MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Dec 2010 10:19

Su-34 is perhaps the only reasonable cost plane that fulfills the criteria - if you dont want to go XL and talk of Tu160.

the French used the Mirage-IV for the role. (manned nuclear strike)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_IV

later the Mirage-2000N which was a compromise soln since they had nothing else and slung the ASMP on it.
http://vayu-sena.indianmilitaryhistory. ... issile.jpg

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Dec 2010 10:56

Su34 based NG bomber could be on the lines if we need to consider a B2 kind. Long Range Brahmos internal weapons n tipped, stealth a/c with top inlets like the ones shown in FGFA video clips - low AoA.

iparvas · Post by **iparvas** » 13 Dec 2010 23:16

clearly the IAF have now raised the stakes ... they now want MRCA to be able to do the heavy lifting as well. Out of the competitors MiG 35 or F/A 18 can do the role ....
Rafale and EF typhoon can perform well , surely they cost an arm or leg to purchase them ..also in war IAF woud most likely encounter cheaper cost planes like the JF 10 or JF 17 which can be difficult to negotiate in large numbers....

Gripen is god option but ?? heavy lifting is doubtful also USA is applying pressure to prevent its tech in Gripen going to INDIA....

So most likely the MOD will chose the F/A 18 .. if not get the paper plane Mig 35 (never underestimate this plane)

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 14 Dec 2010 02:06

F/A-18E/F is a Dog. If we get the F/A-18E/Fs the Paki F-16s will fly circles around them. Any hi-tech gadgets that the Yankees might offer to offset the F/A-18E/Fs aerodynamic performance and endurance shortcomings would not be of any use because Uncle could push a button and disable all of the techs on our flock if we try to use them against their favorite Paki call-girls.

Here's a link to an old article that sings the praises (pun intended) of the F/A-18E/F (probably posted on BRF before):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/595147/posts

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 14 Dec 2010 03:29

Luxtor wrote:F/A-18E/F is a Dog. If we get the F/A-18E/Fs the Paki F-16s will fly circles around them. Any hi-tech gadgets that the Yankees might offer to offset the F/A-18E/Fs aerodynamic performance and endurance shortcomings would not be of any use because Uncle could push a button and disable all of the techs on our flock if we try to use them against their favorite Paki call-girls.

Here's a link to an old article that sings the praises (pun intended) of the F/A-18E/F (probably posted on BRF before):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/595147/posts

Same post regurgitated without any evidence (technical/political) to back up claims of remote disable. The only thing that changes is the username; reading before posting is apparently a lost art now.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Dec 2010 03:35

Luxtor wrote:Uncle could push a button and disable all of the techs on our flock

Not again!!!

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 14 Dec 2010 06:43

... and how do you suppose that I get that evidence to present it to you? Ask the U.S. DOD or Boeing to forward me the file that explains it? I know it has been discussed here before but so has the subject of MMRCA. Members keep repeating which bird would win the competition again and again, only the username changes with that too. In that context there is nothing wrong with pointing out any plus or minus of any of the competitors. It is just a point of discussion. More than any other country, the more we stay away from the U.S. equipment the more political and operational freedom India would have, especially in reference to Pakiland.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Dec 2010 08:12

I am not looking for an evidence. But atleast a precedent.

There are precedence of spying. But with any distant switch, you need addition hardware to receive the command ... If these planes are to be build here ... then how will this hardware be sneaked in. It can be if our engineers can't differentiate ying from yang ... But I don't think it is the case.

If you say US is more restrictive, I am all for it. But please, kill-switches is somewhat out of comic books.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 14 Dec 2010 08:57

IIRC this whole kill-switch idea was propounded by the paranoid pakis scared of unkil indulging in mischief with their shiny new F-16s. Pakis as usual had probably pulled it out of their musharraf.

nike · Post by **nike** » 14 Dec 2010 09:41

gr8 going MRCA tamasha

After britain, it's germany now bashing pakistan

Sure, EF is leading the race now

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 14 Dec 2010 09:59

I remember reading that a Boeing aircraft ordered by China to fly their president was found with a number of electronic bugs (spy apparatus) in it. As many as 10 or so were reportedly placed throughout the plane probably to record conversations and retrieve the data during "maintainence & servicing".

