Slashdot Mirror


US Stealth Jet Has To Talk To Allied Planes Over Unsecured Radio

Lasrick writes "David Axe at Wired's Danger Room explains: 'For the first time, America's top-of-the-line F-22 fighters and Britain's own cutting-edge Typhoon jets have come together for intensive, long-term training in high-tech warfare. If only the planes could talk to each other on equal terms. The F-22 and the twin-engine, delta-wing Typhoon — Europe’s latest warplane — are stuck with partially incompatible secure communications systems. For all their sophisticated engines, radars and weapons, the American and British pilots are reduced to one-way communication, from the Brits to the Yanks. That is, unless they want to talk via old-fashioned radio, which can be intercepted and triangulated and could betray the planes’ locations. That would undermine the whole purpose of the F-22s radar-evading stealth design, and could pose a major problem if the Raptor and the Typhoon ever have to go to war together.'"

270 comments

  1. Re:Ironic by MountainMan101 · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, the Romans had it (hence their successful invasion of Britain).

    Surely they could solve this using a verbal code.

    From now on, frog is me, sandwich means you and lemon means rocket. So, come on, sandwich, build me a lemon â(TM)cause froggy wants to come home.

  2. Re:Ironic by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately they were too busy making tea to be smug about this latest development.

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  3. Did they try Chinese? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean, they have hacked both US and Brit planes' software. So if we could persuade them to CC: the American and Brit planes, they could have direct encrypted communication, just a minor delay for round-tripping via Unit 6 1398 in the Beijing suburb.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Did they try Chinese? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      almost thought you were chinese until you said shanghai is a suburb of beijing. well, florida is a suburb of new york, so maybe ... but more likely, troll -1

    2. Re:Did they try Chinese? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're in Shanghai, not Beijing.

      Here, actually:
      https://maps.google.com/maps?q=31.34923,121.573515

    3. Re:Did they try Chinese? by MugenEJ8 · · Score: 1

      They're in Shanghai, not Beijing.

      Here, actually: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=31.34923,121.573515

      Cold Drink Wholesale?!?! Those stolen Coca Cola negotiating tactics make so much more sense now!

  4. type44q by Type44Q · · Score: 5, Funny

    the American and British pilots are reduced to one-way communication, from the Brits to the Yanks.

    That's okay; if the grammar and vocabularly of today's 20 and 30 year old Americans are any indication, our boys need to just shut the fuck up and listen. :p

    1. Re:type44q by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it helps the Brits that they can see the 'stealth' aircraft using their radar in any case - quite right about the level of education although, it has to be said, that the Brits are starting to lag behind the rest of Western Europe...

    2. Re:type44q by theVarangian · · Score: 4, Funny

      the American and British pilots are reduced to one-way communication, from the Brits to the Yanks.

      That's okay; if the grammar and vocabularly of today's 20 and 30 year old Americans are any indication, our boys need to just shut the fuck up and listen. :p

      British youth aren't exactly any better. Come to think of it, it would be interesting to see a typical N-American urbanite speaking some street dialect and a cockney speaking Londoner trying to come up with a tactical plan. Headline: "Afghan based British and US aircraft bomb Faroe Islands, Pentagon/MOD reluctant to comment"

    3. Re:type44q by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's okay; if the grammar and vocabularly of today's 20 and 30 year old Americans are any indication,

      No, you've got the reason all wrong.

      The reason for the one way communication is that the F22 pilots can't talk back due to having passed out from lack of oxygen.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:type44q by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm pretty sure london yoof, urban merican yoof and possibly jamaican youth could communicate fluently with each other and if they are on the same side without the need for high tech radio as noone else will understand a word. not unlike using native americans as radio operators in the world war.

      but one way from the british may be by design, and only one message is expected "DON'T SHOOT ME!"

    5. Re:type44q by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Headline: "Afghan based British and US aircraft bomb Faroe Islands, Pentagon/MOD reluctant to comment" "

      If that were to happen, the Pentagon/MOD would soon come up with an explanation as to why the Faroes were a new hotbed of terrorism/Axis of Evil, and then slap a security blanket on any further discussion... ...followed closely by an announcement that they had achieved yet another victory in making the world safe for democracy...

    6. Re:type44q by RDW · · Score: 1

      British youth aren't exactly any better.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CwfCBa6PSM

      'Epic war fail'.

    7. Re:type44q by Sique · · Score: 1

      Sadly, this would mean losing Danmark, as the Faroer Islands are danish. And I wonder why TFA calls the british jet Typhoon, because here, most people refer to it as Eurofighter.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    8. Re:type44q by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 2

      And I wonder why TFA calls the british jet Typhoon, because here, most people refer to it as Eurofighter.

      Because it's called the Typhoon. Eurofighter is the consortium that builds it, which could conceivably build other ones. I've heard it called Eurofighter, Typhoon and Eurofighter Typhoon regularly here in Europe.

    9. Re:type44q by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I never heared the term Thyphoon in that context myself ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:type44q by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      It's technically the "Eurofigther EF-2000 Typhoon". Eurofighter GmbH is the company (consortium) that makes it, EF-2000 the model number, Typhoon the name.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    11. Re:type44q by TinheadNed · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally about the point the Eurofighter 2000 was getting a lot of negative press in the UK for how late it was and how much it cost, it was renamed the Typhoon. This could just be because it went into service in the RAF though.

    12. Re:type44q by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Interesting idea ;D I googled a bit, perhaps it is indeed just a german/austrian habit to call it "just eurofighter".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  5. Nobody goes to war anymore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Today "wars" can be described as
    - invasions
    - grab natural resources and go
    - wipe your competition

    Enough said.

    1. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Africa is still full of old school wars. We just don't see them talked about on news because it's not really in interests of anyone to have voting sheep know that real wars are still fought, and as a result start thinking that wars aren't about sexy hardware and war heroes and supporting your troops (several from safety of at least one ocean away). Not having modern weaponry, good support base far away from conflict and hatred for your neighbour that can only be born from cohabiting for millenia makes for a wonderful pot dish of war.

    2. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 2

      The wars in Africa are old school, in the sense that it's a bunch of people fighting a bunch of people with somewhat decent weapons, on the ground. For the most part, they don't have fighter jets, they don't have close air support, they don't have forward air controllers, they don't have long range artillery, just a bunch of people with Kalashnikovs shooting each other. These are the types of wars that really haven't been fought by the developed world since about World War I.

    3. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Far more importantly, these are wars fought where people involved actually live. There is a massive disconnect in the Western countries about the entire concept of war, largely driven by mass media.

      You see, even modern wars fought by West, like Iraq and Afghanistan are fought on the ground. The main difference is that one party only has army living out the realities of the war, while its civilian population is far away and doesn't have to experience any of the harsh reality of wars. Wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, only the enemy civilians are exposed to the war.

      And yes, I know that official propaganda line is that they're not the enemy. It doesn't change the fact that they are treated like enemy civilians of occupied enemy nation, and the fact that they react like such civilians, by widely supporting local guerilla freedom fighters who are fighting asymmetric war against far more powerful invader that has no non-mercenary civilians of its own exposed to the war.

      Personally I recommend BBC's Bomb Alley.

    4. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      There is no western interest in the areas mainly due to lack of oil in the ground. Or other sufficiently valuable resources.

      No I say that wrong, as there are valuable resources in Africa. It is more that as long as those wars are fought, no-one is able to actually keep track of what western companies - who secure their installations using private-hire armies - remove from their lands. And that's a win for the western world, who as a result are not really interested in stopping those wars.

      Well, also not entirely true, that is unless some islamists start to actually gain ground, like recently in Mali, after which western forces jump in to restore the balance of power and to prevent the conflict from ending.

    5. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't disagree with you there, at all.

      That said, I personally disagree with the decoupling of civilians from enemy aggressors, as well as the focus on eliminating collateral damage. Sure, it makes you look nice in the papers, but if you're going to war with someone, it should be all-out war. Bring everybody in, decimate the aggressors, and be done with it. I'm tired of this line that we need to make sure that we're sensitive to the people that live there, when any one of them could strap a bomb on and kill twenty American soldiers.

      Also, while I was and am a supporter of what the US did in Iraq, both from a 'remove Saddam' and 'build a relatively healthy, friendly nation,' I've become wholly unsupportive of our action in Afghanistan. We're just spinning our wheels in a country where we'll never be able to implement a healthy government, spending a metric crapload of money on people that will never support us, and overextending our active duty military (and reservists) such that we're now going to furlough them or lay them off, further reducing our expeditionary capabilities.

    6. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      I will say there is something 'unchivalrous', unfair and perhaps war-crime-worthy in using weapons that do not expose one's own fighters to some level of risk. Such as people in Kansas City or wherever driving drones over another nation. I think this is something intuitively understood by most people, as demonstrated by the terroristic aspects of various 'robot war' movies such as Terminator et al - viewers intuitively feel something worse than plain fear when the enemy personnel are beyond reach or are controlled entirely by machines. This was also exemplified by Picasso's "Guernica" painting, depicting the horror inflicted on civilians by the new pre-WWII German bombers near the village of Guernica, Spain during that country's Civil War.

      I think there is a fundamental difference between overwhelming force, and force that is entirely robotic and controlled remotely by people who are at no risk of harm.

      I would not be surprised if, in another hundred or two hundred years, use of such overwhelming tactics has become defined in international law as a war crime.

      OTOH, I would also not be surprised if we've gone the other way and agreed that it's OK to use nerve gas to kill anyone we don't like. Either way, it'll be long after I'm outahere.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    7. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Actually the main reason was because our multinationals controlled these just fine until recently, and wars were often used by said multinationals to improve their extraction terms with locals.

      And nowadays we cannot really go to open war with China that uses its state companies to do the same thing.

    8. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by Sique · · Score: 1

      I'm tired of this line that we need to make sure that we're sensitive to the people that live there, when any one of them could strap a bomb on and kill twenty American soldiers.

      It's always a bad idea to lose support in the local population, even if it tires you.

      Fighting a war without local support means that most of your army has to stay behind in occupied territory busily fighting local insurgents, and as you rightly said, they can just strap a bomb on and kill twenty American soldiers.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    9. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That said, I personally disagree with the decoupling of civilians from enemy aggressors, as well as the focus on eliminating collateral damage. Sure, it makes you look nice in the papers, but if you're going to war with someone, it should be all-out war.

      Also, while I was and am a supporter of what the US did in Iraq, both from a 'remove Saddam' and 'build a relatively healthy, friendly nation,'

      Well then you have a problem because while it may be argued that the ends justify the means, that argument falls apart when the means contradict and thus prevent the ends.

      All-out-war is over because the political goals of war have changed. You simply cannot fight a war of "liberation" without respecting the civilians. And this was self-evident in the years of complete and utter failure in Iraq. Sure, we didn't engage in "all out war" against a poorly understood collage of insurgent forces because that's a completely ineffective way to fight an insurgency unless you're willing to go the Roman or Mao Tse Tung route and use genocide. Which would have resulted in us "winning" for a definition of "winning" completely different than what we started with. The warfare equivalent of flipping the chessboard. Good job. You "won". Slow clap.

      So instead we tied our soldiers' hands with rules of engagement while simultaneously maintaining a flippant attitude toward colateral damage -- enough to "look nice in the papers" back home, but definitely not the ones in Iraq. This was because the people in charge, like you, really would have rather engaged in all-out war but knew they couldn't because of politics at home.

      The result was unsurprisingly ineffective as the ranks of insurgents swelled with angry former-civilians (many of whom were former-army, but don't get me started on that).

