US asks China to be transparent on military modernisation

[BATMAN]

lol America getting scared of the puny Chinese military budget.

No Sir... it was quite unfair to break the surprise of J-20.
This is against the rules of the game.

 

[gambit]

What good is spending $12 billion for a deactivatable fighter. Chinese hackers will find the codes.

Google "f-22 international date line". There are 1,000 ways to shut down a fighter. NSA, British and French intelligence will program every single Indian MMRCA.

You are dreaming either way. You speak as if these codes are open for examination. The F-22 international date line screw up? How does that make the aircraft 'deactivatable' from a distance? Been watching too many B-rated action movies to tell the difference between reality and fiction? Oops...Almost forgot am talking to a bunch of conscript rejects...

 

[Aramsogo]

You are dreaming either way. You speak as if these codes are open for examination. The F-22 international date line screw up? How does that make the aircraft 'deactivatable' from a distance? Been watching too many B-rated action movies to tell the difference between reality and fiction? Oops...Almost forgot am talking to a bunch of conscript rejects...

If you don't understand my analogy, there's no explaining it to you. My first job out of undergraduate was as an engineer for Lockheed Martin for the non-propulsion electronics (sonar) for NSSN (Virginia class attack subs). I couldn't possibly know as much about military electronics as you, huh??

 

[gambit]

If you don't understand my analogy, there's no explaining it to you. My first job out of undergraduate was as an engineer for Lockheed Martin for the non-propulsion electronics (sonar) for NSSN (Virginia class attack subs). I couldn't possibly know as much about military electronics as you, huh??

Explain to me at least one way to 'shut down' an F-16 from afar. No need to do 1000. Just one will do.

 

[Aramsogo]

Explain to me at least one way to 'shut down' an F-16 from afar. No need to do 1000. Just one will do.

Sure, that's simple.
1. A military GPS embedded signal that tells the F-16 computer to shutdown
2. Shutdown if weapons are used in this airspace

Modern military equipment is networked anyway.
It's easy to shutdown anything from afar or plant logic bombs in the system.
If you build it and design it, you can do anything you want with it.

Why do you think Chinese hackers download F-35 source code, cause it's fun to read? What, you don't think PLA has Ada programmers?

 

[gambit]

Sure, that's simple.
1. A military GPS embedded signal that tells the F-16 computer to shutdown
2. Shutdown if weapons are used in this airspace

The F-16 has several 'computers'. A 'computer' can be alongside several other 'computers' in the same container. Flight control laws cannot be accessed externally, such as a radio signal. You do not know what the hell you are talking about.

Modern military equipment is networked anyway.
It's easy to shutdown anything from afar or plant logic bombs in the system.
If you build it and design it, you can do anything you want with it.

Why do you think Chinese hackers download F-35 source code, cause it's fun to read?

IF you really did worked for Lockheed like you claimed, then you WOULD KNOW that these line-replaceable-units (LRU) are embedded with their softwares, if any softwares are involved. LRUs for field equipments like tanks, aircrafts, and ships are sealed in the sense that their softwares are non-accessible unless connected to highly specialized test equipments. It is only recently, like within the last ten years or so, that fighter aircrafts can be maintained by laptops and even then, their diags routines are read only. The only time a flight control computer (FLCC) can have its software upgrade or altered in anyway is through depot level maintenance, not in the flightline or 'organizational level', and extremely rare in/at the component level shop where it is connected to a test box.

I busted two of you Chinese boys as frauds when they lied about something they do not have any experience about. Looks like you are the third fraud.

 

[Aramsogo]

The F-16 has several 'computers'. A 'computer' can be alongside several other 'computers' in the same container. Flight control laws cannot be accessed externally, such as a radio signal. You do not know what the hell you are talking about.


IF you really did worked for Lockheed like you claimed, then you WOULD KNOW that these line-replaceable-units (LRU) are embedded with their softwares, if any softwares are involved. LRUs for field equipments like tanks, aircrafts, and ships are sealed in the sense that their softwares are non-accessible unless connected to highly specialized test equipments. It is only recently, like within the last ten years or so, that fighter aircrafts can be maintained by laptops and even then, their diags routines are read only. The only time a flight control computer (FLCC) can have its software upgrade or altered in anyway is through depot level maintenance, not in the flightline or 'organizational level', and extremely rare in/at the component level shop where it is connected to a test box.

I busted two of you Chinese boys as frauds when they lied about something they do not have any experience about. Looks like you are the third fraud.