There is a hundred percent probability that the planes will be bugged with backdoors, kill switches, beacons..etc all over the place.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 14 Dec 2010 10:04

srai wrote:Since $41,176,470.6 upgrade per unit is

Wow what an insane amount of money just for an upgrade!

They know how to hose us good.

koti · Post by **koti** » 14 Dec 2010 10:49

^^ Few posts above

Guys, the kill switch Idea is not so paranoid stuff after all.

Kill switched or buggy equipment were sold all along in all forms.

Few years ago, we've seen that the few Stinger systems procured by Palestine militants did not lock on to the Israeli F-16's and Apaches.
They were so pi$$ed off with this fact that they even tried to use them as rocket launchers against ground targets.

Now, in order for a Kill switch or a bug to work effectively, it needs medium to communicate.
AESA Radars or GPS Transceivers, can be used to this purpose. Yes, they will work very much like they are supposed to but, could be used to send out periodic signals containing captured data like comm frequencies, radio talk, radar observations, current locations, weapon load-out, etc to name a few.
Once we integrate such type of bugged platforms in our network centric systems, we will be giving firsthand ELINT, COMINT to these supplier countries.
Also, to go once step ahead, we can even give them, remote login kind of a freedom.

So guys, those who are putting forward their worries on Kill switches are not that paranoid after all.

And for those of you who consider all this to be scientifically impossible or hi-fi, welcome to modern warfare.

koti · Post by **koti** » 14 Dec 2010 10:52

^^Added: Getting the source code or the so called ToT is the only way to guarantee that such Bugs are not into our equipment.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Dec 2010 11:52

I hate to say this ... but your knowledge about electronic equipment seems very limited. You are saying that the transceivers on the AESA can couple up as a satellite signal receiver?

I also suggest that you post the true reason why Stingers used by the Palestinian militia failed to acquired locks on the F-16s. Its just a a few Google searches away.

The Chinese aircraft being rigged by spying hardware gives more credence to what I have said than the other way round. They were extra hardware, which the Chinese agencies found out.

Sorry for being caustic, but you have just produced half baked truths.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Dec 2010 11:58

One must understand that upgrades,as in the Gorky case involve not just new eqpt. but removing old and "tailoring" the existing airframe and whatever will remain along with the new eqpt. and be successfully installed,plus old and new eqpt. have to be integrated.One also does not know what the actual state of each aircraft to be upgraded is.There will be a lot of material fatigue testing,etc.,done.Therefore,the manpower work will be extensive and involve more than just building a new aircraft and inevitably any major upgrade will be expensive.

The big Q here is whether a limited upgrade is preferable,as was done with the Sea Harriers (LUSH),plus a buy of new aircraft.I would have preferred to have replaced the M-2000s totallly with Rafale instead of upgrading the M-2000s.A buy of 60+ at least to progressively replace the M-2000s,with France taking back the old aircraft is a deal that the French should've offered,as they could easily transfer a first sqd. of Rafales within a year.It woiuld also give them huge leverage with the MMRCA contest.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 14 Dec 2010 12:04

indranilroy wrote:I am not looking for an evidence. But atleast a precedent.

UK threatened to nuke Argentina during the Falklands war if France didn't give the UK secret codes to disable the French Exocet missiles being used by the Argentinians. France acquiesced. Exocet missiles fired subsequently at the Royal Navy missed their targets.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/22/books.france

It has been discussed before in a previous incarnation of the MRCA thread. The response from some members, possibly of French origin, was that it would be wrong to expect France and UK not to cooperate because, at the end of the day, they have more reasons to be friends than enemies.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Dec 2010 12:13

PratikDas wrote:
indranilroy wrote:I am not looking for an evidence. But atleast a precedent.
UK threatened to nuke Argentina during the Falklands war if France didn't give the UK secret codes to disable the French Exocet missiles being used by the Argentinians. France acquiesced. Exocet missiles fired subsequently at the Royal Navy missed their targets.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/22/books.france

It has been discussed before in a previous incarnation of the MRCA thread. The response from some members, possibly of French origin, was that it would be wrong to expect France and UK not to cooperate because, at the end of the day, they have more reasons to be friends than enemies.