      A lot of people credit The Surge with turning Iraq around, but while a component it was actually the least important part of what changed. Petraeus' real genius was in not only using force even more judiciously than before -- the opposite of what you would do -- but also in fully engaging the civilian population. He didn't treat them as though they were basically the enemy that he couldn't shoot because it looked bad on CNN. He treated them as if they were already allies that required help. He took "winning hearts and minds" seriously, and it worked. When the area of Iraq Petraeus was in charge of stabilized like none of the rest of Iraq had, they put him in charge of the lot so his demonstrably effective (and not coincidently completely unlike your) strategy could benefit everywhere. And it did. Only in the environment created by this new strategy could the additional troops put in have been effective.

      You know what the REALLY sad part is? The part that really causes comments like yours make the bile swell up in my throat?

      It's that when we began in Afghanistan, the people did support us. Unlike the Iraqi people who felt betrayed by us after Desert Storm, the Afghan people still thought of us as the folks who helped them kick out the Russians. With no love lost for the Taliban, they were actually on our side. At first.

      Thanks to years of idiotic management, that flippant attitude towards collateral damage you embody, and years of neglect due to being focused on Iraq, we lost both literal and figurative ground in Afghanistan. We squandered our advantage. Pissed it away. Turned the people against us.

      And then some dweeb comes along and says the people "will never support us". As if it was always this way. As if it's their fault, instead of ours. Gee, maybe we should just stop worrying about killing them. That would probably fix it.

      So fucking sad.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      I think the point I'm more trying to make is that the two world wars, while HUGELY costly in terms of human life, on all sides, including civilians, was completely immersive. They were also fought under circumstances far different than recent wars, with an attacking army (the Allieds) repulsing an invading army (Axis Powers), while the attackers had the support of the people being oppressed, especially in France, Poland, etc. Most of the world is so polarized, nowadays, and indoctrinated to hate anything that's different than their lifestyle, that it's unlikely any indigenous civilians would be supportive of an invading force, even if it were ostensibly to defend the civilians against an oppressive dictator, a la, Saddam Hussein, Ghaddafi Duck, Mubarak, et al.

    11. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      I don't disagree with you there, at all.

      That said, I personally disagree with the decoupling of civilians from enemy aggressors, as well as the focus on eliminating collateral damage. Sure, it makes you look nice in the papers, but if you're going to war with someone, it should be all-out war. Bring everybody in, decimate the aggressors, and be done with it. I'm tired of this line that we need to make sure that we're sensitive to the people that live there, when any one of them could strap a bomb on and kill twenty American soldiers.

      Also, while I was and am a supporter of what the US did in Iraq, both from a 'remove Saddam' and 'build a relatively healthy, friendly nation,' I've become wholly unsupportive of our action in Afghanistan. We're just spinning our wheels in a country where we'll never be able to implement a healthy government, spending a metric crapload of money on people that will never support us, and overextending our active duty military (and reservists) such that we're now going to furlough them or lay them off, further reducing our expeditionary capabilities.

      I think there are a few issues at play here, and you have hit on one of the fundamental contradictions of American military and foreign policy. The American people see themselves as the Good Guys. And the Good Guys don't decimate entire populations. They don't kill women and children and old men. So you can't just do all-out war on civilian populations because it runs counter to modern morality and the nation's self-image. But as you point out, that leaves your forces open to insurgency and guerrilla warfare. Can an invader out-last a homegrown insurgency? Personally I doubt it, but I haven't studied the history too closely.

      In addition to that, there are the stated and actual goals. If your goal is to depose a dictator and bring modern civil life to the country, you can't just kill everyone. In fact, just the opposite, you need to make friends with them. Hearts and minds and all that. Similarly, if you want to invade to take control of government and commercial power to further your commercial and geo-strategic interests, you can't just decimate the country. You need the infrastructure and bureaucracy. But again, if the people end up not liking you your soldiers will be open to insurgency and guerrilla warfare.

      This is the dynamic the US finds itself in in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The stated and unstated goals, and modern morality and self-image make restraint paramount. But having to use restraint makes using the military to achieve those goals difficult. The military is a tool of death and destruction and it's tricky to kill and destroy your way to peace and prosperity.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    12. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      The wars in Africa are old school, in the sense that it's a bunch of people fighting a bunch of people with somewhat decent weapons, on the ground. For the most part, they don't have fighter jets, they don't have close air support, they don't have forward air controllers, they don't have long range artillery, just a bunch of people with Kalashnikovs shooting each other. These are the types of wars that really haven't been fought by the developed world since about World War I.

      Progress is the root of all evil.

      Progressives even more so.

    13. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by dj245 · · Score: 1

      The part that really causes comments like yours make the bile swell up in my throat?

      It's that when we began in Afghanistan, the people did support us. Unlike the Iraqi people who felt betrayed by us after Desert Storm, the Afghan people still thought of us as the folks who helped them kick out the Russians. With no love lost for the Taliban, they were actually on our side. At first.

      Thanks to years of idiotic management, that flippant attitude towards collateral damage you embody, and years of neglect due to being focused on Iraq, we lost both literal and figurative ground in Afghanistan. We squandered our advantage. Pissed it away. Turned the people against us.

      Afghanistan is a completely different country from Iraq. Iraq has a history of being some kind of nation for the past 1000 years or so. Iraq had a strong national government in recent history (a bad government, but a strong one anyway). Afghanistan's borders are more of a collection of the borders of other countries. Afghanistan has never had a strong national government. There are few nationalistic tendencies. Politics are extremely local and based on small-time government and small-time lack of government. When Kabul tries to make policies, they might as well be England trying to administer the US in the 1700s. The distance is too far and nobody respects a power so far away and unrelated to the local politics.

      Petraeus tried his Iraq strategy in Afghanistan and it was a complete failure.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    14. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The last war where the United States was significantly foriegn invade was The War of 1812, unless you count the Union's invation of the Confederate States as a foriegn invation where Sherman's March to the Sea decimated the confederacies will and ability to resist. The next invation was an invasion of Numerous Aleutian Islands by Japanese forces during WWII. The whole point is we have learned to never fight a war on our own soil; the stupidest thing a Country could do is to invade the United States, Russia or Israel.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    15. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, when all is said and done, it ain't over untill there are boots on the ground.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    16. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That's not really hard to "learn" when you're oceans away from everyone who could even remotely oppose you.

    17. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by Jimbob+The+Mighty · · Score: 1

      And this attitude is why people decide to target American civilians.

    18. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by khallow · · Score: 1

      And yes, I know that official propaganda line is that they're not the enemy. It doesn't change the fact that they are treated like enemy civilians of occupied enemy nation

      It's worth noting here that the actual modern laws of war, the Geneva Conventions don't make a distinction of "enemy civilian". The only class is "protected civilian" which is anyone not in a military who is not contributing to a conflict and happens to be in an area which you occupy or control. You then have an obligation under the Conventions to protect those civilians (hence, the label). They could be allies or enemies in terms of political support or allegiances, the law doesn't make that distinction.

    19. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      This is of course if you care about Geneva Conventions in the first place. Guantanamo Bay, creative classifications and other legalese shenanigans showed that these conventions no longer realistically apply to modern warfare beyond PR level.

    20. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can an invader out-last a homegrown insurgency? Personally I doubt it, but I haven't studied the history too closely.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_European_Anti-Communist_Insurgencies

    21. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by drsquare · · Score: 1

      I will say there is something 'unchivalrous', unfair and perhaps war-crime-worthy in using weapons that do not expose one's own fighters to some level of risk.

      They used to say that about arrows.

    22. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Then why are they done? Because the Geneva Conventions still matter. It's worth noting that several of these don't actually contradict the Geneva Conventions because the enemies in question (the "unlawful combatants") aren't adhering to the Geneva Conventions and hence, lose a lot of the protections that would normally be granted by the Conventions.

    23. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Propaganda. You still need to be convincing to your own civilian population that you are in fact a force for good. Currently too many people alive still remember WW2 or have passed their experiences to their children and as a result too large portion of the civilian population will not swallow a wholesale ethnic cleansing.

      So the obvious thing to do is to take baby steps. Remind yourself of world in the 1990s and look at the world today. Imagine selling some of the things of today's world to population back then. Imagine how you'd likely get tried for treason if you pushed for them too seriously.

      Public opinion is fairly slow to change on such issues, but they do change over time.

    24. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Propaganda.

      No. Merely a correct observation. Read the Geneva Conventions sometime and see what protections they offer to military forces who don't play by the rules.

    25. Re:Nobody goes to war anymore. by Sique · · Score: 1
      Yes, but World War II was mainly about fighting back against an invading force, though with the help of another invading army. The Germans and the Japanese were seen als invaders in most of the territories World War II was fought in. Their power came mainly from external forces, and only for a small part from local support.

      It's different if the dictatorship consist of native people. Then it has at least partly local support. And if the dictatorship was there for some decades, then you have a large part of the population whose whole life is based on the existance of that dictatorship, even though they may be opposed to the actual actions of said dictatorship. People tend to be wary if someone else wants to turn their life, even if he claims it would be better. And if he then makes some mistakes, he can easily turn the whole population against himself, good intentions be damned.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  6. I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Brandano · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the F22 has to keep stealthy, it can't irradiate, period. Transmitting any sort of signal would allow a third party to triangulate its position. If the Typhoon is not concerned with hiding its position, it can transmit without worries. The only mitigation against discovery through listening in passively to the Raptor's transmission is to either devise a system to transmit on multiple frequencies in a way that cannot be distinguished with background noise, or hop frequencies in the hope that the eavesdropper won't be able to match the signal for more than a fraction of the time.

    1. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      F22s can talk to each other, but it requires a special data link that is apparently top secret and cannot be given out to allied aircraft.

    2. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by way2trivial · · Score: 2

      why can't it transmit straight up only?

      there is no way to ensure the emissions are entirely (at detectable levels) in the direction away from ground sources?
      then you only have interception from countries with enough satellites to track that...

      cuts a lot of nations out....

      --
      every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    3. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Incorrect. The F-22 and F-35 have both active and passive seekers, and they're able to determine range, altitude, and bearing with just their passive seeker.

    4. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Frequency hopping is already widely used in radio transmissions. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAVE_QUICK )
      The article is about the F-22 sharing its IFDL data with the Typhoon - mainly, feed other aircraft with its radar/target data.
      It's a design/specification/protocol problem - the Americans are loathe to make the F-22 be nice and share - but I don't blame them.
      Someone would have to pay for the upgrade and there really isn't much of a reason. The Raptor was designed as an air superiority fighter, the Typhoon is multi-role fighter. They're hunting for different things - the typical scenario is Wild Weasels knock out the radars, F-22s shoot down the enemy's air force and Typhoons take out ground targets at will.
      It's just a typical sensationalist article.

    5. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by dywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      precisely. its a non-story written by the same idiot at wired who constantly uses every opportunity he can to bash on the F22 and F35, while glossing over or ignoring inconvenient facts.

      I'm not saying they arent without their problems...i'm saying the writer has proven in the past he has an axe to grind, much like the that Broder guy at NYT writing about the Tesla last week.

      another thing he misses, is that most aircraft are not locked into a single design. it's entirely possible to replace the radios with other radios. you'd have to redraw some tech manuals, and maybe run some more wires. but its not unheard of and actually quite common for hardware to be updated.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    6. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the Weasels are wild then by definition they aren't trained well enough to knock out a specific target. I'd say it's better to go with a Honey Badger. It'll take out everything because it just don't give a fuck.

    7. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by dywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Partly true.