I think you missed my logic again. The US can put any code it wants in the F-16 it sells to foreign countries.
Does that even make any sense to you?? That code isn't even hard to put in.

And yes I did work for Lockheed Martin for 2.5 years out of undergraduate. I went back to grad school to study finance because the work was boring and doing analysis for proposal teams was unrewarding for me.
I can prove it to you any way you want.

 

[khurasaan1]

Sure, that's simple.
1. A military GPS embedded signal that tells the F-16 computer to shutdown
2. Shutdown if weapons are used in this airspace

Modern military equipment is networked anyway.
It's easy to shutdown anything from afar or plant logic bombs in the system.
If you build it and design it, you can do anything you want with it.

The pplz who design the Communication system of Nowadayz any aircraft , they also design some GPS based secret protocol , which can be utilize whenever they want to take over the control of the aircraft... I guess Gambit dont know about this kinda stuff cuz he dont look like an Electronics or communication engineer...
Especially the company Lockheed Martin is not so dumb to disclose such kind of secret protocol systems to every engineer within their company or every military professional will know about that kinda secret business.

 

[Aramsogo]

The pplz who design the Communication system of Nowadayz any aircraft , they also design some GPS based secret protocol , which can be utilize whenever they want to take over the control of the aircraft... I guess Gambit dont know about this kinda stuff cuz he dont look like an Electronics or communication engineer...
Especially the company Lockheed Martin is not so dumb to disclose such kind of secret protocol systems to every engineer within their company or every military professional will know about that kinda secret business.

I'm not saying the US does and I would never know if they did. It's all compartmentalized. I would never say anything if I knew even though it's been 10+ years since I've been in the industry. I'm glad I left years ago. Being a Chinese engineer in a US defense contractor must just suck these days.

What gambit is saying is that's it's impossible (b-movie stuff) and I'm saying it would be extremely easy. In fact US defense engineers get paid to dream up such b-movie stuff. If the international dateline can shutdown the f-22, the NSA can certainly do it to any aircraft the US sells to foreign countries. Just look at how the Pentagon reacts to Huawei or stuxnet. If they can think it, they can do it.

 

[RazorMC]

The real concern is friend of foe codes. The US chooses to provide the codes only when absolutely necessary. This is why no US aircraft can be used effectively against USAF.
Thus, Israel replaces a lot of US systems and codes from the aircraft is gets from the US, something which has irked the US

 

[gambit]

I think you missed my logic again. The US can put any code it wants in the F-16 it sells to foreign countries.
Does that even make any sense to you?? That code isn't even hard to put in.

First...You have nothing but speculation for that charge.

Second...Even if it is true, that does not mean the flight control laws, for example, are accessible by someone from the outside at anytime. You do not want such vulnerability.

What you speculate would require two or more distinct production lines for the same aircraft. One 'safe' line designated for 'friendly' forces, and one 'open' or 'unsafe' designated for 'not so friendly' forces. How about I take it even further and say that Intel CPUs designated for overseas sales are designed to snoop and report back to US?

 

[below_freezing]

First...You have nothing but speculation for that charge.

Second...Even if it is true, that does not mean the flight control laws, for example, are accessible by someone from the outside at anytime. You do not want such vulnerability.

What you speculate would require two or more distinct production lines for the same aircraft. One 'safe' line designated for 'friendly' forces, and one 'open' or 'unsafe' designated for 'not so friendly' forces. How about I take it even further and say that Intel CPUs designated for overseas sales are designed to snoop and report back to US?

There is in fact such a problem with microsoft. I don't know about Intel but it is better to assume that the problem exists rather than assume it does not.

 

[gambit]

There is in fact such a problem with microsoft. I don't know about Intel but it is better to assume that the problem exists rather than assume it does not.

Then considering how I exposed you to be the ignoramus that you are about the semicon industry but have no problems making false praises of the same industry in China, stop using the computer altogether.

 

[below_freezing]

My CPU is designed by AMD.

cheap radar technicians will never know the theoretical background of solid state devices. market conditions and specific applications can be learned just by picking up a book for a few days or working for a few years in a related company. Theory? Once missed, it will never be learned.

 

[gambit]

My CPU is designed by AMD.

Does not matter.

cheap radar technicians will never know the theoretical background of solid state devices. market conditions and specific applications can be learned just by picking up a book for a few days or working for a few years in a related company. Theory? Once missed, it will never be learned.

This is from the man who mistook a foundry fab to be the highest level of semicon manufacturer? You claimed to have a relative as a 'process engineer' for a Chinese semicon foundry fab. I probably know his job better than you do.