F-16 Source Code

[Charles Talleyrand]

The F-16 is a very popular airplane. I'm just curious who has copies of the source code to the plane and it's radar, etc.
Obviously the USAF does, but do the Israeli,
the Belgians, or anyone else?

-Thanks

[Gene Storey]

The F-16 was built as an international fighter, and those countries that do
their own development and depot work, would have an interest in all
aspects of the flight computers. The radar and various other computer
code would also be available. I know the radar software was available
to our university, as many of us wrote algorithms against it for our Masters.
My groups project was to better track turbine velocities of targets, as a
possible enhancement to cruise missile detection. One would hope that
today the missiles would be designed to hide the turbine :-)

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote
> The F-16 is a very popular airplane. I'm just curious who has copies of
> the source code to the plane and it's radar, etc. Obviously the USAF does,
> but do the Israeli, the Belgians, or anyone else?

[C.D.Damron]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> The F-16 is a very popular airplane. I'm just curious who has copies of
the source code to the plane and it's radar, etc.
> Obviously the USAF does, but do the Israeli,
> the Belgians, or anyone else?

For some boxes, we did not provide the source code. This hasn't kept the
Israeli's from uncompiling it and selling the technology to other countries.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:02:51 GMT, "C.D.Damron" wrote:
>
> >"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:
> >> The F-16 is a very popular airplane. I'm just curious who has copies
of
> >the source code to the plane and it's radar, etc.
> >> Obviously the USAF does, but do the Israeli,
> >> the Belgians, or anyone else?
> >
> >For some boxes, we did not provide the source code. This hasn't kept
the
> >Israeli's from uncompiling it and selling the technology to other
countries.
>
> The USA is the only country to receive such code from Israel.
> Check who owns F-16s - do you seriously imagine that Israel
> would sell improved code to an enemy state?
>

Given that they sold Python AAM's and wanted to sell an
advanced AWACS style capability to China I wouldnt rule
it out.

> Same thing happened with the improved Patriot programming.
> Israel had a vital interest in making it work right - and got
> enough real-life experience to see what needed fixing

And some sources believe they then sold that know how to China

http://the-tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/china.13w.html
http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20010430/aw34.htm

Keith

[C.D.Damron]

"Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:18:29 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
> These two tentative reports are years old - and are still unconfirmed.
> If there were much truth in them, they'd have been confirmed by now.

So, you expect Naval Air Systems Command to release a statement?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:18:29 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:02:51 GMT, "C.D.Damron" wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:
> >> >> The F-16 is a very popular airplane. I'm just curious who has
copies
> >of
> >> >the source code to the plane and it's radar, etc.
> >> >> Obviously the USAF does, but do the Israeli,
> >> >> the Belgians, or anyone else?
> >> >
> >> >For some boxes, we did not provide the source code.
> > >This hasn't kept the Israeli's from uncompiling it
> >> >and selling the technology to other countries.
> >>
> >> The USA is the only country to receive such code from Israel.
> >> Check who owns F-16s - do you seriously imagine that Israel
> >> would sell improved code to an enemy state?
>
> >Given that they sold Python AAM's and wanted to sell an
> >advanced AWACS style capability to China I wouldnt rule
> >it out.
>
> The Python is an Israeli-developed missile, they have the right
> to sell it to any market they're not locked out of.

The point Keith is making is that they do deal with nations that we have had
on the military no-no list; your attempt to justify that with the above does
not change that fact.

>
> The AWACS was offered openly, and cancelled at the US' request.
> That's wrong?

You are really oversimplifying that situation. We requested it and the
Israelis still wanted to pursue it--it took a bit of arm-twisting to get
them to back down on that Phalcon sale.

>
> Now, the subject was F-16 code - how many F-16s does China fly?

Well, they are flying two new FBW aircraft, aren't they? And IIRC Elbit is
trying to sell them a radar to equip it with?

>
> >> Same thing happened with the improved Patriot programming.
> >> Israel had a vital interest in making it work right - and got
> >> enough real-life experience to see what needed fixing
>
> >And some sources believe they then sold that know how to China
>
> Some sources will believe anything...
>
> If China got secret US technology, they most likely got it directly
> from the US - didn't you follow the news about Chinese activities
> inside the USA?

"Most likely" in whose opinion?

> Misdirecting blame is a standard way to deflect attention.

