US asks China to be transparent on military modernisation

[monitor]

At last american are feeling that their hegemony is going to over very soon .

 

[Aramsogo]

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?

Gambit, for the last time, this is not speculation. Like I said in my original post, the deactivation code has been done before with the Exocet missiles. This not B-movie, but reality.

Thatcher 'threatened to nuke Argentina' | World news | The Guardian
Two separation production lines, one export & another domestics?? BMW makes Z4, X3, X5 and X6 on the same line, one after another. It's not hard for a $30 million fighter.

 

[Mech]

At last american are feeling that their hegemony is going to over very soon .

how soon is 3000 ad?

 

[khurasaan1]

At last american are feeling that their hegemony is going to over very soon .

Yes! we very happi with that...Alhamdolillah...

 

[gambit]

Gambit, for the last time, this is not speculation. Like I said in my original post, the deactivation code has been done before with the Exocet missiles. This not B-movie, but reality.

Thatcher 'threatened to nuke Argentina' | World news | The Guardian
Two separation production lines, one export & another domestics?? BMW makes Z4, X3, X5 and X6 on the same line, one after another. It's not hard for a $30 million fighter.

Did not worked too well, did it ? Yours is the typical argument of those who want to believe despite evidences, or in this case the lack of, and the refusal exercise critical thinking.

From your source...

Thatcher 'threatened to nuke Argentina' | World news | The Guardian

"Excuse me. I had a difference to settle with the Iron Lady. That Thatcher, what an impossible woman!" the president said as he arrived, more than 45 minutes late, on May 7 1982. "With her four nuclear submarines in the south Atlantic, she's threatening to unleash an atomic weapon against Argentina if I don't provide her with the secret codes that will make the missiles we sold the Argentinians deaf and blind." He reminded Mr Magoudi that on May 4 an Exocet missile had struck HMS Sheffield. "To make matters worse, it was fired from a Super-Etendard jet," he said. "All the matériel was French!"

Note the highlighted date...

Care to look up how many more Exocet missiles launched and hit their targets => Falklands War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <= AFTER 7-May ?

I will start...

At sea, the paucity of the British ships' anti-aircraft defences was demonstrated in the sinking of HMS Ardent on 21 May, HMS Antelope on 24 May, and MV Atlantic Conveyor (struck by two AM39 Exocets) on 25 May along with a vital cargo of helicopters, runway-building equipment and tents.

I would think that IF there was such a 'deactivation' code and IF Mitterand did caved to Thatcher, a couple weeks would have been sufficient to 'deactivate' the missiles even before they were launched.

In your Guardian source, the word 'deactivation' and its related does not exist. The journalist Jon Henley used the word 'disable'. And Mitterand said 'deaf and blind'. When technically ignorant politicians and journalists make these kind of statement, IF you did worked for Lockheed, you would not have taken these comments so literally. To 'deactivate' or 'disable' mean to render inoperative. To make 'deaf and blind' is completely different, which is not to render inoperative but to make the sensors ineffective. Putting on blinders is not the same as gouging out the eyes or killing the person. When you see contradictory explanations for the same event, your skepticism flag should have raised, that is IF you did worked for one of the world's top applied science and technology company -- Lockheed -- and learned something about critical thinking skills.

What they were talking about was probably the radar operation codes, as in what frequency or frequencies the Exocet was using. Missiles have a very narrow radar field-of-view (FoV) because of the nosecone. Knowing the FoV would be very helpful in trying to develop ECM tactics but in the case of the Exocet which does not activate its radar until the second half of its flight and whose flight characteristic is very low altitude as in 1-2 meters. If you want to have an idea of the visual and radar horizon, here it is => Horizon calculator - radar and visual

If the missile is h1 = 2m altitude and the ship's radar antenna is h2 = 10m altitude, we have at best a 20km radar distance view or horizon. The Exocet flies at 300m/sec on the low end. That does not leave a lot of time for the defense to transmit any signals to make the missile 'deaf and blind' because the missile will already have a radar lock of the target's position in its memory. In this situation, making the missile 'blind' is pointless but usually the defense must try anyway. That is why even for US and today's technology, an Exocet type weapon is a major concern and any ship's greatest threat. The response is to raise h2 to increase the radar horizon distance to increase the defense's response time. The highest h2 we can have is an airborne radar platform with its 360 deg view. If such a 'deactivation' code does exist, then did the French not give it to US? The USS Stark was struck with 2 Exocets in May 1987.

