• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
99
Reaction score
16
A UCAV and an F-35 will have the same data links, hence they will have the same vulnerabilities to hacking. If you go completely autonomous with no outside input both an AI UCAV and an F-35 will be just as resistant to hacking.
 

Dragon029

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
674
Reaction score
28
Except that the F-35 can't be piloted remotely and any fake data link contacts have to get past a human sanity-check. A pilot isn't going to turn around and shoot down his tankers and AWACS just because they turned red on his TSD.
 

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
99
Reaction score
16
The hacking doesn't have to go that far, it could be as simple as dialing back the pilot's oxygen supply. All I'm saying is that the vulnerabilities already exists, any input into an aircraft has the potential to be exploited. You can make both piloted aircraft and UCAVs hacker proof by getting rid of inputs but it comes at a cost of greatly limited situational awareness.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
667
Reaction score
47
The hacking doesn't have to go that far, it could be as simple as dialing back the pilot's oxygen supply. All I'm saying is that the vulnerabilities already exists, any input into an aircraft has the potential to be exploited. You can make both piloted aircraft and UCAVs hacker proof by getting rid of inputs but it comes at a cost of greatly limited situational awareness.
I agree; if your view is the UCAVs are inherently too vulnerable to cyber attack then that view should carry over to contemporary manned combat aircraft.
If you think the the manned aircraft can be adequately protected then that should also carry over to their unmanned equivalents; they share the same points of vulnerability.

And as other contributors have pointed out you don’t have to fully “take-over” a (manned or unmanned) aircraft to render it operationally ineffective. And given manned fighter aircraft have sophisticated autopilots and and everything is done via computer are manned fighters really that much less vulnerable to cyber-hijacking?
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
68
And you could extend the argument to munitions:

Modern and future long range A2A missiles rely on two-way datalinks meaning both the host
aircraft and the missile are potentially vulnerable to cyber intrusion especially as the duration
of an engagement goes up.
 

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
527
Reaction score
3
Manned aircraft have the advantage that - to make them minimally capable - you can work with fewer and simpler systems. If you're reconstituting a fleet after a cyber attack, a manned aircraft requires flight control, environmental control, and basic combat systems. An unmanned aircraft requires flight control and advanced / integrated combat systems. That's a much harder programming lift.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
68
I can't imagine human pilots are going to be eager to hop back into mounts that have been cyber attacked.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
And you could extend the argument to munitions:

Modern and future long range A2A missiles rely on two-way datalinks meaning both the host
aircraft and the missile are potentially vulnerable to cyber intrusion especially as the duration
of an engagement goes up.
Yep.

"ARLINGTON, Va. --- The Army successfully tested its ability to redirect munitions in flight Aug. 28 in an experiment over the Mohave Desert involving an unmanned aircraft, smart sensors and artificial intelligence.

It was the "signature experiment for FY19" said Brig. Gen. Walter T. Rugen, director of the Future Vertical Lift Cross-Functional Team, speaking Thursday at the Association of the U.S. Army's "Hot Topic" forum on aviation.

The experiment at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California, tested a capability developed by his CFT called A3I, standing for Architecture, Automation, Autonomy and Interfaces.

WELDING AIR-GROUND 'PUNCH'

In the A3I experiment, an operator in the back of an MH-47 Chinook helicopter used an iPad to control a Grey Eagle unmanned aircraft system over China Lake. He fired a GBU-69 small glide munition from the Grey Eagle and it was the first time that type of UAS fired that kind of missile.

Then as the munition approached its target, a system of ground sensors picked up a higher-priority target nearby. Another operator in the Tactical Operations Center was able to quickly take over control of the glide munition and redirect it to the new target, which it ultimately destroyed."