      In order to passively seek, there has to be something to be sought.
      in other words, it only works if the other guy is actively emitting in some way.

      if the other guy is also only passively seeking, neither one can see the other.
      basic physics, engineering, logic, or whatever you want to call it.

      the only passive seeker that will always remain effective is IR band, because they kinda need the engines to fly. but its also rather short range, wont give real accurate RAB (RAB being only really relevent for BVR) and if you're that close and can pickup his tailpipes, you already know where he's at, and which way hes going.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    8. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In a true air-to-air conflict, there will be radar signals bouncing all over the place, originating from everything from AWACS to SAM sites. There's plenty of emission, just from the defensive ground stations. A really good passive seeker is all you need for target acquisition, especially when your aircraft is equipped with fire-and-forget missiles that have their own active seeker, and require no intervention from the pilot of the firing aircraft.

    9. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by RobertNotBob · · Score: 2
      Actually.... Nothing to rewire; modern weapon system are spec'd to be modular. As you mentioned, they are expected to outlive the technology of any given component... so the comm's gear should be easily replaceable by upgrades stuff in the future.

      As of the idiot at WIRED... Look a the name... How can you say that he doesn't have an axe to grind? It's probably a pseudonym for that express purpose!

      --
      ___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
    10. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by RobertNotBob · · Score: 1
      oops...

      Dywolf,

      I am aware we agree about the author of TFA.

      omitted was an emphasis on the word DOESN'T....

      --
      ___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
    11. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 4, Funny

      Two cans and a piece of string?

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    12. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How is this even a problem? Why can an AWACS not simply relay the signal? The enemy already knows where the AWACS is, it's out of range.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by trout007 · · Score: 1

      What about direction? Can you direct the signal towards satellites and away from ground radar?

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    14. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..given out...

      Espionage in my allies? It's more likely than you think!

      I'm betting Israel has it, and it's highly likely China does. This country has issues with keeping things classified and top secret.

    15. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think the F22 wouldn't be equipped with digital mode, agile frequency-hopping, spread spectrum radios?

      I'd think that would be the default mode of operation on actual combat sorties. (And actually may not be for regular training missions, because why would you tip any antagonist to your combat C&C modes when you are not in combat - black or white operations? Instead, let 'em think all you got is SSB and then when going operational you *really* go dark.)

      But they may still have to cross-communicate on fixed-frequency single sideband; three ten year olds with not-too-advanced commercial gear and excellent synchronized timing could lock that down.

    16. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

      Transmitting any sort of signal would allow a third party to triangulate its position.

      That sure sounds Really Scary... but technical jargon and buzzwords always do when thrown about by people who don't really know what they're talking about. (Note that the bit about triangulation was added by the submitter - it does not appear in the original article.)
       
      Triangulation against a jet is just barely this side of useless - the damm thing is flying at several hundred miles an hour. A second or two after he stops transmitting, your triangulation solution has lost significant value because he's miles away from the datum point. Your solution just degrades from there and by ten seconds or so you might as well have been using a Ouija board.* Has anyone actually deployed the RDF gear that would be required for high speed tactical 3D triangulation? It's not particularly high tech, but it's also something that can't be cobbled together on short notice out of 'stone knives and bearskins'. To be any kind of useful, you need high accuracy (within +/- a degree or so), which means sophisticated antenna designs and significant signal processing. (Real life RDF isn't a simple as it is in the movies.)
       
      Another problem you face is that you can't use triangulation to fire weapons... you need some way of handing the track off to the radar needed for SAM's or AA guns, or off to the fighter which will then need to obtain radar or IR lock to fire a missile or to obtain visual contact.
       
      So, the real problem isn't triangulation... it's breaking stealth. An unsecured transmission can provide a raid warning. It can warn radar operators to pay really close attention to the 'fluff' on their screens. Etc... etc...
       
      * Yes, I have experience with using triangulation tactically... it was sonar and ASW, so the timescale was longer but the general principles remain the same.

    17. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by PRMan · · Score: 1

      If you did that, America's enemies would quickly be investing in new spy satellites.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    18. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by garyebickford · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder if they are using some form of Ultra Wide Band. UWB is best for short distances in part because 'optical' effects become important, but if it works it is extremely difficult to discover - at every frequency the signal is below the noise floor. It's only detectable if one knows the digital pattern that is being used, and there are a zillion possible patterns. In the sky, away from reflective and refractive distorting obstacles, it is probably usable over longer distances. IANA EE, however.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    19. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by garyebickford · · Score: 2

      Yes. For those who wonder how this works, it is similar to how our own vision works - we see things by the reflected and refracted light (EM waves) off of other objects. The same thing can be done at radio frequencies. Every emitter - cell phone tower, power lines, radio and TV broadcast towers, are essentially shining 'lights' at radio frequencies.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    20. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you jest but it probably is some form of LoS communication.

    21. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      According to news on wired, there's a total of seven aircraft in entire US airfoce that can handle the task. AWACS is incapable of it, they have special retrofitted civilian aircraft with this communications system and standard data link.

    22. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      but can't ANY sort of radio transmission be used for triangulating the transmitter? encryption should be irrelevant. what am i missing here?

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    23. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume it can't transmit information without others able to intercept the transmission. No, I think this story is about the thing having to use "old" radio tech to communicate with vehicles not equipped with modern military stealth tech. The things used in many military applications would defy physics as you know it.

      Not going to provide a citation, because I don't have one. Those that know, know.

    24. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      That's why it's called top secret technology. It wouldn't be top secret if random people on internet forum such as ourselves would know, would it?

    25. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      According to news on wired, there's a total of seven aircraft in entire US airfoce that can handle the task. AWACS is incapable of it, they have special retrofitted civilian aircraft with this communications system and standard data link.

      If AWACS can't handle it, then either these aircraft were overspecified, or retrofits for AWACS should have been included in the contract.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      ...Any transmission can provide a raid warning...

      Is not necessary to be able to decode a radio transmission to know that someone are attacking you, is enough to know where it come from and check if any ally is at the origin of the signal.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    27. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see, yet I do not emit light.

    28. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I never mentioned decryption for exactly that reason.

      The F-22 has spread spectrum radios precisely to avoid the transmission being detected - the problem is that those radios are not compatible with those in the Typhoon, requiring them to use their (much more easily detected) single frequency mode.

    29. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Only problem is that it works equally well for the other guy, so it boils down to how good your stealth is and if you can somehow control the active emissions (i.e. if it is an enemy over your territory you can aim friendly radars to give you maximum advantage).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    30. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by LongearedBat · · Score: 2

      the only passive seeker that will always remain effective is IR band, because they kinda need the engines to fly.

      Plus emissions of tachyons and residual antiprotons.

    31. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure can -- but you can't tune a single radio to 1000 channels at once. And a brief spec of noise for 1/100th of a second on a single channel sounds -- exactly like that.

      Like static, a solar flare, a jet engine passing through a bit of water vapor.

      Now, you couple that with UWB which is relatively low power (and remember, strength is at the inverse square of distance... )

      You've gotta be right on top of them to get anything other than a candidate vector.

      I am not an EE or RF engineer, but I did stay at a holiday inn express....

    32. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both parties can look for reflections of existing transmissions of a third-party (TV transmitters, cellphone towers, ham radio). The stealth aircraft only have a lower radar profile, not a completely invisible one.

    33. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is many many times more expensive than a ground or air based solution (and probably significantly less sensitive). Anyways, if we are talking today, against our probable enimies, well NK and Iran simply don't have that stuff, China might. Also, it's not entirely impossible to transmit your signal to a specific communication sattilite (and thus even other satellites can't see it), though I doubt anyone has a tatical system that does it.

      With that said, my guess is current tatical systems do send the signal up too as that's actually easy to do (just stick a directional antenna on top with a beam width wide enough to guarentee someone can hear you with the number of satelittes you expect to be in orbit).

    34. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      There are a LOT of things that retrofits were planned for in case of F-22 program. They were almost all canned because of exploding costs of the program.

    35. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the F22 has to keep stealthy, it can't irradiate, period. Transmitting any sort of signal would allow a third party to triangulate its position. If the Typhoon is not concerned with hiding its position, it can transmit without worries. The only mitigation against discovery through listening in passively to the Raptor's transmission is to either devise a system to transmit on multiple frequencies in a way that cannot be distinguished with background noise, or hop frequencies in the hope that the eavesdropper won't be able to match the signal for more than a fraction of the time.

      Incorrect
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_probability_of_intercept_radar

    36. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by sharpneli · · Score: 1

      UWB transmitters can be detected simply by correlating between multiple receivers. And if they're stationary you can even use the correlation delays to triangulate it's position. Basically if it emits energy and you have enough time/receivers you can find it.

    37. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by N22YF · · Score: 1

      the only passive seeker that will always remain effective is IR band, because they kinda need the engines to fly. but its also rather short range, wont give real accurate RAB (RAB being only really relevent for BVR) and if you're that close and can pickup his tailpipes, you already know where he's at, and which way hes going.

      Actually, modern infrared search and track systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRST) are quite capable - the range is less than radar, but can be dozens of miles, which is plenty of distance to acquire and track a target and launch a missile, which could also employ a passive seeker.

    38. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Interesting! I am guessing you mean that the 'brightness' of the emission can be found that way, as a black body emitter. Does this also mean the encoding can be discovered as well? I don't see how, but IANA EE.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    39. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by N22YF · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. The F-22 and F-35 have both active and passive seekers, and they're able to determine range, altitude, and bearing with just their passive seeker.

      What passive seeker are you referring to on the F-22? It doesn't have much, relatively, and certainly nothing like the F-35's infrared search and track/electro-optical targeting system. The F-22 normally relies on either datalinked targeting information from another aircraft or its own LPI (low-probability-of-intercept) radar.

    40. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can only triangulate if you can pick up the signal, and there are a few things they can do, one is make it very wide band, very low level, and encode it with a random code (in theory encryption should be enough), then it looks like noise and the power at any one frequency is so low that you will have a LOT of trouble picking it out of the background noise (which must be done before you attempt to triangulate it). The other thing is many of the military things can transmit through a satelitte, satelittes can be assumed to always be above you, thus you can restrict your transmissions to up and only receivers above you can triangulate you (which basically makes ground based and air based useless), thus when talking to sattelites a directional antenna can be used to keep the signal away from the enemy. All other units then receive communications from then sattelite, which while it can be easilly triangulated, is too high to attack.

    41. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      Right, but if your aircraft is stealthy enough, like the F-22 and F-35, as well the B-2, you don't worry about environmental emissions. The radar cross sections of the aircraft are rather small, and environmental emissions are so erratic in nature, that a radar system likely won't be able to piece together enough returns from the Raptor/JSF to even know it's there.

    42. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wont give real accurate RAB (RAB being only really relevent for BVR)

      FYI, we still need the TPSR ASAP. TGIF!

    43. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That would not work.
      The system would be unabke to distinguish friend from foe.
      That is basically why you have targeting radars. You can imagine something like this: the targeting radar is projecting a small number on every 'target'. You assign e.g. target 4 to your next amraam to fire. The amraam picks up the 'radar signal' ( the number 4) and starts tracking it with its own radar.
      In your schema a fired missile would just pick a random target ... friendly or foe and even can not prevent several missiles chasing the same target.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    44. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      but can't ANY sort of radio transmission be used for triangulating the transmitter?

      Yes, that's true, but your transmissions don't have to cooperate with the person trying to triangulate. You do everything you can to make the transmissions very short, hard to find in the first place, and hard to follow over time. This includes doing things like minimising the data volume, rapid frequency hopping using cryptographic strength randomisation, spreading the signal over large frequency range, adaptively making the signal barely strong enough to reach its receiver, beam forming and steering, etc. Depending on application you could even make of point of communication by reflection so the signal comes from many directions.

