Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

[VCheng]

^^ Given human nature, wouldn't those who know about these "embedded pathways" sell the knowledge for perhaps hundreds of millions of $$? People are greedy. There are always spies and sell-outs.

Lockheed-Martin exports billion$ of $$ worth of weapons. Would they risk it all by doing such a thing? Furthermore, and this is important, consider the spare parts, the logistics.

If Exported F-16's have kill switches or exploitable LRU's, then LM would have to maintain separate parts supplies for each nation they export these jets to. You wouldn't want to introduce a kill switch into a U.S. jet, right? So you'd have differing bus components and black boxes. Is the data-bus module 23-A-GM8762 destined for Pakistan different from the U.S. part?

The whole notion is overly complex and untenable. Like a 9-11 conspiracy, there'd be too many people "in on it" to make it work. But I can understand the allure of the conspiracy. If people believe HAARP makes earthquakes (I'm not saying you do, VCheng), then this is extremely easy to believe in. Because people WANT to believe in it.

And besides, who is to say that Russian hardware is devoid of such systems? The amount of evidence for it is identical to that for U.S. warplanes. Russia is paranoid, that is undeniable. Are the Russians doing it? How about the Chinese? No, the accusation is only against the U.S., because that is the sport du jour.

Chogy:

The hardware remains the same, but the software and its capabilities do not. The level of spying and sellouts required to crack what is involved here is so high that it is likely not to happen. If it does, USA has a far bigger problem for sure.

Oh, and everybody does it: Europeans, Russians, Chinese, and the US, just to different levels of sophistication, and you will be happy to know that USA is #1 here too!

We can respectfully agree to disagree here without going into further details, perhaps the first and only topic on PDF where this has happened so far.

Let me put it this way:

Consider yourself as the person in-charge selling F-16s to Pakistan. How would you build in safeguards against one jet being used by a rogue inside team to nuke Delhi? Or is it your contention that the US government would not have thought of this possibility? Are the MPSs provided to Pakistan specific to that country, not to mention the jets themselves? Hypothetically, would you want these jets to be capable of attacking another friendly country in the Middle East?

Welcome to dark world we live in!

 

[VCheng]

self-delete due to duplication

 

[thinga]

hello sir Fatman17, i need your help in this post of mine !
[link]http://www.defence.pk/forums/forces-career-forum/127010-have-read-everything-forum-abt-joining-army-gdm-but-things-mind.html[/link]
i tried to Private Message you about this but forum software is set to 700+ posts by user , to be eligible for PMs.

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 PM ----------

hello sir Fatman17, i need your help in this post of mine !
[link]http://www.defence.pk/forums/forces-career-forum/127010-have-read-everything-forum-abt-joining-army-gdm-but-things-mind.html[/link]
i tried to Private Message you about this but forum software is set to 700+ posts by user , to be eligible for PMs.

 

[Chogy]

Consider yourself as the person in-charge selling F-16s to Pakistan. How would you build in safeguards against one jet being used by a rogue inside team to nuke Delhi? Or is it your contention that the US government would not have thought of this possibility? Are the MPSs provided to Pakistan specific to that country, not to mention the jets themselves? Hypothetically, would you want these jets to be capable of attacking another friendly country in the Middle East?

VCheng, the problem you (and others) face is that you claim such systems exist. Since we cannot prove a negative ("Prove the system does NOT exist") the burden of proof is with you. It is not adequate to simply say

- The systems are really, really complex
- It can be done from a technological POV.
Therefore, it HAS been done.

If a Pakistani F-16 nukes Delhi, the Indians are not going to blame us, they are going to blame Pakistan. Besides, one could load a nuke onto a business jet, so that's not a good example anyhow.

My wife was a systems engineer on the F-16, worked for Lockheed Martin for many years. I flew the F-15 and we had those data modules in the Eagle as well. All they are, are mission and navigational data devices so that the pilot can plan a mission inside operations in safety and take his time doing so.

It can take hours to program a mission. It is not practical to sit in a cockpit and program dozens of latitude and longitude coordinates. A mistake is almost guaranteed. By doing it inside, you can verify the mission, and more importantly, you can download a COPY of the mission, so all the flight members have the same data.

If that jet is powered up without the data, it'll still drop bombs and shoot missiles using the stock avionics.

 

[VCheng]

VCheng, the problem you (and others) face is that you claim such systems exist. Since we cannot prove a negative ("Prove the system does NOT exist") the burden of proof is with you. It is not adequate to simply say

- The systems are really, really complex
- It can be done from a technological POV.
Therefore, it HAS been done.

If a Pakistani F-16 nukes Delhi, the Indians are not going to blame us, they are going to blame Pakistan. Besides, one could load a nuke onto a business jet, so that's not a good example anyhow.

My wife was a systems engineer on the F-16, worked for Lockheed Martin for many years. I flew the F-15 and we had those data modules in the Eagle as well. All they are, are mission and navigational data devices so that the pilot can plan a mission inside operations in safety and take his time doing so.

