The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[sferrin]

Is there some reason it would be easier to hack an F-35 than a Typhoon or Rafale?

 

[Triton]

The hairiest problem facing the F35 team right now is likely that head mounted display. They need to get the refresh under 20 milliseconds so it wont make pilots sick.
In the private sector, it looks like Oculus has gotten close to solving this problem with OLED displays. Will the Lockheed team be getting their displays from Samsung?

As dumb as it sounds I'd think they'd have been (or should have been) consulting with PC game hardware and software developers, if for no other reason to make sure they're not missing anything. I'm sure Nvidia and people like John Carmack might have an idea or two.

I thought that this issue was fixed with the "Gen3" HMDS with its new LCD displays and software improvements.

Source:
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/singapore-air-show/2014-02-08/f-35-test-pilots-will-begin-flying-gen-helmet-display

 

[sferrin]

The hairiest problem facing the F35 team right now is likely that head mounted display. They need to get the refresh under 20 milliseconds so it wont make pilots sick.
In the private sector, it looks like Oculus has gotten close to solving this problem with OLED displays. Will the Lockheed team be getting their displays from Samsung?

As dumb as it sounds I'd think they'd have been (or should have been) consulting with PC game hardware and software developers, if for no other reason to make sure they're not missing anything. I'm sure Nvidia and people like John Carmack might have an idea or two.

I thought that this issue was fixed with the "Gen3" HMDS with its new LCD displays and software improvements.

Source:
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/singapore-air-show/2014-02-08/f-35-test-pilots-will-begin-flying-gen-helmet-display

The interview in the round table sounded like they were still working out minor bugs. IIRC latency was the big one in the past but sounds largely solved. There are others like light bleed through and stuff that's more physiological than hardware. Those are being addressed though.

 

[sublight_]

Is there some reason it would be easier to hack an F-35 than a Typhoon or Rafale?

Nobody, except the people directly involved with the software will be able to answer that. I think the Marine commander just doesn't like the nanny system and wants to call it a security risk.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So what is demonstrated by flying at high-alpha inverted that is not demonstrated by doing the same right-side-up, and why would you do that in operations?

To communicate, keeping up foreign relations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUZxSf_P2r0

 

[sublight_]

I thought that this issue was fixed with the "Gen3" HMDS with its new LCD displays and software improvements.

Source:
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/singapore-air-show/2014-02-08/f-35-test-pilots-will-begin-flying-gen-helmet-display

The Oculus team says that USB cables and LCD are two serious latency roadblocks. Obviously in a half million dollar helmet there is going to be a better data cable than USB, but I don't see how they will get around the latency with LCD panels.

 

[bobbymike]

So what is demonstrated by flying at high-alpha inverted that is not demonstrated by doing the same right-side-up, and why would you do that in operations?

To communicate, keeping up foreign relations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUZxSf_P2r0

AG - Your video links are awesome!! ;D

 

[sferrin]

I thought that this issue was fixed with the "Gen3" HMDS with its new LCD displays and software improvements.

Source:
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/singapore-air-show/2014-02-08/f-35-test-pilots-will-begin-flying-gen-helmet-display

The Oculus team says that USB cables and LCD are two serious latency roadblocks. Obviously in a half million dollar helmet there is going to be a better data cable than USB, but I don't see how they will get around the latency with LCD panels.

They seemed to have fixed the latency problem on the game end. (120 Hz refresh, no tearing. etc.)

 

[sublight_]

I thought that this issue was fixed with the "Gen3" HMDS with its new LCD displays and software improvements.

Source:
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/singapore-air-show/2014-02-08/f-35-test-pilots-will-begin-flying-gen-helmet-display

The Oculus team says that USB cables and LCD are two serious latency roadblocks. Obviously in a half million dollar helmet there is going to be a better data cable than USB, but I don't see how they will get around the latency with LCD panels.

They seemed to have fixed the latency problem on the game end. (120 Hz refresh, no tearing. etc.)