      The US has a long history of not sharing its latest toys, even with the current crop of "allies", so I don't think there is anything new here.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    45. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by JimCanuck · · Score: 1


      No, the F-35 will have MADL that will allow it to communicate somewhat more stealthy (Burst transmissions and somewhat directional signal)

      The F-22 can only communicate one way to allied or US fighters, using a LINK 16 which is set on receive only so that it can remain stealthy during it's missions.

      Mind you this is all irrelevant, the US has had 3 wars since it introduced them over 7 years ago, and has yet to allow them to enter combat. Mainly because at $150 million a pop they can't risk having one shot down like what happened in Serbia with a F-117. It would ruin all American public opinion on the viability of a stealth plane.

    46. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by JimCanuck · · Score: 1


      The F-22's and F-35's tail pipe is not protected at all, and they have bigger engines then a standard fighter. So they are releasing a much more larger thermal picture then the average fighter.

      The B-2 is "all aspect" stealth as it tries to hide both it's IR and RADAR signature, unlike the two mentioned fighters that only protect themselves mainly from frontal RCS reduction strategies.

      Also the RCS as reported by the USAF a couple years back on the F-35 isn't all that great. It is half the size of the F-117 Stealth Fighter, and the Serbians managed to shoot one down in 1999 with a SA-3 dating back from the early 1960's. Hence the F-117's retirement.

    47. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that plane simply has no tasks in these wars. The closest it could come to seeing action is maintaining some no-fly zone somewhere, but even those tasks are typically better handled by non stealthy aircraft that can afford to keep their search radars in active mode all the time to add to radar coverage of the area.

    48. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      So long as the unit they're trying to talk to is straight above them, sure. The 99.99% of the time that's not true... well, then transmitting straight up doesn't help you much.

    49. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by JimCanuck · · Score: 1


      A AWACS is doing most of the long range RADAR tracking for no fly zones, fighter RADAR units are relatively small range and effectively useless to maintain such a "zone".

      At which point a AWACS broadcasting to a F-22 in a omni-directional encrypted data stream such as LINK-16, won't give way the F-22's position and allow it to enforce the no fly zone.

    50. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean by using technologies like direct sequence spread spectrum and frequency hop spread spectrum? It's old hat. There are spread spectrum hybrids that do what you describe; it is widely available. It's even used for high end Radio controlled aircraft.

      Think wi-fi, but in between 40 MHz to 10 GHz.

    51. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      AWACS is sitting at long range and firing active search radar from single direction. To get a proper coverage of area, you'll want to have as much data from as many data points as possible which are interlinked and share radar data. This makes both active jamming and stealthiness much harder to execute. This ranges from flying hugging ground to actually flying stealthy planes to avoid detection.

      Incidentally, that is exactly what both NATO and Russian tech developed into back in the 1980s and 1990s.

    52. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Diamon · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly, they're wireless. Flashlights and signal mirrors.

    53. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm astounded that this problem is still around. The USA and NATO have treaties and standards to handle this. Apparently the design engineers have no clue that there is a "rest of world". I earned some bucks back in the 90s reworking a NATO radio set for aircraft that didn't work with the Swedes aircraft.
      Reason? Swedes didn't trust USA, we leak like a sieve, thus no data sharing. I suppose the same holds true today. The electronics in the F22 are full of firmware devices purchased from you now who. Said devices came with firmware viruses, data recorders, call home to mother, and disabled on command from the manufacturer or at a set time. The USA let this happen by allowing their critical technologies and manufacturing to die within the 50 states so we are now forced to purchase unknown stuff.

      The barbarians came to Rome on the wonderful highways built by Rome. We built the nice roads for our enemies, why are we surprised they are using it?

    54. Re:I don't think the cypher is the problem. by sharpneli · · Score: 1

      Encoding cannot be discovered with this technique. It only detects the energy. All phase information is lost.

  7. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't forget French and Poles. Credit where is due.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptanalysis_of_the_Enigma

  8. Please for humanity's sake by chaseDigger · · Score: 0

    ...."could pose a major problem if the Raptor and the Typhoon ever have to go to war together.'" Aww, such a sweet pair, and yet their communication is just not would it could have been when they are heading out to fuck humanity up the butthole.

  9. ello govna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That would undermine the whole purpose of the F-22s radar-evading stealth design, and could pose a major problem if the Raptor and the Typhoon ever have to go to war together."

    The pilots speak different languages anyways, so who cares? ello govna!

  10. Re:Ironic by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually most of the stuff that makes up PKI (Public Key Infrastructure) was invented at Bletchly Park (UK) during the war. Obviously Encryption has a very long history but the encryption used in the F22 is probably loosely based on a Secure PBX designed by Alan Turing.

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  11. War with Europe? by johnny+cashed · · Score: 0

    That would undermine the whole purpose of the F-22s radar-evading stealth design, and could pose a major problem if the Raptor and the Typhoon ever have to go to war together.

    If the Raptor and Typhoon have to go to war, we'll have bigger problems.

    1. Re:War with Europe? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      "Go to war together", not "go to war with each other".

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:War with Europe? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      Go to war together... meaning fighting on the same side. Such as a squadron of F-22's and Typhoons working together during an op / firefight / etc.

    3. Re:War with Europe? by bWareiWare.co.uk · · Score: 2

      Against who? Anyone who can field anything that could even shoot in the general direction of a single F-22 also have nukes.

    4. Re:War with Europe? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Europe, according to the grandparent post.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:War with Europe? by msauve · · Score: 2

      Against the stone-throwing terrorists, obviously. You've never heard of the "shock and awe" method of warfare? That's why $200,000,000 planes are needed to attack people with $20 AK-47s.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:War with Europe? by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      TFA mentions that F22s would have been used in Lybia, if not for these communication issues. So there you have your answer.

      Just like the B2 was used against Saddam in Iraq. Weapons the enemy doesn't have an answer to - that at least makes kinda sure your plane will come back unharmed, and that the mission will be accomplished. That doesn't mean a lesser aircraft could also have done the job, it's just making extra sure the job is done.

    7. Re:War with Europe? by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

      Whoosh! Or simply a bad joke. Was going for the +1 Funny

    8. Re:War with Europe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the way American troops hose bullets around, it;s still cheaper to use the plane.

    9. Re:War with Europe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AKs are 20 bucks now? I'll order 5

    10. Re:War with Europe? by dj245 · · Score: 1

      TFA mentions that F22s would have been used in Lybia, if not for these communication issues. So there you have your answer.

      Just like the B2 was used against Saddam in Iraq. Weapons the enemy doesn't have an answer to - that at least makes kinda sure your plane will come back unharmed, and that the mission will be accomplished. That doesn't mean a lesser aircraft could also have done the job, it's just making extra sure the job is done.

      And that is part of the problem. We have engineered more and more expensive weapons so that the other guys die and our guys never take a scratch. But the weapons are so expensive a loss is basically unacceptable. And because a loss is unacceptable, the weapons become even more expensive. It is an endless cycle. Eventually there is a point when you are paying so much to play the game that the benefit is smaller than the cost. When that happens, most people realize that you would have better off not playing at all.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  12. Link 16 by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As someone who once worked a project to implement Link 16 into a laptop on a HUMVEE, Link 16 is very easy to implement. If the Air Force wanted it, they'd have it. In all likelihood, the Air Force is unwilling to share the Raptor's targeting data, as they don't want the operational capabilities of the radar/IFF/command and decision systems to be revealed to anyone, including one of our closest allies. Such data can reveal the range of the radar, the resolution, and the characteristics of the radar when it comes to jamming and clutter. Obviously, all this data is classified as secret or above, and is almost certainly not for release to foreign individuals.

    Remember, the F-22 is the only airborne weapons system that the US Government refuses to sell to other countries, because it's an apex predator. There's nothing out there that can rival it, and even the F-35, which is basically a follow-on of F-22 technology, is no match for it. Thus, we'll sell it to allied countries, but the F-22 stays US-only, in the case that if we're ever involved in an air war where we're back to old school air superiority, there are no air forces that can match ours.

    That said, I remember reading an article a couple weeks ago, where a new pod is being installed in several US fighters that allow for interoperability with the F-22, over a form of encrypted radio. Basically, the pod allows the fighters to act as a sort of wireless access point, which interfaces with the F-22 and any other fighter with radios that don't talk the same language.

    1. Re:Link 16 by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Obviously, all this data is classified as secret or above, and is almost certainly not for release to foreign individuals.

      The USA, UK, Canada and Australia all have the administrative structure in place to share classified data with each other. Naturally not all classified data is to be shared, but classified doesn't imply not for fireigners.

      The funny thing is that the NOFORN stuff is an entirely different mechanism done as trade protection, and while you can share it with any 2 bit sleaze bag multiple felon with US citizenship, you can't share it with your trusted allies sharing a clearance level.

      Brilliant!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Link 16 by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      Right...it's all about releasability. But again, it's not prudent that the USG allow for the release of some of the most important performance data on its top tier fighter to anyone, including its top tier allies.

    3. Re:Link 16 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No problem by me. We'll just give that "2 bit sleaze bag multiple felon with US citizenship" a few thousand USD and he'll give us any information we want. Or we'll tell him that we are helping his favorite political party or his favorite religion, and he'll give us the information for free.

      Good thing you know how to prioritize.

    4. Re:Link 16 by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      The only problem is that if the US would ever start a serious war with say China, or one of China's allies, all China has to do is stop supplies of anything to the US.

      That would quickly ground most equipment due to lack of parts.

      And it would kill the rest of the population who would die from starvation, as after a while no more working microwaves to heat up their junk food.

    5. Re:Link 16 by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      You're obviously a troll, but I'll bite - people given US security clearances have a VERY intensive background check done on them, as well as their friends. It includes inquisitions into their criminal record, their financials, as well as a thorough investigation into their associations, friends, and activities. These types of people are not the types that sell out their nation for a couple hundred bucks, regardless of what Hollywood wants you to believe.

    6. Re:Link 16 by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      people given US security clearances have a VERY intensive background check done on them,

      Well, except members of congress who can get clearances of any level necessary for an investigation, regardless of their level of criminality and dodgy financials.

      Actually, these days it's pretty unusual to have a congrescritter without dodgy financials.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Link 16 by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 2

      Personally, I don't think most of those in Congress deserve a clearance, and only those on the Armed Services committees should have one. But hey, that's just my opinion.

    8. Re:Link 16 by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      The military doesn't use components that originate in China, and has specific guidelines for where componentry can originate, given very strict information assurance controls, as well as anti-tamper controls. Sure, there are likely some low end semiconductors that come from China, transistors, capacitors, and the like, but if World War II taught us anything, it's that the US can quickly, and efficiently, ramp up its industrial production, even after a decade of decline, due to recession/depression.

    9. Re:Link 16 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet China already has that information.

    10. Re:Link 16 by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      Actually, ex-felons are not usually ever given a clearance above "Classified". So, calm down.

      It should also be noted that a lot of felonies are pretty much bullshit anyway. Illegally copied a DVD...felon! Got caught with an ounce of weed...felon!

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    11. Re:Link 16 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, there is lots of stuff that is both SECRET and NOFORN, many nuclear things are like this, it's classified and we don't share with other countries. I suspect much of the F22 specs are going to fall under this.

    12. Re:Link 16 by RevDisk · · Score: 1

      Yea, because folks on the Intelligence committees shouldn't have clearances.