Pratik, this is not news to me ... It is not for many either .. AFAIK it was discussed few days back here as well.

The interesting point was that you interpreted "getting the codes" to a precedence to kill switch!

<SNIP: it was a bunch of misinformed crap>

So, this is not a precedence!

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 14 Dec 2010 12:36

indranilroy wrote:
PratikDas wrote: ----
UK threatened to nuke Argentina during the Falklands war if France didn't give the UK secret codes to disable the French Exocet missiles being used by the Argentinians. France acquiesced. Exocet missiles fired subsequently at the Royal Navy missed their targets.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/22/books.france

It has been discussed before in a previous incarnation of the MRCA thread. The response from some members, possibly of French origin, was that it would be wrong to expect France and UK not to cooperate because, at the end of the day, they have more reasons to be friends than enemies.
Pratik, this is not news to me ... It is not for many either .. AFAIK it was discussed few days back here as well.

The interesting point was that you interpreted "getting the codes" to a precedence to kill switch!

With the source code in hand the British Harrier pilots knew the loop holes, which could be exploited ... The Exocet missiles were still fired (there was no kill switch), but the lock was more difficult to acquire, and was broken once the missile was fired.

So, this is not a precedence!

The Exocet was being used in an anti-ship role. The ship can't manoeuvre fast enough to exploit any weakness in the design. These were not "source codes". This code rendered the Exocet a dud.

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 14 Dec 2010 13:02

Some insights into performance of the MRCA contenders - from Defense Technology International See page 35:
http://gb.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416146666

koti · Post by **koti** » 14 Dec 2010 13:43

indranilroy wrote:I hate to say this ... but your knowledge about electronic equipment seems very limited. You are saying that the transceivers on the AESA can couple up as a satellite signal receiver?

You are missing the point here.

My knowledge about Electronic equipment is not in the Forums interest mate.

And coming to the point, Any Radio Tx system(by all names that is) is inherently capable of communicating. It could be listener satellites or dedicated ELINT systems.
And AESA is not(can not be) a satellite signal receiver. It needs to be operating at a different Frequency. But it can none the less give out bursts of relevant Info to any properly modulated Rx module.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 14 Dec 2010 13:54

PratikDas wrote:
indranilroy wrote: ...
So, this is not a precedence!
The Exocet was being used in an anti-ship role. The ship can't manoeuvre fast enough to exploit any weakness in the design. These were not "source codes". This code rendered the Exocet a dud.

Sorry, Indranil. I'm not trying to attack your arguments for the sake of attacking them. I'm just stating what I've read from various sources. I clearly remember reading that the pilots fired at the ship and the missile(s) just fell into the water. I can't find the source now but I think I would if I searched long and hard. Of course, I wasn't in the room with Margaret Thatcher.

One strong argument against kill-switch paranoia is that it is unlikely that India will ever be sent back to the Dark Ages in a very catastrophic war. So, it would be foolish for a vendor of military equipment to burn bridges with India by betrayal via kill-switches.

chiragAS · Post by **chiragAS** » 14 Dec 2010 14:14

Integerating kill switch on on ASIC is very easy.. infact i can make one myself. I am sure Unkil must be doing this for decades now. detecting kill switches is almost impossible. and with EULA etc they make sure that you don't even go near them.

Indranil its very easy to link up AESA as sat receivers..
anyone with basic electronic/telecommunication knowledge will tell you this...

koti · Post by **koti** » 14 Dec 2010 15:49

^^Double that.

And it is plane simple to copy the collected info from the equipment during routine EUMA checks. And also do necessary mod's during them.

nike · Post by **nike** » 14 Dec 2010 16:28

I am just thinking, when geopolitics concerns have been changed , why we hesist in accepting teens. Geopoliitics says that US is more than happy, if teens are used agains chinkis instead of Pakis, and (for pakis we already have MKI) during wartime india will get more assistance from US than any other country. (just my thought)

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 14 Dec 2010 16:36

nike wrote:I am just thinking, when geopolitics concerns have been changed, why we hesist in accepting teens. (just my thought)

I hope teens are just too complicated (strings and sanctions)to be accepted...!

koti · Post by **koti** » 14 Dec 2010 17:22

nike wrote:I am just thinking, when geopolitics concerns have been changed , why we hesist in accepting teens. Geopoliitics says that US is more than happy, if teens are used agains chinkis instead of Pakis, and (for pakis we already have MKI) during wartime india will get more assistance from US than any other country. (just my thought)

Maybe we will.....
But after that, we would be puppets in their hands...
Take examples from History.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Dec 2010 20:24

chiragAS wrote:Integerating kill switch on on ASIC is very easy.. infact i can make one myself. I am sure Unkil must be doing this for decades now. detecting kill switches is almost impossible. and with EULA etc they make sure that you don't even go near them.