I'm talking about the F35 team. They aren't going to solve it unless they move to something faster than LCD.

 

[sferrin]

I thought that this issue was fixed with the "Gen3" HMDS with its new LCD displays and software improvements.

Source:
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/singapore-air-show/2014-02-08/f-35-test-pilots-will-begin-flying-gen-helmet-display

The Oculus team says that USB cables and LCD are two serious latency roadblocks. Obviously in a half million dollar helmet there is going to be a better data cable than USB, but I don't see how they will get around the latency with LCD panels.

They seemed to have fixed the latency problem on the game end. (120 Hz refresh, no tearing. etc.)

I'm talking about the F35 team. They aren't going to solve it unless they move to something faster than LCD.

That's exactly what I meant. LCD technology isn't the problem (though the specific emitters they're using might be).

 

[kcran567]

If the cameras feeding the helmet are getting images in real time, why the latency problem to begin with? Is it an excuse for those in "the know" to get more money for the program? An analog system with 40 yr old technology could probably do a similar job as far as helmet images. F-35 is a money pit unless the funding is being diverted to other "black" programs.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If the cameras feeding the helmet are getting images in real time, why the latency problem to begin with? Is it an excuse for those in "the know" to get more money for the program? An analog system with 40 yr old technology could probably do a similar job as far as helmet images. F-35 is a money pit unless the funding is being diverted to other "black" programs.

Quoted for LOL.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Is there some reason it would be easier to hack an F-35 than a Typhoon or Rafale?

Yes, if it is more software driven. Which it is.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Yes, if it is more software driven. Which it is.

Lets hope the F-35 isn't Mac compatible, unlike Alien space ships:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuQJd1rzres
Its not a crime againt humanity if its against aliens.

 

[Magoodotcom]

I thought the 60 Minutes piece was about as good as one could have expected from a 13 minutes snapshot bracketed by Viagra advertisements! It outlines many of the issues, but also highlights the potential. I note they interviewed Sec Kendall several months ago, as his 'memo' they mention was released after they interviewed him was dated sometime in October.

Bogdan comes off as being a no BS guy - if anyone can get the program over the line, he can. ALIS is my biggest worry, and I think many partner nations and FMS customers (and the Marines it appears) will say the same thing. The helmet really only has issues at 11/10ths and is still far and away better than any other western helmet currently in use.

And Sferrin...you really are not helping yourself or the cause by your comments and lack of responses to people's quite reasonable questions... It's jackjack all over again...

 

[sferrin]

Is there some reason it would be easier to hack an F-35 than a Typhoon or Rafale?

Yes, if it is more software driven. Which it is.

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the X-47/UCLASS being hacked. At least with the F-35 there's a man in the loop to hit the "reset" button if need be. ;D

 

[Arjen]

Until the hacker finds the 'eject' function. Blam.

 

[sferrin]

Until the hacker finds the 'eject' function. Blam.

Yeah, I'm sure nobody's ever thought of that. :

 

[Arjen]

Hard to overlook.

 

[sferrin]

Hard to overlook.

Which means it's probably a non-issue. I'm curious just how the F-35 is suppose to be "hacked". It's not like it's wired into the internet or just open to anybody who wants to transmit a signal. A UAV is designed to be controlled from the outside. A fighter is not.

 

[Arjen]

It's supposed to be a networked aircraft. More software-driven than other aircraft.

I have a 40-year-old motorbike that can only be hacked with a screwdriver and spanners, but anything with a CPU and a datalink is susceptible to electronic hacking. It's a design team's job to minimize that risk.

I grant you having a pilot on board makes a manned aircraft less vulnerable to hacking than a UAV. Which is why the first target for a hack would be removing/disabling the pilot.

 

[sferrin]

It's supposed to be a networked aircraft. More software-driven than other aircraft.

I have a 40-year-old motorbike that can only be hacked with a screwdiver and spanners, but anything with a CPU and a datalink is susceptible to electronic hacking. It's a design team's job to minimize that risk..