    13. Re:Link 16 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O RLY?
      http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/usa-defense-counterfeit-idUSL1E8GMMCV20120522

    14. Re:Link 16 by PhloppyPhallus · · Score: 1

      This is true, but from my experience anything involving "signatures" is much more difficult to share with foreigners, including our closest allies. I've had trouble sharing signature data between allies operating exactly the same equipment, let alone something one party has but the other does not. I doubt F-22 emissions data is shared at all, at any level.

    15. Re:Link 16 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although of course as soon as they actually start /using/ the plane's full capabilities in the presence of non-US units, those respective forces will be able to deduce what this toy is capable of. Possibly quite rapidly, for some things. Just because something is officially a secret doesn't guarantee your allies and enemies can't work it out for themselves. Americans often seem to forget that.

    16. Re:Link 16 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US military uses parts manufactured domestically, or in CAN/AUS/UK/NZ for the most part.
      The government won't even allow service providers that serve them use Huawei components in their networks. You think they'll put them in F22's?

      Also, food and energy are imported primarily form Canada. China could probably cripple the dollar stores without so much as a warning though...

    17. Re:Link 16 by Swampash · · Score: 1

      Yep it's an apex predator all right. I hear Great White Sharks can't cross the international date line either.

    18. Re:Link 16 by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Yea, because folks on the Intelligence committees shouldn't have clearances.

      Folks who can't get clearances should not be on Intelligence committees. We keep putting the cart before the horse.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    19. Re:Link 16 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      see, people really are this stupid. Some people will let anything come out of their mouths. Thinking before yo speak is optional these days.

    20. Re:Link 16 by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, ramping up industrial production is always an option (not a fast one), but I wouldn't assume military supply chains are free from foreign dependency.

      Maybe the parts on the F22 are made in the US, but what about the robots that make the parts? What about the lubricating oil for the robots? What about the parts that go into the robots? What about the ball bearings in the conveyor belt that carries the parts down the line? What about the parts for the Honda Civic that gets the engineers to work so that they can build the F22 parts?

      An all-out embargo would result in impact to the entire US economy. You'll have everything from shortages of consumer goods to shortages of latex gloves in hospitals. The effects would be widely felt.

  13. Relative speed of technology by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From TFA:

    Efforts to upgrade Raptors with two-way Link 16 or another, more widely compatible datalink so far have been stymied by technical and budgetary problems. In 2008, the Air Force tested a ground station at Langley that was able to receive data from F-22s then pass it back up to other fighters

    All this means to me is that the technology of the data network and the doctrine for using that network is evolving faster than the aircraft themselves.

    The F-22's design is over 20 years old. Think about what data networks looked like 20 years ago compared to today. Considering that the F-22 is an air superiority fighter and the current war is against an enemy who has no air force, I can see how the F-22 might not be at the top of the priority list for a comms refit.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:Relative speed of technology by SJHillman · · Score: 0

      The space shuttles were first launched starting in 1982, but I'm pretty sure they upgraded the internal hardware every now and then, especially the computers and communications. I see no reason why the F-22's wouldn't have undergone more frequent refits, especially given the budget difference between NASA and the DoD. We haven't really needed them in war, so it's no problem to rotate them out every couple years to upgrade.

    2. Re:Relative speed of technology by Bazzargh · · Score: 1

      The F-22's design is over 20 years old. Think about what data networks looked like 20 years ago compared to today.

      Ah, so all the Tornado needs to do is watch the skies for a trailing Cat 5 cable, plug it into an ethernet port, and they're good to go!

    3. Re:Relative speed of technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or RFC 1149 () to the rescue. Just picture it.

    4. Re:Relative speed of technology by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The F-22's design is over 20 years old.

      Which means a lot... and it means nothing. Sure the prototype first flew over twenty years ago - but that doesn't mean that everything in their aircraft has remained fixed and unchanging since then. Designs are updated and installed equipment upgraded and replaced routinely.
       
      I served on a submarine in the mid 80's whose design was from circa 1962 (and which was a direct descendant of a 1958 design that was based on a 1956 design) but the age of the technology onboard varied all over the place... from the 1930's to the 1980's.

    5. Re:Relative speed of technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they're looking to what they expect conflicts over the next several decades will look like when designing these weapons systems. And the Chinese have the third largest air force in the World.

  14. Re:Ironic by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

    "So by the time America came in - ‘cause you were watching a U.S. cavalry film, ‘cause the U.S. cavalry always comes in right just towards the end of the film - ( sings charge melody ) "Ok, let's go America!" ( charge melody ) "I love the smell of Europe in the morning! So, how're you doing?", we were going, "Fucking ‘ell, where've you been?" "Ah, having breakfast. So, what's going on, hey?'" - Eddie Izzard (Dress to Kill)

  15. Re:Ironic by pegdhcp · · Score: 2

    Surely they could solve this using a verbal code.

    I guess "secure" means more than "secret" in the context of TFA. As it is mentioned that regular radio can be triangulated, hence I am assuming that "secure radio" should be protected from that. Which might mean serious frequency hopping and probably bouncing signal from big birds flying above etc...

  16. In one word: by KublaCant · · Score: 1

    Woosh

  17. Nothing new; ammo incompatabilites pre-date by dltaylor · · Score: 1

    When the US gov't gifted Chrysler with the M1 "designed for the European theater" contract to a facilitate THAT bailout, it used a 105 mm main gun, while the "NATO Standard" was 120 mm, which the Abrams later adopted. Really silly to have to carry a completely different set of ammunition: "We've got 10,000 rounds of main battle tank main gun ammo, Sir, but none of it fits the tanks that happen to be near our ammo carrier, so should we just throw the rounds at the Russians?".

    I just hope the Saudi crews perform as well in the Leopard II as the Iraqis did in the T72, in case we ever have to suppress yet another US-backed potentate gone rogue.

    1. Re:Nothing new; ammo incompatabilites pre-date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When the US gov't gifted Chrysler...."

      I wouldn't characterize it as a gift exactly. When conventional odds 'on the street' were that Chrysler was gonna go tits up, I read three things in one issue of the Wall Street Journal which told me it was a certainty that the US wasn't going to let Chrysler die (in no particular order):

            Chrysler had called in Lee Ioccoca.
            Congress had approved funding for an initial 491 main battle tanks.
            There were three machine shops in the world that could machine the turret ring for the Abrams - one each in Canada and US, and one in Soviet Union. The US shop was owned by a Chrysler subsidiary.

            In essence it was a no-brainer if the US wanted the new tank.

      [posting AC to preserve mods]

    2. Re:Nothing new; ammo incompatabilites pre-date by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The Saudis would be slaughtered from the air. Abrams are nice, but they are hot (turbine engine) and have few places to hide in KSA.

      After the Saudi Air Force was destroyed in their HAS and had their runways cratered, Warthogs etc would be free to roam and kill armor.

      Older block F-16A/Bs were accurate enough to kill Iraqi tanks with dumb Mark 84s in Desert Storm. (No need for a direct hit to do the job.)

      Now we have MUCH better surveillance and spotting capabilities, UAS of course included. Americans are thoroughly familiar with KSA because many generations have deployed and done contract work throughout the Kingdom.

      The US has difficulties fighting unconventional wars because those are illegal to win since Nuremburg, but killing modern forces is entirely different.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:Nothing new; ammo incompatabilites pre-date by dltaylor · · Score: 1

      Rather than keeping Chrysler afloat for that, we could have built our own Leopard IIs, which, for that theater, are at least as good, if not better, and cheaper, allowing either wider deployment of the tanks, or using the difference to fund other projects. It was the decision to buy the M1 in the first place, without competitive analysis or competition, that was the gift.

    4. Re:Nothing new; ammo incompatabilites pre-date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We tried to do a cooperative tank project with West Germany; remember the MBT-70? It was that project's spectacular failure that led to the XM1 in the first place.

  18. Ssh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's easy. You just get a box at home, set up ssh to port forward everything, and just route all your traffic through that box.

    What was the question again?

  19. Re:Ironic by MountainMan101 · · Score: 4, Funny

    You clearly failed to triangulate the humour as it flew over.

  20. Re:Ironic by hlavac · · Score: 1

    Probably extreme high frequency narrow beam to satellite.

  21. Doesn't fit the intended role by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A good question is how much radar data from passive only F22 is to a typhoon that has its active radar powered up. F22 essentially cannot fire up its radar and stay stealthy for obvious reasons, so its passive radar only. The major part of data link is sharing targeting data. F22 is designed to feed off allied aircraft's search and fire control radar data for both target acquisition and weapon guidance.

    Not having proper communications link is a bitch, that's certain. But F22 is just not designed to be fighting alongside aircraft it needs to talk to in the first place. It's the silent hunter that doesn't really see anything on its own, and just listens to what allied aircraft tells it via datalink or what it can scrounge up from passive sensor data, and then performs interception based on that data. It apparently can also occasionally fire up its own fire control radar in short pulses to minimize risk of detection, but it's simply not intended to be an actively radiating aircraft.

    The stupidity here is that it has no standard NATO datalink for cases where it has to perform other roles. It's one of the reasons why F22 hasn't seen any combat to date. There are no pure air superiority missions in the modern world for US airforce, and F22 is pretty incapable of doing anything properly else because of the way it was designed. Lack of common data link is just one of the design choices that hurts that aircraft really badly when it comes to doing anything else.

    1. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The F-22 has a phased array, spread spectrum "Low Probability Intercept" radar system. It can lock multiple targets, share those targets with other Raptors, and the targets Threat Warning Systems of those targets never even know they are locked up.

      Stealthy airframe, stealthy target acquisition. You don't even know you are under attack until your IRST starts screaming about incoming missiles, which were launched with a 99% pk (probability of kill), or you just blow up because it was fired from a tail chase.

    2. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      "Not a pound for the ground" worked very well for the F-15. If the F-22 is needed for air superiority those choices will be proven well made.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    3. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it will be more like the F14, which was built exclusively for air-to-air, never adapted for anything else (unlike the F15E), and as a result saw virtually no action throughout its entire service life.

    4. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I don't think you know how RADAR works. To get a "lock on" you need radio illlumination. To illuminate, someone, you or someone else needs to radiate energy towards the target. That is what fire control radar does - it fires a thin, concentrated beam of energy at the target in a certain pattern, and tracks the reflections. That is something that F22 cannot use when stealthed. Unless someone else illuminates the target for it, in which case it will need exact data on how illumination was done, or unless target itself radiates energy in which case it can use anti-radiation systems to get a passive lock.

    5. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      That is how radar works, but the weapons that the F-22 carries are not dependent upon illumination from their source aircraft, because they have active homing devices and can direct themselves to destroy incoming aircraft without pilot intervention. The F-22 only needs to use the passive radar array to utilize the radiation being emitted from other radar sites to determine range, altitude, and bearing, then fire the missile, which handles the intercept and terminal homing on its own.

    6. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      While the F-14's original intended role was fleet air defense and air superiority, it was adapted in the 90s to carry the LANTIRN pod, which allowed it to perform the ground attack role. So, maybe research before making asinine comments?

    7. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Officially F-22 is designed to be used with AIM-120 AMRAAM which is not capable of what you're describing in any of its current or known planned variants. I assume you have some sort of classified information available, as most missiles known to be used in US Air Force today require data from aircraft they're being fired from for both initial and mid life course updates. Their own radar is typically very short range terminal stage one, designed for terminal guidance purposes.

      Dare I ask for a source?

    8. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      I don't work on the F-22, or for the Air Force, whatsoever, but I can read Wikipedia...

      "The AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM (pronounced "am-ram"), is a modern beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) capable of all-weather day-and-night operations. Designed with the same form-and-fit factors as the previous generation of semiactive guided Sparrow missiles, it is a fire-and-forget missile with active guidance." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM

    9. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the old way radars work. New ones spread the spectrum and changes frequencies every milisecond, making it almost impossible to even tell that you're locked. The power output is insanely low. Most radars are rated in megawatts, the new one are in the 50-60watt range.

