Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

[SBD-3]

I DONT LIKE THIS SPINE

I hope now you will start liking spine

 

[S-A-B-E-R->]

what does afti has over the blk52+?

what the heck

 

[SBD-3]

what the heck

this was an advanced technology testbed.So nothing to worry about

 

[notorious_eagle]

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

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.

 

[Manticore]

new orders list

Norwegians pods..

 

[Shahzad Sultan]

What is the difference b/w Block 50 & 52 ?

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

What is the difference b/w Block 50 & 52 ?

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]

What is the difference b/w Block 50 & 52 ?

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]

What is the difference b/w Block 50 & 52 ?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...mlu-specifications-36-blk-52-prospects-6.html

ive just posted them here

This variant, which is also known as the Block 50/52+. Its main differences are the addition of support for conformal fuel tanks (CFTs), a dorsal spine compartment, the APG-68(V9) radar, an On-Board Oxygen Generation (OBOGS) system and a JHMCS helmet.[5]

The CFTs are mounted above the wing, on both sides of the fuselage and are easily removable. They provide an additional 440 US gallon or approximately 3,000 pounds (1,400 kg) of additional fuel, allowing increased range or time on station and frees up hardpoints for weapons instead of underwing fuel tanks.[6] All two-seat "Plus" aircraft have the enlarged avionics dorsal spine compartment which is located behind the cockpit and extends to the tail. It adds 30 cu ft (850 L) to the airframe for more avionics with only small increases in weight and drag.[7]
Polish Air Force F-16C Block 52+, 2006

Poland took delivery of its first F-16C Block 52+ aircraft on 15 September 2006. The "Poland Peace Sky program" includes 36 F-16Cs and 12 F-16Ds. All 48 aircraft were delivered in 2008.[8] The Hellenic Air Force took delivery of its first F-16C Block 52+ aircraft on 22 May 2008. The total Greek order is for 20 F-16Cs and 10 F-16Ds. The remaining 26 aircraft should be delivered by March 2010.[9] Pakistan Air Force has order 18 F-16C/D Block 52+ which include 10 F-16C and 8 F-16D. The Israeli F-16I is based on the block 52+ aircraft.

 

[Shahzad Sultan]

Thanks buddy i have already read the same

 

[monitor]

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 Iraq’s 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, we’re 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 region’s 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 America’s 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 military’s 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 Texas’s 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 country’s 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 NATO’s 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 can’t trust anybody these days, even in the weapons business.

from the print edition | International

 

[krash]

IN THE 1991 Gulf war Iraq’s 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.

I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt that story mate.........

 

[Donatello]

I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt that story mate.........

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]

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.

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.