Which means any modern aircraft can be hacked. In theory. So how many pilots have been ejected by the enemy thus far? The fact of the matter is the notion of "getting hacked" is so obvious that prevention would be at the top of the list. And it's not like we're talking about a Windows-driven system where everybody and their dog has access to the source code. Let's not be so naive to think it would be as doable as plugging your Mac into a space ship.

 

[SpudmanWP]

If the cameras feeding the helmet are getting images in real time, why the latency problem to begin with? Is it an excuse for those in "the know" to get more money for the program? An analog system with 40 yr old technology could probably do a similar job as far as helmet images. F-35 is a money pit unless the funding is being diverted to other "black" programs.

It does not work that way. The data is fed from each EODAS unit into the central system where it is fused with the other EODAS units and all the rest of the data like EOTS, Radar, ESM, and networked data. Then, the helmet’s position in space and the direction it is looking at is calibrated with the data being processed. Finally, the appropriate imagery and fused data is sent to the HMDS based on where the pilot is looking.

There are a lot of steps along the way which each adds a little latency.

It's supposed to be a networked aircraft. More software-driven than other aircraft.

I have a 40-year-old motorbike that can only be hacked with a screwdiver and spanners, but anything with a CPU and a datalink is susceptible to electronic hacking. It's a design team's job to minimize that risk.

I grant you having a pilot on board makes a manned aircraft less vulnerable to hacking than a UAV. Which is why the first target for a hack would be removing/disabling the pilot.

Without physical access and your own F-35 to practice on, how is a hacker supposed to even know where to start or how it’s going? The reason PC hackers can do what they do is that they can buy a PC, study the code, and practice on it 24/7.

Airliners have been software driven for decades, especially Airbus, yet none have been hacked.

 

[Arjen]

I seem to recall a Persistent Threat being able to lay hands on various data regarding US military projects.

Physical access to a computing device is a most helpful thing in hacking that device. Access to source code is another one.

 

[sferrin]

Physical access to a computing device is a most helpful thing in hacking that device. Access to source code is another one.

They don't have the former and there is no evidence they have access to the latter.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=25196&p=266768#p266768

 

[SpudmanWP]

I seem to recall a Persistent Threat being able to lay hands on various non-classified data regarding US military projects.

FIFY

 

[sferrin]

And Sferrin...you really are not helping yourself or the cause by your comments and lack of responses to people's quite reasonable questions... It's jackjack all over again...

What reasonable question? Bill's? His is a red-herring trying to divert attention away from the fact that the F-35 has excellent controlability despite his "flies like a 100 tons of blubber" claim.

 

[Arjen]

I also recall persistent rumours about Chinese aircraft designs being 'inspired' by US designs, notably J-20 and J-31. Rumours repeated on this site.

It would of course be foolish to entertain the notion the Chinese (or any other outside parties) may have had access to US secrets. Or ever will.

 

[LowObservable]

Spud...

In 2008, a foreign intelligence agency penetrated our classified computer systems.

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1593

 

[sferrin]

I also recall persistent rumours about Chinese aircraft designs being 'inspired' by US designs, notably J-20 and J-31. Rumours repeated on this site.

It would of course be foolish to entertain the notion the Chinese (or any other outside parties) may have had access to US secrets. Or ever will.

Unlike everybody else's stuff which China will NEVER look at. :

Spud...

In 2008, a foreign intelligence agency penetrated our classified computer systems.

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1593

And? Without knowing what they got it's just speculation either way.

 

[Arjen]

Lately, I read everyone is spying on everyone. And actually finding stuff. This dude Snowden, you know?

Then there's the US government not usually putting out reports about being spied upon unless there was a real big leak that couldn't be kept a secret anyway, 'cause owning up with egg on face, is slightly better than denying with egg on face.

 

[sferrin]

Lately, I read everyone is spying on everyone. And actually finding stuff. This dude Snowden, you know?