      The F22 also has the ability to focus it's communications channel to other planes, so the EM can't be detected, and allow multiple jets to work as one giant radar, letting the F22 to lock onto targets even without using it's radar in active mode.

      The same way we can use multiple radio dishes around the world to create a single virtual large dish to see into space, the F22 can composite radar together in real time. An F22 can use the radar from multiple F15s/F22s/etc over a hundred miles behind it, to feed it's system and lock a target.

    10. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You should keep on reading till the end then. Wikipedia is knowledgeable enough to tell you exactly what I told you in above post about the actual firing mode. "Fire and forget" means that pilots doesn't have to think about guiding the missile. It doesn't mean that plane's system has the same luxury. In fact, the best known counter action to AIM-120 long range launch is to lock your own fire control radar on the enemy and open fire. This will likely force enemy fighter to flee, and AIM-120 will self destruct without mid life update.

    11. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean wiki? Welcome to the Internet.

    12. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Ironically, the F-15 turned out to be a damn fine fighter-bomber. Good enough, for instance, for a dedicated ground-attack variant.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    13. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      No offence, but pulse form of radars is not "new". It's what came with early PESAs. That was in 70s, 40 years ago.

      Regardless, you're still talking about search radars anyway. Fire control radar needs to have power to burn through jamming. You're not going to do that with a 60 watt radar against military grade multi-spectrum jammer. Modern ships use radars that are rated in megawatts for this, aircraft usually push into tens of kilowatts range.

      It is certainly true that most search radars can operate in low power mode to reduce visibility. It is completely and utterly unfeasible for that kind of power to do anything to a modern jammer. And it is even more unfeasible to expect a fire control radar to get any kind of result with those power ratings.

    14. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Thing is, wikipedia at the very least 100% confirms my take on it. Hence, either GP has a much better source, or he's talking about things he just doesn't understand.

    15. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      All true, but the AIM-120 does have its own radar for terminal guidance (which I think is something like 10-12 miles). So, if you fire at close to that range the aircraft fire control radar does not need to be on for long. If the AIM-120 were updated with a "low probability of intercept" radar receiver like the F22 then it might not even need that (assuming that mode could support fire control).

      If the missile is really fired with 99% PK (assuming it can even get that high), then it probably will be at that kind of range anyway. If you fire an AIM 120 at max range then the easiest defense for the enemy aircraft is to just turn around and run - the max range assumes that the enemy aircraft will continue to close. The only way to be sure an AIM-120 will hit is to fire at much closer range, and at that kind of range it will probably be active almost from the start.

      Oh, and if the enemy aircraft is jamming then I believe an AIM 120 doesn't need fire control radar at all - it can just home-on-jam until it gets to active seeker range. I'm not sure if it can home on radar in a similar way.

    16. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I suspect (but do not know for sure) that the F22 isn't using interferometry so much as passive radar and/or data sharing.

      Interferometry would require a LOT of data sharing (you need to compare the raw receiver signals). Passive radar just requires each aircraft to know what the others are transmitting (a pre-shared algorithm and a shared key (maybe pre-shared, but easily shared dynamically)). Data sharing just requires aircraft to transmit coordinates.

      The bit you mentioned where radio dishes are linked to simulate one the size of the earth requires interferometry. It gives somewhat more sensitivity, but more importantly higher resolution. You need to record all the radio signals (I believe they have to be sampled at full frequency - not demodulated first), and a time reference. For radio astronomy that means sampling rates of a few hundred MHz, but I suspect that is WAY too low for radar. Radar would require sampling at multiple GHz frequencies - assuming anything can actually sample at that rate the data volumes would be huge. An aircraft would have to receive multiple sources at this rate and process it in realtime - not a trivial undertaking. I'm not sure it would even buy you much for an aircraft - their radar are very high resolution already, and if you want to defeat stealth you're probably better off processing the singals individually.

      But, I have no special knowledge here - certainly would be interested in feedback from anybody who has applied interferometry to radar. It is far easier when you're combining signals from physically linked receivers - then you don't need to digitize anything until it has already been mixed and don't need to store anything.

    17. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, in an ideal world we'd build warplanes with the intent to NOT use them. In the US we seem to like dropping bombs by the bushel so economy in that role has become important.

      The original purpose of aircraft like the F14 and F22 was against an air-capable enemy. Fortunately that is a war we haven't had to fight in a long time. Building F22s and not using them is a lot cheaper than fighting wars all over the place like we are now, so I wouldn't really call the F22 the best example of military waste.

    18. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by EdZ · · Score: 1

      Officially F-22 is designed to be used with AIM-120 AMRAAM which is not capable of what you're describing in any of its current or known planned variants.

      Incorrect. The AMRAAM uses active terminal guidance, NOT SARH. Depending on flight profile, you feed it the current estimated target position and range (either from onboard passive or downlink from elsewhere), and fire it off. You can apply midcourse correction if you want/need. The missile will then activate it's own active radar emitter for terminal guidance.

    19. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You're not aware of basic facts now.

      1. AIM-120 has a very well known weakness in short range launches. To be specific, it's utterly terrible at them, to the point where there is a clear gap between AIM-9 and AIM-120 where neither missile is effective. This gaps wasn't considered a major issue until Luftwaffe got their hands on MiG-29s and their R-73s and R-77s (Russian equivalents of AIM-9 and AIM-120 respectively) and basically pissed their pants at just how terrible their missiles were in comparison. Brits ended up rushing their ASRAAM project to fill the gap and US has been on/off wavering between buying those and upgrading AIM-9 to fill the gap. AIM-120 appears to be basically unfixable at short ranges for some reason as it hasn't even been suggested as the missile to upgrade to fix the gap.

      If I remember correctly the problem was claimed to be either rocket motor that doesn't have sufficient thrust to weight ratio to give missile necessary air speed and maneuverability for window immediately after launch (and has the same problem in the end of the long range launches in terminal phase maneuvering), or the control fins bleeding far too much speed at high angles of attack needed to maneuvre the missile or both factors working together. Both of these are however conjectures rather then facts, as both thrust and turn rates should still be classified as far as I know. It is however known that AMRAAM has not performed terribly well in launches that don't fit its stated "medium range" window, i.e. close range or long range launches.

      2. Easiest defence against any radar guided missile is always to run, however that also means that you cannot do anything in the theatre. That is why long range radar launches are essentially a game of chicken - who will turn around and run first, abandoning his launches missile(s) to be useless.

      3. Finally AIM-120 has no anti-radiation tracker to lock onto enemy radar. It has a small terminal stage close range radar sitting in the nose cone on a servo, that has to be cheap, expendable and be able to run off battery power (and by extension, pretty crappy).

    20. Re:Doesn't fit the intended role by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That wasn't what I claimed. I was answering the claim that missile has a controllable lock on after launch functionality. It does not in strictest sense. Launching it without actively designating trajectory to the target means it will lock on to anything it first sees and chases it, regardless of IFF. Not really optimal. You can't actually feed it a target manually without specifying target before launch. It's either "whatever you see first after launch" or "fly to the area of this target I'm locked on and await mid life update/fire up active radar in the area and do your thing". You cannot mix and match, at least not in any of the known production versions, unless you have classified data at your disposal stating otherwise.

      It obviously has a lock on after launch for medium and long range in technical sense however, as just like any other missile with radar range much shorter then flight range it will rely on inertial guidance to fly into stated engagement zone before requesting mid life update from host aircraft or firing up its radar in attempt to locate the target. And it obviously can be guided during the inertial stage with various mid life trajectory updates.

  22. Solution by jlebrech · · Score: 1

    Why not drop little sub transmitters with parachutes to translate the signals from secure to non-secure channel.

    1. Re:Solution by berashith · · Score: 1

      because those would land somewhere where someone who is very interested in understanding how they work could pick them up.

  23. Please stop. by mumblestheclown · · Score: 2

    The "writ large" subtext of the headline is that "somebody or somebodies in defense procurement is an idiot."

    Not so fast there.

    1. there are coordination costs and possibly size/weight penalties associated with installation of additional equipment.
    2. the act of installing additional equipment and sharing the necessary protocols is itself a security weak spot.
    3. it is hard to imagine where the two aircraft would be operating together and need direct ship to ship communications...
    4. especially as they always have the ability to communicte indirectly via AWACS, etc.
    5. and if they were in the air together, it is highly unlikely that whatever they'd transmit would be anything except other than a short time period thing that would be useless and impossible for an enemy to make use of (such as coordination information during an air-to-air engagement)

    so let's be clear, smitty - what you are basically arguing is for FURTHER gilding the defense lilly and spending what will ultimately amount fo at least one human life's worth of effort to engineer this potential security hole for some highly unlikely engagement.

    sorry, but no.

    1. Re:Please stop. by EdZ · · Score: 1

      3. it is hard to imagine where the two aircraft would be operating together and need direct ship to ship communications... 4. especially as they always have the ability to communicte indirectly via AWACS, etc.

      Whoops, somebody whacked your local AWACS with K-100 or R-37. Now nobody can talk to each other!

  24. Triangulation by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    That is, unless they want to talk via old-fashioned radio, which can be intercepted and triangulated and could betray the planes’ locations.

    This sounds as though the encryption is capable of evading triangulation. Don't know how they want to do that...

    1. Re:Triangulation by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Encryption can make the signal look like normal background noise. You can bounce things of a sat with a tight upwards beam. You can compress it down and frequency hop all over he place. Hell you can do all of the above at the same time. But the signal that you cant tell is a signal and/or cant find quickly enough can not be triangulated in near real time.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    2. Re:Triangulation by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      You can't frequency hop very far, though. If you do, you'll run out of the passband of your aerial and the efficiency will suck. If you use a suitably wide front-end on your receiver then you can tell that *something* is there, well enough to triangulate it.

    3. Re:Triangulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think there is only one aerial?

    4. Re:Triangulation by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      What about ultra wide band (UWB)? I don't know if it's usable at the distances involved in fighter engagements, but from what I understand it is essentially undetectable unless you know the carrier pattern. It might look a bit like a black body radiator, is all.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    5. Re:Triangulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The poster doesn't know what she's/he's talking about. Radar receivers are directional(mechanically or electrically scanned) so no triangulation is needed.

    6. Re:Triangulation by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      It's going to be very short range, or *ridiculously* high power. If you go for the latter, then all you need to do is look for the thing emitting collossal blasts of RF pink noise every so often.

  25. why stealth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the F22 is a top of the line fighter, why would it need stealth?

    1. Re:why stealth by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      For the same reason that the world MMA champion doesn't go around picking fights with enraged crocodiles: being the best of your species doesn't mean you're invincible. In this case, you want to avoid surface to air missiles.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:why stealth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's one of the things that make it a top of the line fighter,
      being able to sneak up on victim and kill it before it even realized you are there.
      Just look at nature and you will see that all/most of the top-players(tiger, crocodiles.....) uses to some degree stealth. It lower risk and saves energy.
      even when man hunts other animals we uses stealth.

    3. Re:why stealth by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      the world MMA champion doesn't go around picking fights with enraged crocodiles

      Although I have to say, I'd pay good money to watch a match like that.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:why stealth by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'd be up for a No-Holds-Barred Man's Hubris Wrestling Championship. Especially the tag team rounds. Can a polar bear and a brown bear set aside their infamous salmon grudge to take down The Undertaker?!

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  26. Also, the pilots shouldn't use Foursquare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd think it was obvious, but there's more than one soldier been caught with a smartphone running a location app.