IF you did worked for Lockheed, you would not have bring on that absurd automobile manufacturing example. You would have known that it is not the vehicle itself but the vehicle's engine control unit (ECU), car 'computer' or 'brain' or whatever other terminology, that will actually make one vehicle different from its brothers despite the external sameness. Same for ships or jet fighters. It would not be the F-16 but its flight control computer that would have distinct procurement and production lines, one 'safe' for the US military, and one 'unsafe' for customers who may turn on US one day......If the US does it, then so would the Russians and the Chinese. If the US does it and we want to keep the world militarily non-competitive, we would give such a demonstration, point out that 'everybody' does it and there goes Chinese arms sales down the tubes. Do not forget, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US came into possession of a lot of Soviet 'stuff', from tanks to fighters to even ICBM missile control consoles, sold by the former Soviet empire satellites.

So you right on believing such 'deactivation' codes exist for the F-16 or any other exported US aircraft. Are you aware that in every semicon memory product, such as DRAM or NAND, there are redundant arrays in every die for repairs of potential defective dies after wafer level manufacturing? If they are not needed, we can use those redundant arrays to store information from monitoring the owner/user. We know exactly what Hu Jintao is doing at this moment......My sources at the No Such Agency (NSA) tells me Hu frequent...errr...nevermind...

 

[casual]

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.

you know dude, just because something is in a secure container or marked as read only doesn't mean it's impossible to access and modify it. and before you start, i'm not talking about deactivation codes.

 

[Aramsogo]

Gambit, You are arguing semantics of the word deactivation vs "deaf and dumb." For purposes of the F-16, rendering it deactivated or deaf and dumb produces the same net effect in our example. You are just arguing semantics peppered with juvenile insults like you do in all your posts. It impresses no one. It changes nothing of my initial argument that this is not science fiction and simple from an engineering perspective. Your ECU argument again proves nothing. We all know different model cars on an assembly line have different programming. In fact, even cars in the same model family can have different programming and certain features turned on or off. Get it?? Why is this concept so difficult for you??

And I've repeated asked you to factually challenge me that I worked for Lockheed Martin out of engineering undergraduates. And don't be too impressed by people working there. We had plenty of idiot vets with nothing but a television electronics degree (don't ask, I don't know what that is either). I worked Navy Systems and we hired some Admiral's 62 year old brother whose sole job was to sit there and wait for the Lockheed pension. I'm so glad I quit, went to grad school and changed fields.

 

[gambit]

Gambit, You are arguing semantics of the word deactivation vs "deaf and dumb." For purposes of the F-16, rendering it deactivated or deaf and dumb produces the same net effect in our example. You are just arguing semantics peppered with juvenile insults like you do in all your posts. It impresses no one. It changes nothing of my initial argument that this is not science fiction and simple from an engineering perspective. Your ECU argument again proves nothing. We all know different model cars on an assembly line have different programming. In fact, even cars in the same model family can have different programming and certain features turned on or off. Get it?? Why is this concept so difficult for you??

No one is arguing that it is POSSIBLE that such a thing could happen. But do you have proof that it is happening? Further...Even if we grant that it is happening, this is not about having different avionics codes for different countries but about having those functions accessible and alterable 'at will'. We have already seen your Exocet missile argument turned out to be nothing.

And I've repeated asked you to factually challenge me that I worked for Lockheed Martin out of engineering undergraduates. And don't be too impressed by people working there. We had plenty of idiot vets with nothing but a television electronics degree (don't ask, I don't know what that is either). I worked Navy Systems and we hired some Admiral's 62 year old brother whose sole job was to sit there and wait for the Lockheed pension. I'm so glad I quit, went to grad school and changed fields.

I do not care what anyone claimed about their degrees or which companies they worked. I only care about the CONTENTS of their arguments. If they were foolish enough to bring on their employment and educational credentials and the CONTENTS of their arguments does not jive with whatever they claimed about themselves, I have no problems making fun of them. For the record, every time someone boasted of their university degrees, I always claimed to be a janitor. You can make fun of me about that if you wish...