Then why do you do it?

> That's been done before - remember how Israeli agent Pollard
> was blamed for exposing US agents to the Russians?
> And then we heard that Aldrich Ames, the American who wrote
> the report blaming Pollard, was the traitor?

OFCS, are you now going to claim Pollard was innocent of espionage against
the US?

>
> >http://the-tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/china.13w.html
> >http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20010430/aw34.htm
>
> These two tentative reports are years old - and are still unconfirmed.
> If there were much truth in them, they'd have been confirmed by now.

Why do you say that?

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:25:46 GMT, "Kevin Brooks" wrote:
> >"Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:18:29 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> >> > wrote:
> >> >"Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:02:51 GMT, "C.D.Damron" wrote:
> >> >> >"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:
> >> >> >> The F-16 is a very popular airplane.
> >> > I'm just curious who has copies of
> >> >> >the source code to the plane and it's radar, etc.
> >> >> >> Obviously the USAF does, but do the Israeli,
> >> >> >> the Belgians, or anyone else?
>
> >> >> >For some boxes, we did not provide the source code.
> >> > >This hasn't kept the Israeli's from uncompiling it
> >> >> >and selling the technology to other countries.
> >> >>
> >> >> The USA is the only country to receive such code from Israel.
> >> >> Check who owns F-16s - do you seriously imagine that Israel
> >> >> would sell improved code to an enemy state?
>
> >> >Given that they sold Python AAM's and wanted to sell an
> >> >advanced AWACS style capability to China I wouldnt rule
> >> >it out.
>
> >> The Python is an Israeli-developed missile, they have the right
> >> to sell it to any market they're not locked out of.
>
> >The point Keith is making is that they do deal with nations that we have
had
> >on the military no-no list; your attempt to justify that with the above
does
> >not change that fact.
>
> Yes, Israel has no morals.
> However, it is America that is rearming Egypt and other Arab states...

They are not on the no-no list. And FYI, Egypt signed a peace accord with
Israel before it started receiving US arms. As to Israeli morals, that would
be your strawman.

>
> >> The AWACS was offered openly, and cancelled at the US' request.
> >> That's wrong?
> >
> >You are really oversimplifying that situation. We requested it and the
> >Israelis still wanted to pursue it--it took a bit of arm-twisting to get
> >them to back down on that Phalcon sale.
>
> And they did - so?

It was not a simple, "The US requested and Israel agreed".

>
> >> Now, the subject was F-16 code - how many F-16s does China fly?
>
> >Well, they are flying two new FBW aircraft, aren't they? And IIRC Elbit
is
> >trying to sell them a radar to equip it with?
>
> So, you agree they don't have F-16s, but attempt to imply some other
> skulduggery?

Nobody but you has trotted out this "Chinese F-16" mumbo. The fact is that
modern aircraft are a product of many, many systems and subsystems, one of
which is the FBW control system, another the radar, etc. Israel has indeed
sold military aerospace products to the PRC, and open sources don't seem to
know what the limit to those sales is. Python we know about, we also know
that have been trying to sell their helmet-mounted sighting system to the
PLAAF. They are trying to radars to the PLAAF for their newest indigenous
fighters (Elta, IIRC--not Elbit as I stated earlier--that was a brain fart).
There have been (unsubstantiated to date) reports that Derby may have been
provided. There have been substantial claims in various press and trade
journals regarding transfer of Lavi technology (h'mmm...that was a FBW
aircraft, wasn't it?) to the PRC (which would be a real shame, as we know
who footed the bill for Lavi development, and it wasn't the Israelis). So we
have some confirmed fire and a fair amount of additional smoke--and you want
to discount out of hand the Israelis transferring source codes to the PRC?
Unwise IMO.

>
> >> >> Same thing happened with the improved Patriot programming.
> >> >> Israel had a vital interest in making it work right - and got
> >> >> enough real-life experience to see what needed fixing
> >>
> >> >And some sources believe they then sold that know how to China
> >> Some sources will believe anything...
> >>
> >> If China got secret US technology, they most likely got it directly
> >> from the US - didn't you follow the news about Chinese activities
> >> inside the USA?
> >
> >"Most likely" in whose opinion?
>
> In mine - and that of several others who've followed the
> several Chinese espionage scandals.