One can easily build the switch on the ASIC. But there will be a antennae sticking out of that board to receive the command to switch it off.

chiragAS wrote: Indranil its very easy to link up AESA as sat receivers..
anyone with basic electronic/telecommunication knowledge will tell you this...

Sorry sir my basic knowledge is very poor. Good you please educate this Abdul as to how that can be done. If you would tell me that another aircraft could communicate with the AESA in range, I could understand. From the satellite?!!!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Dec 2010 20:30

I can also understand that if you said that it could be done through the GPS. That can be used to turn the GPS off. After that to make the plane dysfunctional, you will have to activate a switch in the engine/controls/radar. How would you achieve that when all of them are different units.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Dec 2010 20:34

It would be very interesting to know who provides the GPS units on the other MMRCA.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Dec 2010 21:19

does anyone retain a list of what US made parts were removed from Hawk and the indian specific equipment (non US) was put in their place?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Dec 2010 21:39

PratikDas wrote: The Exocet was being used in an anti-ship role. The ship can't manoeuvre fast enough to exploit any weakness in the design. These were not "source codes". This code rendered the Exocet a dud.
Sorry, Indranil. I'm not trying to attack your arguments for the sake of attacking them. I'm just stating what I've read from various sources. I clearly remember reading that the pilots fired at the ship and the missile(s) just fell into the water. I can't find the source now but I think I would if I searched long and hard. Of course, I wasn't in the room with Margaret Thatcher.

One strong argument against kill-switch paranoia is that it is unlikely that India will ever be sent back to the Dark Ages in a very catastrophic war. So, it would be foolish for a vendor of military equipment to burn bridges with India by betrayal via kill-switches.

Pratik, you don't have to be sorry about anything. It is a discussion. I didn't take anything personally. I knew some very wrong things too. I have edited my post. But since the morning I read a lot about the Exocets in Falkland wars.

Btw, this is the link from where your article was excerpted. It categorizes the help.

Investigations in the 1990s revealed that France provided Britain with a large amount of technical assistance. The most valuable information was on the Exocet’s homing radar. Officials of Aerospatiale, the manufacturer, denied having direct dealings with the British; but Aerospatiale was run by Jacques Mitterrand, the president’s brother, a fact that may have facilitated a quiet arrangement

.

You should read

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Exocet.html wrote:this

particular article since you are interested in the Exocet. Argentina had reportedly 10 missiles (British estimated it at 5). The French announced an embargo on Argentina till the Falkland wars was over. The Argentinians actually worked it out themselves how to make these missiles work. After this the MI6 went out as black marketeers to buy other Exocets so as to stop the Argentinians to get more missiles from elsewhere. You should also read about how they wanted a SAS operation to sabotage the Etendards and the Exocets called Operation Mikado. Details. If they had a kill switch, they wouldn't need to do this.

The Argentinians kept using the the Exocets till the end. Their last but one Exocet was used to sink MV Atlantic Conveyor. They wanted to use the last Exocet on HMS Invincible. The plan was

After the Atlantic Conveyor wreckage, the Argentine Navy had only one Exocet left, and the British carriers still were the main Argentine targets. For these reasons, on May 29th the CANA and the FAA decided to perform a joint operation. Four pilots of A-4C Skyhawk belonging to the Grupo 4 de Caza (4th Fighter Group) received the assignment -actually two of them, 1st Lieutenants Ernesto Ureta and José Vazquez, volunteered, and chose the other two pilots, 1st Lieutenant Omar Castillo and Ensign Gerardo Isaac- and were sent to Río Grande. The plan was that once the Super Etendards launched the remaining Exocet, the Skyhawks followed the trail of the missile and hit the carrier with their 227 kgs (500 pounds) bombs. Of course, the A-4Cs would face the worst of the enemy defences.