It can take hours to program a mission. It is not practical to sit in a cockpit and program dozens of latitude and longitude coordinates. A mistake is almost guaranteed. By doing it inside, you can verify the mission, and more importantly, you can download a COPY of the mission, so all the flight members have the same data.

If that jet is powered up without the data, it'll still drop bombs and shoot missiles using the stock avionics.

The MPS/DTC/system software for the F-16PK is unique, Chogy, and exactly as I have described it. I have my own sources for basing my comments.

However, since I cannot go into exacting details here, I will publicly accept your premise, and leave mine as unproved. Proving it on PDF to stroke my own false ego is something that I do not wish to do. Fair enough?

I will however reiterate that the "sandbox" and the "toys" in said "sandbox" are managed very carefully indeed, in a variety of ways, and for a number of reasons. The personnel involved, including the pilot, cannot interfere with or even detect this "adult supervision".

What you describe is correct, but using all of that MPS data and particularly its execution during the mission relies on many other software controls. Sure, the baseline operation of the stock airplane/avionics will go on, but what is the value added role of the precision systems for navigation/targeting/communication/ECM etc. during modern combat? You tell me.

 

[Chogy]

Sure, the baseline operation of the stock airplane/avionics will go on, but what is the value added role of the precision systems for navigation/targeting/communication/ECM etc. during modern combat? You tell me.

The value added is very high. I believe we both understand. But I'll leave it at this - I think it is irresponsible to promulgate the notion of a kill switch, because that is what 98% of readers think it is. And given that there is no way to openly discuss the specifics without an OPSEC violation, then the less-than-accurate impression (kill switch) is what people are going to take from it.

It is more accurate to say something like this: "There is technology in these systems that is extremely sensitive that will probably remain in control of the U.S. That does not mean the weapons will not work. The GOP and the PAF were entirely aware of these limitations, yet were happy to add these jets to their inventory, regardless. That should say something - namely, even in a worst-case scenario, the aircraft would remain important and effective assets."

 

[VCheng]

The value added is very high. I believe we both understand. But I'll leave it at this - I think it is irresponsible to promulgate the notion of a kill switch, because that is what 98% of readers think it is. And given that there is no way to openly discuss the specifics without an OPSEC violation, then the less-than-accurate impression (kill switch) is what people are going to take from it.

It is more accurate to say something like this: "There is technology in these systems that is extremely sensitive that will probably remain in control of the U.S. That does not mean the weapons will not work. The GOP and the PAF were entirely aware of these limitations, yet were happy to add these jets to their inventory, regardless. That should say something - namely, even in a worst-case scenario, the aircraft would remain important and effective assets."

I can accept that. Thank you!

I will say no more on this topic.

 

[pdf-admin]

well can any one tell me how is f16 is capable against rafale

 

[Last Hope]

@Mr. Chogy. Thank you sir for clarifying. It's indeed a rumour.

Anyways, a hot picture of PAF F-16 Block 15.

 

[VCheng]

^^^ oh yay, looking might good there!

 

[Chogy]

I can accept that. Thank you!

I will say no more on this topic.

Sounds good, Amigo!

 

[VCheng]

Sounds good, Amigo!

Roger that!

 

[RetardedBuddy]

It is more accurate to say something like this: "There is technology in these systems that is extremely sensitive that will probably remain in control of the U.S. That does not mean the weapons will not work. "

What about leaks in this technology? I'm pretty sure these would fetch high prices to international buyers, a situation similar to the Nuclear Proliferation

 

[IceCold]

It is more accurate to say something like this: "There is technology in these systems that is extremely sensitive that will probably remain in control of the U.S. That does not mean the weapons will not work. The GOP and the PAF were entirely aware of these limitations.

Sir can you please shed some light on these limitations. What i understand from your post and V Cheng is that there are many sensitive technology involved and that remains the property of the US, rightly so........My understanding of this whole debate is from a novice point of view is that these check and balances might be there to prevent the misuse of sensitive technology but how exactly does that effect the capability of the jet?
The popular impression is that these jet will be rendered useless against let me say it out loud "INDIA" but then again US allowed the sale of the AMRAAM, we all know those are not meant to be used against talibans since they don't fly jets. So what exactly is the US preventing and even if it is, how does it effect us or in another words benefits India?

 

[VCheng]

Sir can you please shed some light on these limitations. What i understand from your post and V Cheng is that there are many sensitive technology involved and that remains the property of the US, rightly so........My understanding of this whole debate is from a novice point of view is that these check and balances might be there to prevent the misuse of sensitive technology but how exactly does that effect the capability of the jet?
The popular impression is that these jet will be rendered useless against let me say it out loud "INDIA" but then again US allowed the sale of the AMRAAM, we all know those are not meant to be used against talibans since they don't fly jets. So what exactly is the US preventing and even if it is, how does it effect us or in another words benefits India?

It does not affect the capabilities of the jet, and even if it did, which it does not, those limitations, which do not exist, have been disclosed to, and accepted by, the Government of Pakistan and the Pakistan Air Force, just like Chogy said and I agreed.