Care to elaborate about specifically who those others are that claim that
China was more likely to have obtained Patriot info from the US as opposed
to Israel? Sounds like you are gearing up your smoke generator here....

>
> >> Misdirecting blame is a standard way to deflect attention.
>
> >Then why do you do it?
>
> Sorry, you'll have to point out the misdirection in what I wrote.

See above where you misdirected the blame for where the Chinese allegedly
obtained Patriot data from (allegedly) Israel to instead the US. Pretty
straightforward deflection of blame right there. Then a bit earlier you
blamed the US for somehow causing the Israelis to sell their military wares
to nations that the US refuses to sell to based upon some kind of flimsty
reasoning that we sell weapons to Egypt (ironic, since every arms sale to
Egypt has resulted in Israel cranking new aid and/or weapons concessions
from the US--they probably *like* the fact that we sell arms to Egypt, it
being such a lucrative method of increasing their own share of the pie). And
below you try to draw fire on the Pollard case. Any other examples you'd
care to have pointed out?

>
> >> That's been done before - remember how Israeli agent Pollard
> >> was blamed for exposing US agents to the Russians?
> >> And then we heard that Aldrich Ames, the American who wrote
> >> the report blaming Pollard, was the traitor?
> >
> >OFCS, are you now going to claim Pollard was innocent of espionage
against
> >the US?
>
> If you want to jump in, at least do everyone the courtesy of
> actually reading what you're replying to.
>
> OF COURSE Pollard spied on the USA - he pleaded guilty, FCS!
> But Pollard only stole documents, not names of agents - he never
> even had access to those names.

Then you are nitpicking. He commited espionage against the US on behalf of
Israel, case closed. That doesn't do much for your argument that we can
trust Israel with classified US source codes, now does it?

>
> My point was that US intelligence agencies *wrongly* blamed Pollard
> for telling the Russians the identities of US spies over there.
> That has been now proven to be the work of Aldrich Ames.
> Who, coincidentally, was the CIA agent who wrote a report
> which blamed Pollard for what he had done.

Provide some decent corroboration. From what I have read, the claim was that
Pollard passed information to Israel, much of it regarding Soviet weapons,
and that some of that info may have been passed on to the Soviets (either
knowingly or unknowingly). I doubt anyone really thinks that an intel
analyst working for the USN even had *access* to any "list of agents". But
there is a reason why we restrict release of some information based upon the
threat to "sources and methods"--sometimes just the fact that we know
something can provide the bad guys with a fairly good idea of where we got
the information, so you don't have to give up specific names. The only
account I read that followed *your* Pollard-as-Ames-victim theory was what
appears to be a rather half-baked diatribe from some loon in an intel
related discussion forum--not very convincing.

>
> It is, of course, fairly common for cops and intelligence agencies to
> blame *all* unsolved cases on the first likely suspect to be caught...
>
> WRT China, they did this with Dr. Wen Ho Li - who knows how many
> Chinese agents slipped away once they were convincd they'd found
> the one Big Spy?
>
> However, while Israel may well have sold some technology where
> it shouldn't have gone, there is STILL no proof that she has sold any
> American secrets - only unfounded rumors, like these.

Some fire, lots of smoke...not a good horse to bet on IMO.

>
> >> >http://the-tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/china.13w.html
> >> >http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20010430/aw34.htm
> >> These two tentative reports are years old - and are still unconfirmed.
> >> If there were much truth in them, they'd have been confirmed by now.
> >
> >Why do you say that?
>
> Because it's too good a story for the press to let die, IF it
> had any factual basis.
> Or do you subscribe to the theory that Jews censor all the media?

No, I suscribe to the theory that the DoD does not release such info to the
media on a routine basis, so if you are looking for an official, "they done
that", you better not be holding your breath.

Brooks

[Jim Herring]

Glenfiddich wrote:

> Now, the subject was F-16 code - how many F-16s does China fly?

It doesn't matter. What's important are the algorithms in the code. That
teaches others the scanning and filtering techniques (to name only two). You
don't need to be trying to copy a F-16 radar. You can use the algorithms in
you're own radar software. Reverse engineering of software is an old process
used by many to learn what they couldn't develop on their own or just to save
time and money.