This is what the Argentinians believed that they achieved.

The Argentine version said that the last Exocet missile was perfectly locked-on to the target (a big ship) by the Super Etendard pilot, who fired it and turned back to Río Grande without troubles. The four A-4C Skyhawks of 4th Group followed the trail of the missile and finally saw in the distance a big column of black smoke, possibly the place where the missile impacted. Two of them were shot down, but the survivors confirmed that they saw a carrier, and specifically the HMS Invincible with a thick black smoke column coming out of it. They attacked it, firing their cannons and dropping their bombs, without confirming any results. After avoiding all the SAMs fired against them, the Skyhawks met their tanker and returned home.

The British version of this incident exposed that the Exocet failed its mark, the HMS Invincible, due to it being downed by a 114 mm shell from the frigate HMS Avenger, or due to it being neutralized by decoys. Additionally, they asserted that the ship attacked by the A-4C Skyhawks was the HMS Avenger, which was deploying a curtain of white smoke to hide the carrier from any attacker. Many specialists said that the Argentine pilots misidentified the small flight deck of the anti-submarine helicopter with the flight deck of the carrier, and wrongly thought that the smoke of the curtain was cause by the Exocet hit.

But from the Argentine point of view, the problems with such versions are:
1) it is highly unlikely that a 114 mm shell could actually destroy a sea-skimming missile flying at 10 metres high at 1,000 km/h.
2) the decoys fully failed only five days before, when the MV Atlantic Conveyor was sunk, and why should they work that day?
3) the smoke seen by the Argentine Skyhawk pilots was not white, but black.
4) Even in a stress situation like being attacked with AAA and SAM fire, it is hard to mis-identify the big, lateral flight deck of a carrier with the small helicopter flight deck of a frigate. (Indranil: you should read about the pilots too. They were no novice.)
5) Besides all that, HMS Invincible did not appear in Port Stanley until late July 1982, and when she returned to England in September 1982, it looked like a big stripe on the port side (the side attacked by the Exocet and the Skyhawks) recently painted.

Pratik, I am not defending the teens. they are not my favourites to win the MMRCA. I just don't understand this paranoia of kill switches. I mean nobody tells us exactly how it can be done. All we are told by the proponents is that since there are communication receiving devices in a plane, it can be communicated! Communicated from where, how, and what happens after that ... nobody clarifies it. And if the French yielded to the British, why wouldn't the Sweden, France or any other European power not yield to US pressure?!

sunilpatel · Post by **sunilpatel** » 14 Dec 2010 22:33

indranilroy wrote:
chiragAS wrote:Integerating kill switch on on ASIC is very easy.. infact i can make one myself. I am sure Unkil must be doing this for decades now. detecting kill switches is almost impossible. and with EULA etc they make sure that you don't even go near them.
One can easily build the switch on the ASIC. But there will be a antennae sticking out of that board to receive the command to switch it off.

chiragAS wrote: Indranil its very easy to link up AESA as sat receivers..
anyone with basic electronic/telecommunication knowledge will tell you this...
Sorry sir my basic knowledge is very poor. Good you please educate this Abdul as to how that can be done. If you would tell me that another aircraft could communicate with the AESA in range, I could understand. From the satellite?!!!

agree indranilroy... Though its very easy to Put a Kill switch in ASIC..but as Indranil said...how you will activate the kill switch??

1) do they put a timer; which will activate the kill switch after some fixed time..?? - i don't think so...
2) communicate through satellite?? - for net centric warfare or GPS we are not going to use american Sats...we will use our network & GLONASS...so how they will activate the switch through satellite???
3) there might be some secret channel in AESA!!/GPS or any Satlink which can be accessed by american satellites.. - this option might be open... ( as a telecom professional 3rd option is just my thinking; it can be done....) .. if its a single channel then its possible to catch that channel; but if its changing the frequency so many times ...i.e. like what AESA do..then its almost impossible to catch it...

any gurus can pls..give some gyan on 3rd option...

