand of 'reasoning'. For you, your ignorance of the technical details is a strength. It gives you license to bypass common sense and a paper mache thin veneer of intellectual superiority. If we cannot disprove you, you are correct by default. It is a perversion of logic.

At will disabling of commonly used features adds unnecessary complexity to the design. In aviation, either the feature works %100 of the time or we do not use it. Either the wing generate lift or not and we crash. We would have to add verification that the feature was disabled or degraded and to the degree that we want and the disabling feature has to work absolutely when commanded.

Real world logic continues to debunk the paranoia.

If I know that PAF F-16s will be used against Israel, why bother to disable or degrade the radar? Why not disable the entire flight control system and literally ground all PAF F-16s? When I was active duty, preflight flight controls checks are done while in chocks. Every jet must do it prior to taxi. There are plenty of online videos that shows the checks where the flight control surfaces go thru their motions. With a flip of a switch at the Pentagon, we can command those checks to make PAF F-16s errs out in the chocks. Why bother with the radar or the ECM systems? That would send a clear statement to Pakistan that the US would ensure Israel -- or any US ally -- victory, right?

But that would also means the end of US alliance with anyone else, including one as close as Great Britain, because now everyone would be suspicious of any US hardware integrated into their combat systems, no matter the degree of integration, large to small. Leaders worldwide would inevitably think: The Americans have just disabled Pakistani airpower, that mean they can do it to mine based upon American political expediencies worldwide.

Trust at the international level is already a fragile thing. So now after the world learned that Pakistani airpower was rendered impotent, why should anyone trust US anymore? Installing an 'at will' disabling feature is a 'WTF' thing to do. We would screw ourselves for the next century.
 
Your comments will not make the encryption keys go away. :D

Of course not, for thou arst the emissary of the great white father, all hail the emissary, we the subhuman about to die salute you.
 
Back
Top Bottom