Then there's the US government not usually putting out reports about being spied upon unless there was a real big leak that couldn't be kept a secret anyway, 'cause owning up with egg on face, is slightly better than denying with egg on face.

So what you're saying is everybody (Chinese, Russians, and Indians included) are vulnerable. Color me shocked.

 

[sublight_]

There is truth in the assumption that any complex system with a lot of code is going to have vulnerabilities. The more code, the more likelihood of vulnerabilities. In reality, the only thing most of us know about the F35's computing infrastructure, is that it is written in C++ with particular rule sets. So other than debating the choice of development languages (we did that before) there is almost nothing to base speculation on when it comes to vulnerability of its systems.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Spud...

In 2008, a foreign intelligence agency penetrated our classified computer systems.

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1593

Defense acquisitions chief Frank Kendall told a Senate hearing he was reasonably confident that classified information related to the development of the F-35 was well-protected."But I'm not at all confident that our unclassified information is as well-protected," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/19/usa-fighter-hacking-idUSL2N0EV0T320130619

 

[Triton]

The F-35 is designed to share information with other warfighters in the battlespace and the round table that sferrin posted mentioned that one F-35 can have fire control of another F-35. I wonder if an adversary could intercept this data stream, de-crypt it, and what information he might be able to glean by listening in? Does the F-35 share its location information with other warfighters? Might an enemy be able to determine the location of F-22 or F-35 aircraft by intercepting and listening in to this information?

 

[LowObservable]

Spud - "Reasonably confident" about F-35 in 2013 does not mean that no classified Pentagon data was ever compromised by cyber, which was your original (and entirely ill-founded) point.

Without knowing what they got it's just speculation either way.

Another one for the S.F Brains File. Although I'm sure you're right, and all the PLA took was the cafeteria menus.

By the way, if I was the PLA I wouldn't be trying to hack the airplane, for reasons that are obvious to anyone with the qualifications to comment here.

 

[sferrin]

Spud - "Reasonably confident" about F-35 in 2013 does not mean that no classified Pentagon data was ever compromised by cyber, which was your original (and entirely ill-founded) point.

Without knowing what they got it's just speculation either way.

Another one for the S.F Brains File. Although I'm sure you're right, and all the PLA took was the cafeteria menus.

In other words "I don't know what they took but I'm going to claim it's worse case". Typical.

By the way, if I was the PLA I wouldn't be trying to hack the airplane, for reasons that are obvious to anyone with the qualifications to comment here.

Sure, better to wait until the software is well in-service and in theater. Why should they tip their hand?[/quote]

 

[SpudmanWP]

The F-35 is designed to share information with other warfighters in the battlespace and the round table that sferrin posted mentioned that one F-35 can have fire control of another F-35. I wonder if an adversary could intercept this data stream, de-crypt it, and what information he might be able to glean by listening in? Does the F-35 share its location information with other warfighters? Might an enemy be able to determine the location of F-22 or F-35 aircraft by intercepting and listening in to this information?

MADL is directional so the enemy would have to be between the two F-35's involved to get the data.

 

[LowObservable]

So, Mr Ferrin: Can you explain why, according to your logic, anyone should be worried about cyberespionage, unless they can prove that something classified was compromised? Because otherwise, surely, you're just "claim[ing] it's worse [sic] case".


Again, irrelevant or hostile responses will be ignored.

 

[sferrin]

So, Mr Ferrin: Can you explain why, according to your logic, anyone should be worried about cyberespionage, unless they can prove that something classified was compromised? Because otherwise, surely, you're just "claim[ing] it's worse [sic] case".


Again, irrelevant or hostile responses will be ignored.

I said nothing other than WE (those who are guessing) don't know what they did or didn't get. That doesn't mean nobody knows what they got (and those who do certainly wouldn't be telling you or I). Nor did I say (or even imply) that we shouldn't be worried about cyber espionage. On the contrary, I've said many times, I think our efforts at combating it verge on the pathetic. That doesn't automatically mean the first time an F-35 flies in the Pacific it's going to deliver itself to Beijing.