--
Jim

carry on




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:19:03 GMT, Glenfiddich > wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:18:29 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
>
>>http://the-tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/china.13w.html
>>http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20010430/aw34.htm
>
>These two tentative reports are years old - and are still unconfirmed.
>If there were much truth in them, they'd have been confirmed by now.

In what sense is the 2nd story -- entitled "U.S. Confirms Israeli
Missiles Used by China" -- unconfirmed?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:51:46 GMT, Glenfiddich > wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:02:51 GMT, "C.D.Damron" wrote:
>
>>"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:
>>> The F-16 is a very popular airplane. I'm just curious who has copies of
>>the source code to the plane and it's radar, etc.
>>> Obviously the USAF does, but do the Israeli,
>>> the Belgians, or anyone else?
>>
>>For some boxes, we did not provide the source code. This hasn't kept the
>>Israeli's from uncompiling it and selling the technology to other countries.
>
>The USA is the only country to receive such code from Israel.
>Check who owns F-16s - do you seriously imagine that Israel
>would sell improved code to an enemy state?

Well, they are selling advanced radars, using US technology, to
the PRC.
>
>Same thing happened with the improved Patriot programming.
>Israel had a vital interest in making it work right - and got
>enough real-life experience to see what needed fixing

They had/have nowhere near the US experience with the
Patriot. And they do not have the resources to "improve"
it.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:19:03 GMT, Glenfiddich > wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:18:29 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:02:51 GMT, "C.D.Damron" wrote:
>>>
>>> >"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:
>>> >> The F-16 is a very popular airplane. I'm just curious who has copies
>>of
>>> >the source code to the plane and it's radar, etc.
>>> >> Obviously the USAF does, but do the Israeli,
>>> >> the Belgians, or anyone else?
>>> >
>>> >For some boxes, we did not provide the source code.
>> >This hasn't kept the Israeli's from uncompiling it
>>> >and selling the technology to other countries.
>>>
>>> The USA is the only country to receive such code from Israel.
>>> Check who owns F-16s - do you seriously imagine that Israel
>>> would sell improved code to an enemy state?
>
>>Given that they sold Python AAM's and wanted to sell an
>>advanced AWACS style capability to China I wouldnt rule
>>it out.
>
>The Python is an Israeli-developed missile, they have the right
>to sell it to any market they're not locked out of.
>
>The AWACS was offered openly, and cancelled at the US' request.
>That's wrong?
>
>Now, the subject was F-16 code - how many F-16s does China fly?
>
>>> Same thing happened with the improved Patriot programming.
>>> Israel had a vital interest in making it work right - and got
>>> enough real-life experience to see what needed fixing
>
>>And some sources believe they then sold that know how to China
>
>Some sources will believe anything...
>
>If China got secret US technology, they most likely got it directly
>from the US - didn't you follow the news about Chinese activities
>inside the USA?
>Misdirecting blame is a standard way to deflect attention.
>That's been done before - remember how Israeli agent Pollard
>was blamed for exposing US agents to the Russians?
>And then we heard that Aldrich Ames, the American who wrote
>the report blaming Pollard, was the traitor?
>
>>http://the-tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/china.13w.html
>>http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20010430/aw34.htm
>
>These two tentative reports are years old - and are still unconfirmed.
>If there were much truth in them, they'd have been confirmed by now.

The Israelis will sell anything to anybody. They are not "allies" of the
US, they are a money sucking parasite.

Al Minyard

[Arie Kazachin]

In message > - Alan Minyard
> writes:
>
>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:51:46 GMT, Glenfiddich > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:02:51 GMT, "C.D.Damron" wrote:
>>
>>>"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:
>>>> The F-16 is a very popular airplane. I'm just curious who has copies of
>>>the source code to the plane and it's radar, etc.
>>>> Obviously the USAF does, but do the Israeli,
>>>> the Belgians, or anyone else?
>>>
>>>For some boxes, we did not provide the source code. This hasn't kept the
>>>Israeli's from uncompiling it and selling the technology to other countries.
>>
>>The USA is the only country to receive such code from Israel.
>>Check who owns F-16s - do you seriously imagine that Israel
>>would sell improved code to an enemy state?
>
>Well, they are selling advanced radars, using US technology, to
>the PRC.
>>
>>Same thing happened with the improved Patriot programming.
>>Israel had a vital interest in making it work right - and got
>>enough real-life experience to see what needed fixing
>
>They had/have nowhere near the US experience with the
>Patriot. And they do not have the resources to "improve"
>it.
>
>Al Minyard

There isn't a need for any "huge resources", just plain and simple
"look at the drawing/schematic/code/etc., UNDERSTAND what it does,
discover it does something not so well and suggest slight improvement".