  27. They're all idiots by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2

    the American and British pilots are reduced to one-way communication, from the Brits to the Yanks.

    That's okay; if the grammar and vocabularly of today's 20 and 30 year old Americans are any indication, our boys need to just shut the fuck up and listen. :p

    It's become clear to me from what I see on various internet forums, including Slashdot, that almost nobody under the age of 30 in any English speaking nation has an education worth having. So I wouldn't hold my breath that the Brits would be any better than Americans.

    1. Re:They're all idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps you should go outside and interact with other humans. Not a great idea to form your opinions based on forum posts. Oh, and you are a moron.

    2. Re:They're all idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, drone video is routinely sent in the clear ... morans all of them

    3. Re:They're all idiots by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      What's a moran?

    4. Re:They're all idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe "MORAN, an acronym for Multi-Operator Radio Access Network"?

      Or they all coincidentally have a surname that hails from the west of Ireland.

    5. Re:They're all idiots by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      So I wouldn't hold my breath that the Brits would be any better than Americans.

      Could you re-write this in English please.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    6. Re:They're all idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:They're all idiots by goltzc · · Score: 2

      It's kinda like a maroon.

      --
      Our bugs are smarter than your test scripts.
    8. Re:They're all idiots by gtall · · Score: 1

      Is that you, Bugs?

    9. Re:They're all idiots by bobamu · · Score: 1

      So I wouldn't hold my breath that the Brits would be any better than Americans, my good sir!
      Close enough?

    10. Re:They're all idiots by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      What does "I wouldn't hold my breath that" mean? How do you parse it?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    11. Re:They're all idiots by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      What does "I wouldn't hold my breath that" mean?

      It's a widespread idiom in American English. "I wouldn't hold my breath that X" means "I do not expect that X will occur soon" or "I do not believe that X has a high probability of occurring at all".

      I assume it originates from the common act of a child throwing an tantrum, threatening to hold their breath until they pass out. "I want a cookie!" "You're not getting one, and if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for one."

      HTH.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    12. Re:They're all idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes you just wish there was a Bugs Bunny mod. Not often, but sometimes.

  28. Easy solution by bazorg · · Score: 1

    RAF and USAF pilots just need to use cockney rhyming slang. enemies will die laughing and the war ends quickly.

    1. Re:Easy solution by ledow · · Score: 1

      Because "I have a bogey on my tail" is any less obscure. Personally, I'd be checking my Aristotle if someone said that.

      Signed,

      A Genuine Cockney.

    2. Re:Easy solution by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      I you want them to die laughing, just read them "The Joke."

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    3. Re:Easy solution by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Genuine Cockney,

      I even watched a YouTube video on Cockney. I still can't figure slang out unless I have heard it before and had it explained.

      (I'd be checking ... my beer bottle? my throttle? hmmm)

      Signed,
      A Genuine American.

    4. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aristotle. bottle. bottle. bottle and glass. glass. guess the last one

  29. Miscellanous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Link-16 US (NATO) airborne crypto-comms system was rather late to the fighter jet scene. Both the soviets, with their encrypted analogue symbol based ground-controlled interception infrastructure and the swedes with their amazingly advanced digital "Stril" systems preceded it. (What their Gripen has with the TIDLS comms system nowadays versus Link-16 is like a trekkie holodeck compared to TV at the Berlin Summer Olympics.)

    The problem is, stealth aircraft can only talk to each other via directional beams (radio with a narrow cone of emission and well-supressed sidelobes or laser, if there is line of sight). Laser is dependent on the weather and there is no such thing as a perfectly supressed sidelobe. The communist czechs had their Tesla factory, which manufactured tape decks and a passive radar called Tamara, which specialized in collecting minuscule seeping radio emissons. After the soviet block fell, Uncle Sam purchased the Tesla company and promptly sent it to the grinders wholseale. Yet, the tech behind Tamara is know to the russians and the chinese and they have derivate systems.

    What remains for the stealth aircraft is to communicate via encrypted directed radio beams with well-supressed sidelobes and hope that transmitting according to LPI (Low Probability of Intercept) algorythms will prevent the enemy not just from eavesdropping, but also from realizing that any transmission is going on. That beliefe better be true, as there are huge computing and advanced RF electronic requirements, as well as costs behind LPI, which principle is also used in radar emissions, especially with the new beam-steared AESA active radars.

    Currently more and more air forces are trying to solve plane-to-plane comms via satellites, so the transmitting parties RF emmission beam points upwards and is more difficult to notice for the enemy. The drawback is the time skip if the sats are geo-stationary. if the sats fly low, they can become single point of failure as the enemy downs them with missiles. Anyhow, the cost of airborne satcom is very high, but e.g. the zionist entity pays for it using american pockets, so it is not a problem for them...

  30. Fine by me. by ledow · · Score: 0

    "the American and British pilots are reduced to one-way communication, from the Brits to the Yanks."

    Well, at least then we can claim ignorance. "Bomb that hospital over there", "wipe out that rocket launcher that's really a new reporters", etc. can be greeted with "Sorry, can't hear you. By the way, would you like to sign the Geneva Convention yet?"

    Reminds me of Blackadder in the trenches trying to avoid the order to go "over the top":

    "I said, there's a terrible line at my end. You are to advance on the enemy at once."

    "Well, as far as I can tell, the message was, "he's got a terrible lion up his end, so there's an advantage to an enema at once."

    1. Re:Fine by me. by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      "It is a telegram, it is ordering an advance, but it's addressed to a 'Catpain Blackudder'."

      --
      FGD 135
  31. Re:Ironic by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    Indeed :)

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  32. pffft by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Another example of monumental stupidity! I mean, really, a monument should be dedicated to this one ....

    1. Re:pffft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. Seriously, read the comments here to get an education on what is and what is not stupidity, as well as WHY this aircraft doesn't talk to anyone else. Then, and only then, can you comment again.

  33. Re:Ironic by dave420 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He was probably referring to public key cryptography, which was indeed invented in Britain first. Due to the official secrets act, it was not revealed until after some clever people in the US figured it out, too. Interesting anecdote: The Brit who came up with it figured out all the mathematics involved in his head without writing anything down, as he did it at home, where his job forbade him from writing anything work-related down.

  34. It's not really an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't talk much without oxygen anyway.

  35. Can you hear me now? by rjejr · · Score: 2

    Maybe they can get all the pilots Verizon iPhones? Just don't let then use the Map app.

  36. An easy problem to solve... by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Just give me $350 Billion dollars --- said greedy defense contractor.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  37. It's a feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's actually a feature. It saves the Britons from having to put up with what the Americans do to their language.

  38. Re:Ironic by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

    Since when does encryption prevent radio signals from being triangulated? (Hint: it doesn't).

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  39. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The technique used is almost certainly a form of spread-spectrum transmission, making its interception by an ordinary receiver unable to listen in or conventional triangulation useless.

  40. Re:Ironic by garyebickford · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You just triggered a thought. It is possible to build an emitter (transmitter + antenna) that simulates a completely different emitter, including a diffuse one. This is done by working backwards from the far field equations. This was originally done (AFAIK) to develop a sonic equivalent of a laser that worked underwater - the scientists worked backwards from the far field equation for a coherent sonic beam, and successfully came up with and built a sonic emitter that resulted in the desired coherent beam. Another recent related example of working the equations are the successful experiments in 'invisibility cloaks'. So by determining what the far field of a diffuse emission would be, it should be possible to build a radio transmitting system that was essentially invisible in the sense of determining where it came from, at least from a significant distance.

    In fact, a similar methodology might be effective in countering the latest threat to stealth - reading the disturbances in the milieu of the many terrestrial radio sources such as cell towers and power lines. As early as the Kosovo war, experimenters successfully located stealth planes by measuring the distortions in the field that is generated by the cell tower network. This is somewhat like seeing the distortions of ocean waves caused by islands or other fixed objects. So, by continuously monitoring those fields, a stealth plane could compute the necessary interference to make its own distortions of the fields disappear.

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  41. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually most of the stuff that makes up PKI (Public Key Infrastructure) was invented at Bletchly Park (UK) during the war. Obviously Encryption has a very long history but the encryption used in the F22 is probably loosely based on a Secure PBX designed by Alan Turing.

    Turing and others did amazing work done at Bletchley Park during the 1940s, but the invention of public key cryptography (invented in the 1970s, mostly down to the RSA authors) was not among this work.
    --Freddie Widgeon

  42. Back to the future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to bring in the WW2 Navajo code talkers... Nothing like using a language that no one else can understand! :-)

  43. We should re-name the Jet to the "Naruto Fighter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HEY! Imma Ninja!

    Maybe paint it bright Orange and put a few dozen loud airhorns on it!

    Maybe paint across the wings "Hey! Imma a Stealth fighter!" in black bordered red letters as well...

    HEY Imma Ninja!

  44. Vector Potential communciations by ka9dgx · · Score: 1

    You have to use vector potential communications if you want to be able to transmit from a stealth fighters / bombers without the use of a conventional radio signal.

    There are more variables in electromagnetism than you learned about in Maxwell's equations. They were edited out by Heaviside because they don't normally have any measurable effect in real world experiments. They only show up in things like a SQUID (Superconducting QUantum Interference Device) used to detect faint magnetic fields. (The SQUID actually detects the A field, which the B field is the curl of).

    Because the knowledge of these additional values (there were 20 original equations, all in quaternion notation) has pretty much been lost, we're missing out on a lot of cool tech. It's my hope that we pick these things back up as this becomes more widely known.

    You can transmit a signal that no normal radio will pick up. It needs an actively powered plasma antenna to be received.

  45. Stryker by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

    My favorite High Cost Military Equipment With Low Cost Achilles heel story is about the Stryker armored vehicle. The Pentagon spends ~$200,000 to put the M151 remote machine gun mount on the Stryker APC to avoid a crewman being exposed to enemy fire while operating the .50 cal machine gun. But if that solider runs out of the standard load of 200 rounds of ammo they have climb outside vehicle and expose themselves to enemy fire to reload the weapon.

  46. Say what???? by ai4px · · Score: 1
    FTFS: talk via old-fashioned radio, which can be intercepted and triangulated and could betray the planes’ locations

    Are you kidding me? Are we to believe that encrypted radio transmissions can't be triangulated? Give me a break.

    1. Re:Say what???? by dragon-file · · Score: 1

      Um yea.... The Jets most likely use Omni directional broadcasting... all a ground team has to do is use a directional receiver... one that has to be pointed a single to hear it.... and then you know where they are. You dont have to be able to understand the communications carried on a signal in order to find it.

      --
      Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
  47. And it does reveal the aircraft by caveat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The point of the whole secure-comms thing as I understand it is to have one 22 staying well out of range of the hostiles with its targeting radar active (which totally screams HI GUYS HERE I AM LOOK AT ME YAAAAAAAAAAH!), feeding the info unidirectionally to a few more Raptors that are much closer and have all their radio and radar emitters quiet; they receive the data, feed it to their tracking and targeting systems, and fire all without (theoretically) compromising their stealthiness - the bad guys see one fighter 150 miles away and think "ha ha dumbass is lighting us up from out there!" and next thing they know six AMRAAMS appear out of thin air 20 miles away.

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
    1. Re:And it does reveal the aircraft by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      While we don't know the exact specs for obvious reasons, it would take quite a state of art radar to provide accurate fire control data at 200km+. As of typing this, F-22's radar has stated detection range of 100-200km (search radar). Active fire control radar is typically far more limited in range as it has to fire a tight beam and collect far more accurate data. About the only fighter aircraft in existence that can pull off a maneuvre you're describing and is not a dedicated AWACS aircraft with huge radar antenna is MiG-31, which is specifically designed for this task and isn't really a fighter - it's more like an AWACS married to a plane that can launch missiles.