Regards,
Sunil Patel

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 Dec 2010 22:37

i thought the french supplied some radar frequencies for ECM purposes

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 15 Dec 2010 04:03

The "kill switch" doesn't necessarily have to kill the weapon as in making it explode or nose dive to the ground or anything obvious like that. It could be programmed to miss the target or lose lock in the terminal phase if the target happens to be the supplying nation's aircraft or any of their friendlies. What is this insistence on having explained how it could be done? These days with the technology available anything is possible. Just to guess, as in using your imagination, the "kill" command could be sent to the weapon by means of satellite signals, from a nearby ground station, from a UAV, from their Elint/AWACS aircraft or ships. Or the weapon itself could contain an over ride logic that if it is aimed at their allied aircraft it would activate the "kill" logic. The weapon could sense whose aircraft it is being aimed at by sensing the IFF signals emanating from the aircraft.

On a slightly different subject I have read that AESA radars can transmit and receive encoded digital data signals modulated with the radar pulses. But I'm not sure about TX/RX'ing satellite signals though; it is still in the realm of possibility because radar and satellite signals are very close as they are in the microwaves region of the RF spectrum.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 15 Dec 2010 04:33

I am glad my post changed the topic of discussion for better or worse to the validity of these voodoo claims of remote kill switches.

Luxtor wrote:The "kill switch" doesn't necessarily have to kill the weapon as in making it explode or nose dive to the ground or anything obvious like that.

We are all clear about that...well, we SHOULD be clear about that!

It could be programmed to miss the target or lose lock in the terminal phase if the target happens to be the supplying nation's aircraft or any of their friendlies. What is this insistence on having explained how it could be done? These days with the technology available anything is possible.

The insistence on having it explained/substantiated is without hard facts it is all fluffy opinion based on favoritism. I can say *insert fav MRCA contestant/country here* makes the best A/C and it will fly circles around anything else out there and it's faster than anything else...and the first thing you will ask me is "oh yea? how do you know that, what is the thrust ratio, weapon load out etc…has it been done before? What is it’s past record" so why can't we ask the tin foil hatters amongst us the very obvious, How on earth do you know about this magical kill switch? How would they do it? When was it done? and Why? (same questions you would ask anyone else making unsubstantiated claims...and I am doing this in the interest of killing this BS theory once in for all unless we can prove it is accurate and show hard evidence...there is no point in re-discussing the same THEORY every 2 odd pages or so...circular discussion help no one!)
P.S. Real life is not a Rajnikanth movie where anything is possible...informed opinions and educated responses will tell you there are very set limits to what is or isn't possible with a given set of hardware...you can't MacGyver a rx from a tx device mid air.

Just to guess, as in using your imagination, the "kill" command could be sent to the weapon by means of satellite signals, from a nearby ground station, from a UAV, from their Elint/AWACS aircraft or ships. Or the weapon itself could contain an over ride logic that if it is aimed at their allied aircraft it would activate the "kill" logic. The weapon could sense whose aircraft it is being aimed at by sensing the IFF signals emanating from the aircraft.

On a slightly different subject I have read that AESA radars can transmit and receive encoded digital data signals modulated with the radar pulses. But I'm not sure about TX/RX'ing satellite signals though; it is still in the realm of possibility because radar and satellite signals are very close as they are in the microwaves region of the RF spectrum.

Just a guess is not good enough...just like I guess *my fav A/C* is superior...if you make a claim then substantiate it with hard factual evidence of historic occurrence or possible and probable (no flying carpet scenarios) means of doing it in the future… otherwise note that the quality of this circular discussion is being further degraded (if that is even possible) by voodoo science and 'anything is possible these days' comments.

