Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Back to the model-T, this is the first fighter aircraft to be mass produced on an intercontinental basis.

As for the software API: Have the international partners code to an emulator then hand over their sources to be compiled and "blessed" by LockMart. No security implications and it gets features to the fighters quicker than the current process.

How popular would the iPhone be, if it only ran Apple software?

F-16.net Sponsor

hcobb wrote:

Back to the model-T, this is the first fighter aircraft to be mass produced on an intercontinental basis.

As for the software API: Have the international partners code to an emulator then hand over their sources to be compiled and "blessed" by LockMart. No security implications and it gets features to the fighters quicker than the current process.

How popular would the iPhone be, if it only ran Apple software?

Wrong, the F-16 has been built in NA, Europe, and Asia.

Sorry, I meant in terms of an international supply chain from the get go.

Previous fighters have of course been built in one place first and then "kitted out" all over the globe.

As I said already, the risk is not in exposing the internal code of the core system, but being given a blueprint of how the interfaces work certainly helps toward rewriting the core system (if needed) based off its inputs and outputs....

For the most part, fighter software would be an input -> output system. Sensor input in, MFD display update out ... RWR input in, library (storage) + jammer output out.

If you are given the list of protocols, security information and encryption algorithms for integrating your own device... chances are you can use that information to easily test the base devices that came with the aircraft (Radar, DAS, EOTS, MFD's, HMD...etc) in conjunction with middleman hardware to intercept networking data.

If you know all of the inputs and their resulting outputs, it makes it easier to work out what is being done by the processor (My Biztalk dev experience talking). You know "what" it does .... "how" it does it is less relavent as long as the outputs are consistent with the original.

Also, there's the risk is exposing its limitations. A crude example..

If the LM integration guidelines docs advise that that a new custom built sensor is not allowed to exceed a certain amount of IO due to the entire system only supporting a certain number of IO requests per second ..... then you have an insight into its limitations.

We can bring down the most prolific fighter in the world by employing x density of decoy drones/clutter and by using x density of IR strobes and radio transmitters on the ground to "overstimulate" its sensor bus. We can then attack it with IR missiles which are less likely to be detected due to the overload.

Quote:

Exactly. I doubt you could find a computer game software writer who could tell you how to exploit security weaknesses in Windows 7 just because he's coded games for it.

Not a good example. EVERY games software dev knows how to exploit a security weakness that can affect a Windows 7 machine.... Most games are multiplayer, and all multiplayer games use TCP/IP.... google "botnet rental" and "DDOS" for details.

If you were a Russian/Chinese engineer who was just handed a F-35 + supporting documentation by Turkey after their recent split from NATO ... your job would be immensely more easy with a complete guide to how the sensor interfaces work than without it.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

The iPhone fighter needs apps