 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
27
Automated air combat is decades away. They have yet to coordinate manned and unmanned aircraft even for more benign missions. It has taken 40 years from the first robots to the highly automated and robotic auto assembly plants we have today and air combat is much more complex. I remember when the robotic installation of windshields generated large piles of broken glass. It doesn't happen overnight and the longest pole in the tend isn't the robots but the knowledge base in the individuals doing the designing, programing and maintenance of the systems. They can't even keep the manning levels up in the UCAV community to generate the required expertise o be applied for new missions. I've spent 40+ years in the auto industry automation field. It may look easy but it's not.
someone is not up to date w/ the Wright Pat. Not doing ur homework for you.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
Automated air combat is decades away. They have yet to coordinate manned and unmanned aircraft even for more benign missions. It has taken 40 years from the first robots to the highly automated and robotic auto assembly plants we have today and air combat is much more complex. I remember when the robotic installation of windshields generated large piles of broken glass. It doesn't happen overnight and the longest pole in the tend isn't the robots but the knowledge base in the individuals doing the designing, programing and maintenance of the systems. They can't even keep the manning levels up in the UCAV community to generate the required expertise o be applied for new missions. I've spent 40+ years in the auto industry automation field. It may look easy but it's not.
someone is not up to date w/ the Wright Pat. Not doing ur homework for you.
I doubt anybody would want you to.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
27
Automated air combat is decades away. They have yet to coordinate manned and unmanned aircraft even for more benign missions. It has taken 40 years from the first robots to the highly automated and robotic auto assembly plants we have today and air combat is much more complex. I remember when the robotic installation of windshields generated large piles of broken glass. It doesn't happen overnight and the longest pole in the tend isn't the robots but the knowledge base in the individuals doing the designing, programing and maintenance of the systems. They can't even keep the manning levels up in the UCAV community to generate the required expertise o be applied for new missions. I've spent 40+ years in the auto industry automation field. It may look easy but it's not.
someone is not up to date w/ the Wright Pat. Not doing ur homework for you.
I doubt anybody would want you to.
Then stop bringing it up
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
Automated air combat is decades away. They have yet to coordinate manned and unmanned aircraft even for more benign missions. It has taken 40 years from the first robots to the highly automated and robotic auto assembly plants we have today and air combat is much more complex. I remember when the robotic installation of windshields generated large piles of broken glass. It doesn't happen overnight and the longest pole in the tend isn't the robots but the knowledge base in the individuals doing the designing, programing and maintenance of the systems. They can't even keep the manning levels up in the UCAV community to generate the required expertise o be applied for new missions. I've spent 40+ years in the auto industry automation field. It may look easy but it's not.
someone is not up to date w/ the Wright Pat. Not doing ur homework for you.
I doubt anybody would want you to.
Then stop bringing it up
Where did I ask you to do my homework? Oh right, I didn't.
 

rooster

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
38
Reaction score
16
Automated air combat is decades away. They have yet to coordinate manned and unmanned aircraft even for more benign missions. It has taken 40 years from the first robots to the highly automated and robotic auto assembly plants we have today and air combat is much more complex. I remember when the robotic installation of windshields generated large piles of broken glass. It doesn't happen overnight and the longest pole in the tend isn't the robots but the knowledge base in the individuals doing the designing, programing and maintenance of the systems. They can't even keep the manning levels up in the UCAV community to generate the required expertise o be applied for new missions. I've spent 40+ years in the auto industry automation field. It may look easy but it's not.
I work in automotive too, and I work with engineers who work on self-driving vehicles. The state of the art has progressed a lot since robots were introduced into plants 40 years ago. But that being said, there are a lot of limitations to self-driving cars and there are ways dangerous people can spoof them and cause havoc if they wanted to. That's why I am in no hurry to buy such a vehicle yet. I am also aware of techniques people can use to hack into vehicles and do horrible things like apply the brakes.

In fact, and I reported this to people in my company, my vehicles radio and the display was hacked about 5 or 6 years ago while driving into work. My company now employs a security module to prevent things like that from occurring. Its pretty distracting to a driver when someone remotely gains control of your radio and display unit. That itself can cause an accident.

Things could be worse in a combat drone if someone is able to hack into the network and even only mildly spoof the humans that are in the loop.

If what I see in the industry is the state of the art for the nation, then we are a long way away from "robot" aircraft that can fight other aircraft in the modern chaotic battle-space. All we need is for a drone to shoot down some friendlies because IFF wasn't working correctly and the friendlies fit the algorithm of the bad guys. Or just as bad, a drone doesn't fire on the bad guys because IFF wasn't working and they slip through to fire on the good guys or drop bombs on our troops or hit a ship.

Really hope the USAF isn't serious about no more manned fighters at this point in time. Spend the extra 10% on life support and leave a human in the chair for now.

Maybe they should finally field something like an X-47 for A2G and incrementally work towards flying terminators. Right now all we have a couple of hellfire missile trucks remotely controlled in Nevada that are nothing more than giant expensive toys I can see in the park, and a few recon platforms.
 

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
99
Reaction score
16
All you said is true, but it also applies just as much to manned fighters. IFF was a problem even back in WWII when the Mark I eyeball was the primary instrument.
 

rooster

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
38
Reaction score
16
All you said is true, but it also applies just as much to manned fighters. IFF was a problem even back in WWII when the Mark I eyeball was the primary instrument.
Humans have intuition and knowledge of the battlespace and aircraft within. Drones see nothing but 10011100011 = release aim120. A raptor flight leader may know that a flight of f35 will at 35k on a course back to wherever at roughly such and such a time and therefore not engage an unknown bogey but hand it off. A drone could see the 1s and 0s required to launch a aam.

I never studied AI programming but what I know tells me the usaf shouldn't handoff this dangerous mission to autonomous systems yet.

I have heard from people that the Chinese and Russians are able to electronically replicate us aircraft to as to appear friendly.

I really really hope greatly to see another manned air superiority aircraft within 7 years being flight tested. Hell, lets go in on it with Japan and Australia and England if they don't want the Europeans are brewing. And I still don't know why we can't a have a Phantom III and share with navy.
 
Top