New USAF Jet, strike fighter, whatever they call it, it ain't soundin' good to me.

[Tobra]

This is a bit distressing to me

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/21/pentagon.hacked/index.html

or, alternatively, if you don't care about the photos, read this


From Mike Mount
CNN Senior Pentagon Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Thousands of confidential files on the U.S. military's most technologically advanced fighter aircraft have been compromised by unknown computer hackers over the past two years, according to senior defense officials.


The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's self-diagnostic system was compromised by hackers, officials say.

The Internet intruders were able to gain access to data related to the design and electronics systems of the Joint Strike Fighter through computers of Pentagon contractors in charge of designing and building the aircraft, according to the officials, who did not want to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.

In addition to files relating to the aircraft, hackers gained entry into the Air Force's air traffic control systems, according to the officials. Once they got in, the Internet hackers were able to see such information as the locations of U.S. military aircraft in flight.

The Joint Striker Fighter plane is the military's new F-35 Lightning II. It designed to become the aircraft used by all of the branches of service.

Most of the files broken into focused on the design and performance statistics of the fighter, as well as its electronic systems, officials said. The information could be used to make the plane easier to fight or defend against.

Additionally, the system used by the aircraft to conduct self-diagnostics during flight was compromised by the computer intrusions, according to the officials.

However, the officials insisted that none of the information accessed was highly sensitive data.

The plane uses stealth and other highly sensitive electronic equipment, but it does not appear that information on those systems was compromised, because it is stored on computers that are not connected to the Internet, according to the defense officials.

The Joint Strike Fighter's main contractor is Lockheed Martin Corp., and Northrop Grumman Corp. and BAE Systems PLC are major subcontractors in the plane's production.

Lockheed Martin's chief financial officer denied that there was any breach of classified information, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.

"The U.S. government doesn't talk a whole lot about this, and neither do we. But in response to the [Wall Street Journal] report, we think it's incorrect," said Bruce Tanner of Lockheed Martin. "There's never been any effective attack. We have measures in place, and there's never been a successful attack."

In a statement released later, the company reiterated its position that no classified information had been accessed.

"To our knowledge, there has never been any classified information breach. Like the government, we have attacks on our systems continually and have stringent measures in place to detect and stop attacks," the statement said.

Representatives of BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman would not comment on the story and referred all questions to Lockheed Martin.

Different variations of the Joint Strike Fighter will be produced for the different branches of service it will be used in. Many international partners are helping build the plane, and it will be sold to U.S.-allied countries.

The involvement of multiple nations raises concern about the level of computer security measures the partner countries have, officials said.

Companies contracting with the Department of Defense now have to prove that they are using the proper computer security before a contract can be awarded, Pentagon officials said. That measure was put into place within the past year because of the increase in cyber intrusions, they said.

Asked whether sensitive technology for the Joint Strike Fighter had been jeopardized, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "I am not aware of any specific concerns."

Whitman would not confirm the cyber-security breach on the Joint Strike Fighter program but said the number of attempted attacks on the U.S. military's network has been on the rise.

"We have seen the number of intrusion attempts more than double recently," he said. He would not reveal a timeline.

He said the computer systems of the Department of Defense are scanned thousands of times a day by entities looking for ways inside U.S. military computer networks.

Officials could not say who was behind the computer hacking, which has occurred numerous times since 2007. The intruders were able to cover their tracks, making it look like the virtual break-ins were coming from various parts of the world, according to officials.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the attacks appeared to originate in China, citing "former U.S. officials."

Last month, a Pentagon annual report to Congress about China's military power said China has been making continued progress in developing cyber-warfare techniques.

The report noted that U.S. government computers were the target of "intrusions that appear to have originated" in China, although they were not confirmed to be from the Chinese military.

CNN requested a comment about the accusation from the Chinese Embassy in Washington. An embassy spokesman denied the allegations to the Wall Street Journal.

The Air Force, the main program manager of the Joint Strike Fighter program, has a number of ongoing investigations into the multiple hackings, officials said.

The officials said that a number of safeguards have since been put into place to protect that system.

[slodave]

I read that, then I read an article from Reuters...

Lockheed says F-35 classified data not breached
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE53K0TG20090421

Flip a coin?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

China.

I'd bet anything.

[m21sniper]

Very possibly, though the Russkies would be no shock either.

FFS it wouldn't surprise me if it was the Jews. Israel is forever getting caught spying on us.

[RedBaron]

I dunno... They tend to use the "Honeypot" technique for hiding information. It is more likely that the hackers stole false data and the government is telling the news agencies that to trick them.

[red-beard]

That would require intelligence....

[sammyg2]

You make it sound like you didn't believe it when he said this:

"The U.S. government doesn't talk a whole lot about this, and neither do we. But in response to the [Wall Street Journal] report, we think it's incorrect," said Bruce Tanner of Lockheed Martin. "There's never been any effective attack. We have measures in place, and there's never been a successful attack".

In a statement released later, the company reiterated its position that no classified information had been accessed.

Do you think he was wrong or lying?

[einreb]

T-38 FTW?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/04/video-youtube-clip-purports-f-.html

[UPDATE: The successful T-38 kill occurred within the last three months at Holloman AFB, NM, says Lt Col Lloyd Addison, chief of the USAF's T-38 sustainment office.

That means the aircraft is from the same black-painted T-38 unit that escorted F-117s before they were retired. Now, the Holloman T-38's provide proficiency training for F-22 pilots, among other tasks. It seems likely that an experienced F-22 pilot was in the cockpit of the T-38.]

The facts are a bit sketchy here. This clip was posted to YouTube on 18 April by an anonymous user named "d43e49". The video identifies the attacking aircraft as a T-38, but it's not confirmed by anything shown within the clip. At the 35-sec mark, the F-22's shape is clearly visible as it emerges above the target sight after the kill.