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 15 Dec 2010 04:56

Kill switches are integrated in Microprocessors. You need to be an semi conductor expert to identify the kill switches. Its all electronic warfare. If we end up buying F-35 for IN (which am sure we will), we can be assured of insane number of Kill switches. Some Kill Switches examples where on supposedly state-of-the-art Radars - they were designed to warn the Syrian and Iraqi military of the incoming assault by Israel and US respectively but they failed temporarily, why ? IEEE Spectrum suspects that by sending a preprogrammed code to those chips, an unknown antagonist(Read US and Israel) had disrupted the chips' function and temporarily blocked the radar.
Refer IEEE semiconductor section for more info on this.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Dec 2010 05:11

Luxtor wrote:The "kill switch" doesn't necessarily have to kill the weapon as in making it explode or nose dive to the ground or anything obvious like that. It could be programmed to miss the target or lose lock in the terminal phase if the target happens to be the supplying nation's aircraft or any of their friendlies. What is this insistence on having explained how it could be done? These days with the technology available anything is possible. Just to guess, as in using your imagination, the "kill" command could be sent to the weapon by means of satellite signals, from a nearby ground station, from a UAV, from their Elint/AWACS aircraft or ships. Or the weapon itself could contain an over ride logic that if it is aimed at their allied aircraft it would activate the "kill" logic. The weapon could sense whose aircraft it is being aimed at by sensing the IFF signals emanating from the aircraft.

On a slightly different subject I have read that AESA radars can transmit and receive encoded digital data signals modulated with the radar pulses. But I'm not sure about TX/RX'ing satellite signals though; it is still in the realm of possibility because radar and satellite signals are very close as they are in the microwaves region of the RF spectrum.

You could have retaliated with much better answers. For example if we have a software radio, the software could do some clock stealing to listen to commands in the air at certain frequencies. This way it can atleast turn itself off. And *if* this radio is connected to the mission computer, then may be we can send a software "kill" command to the software of the mission computer.

But instead, you chose to be all over the place! All radars transmit and receive (nothing new to AESA). Did you even read how IFF works?! So finally which kind of receiver does my weapon have to have to listen to the "kill" command. What will be the range? If you could answer that then we can move forward to the frequencies and the modulation required and the real time constraints.

I asked, "tell me a *valid* method of communicating to the weapon, whatever it is supposed to do". How do you put an invisible ear on the weapon?! Remember this is not a mobile phone antennae, it has to be weapons grade. Meaning that it has to be strong enough to overcome the strong (electronic) noises around a supersonic (in case of a missile upto 4 Mach) vehicle. And what does it to do scan, look up for UAVs, look down for ground radar or use the terminal homing period to listen to something in the jamming effort of the evader. Remember they have a cone in which they can transmit and listen to.

The fact is that countries like the US don't need a kill switch on the weapon to stop it from working. One can ground the planes in various ways, for example don't supply parts, deny integration, add arms embargo, make the war financially impossible. But even then, if you are adamant you will get out of it. Only today I was reading how the Argentinians tussled it out in the Falklands war (even though it was doomed for them).

Please refrain from guessing and posting to suite what you have said or what you feel is right. If you want to guess, make a guess, and ask Google chacha if you are even in the right direction.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Dec 2010 05:14

Thomas Kolarek wrote:Kill switches are integrated in Microprocessors. You need to be an semi conductor expert to identify the kill switches. Its all electronic warfare. If we end up buying F-35 for IN (which am sure we will), we can be assured of insane number of Kill switches. Some Kill Switches examples where on supposedly state-of-the-art Radars - they were designed to warn the Syrian and Iraqi military of the incoming assault by Israel and US respectively but they failed temporarily, why ? IEEE Spectrum suspects that by sending a preprogrammed code to those chips, an unknown antagonist(Read US and Israel) had disrupted the chips' function and temporarily blocked the radar.
Refer IEEE semiconductor section for more info on this.

I have access to all IEEE publications. Could you point me to publication?

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 15 Dec 2010 05:17

indranilroy wrote:
Thomas Kolarek wrote:Kill switches are integrated in Microprocessors. You need to be an semi conductor expert to identify the kill switches. Its all electronic warfare. If we end up buying F-35 for IN (which am sure we will), we can be assured of insane number of Kill switches. Some Kill Switches examples where on supposedly state-of-the-art Radars - they were designed to warn the Syrian and Iraqi military of the incoming assault by Israel and US respectively but they failed temporarily, why ? IEEE Spectrum suspects that by sending a preprogrammed code to those chips, an unknown antagonist(Read US and Israel) had disrupted the chips' function and temporarily blocked the radar.
Refer IEEE semiconductor section for more info on this.
I have access to all IEEE publications. Could you point me to publication?

The Hunt for the Kill Switch
Don't expect IEEE to accuse US or Israel Openly