      A far more likely scenario is for planes to fire up radars in short bursts one by one to provide mid life updates to one another to confuse the enemy a bit like P-700 missile swarms do, but with interlinked planes taking turns with quick "fire-ups". However this will most likely happen in "danger zone" where enemy can engage as well due to range issues.

    2. Re:And it does reveal the aircraft by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That is not the way how a targeting radar works.
      You don't need to feed anything into your targeting system. However the attacking crafts would need to negotiate who is attacking which target (with which weapon).

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:And it does reveal the aircraft by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Knowing where the enemy is even without having fire control is a considerable advantage. If you know where the enemy is you can position all your aircraft for a shot at a range where the missiles are unevadable, and then light up all your radars at once. Once the missiles are on their own guidance the aircraft can shut down their radar again.

      You could also attack with IR without ever turning you your radar. I don't know if you can fire an AAMRAM at medium range without turning on your radar at all (though if the missiles are still on the plane I doubt it makes much difference which radar is emitting).

    4. Re:And it does reveal the aircraft by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      While correct, going to range where missiles are "unevadeable" is not terribly smart unless you're flying a night mission, as that is in LoS range. Regardless, if you're that close, you may as well go full passive and use IR chaser tracking like AIM-9. That is the second air to air missile in F-22's arsenal and it typically carries several for close combat.

      That said modern air to air doctrine dictates that you do not want to go into close range combat as main advantage of high tech aircraft is their superior guidance systems and ability to avoid enemy missiles through superior jamming ability. Both of which require range. Take a look at Libyan conflict which pretty much established the "every group of fighter/attack planes should have one electronic warfare aircraft escorting it". The role of that aircraft is almost exclusively to jam enemy fire control radars.

      Finally, as far as we know, AIM-120 does not have lock on after launch functionality - it needs to have a preprogrammed flight course to target for long range flight and lock on is apparently (as far as we know) required to generate one. It's likely that LOAL functionality could be incorporated, as missile is essentially lock on after launch de facto for long range launches, as it's guided by aircraft for it's long range run to target and only becomes self tracked when in range of its own small terminal range radar.

      Notably this is yet another reason why F-22 is so utterly without a task to perform in modern world. Vast majority of very old and cheap multirole aircraft such as F-16, Mirage-2000 and Tornado are perfectly functional because of the electronic warfare escorts. It's simply easier to just track and jam missiles from that dedicated electronic warfare aircraft and use cheap and reliable older multirole aircraft that are fully functional and can run active sensors to add to group's theatre awareness then use F-22.

  48. US Military Radio Equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The US Military uses the SINGCARS (Single-Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System)/ASIP (Advanced System Improvement Program), a.k.a. the RT-1523 series radio. The radio takes in COMSEC (Communication Security) keys from the AN/CYZ-10 Data Transfer Device or SKL (Simple Key Loader).

    This is the bottom line up front: We don't share our keys with other countries because it will violate OPSEC (Operational Security). The US does not want any other nation to have it's secure key. There are specific keys generated for the use between NATO allied countries...

    This article is a waste of time to read because you can replace 'high tech plane' with any other US equipment and X country and you have the same story.

  49. yanks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    people still use the word yanks? been a while since i've heard that word. just saying

  50. state of military radios. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I work with military radios. Every military has different radios from different mfgers (Harris, Thales, Kongsberg, etc) and even across militaries with the same model of radio, the firmware/waveforms are potentially different because they're not necessarily intended to work together... A radio upgrade takes years and has to be staged and so is scheduled a decade in advance... To say nothing of keys, and so on...

  51. i remember yank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from the song Yankee Doodle Dandy. Mark Twain wrote A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. i couldn't find the post i just made so i make another one. maybe firefox is acting bad

  52. Re:Ironic by dougmc · · Score: 1, Informative

    The technique used is almost certainly a form of spread-spectrum transmission, making its interception by an ordinary receiver unable to listen in or conventional triangulation useless.

    Um, spread spectrum can still be detected and the location of its source triangulated. It does complicate things somewhat when it's hopping from frequency to frequency, but it hardly makes it impossible.

    Ultimately, if a stealth plane wants to remain truly stealthy, it also needs to observe radio silence. There are things they can do to make their transmissions less obvious (including using spread spectrum), but ultimately none of these technique are completely effective.

  53. War with each other? by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the designers of the aircrafts envisioned a time in the future when the aircrafts might be fighting against each other... In which case you certainly would not want the pilots to be able to talk to each other without Command finding out.

    --

    "Piter, too, is dead."

  54. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, there's nobody using this to "triangulate the position" of a supersonic jet. By the time you triangulate where it is and launch, it's already 3 miles away from where you thought it was. And they'd have to keep broadcasting continuously to be able to "fix" their position and their location.

    So what this essentially means is, "once they talk on an unsecured radio, the enemy will know they're there, but still won't be able to do a fucking thing about it."

  55. And why is this an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The genocidal depravities that control the armed forces of the UK and USA only war against helpless victims with primitive military technologies, and then only after even the slightest ability to resist has been bombed to dust, alongside hundreds of thousands of civilians in the vicinity of those defensive systems.

    On the other hand, against the Russians or even the Chinese, the lack of encryption on radio chatter would be the least of the problems faced by the sickening war-criminals of Britain or America.

    The military-industrial complex of the West is free to make vastly over-priced, poorly designed garbage because those that find themselves as targets have only the equivalent of sticks and stones to defend themselves. Take Tony Blair's current murderous wars of North Africa. A handful of Uniformed European goons can easily clear out a town or city (while neatly sowing the seeds for a much wider and bloodier 'civil war' - the real intent).

    If a target nation has DARED to invest in a decent air-defense system from Russia (the best in the world), and uses it to shoot down US or NATO planes, its cities will immediately suffer massive missile attacks. In the case of Iran, these missiles will be nuclear. It is no co-incidence that the worst war-crimes of WW2 were NOT the death camps, but the deliberate destruction of entire cities, including their civilian populations, by the British and Americans. Even Genghis Khan and his sons refused to be as murderous as the Allies during WW2.

    Of course, the owners of Slashdot salivate at the prospect of nuclear war in Iran at the behest of Israel, and promote as many war propaganda articles as possible. For them, the racist psychopathic speed-freaks that operate these flying Crimes against Humanity are the greatest heroes. Interesting that at the beginning of the 20th Century, the prospect of death from the air was universally condemned as obscene.

    1. Re:And why is this an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess - you're from Iran?

      I don't have anywhere near the time required to poke holes in your post, so jog on, troll.

  56. Re:Ironic by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

    Urgh. Why did they have to go and screw it up like that with excess computerization?

    What the hell ever happened to good ol' KY-58? It worked, could take a beating, was a NATO standard, and was drop-easy to maintain. It couldn't have taken too much to update its crypto strength... :/

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  57. Re:Ironic by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Yes, they use spread spectrum for a variety of reasons. The frequency hopping is also "secret" and is related the key (word of the day).

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  58. Just do it like WWII by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    Even back then, there were times when radio silence was required. Funny as it sounds, pilots occasionally used hand signals (assuming they were in visual range, of course)

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  59. Re:Ironic by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Spread spectrum and frequency hopping are two different things. You seem to be mixing them up or considering them the same thing.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  60. Re:Ironic by Some+Bitch · · Score: 3, Informative

    public key cryptography (invented in the 1970s, mostly down to the RSA authors) was not among this work.
    --Freddie Widgeon

    It was actually invented over a hundred years earlier than that, and GCHQ developed an RSA equivalent with Diffie-Hellman key exchange several years before RSA was created or before Diffie and Hellman published their work. Occasionally the UK does manage to keep something secret :)

  61. Why not use an indirect link? by rs1n · · Score: 1

    Sorry if this is a dumb question, but if the any two countries are working together, then there must be SOME secure communication link between them, right? Why can't the pilot of one aircraft relay his message home via his home country's secure link, then use the secure link between the two countries to pass it from one country to the other, and then the other country sends the message via their secure link to the other pilot? Sure it's some latency there, but is there some obvious reason I am not seeing why this would not be feasible?

  62. pretty sure encrypted comms can be triangulated by ProfessorChaos111 · · Score: 1

    Encrypted comms still requires a transmission and therefore can be triangulated. It only prevents others from knowing content.

    --
    'Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail'. Emerson
  63. Re:Ironic by Applekid · · Score: 4, Funny

    So this is what happens when trolls collide

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
  64. Star Republic by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    Well even the Romulans had to decloak their warbirds from time to time. Seems the F22 Raptor is no exception.

  65. Why is this even an issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once upon a time, we had switchboards where people physically connected two party lines. Just do the same connect something on our back end to something on their back end. Problem Solved.

  66. Re:Ironic by dywolf · · Score: 1

    KY-58s? we still use them! marine hueys and cobras still got em! the new Zulus and Yankees might have finally updated them, but i havent seen yet.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  67. Re:Ironic by dywolf · · Score: 1

    oh ignorant AC, how you underestimate the computing power of modern electronics.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  68. Re:Ironic by laron · · Score: 2

    The fact that USB sticks, laptops, hard disks and CD-Rs were not yet invented helped here I guess.
    I mean it is pretty hard to lose a filing cabinett in the tube or in a taxi.

    --
    "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
  69. "ANONYMOUS COWARD" = LoL, I like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article is really funny and looks like a talk from World War II technology ... the comments are even funnier ... the problem is that the US gov and worse the US extremist racist society ... look upon other countries as primitives .. stone age people. Nowadays countries outside the NATO have more sophisticated means to triangulate NATO warplanes other than listening to old fashion communications between two warplanes.

    About people bragging what the US did in IRAQ, well Saddam wasn't toppled by the US and the US couldn't invade IRAQ if the IRAQI people didn't help the US to topple Saddam ... but then ask those who fought in IRAQ why did they have to leave it afterwards ?! is it really because the mission had ended ?! .... giggles ^__^

  70. Re:Ironic by SpinyManiac · · Score: 1

    The words "supersonic" and "stealth" are mutually exclusive.

    You can have a plane that can do both, but not at the same time.

    --
    It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
  71. Re:Ironic by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    I'd think that a big limitation here would be the ability to predict the incoming signals before they arise. For just an unmodulated carrier that is easy, but for signals that are heavily modulated that would not be the case.

    When radio waves hit your stealth aircraft they WILL reflect off in various directions. It isn't until they hit the aircraft that you're able to detect and measure them, and any signal you generate to confuse the location of your aircraft must be transmitted after the real reflections have already been created (radio waves travel at the speed of light, and your signal processing gear can operate no more quickly than that).

    For a naive receiver that is only looking at carrier signals and which doesn't pick up on double-reflections it might work. However, I'd think this could be defeated with a design that took this attack into account, or especially if the signal sources were non-civilian in nature (think spread spectrum transmitters whose signals might be hard to even detect in the first place, except for a receiver which knows exactly where to expect them and when).

  72. Re:Ironic by dougmc · · Score: 1

    Spread spectrum and frequency hopping are two different things

    Well, sort of. There's multiple types of spread spectrum, and some involve frequency hopping.

    You can be pedantic about what exactly spread spectrum and frequency hopping mean if you want, but the military (and other users) often use them together, especially when they want something that's difficult to jam and intercept (and they often throw encryption on top of that, of course.)

  73. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tea sucks. Only wimps and faggots drink that shit.

    Try a quadruple sludge cup, although it might kill people as weak as you Brits.