As far as I know, this is the first video clip of a simulated F-22 shootdown to reach the public domain. That is newsworthy by itself. Let's also be very clear: a single simulated kill without context says nothing meaningful about the F-22's dogfighting or aerial prowess. Even an EA-18G can apparently get lucky once.

If a T-38 was really involved, then congratulations to the pilot. Your are either absurdly lucky or insanely skilled.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Do you think he was wrong or lying?

Lying most likely.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by einreb

T-38 FTW?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/04/video-youtube-clip-purports-f-.html

[UPDATE: The successful T-38 kill occurred within the last three months at Holloman AFB, NM, says Lt Col Lloyd Addison, chief of the USAF's T-38 sustainment office.

That means the aircraft is from the same black-painted T-38 unit that escorted F-117s before they were retired. Now, the Holloman T-38's provide proficiency training for F-22 pilots, among other tasks. It seems likely that an experienced F-22 pilot was in the cockpit of the T-38.]

The facts are a bit sketchy here. This clip was posted to YouTube on 18 April by an anonymous user named "d43e49". The video identifies the attacking aircraft as a T-38, but it's not confirmed by anything shown within the clip. At the 35-sec mark, the F-22's shape is clearly visible as it emerges above the target sight after the kill.

As far as I know, this is the first video clip of a simulated F-22 shootdown to reach the public domain. That is newsworthy by itself. Let's also be very clear: a single simulated kill without context says nothing meaningful about the F-22's dogfighting or aerial prowess. Even an EA-18G can apparently get lucky once.

If a T-38 was really involved, then congratulations to the pilot. Your are either absurdly lucky or insanely skilled.

F-22s have been downed in ACM manuevers before. Once you get into gun range or inside the AIM-9X WEZ the F-22 loses all it's stealth advantages- that's why it also has super manueverablility, something the F-35 lacks.

Many times in these exercizes the F-22 is prohibited from using it's overwhelming BVR advanatage and is deliberately forced by the rules to close to WVR. The whole idea is to get the Raptor drivers proficient at fighting close in.

T-38s are small, fast turning airplanes. They make for good DACT platforms for that reason.

[jyl]

How relevant is gun fighting for the F22/F35?

Of the appx 54 kills by US Air Force F-15s, not a single one was with the gun.

Apparently some of the Israelis' appx 50 F15 kills have been by gun, but I don't know how many. Anyway we don't design our fighters for the Israelis, we design them for us.

Yes, we all know the stories about F4's sent to Vietnam without cannon. That was 45 years ago, and missile technology has advanced a lot. Plus, there is a difference between a fighter with no gun capabilities, and a fighter with some gun capabilities. Maybe "some" is plenty good enough.

[billwagnon]

Once marijuana is legalized we won't need that fighter anyway.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by jyl

How relevant is gun fighting for the F22/F35?

Of the appx 54 kills by US Air Force F-15s, not a single one was with the gun.

Apparently some of the Israelis' appx 50 F15 kills have been by gun, but I don't know how many. Anyway we don't design our fighters for the Israelis, we design them for us.

Yes, we all know the stories about F4's sent to Vietnam without cannon. That was 45 years ago, and missile technology has advanced a lot. Plus, there is a difference between a fighter with no gun capabilities, and a fighter with some gun capabilities. Maybe "some" is plenty good enough.

Vietnam proved the gun will never go out of style. For the small amount of cost and weight it adds to a platform it is well worth the hassle if for no other reason than any plane with a gun is capable of delivering emergency CAS, regardless of what kind of air to air wonder missiles are hanging off of it. A gun armed plane can always strafe in a pinch if our ground troops need emergency support.

BTW, A-10s scored gun kills in ODS.

AMRAAM has a real world combat record of approx 65%.

"They're not called hittles, they're called missiles. I always fire two."
~F-15 ODS combat pilot

Guns will always have a place in fighters. Always.

[jyl]

Sure, but maybe don't need the "best" gunfighting capability, maybe simply need "adequate" gunfighting capability e.g. F35?

[m21sniper]

The F-35 is actually a very limited gunfighter.

The USAF and primary export F-35A model only has 2x 27mm guns(no gatling gun- the first US fighter not to have one since the 4x20mm F-8 Crusader).

The F-35B USMC/RN STOVL has an external semi-flush gun pod only(Typically these are not very good for dogfighting)

The USN F-35C has only a single 27mm Mauser.

[Jim727]

I can't see the vid, but from what I read here I suspect it isn't a T-38; more likely the fighter version which is the F-5. More power, higher top speed, etc. The T-38 is a blast to fly, so I can guess that the F-5 is a notch or two better. USAF uses F-5s as aggressor aircraft since they are very difficult to see and very maneuverable. Could very well jump an F-22.

The F-35 will be the Edsel of combat planes, imo. As for missiles-only air superiority fighters, there is a term for a fighter without a gun: Dead. Some lessons we apparently just don't want to learn.

[m21sniper]

Are the old F-5's still around? I think the USAF uses special F-16 aggressor squadrons now doesn't it?
(i guess i can just ask on my site)

[Jesset100]

Not MB, not GB, but TB's of data was compromised!

[m21sniper]

Asked the stick actuators on my site about the aggressor sqns.

Originally Posted by Coach

Both F-15 and F-16s in the Agressor squadrons.

IIRC Coach is an A-10 squadron commander, so i think we can take this as a definitive answer.

No more F-5s.

[jyl]

I did some more research and AFAIK no US pilot has ever scored a gun kill in the F14, F15, F16, or F18. If anyone has different info, I'd be interested.