For example, when many years ago MiG-25 was considered "out of
envelope" for SAMs we had, the change allowing one to hit MiG-25
was extremly simple (and worked).

And since US experience with Patriot didn't include SCUDs, we actually
had more RELEVANT experience with Patriots than US.

Now every god development must consume US DoD sized budjets...

************************************************** ****************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: *
************************************************** ****************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap.
___
.__/ |
| O /
_/ /
| | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
| |
| | |
| | /O\
| _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
| * / \ o ++ O ++ o
| | |
| |<
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message news:JRiBb.5676$US3.4579@okepread03...
> The F-16 was built as an international fighter, and those countries that do
> their own development and depot work, would have an interest in all
> aspects of the flight computers. The radar and various other computer
> code would also be available. I know the radar software was available
> to our university, as many of us wrote algorithms against it for our Masters.
> My groups project was to better track turbine velocities of targets, as a
> possible enhancement to cruise missile detection. One would hope that
> today the missiles would be designed to hide the turbine :-)
>
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote
> > The F-16 is a very popular airplane. I'm just curious who has copies of
> > the source code to the plane and it's radar, etc. Obviously the USAF does,
> > but do the Israeli, the Belgians, or anyone else?


What!! I thought that the radar was the most top-secret portion of the
plane, and that the radar algorithms were a military secret. They hand it
out to graduate students??

Could you have gotten access to the flight control software? Could
the Belgian government?

-Thanks

[Kevin Brooks]

"Arie Kazachin" > wrote in message
...
> In message > - Alan Minyard
> > writes:
> >
> >On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:51:46 GMT, Glenfiddich >
wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:02:51 GMT, "C.D.Damron" wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:
> >>>> The F-16 is a very popular airplane. I'm just curious who has copies
of
> >>>the source code to the plane and it's radar, etc.
> >>>> Obviously the USAF does, but do the Israeli,
> >>>> the Belgians, or anyone else?
> >>>
> >>>For some boxes, we did not provide the source code. This hasn't kept
the
> >>>Israeli's from uncompiling it and selling the technology to other
countries.
> >>
> >>The USA is the only country to receive such code from Israel.
> >>Check who owns F-16s - do you seriously imagine that Israel
> >>would sell improved code to an enemy state?
> >
> >Well, they are selling advanced radars, using US technology, to
> >the PRC.
> >>
> >>Same thing happened with the improved Patriot programming.
> >>Israel had a vital interest in making it work right - and got
> >>enough real-life experience to see what needed fixing
> >
> >They had/have nowhere near the US experience with the
> >Patriot. And they do not have the resources to "improve"
> >it.
> >
> >Al Minyard
>
> There isn't a need for any "huge resources", just plain and simple
> "look at the drawing/schematic/code/etc., UNDERSTAND what it does,
> discover it does something not so well and suggest slight improvement".
>
> For example, when many years ago MiG-25 was considered "out of
> envelope" for SAMs we had, the change allowing one to hit MiG-25
> was extremly simple (and worked).
>
> And since US experience with Patriot didn't include SCUDs, we actually
> had more RELEVANT experience with Patriots than US.

Please. Israel had zero experience with Scud interception prior to the US
trying to make the early generation patriot do it during ODS. The only
reference I have seen of *any* Israeli involvement in improving Patriot was
their provision of *data* from their own Patriot batteries, which was used
by the folks at Huntsville to improve the radar range gate performance. That
data is noce--however, it does not translate to being an "Israeli
improvement" of the Patriot system. See:

www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~johnson/tutorials/ STAMP_PARCEL/PARCEL_Exercise.pdf

Brooks


>
> Now every god development must consume US DoD sized budjets...

No, but apparently most Israeli defense developments must consume a chunk
*of* the US budget, seeing as how we end up footing the bill for a lot of
them.

Brooks

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:19:03 GMT, Glenfiddich >
wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:18:29 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:02:51 GMT, "C.D.Damron" wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:
> >>> >> The F-16 is a very popular airplane. I'm just curious who has
copies
> >>of
> >>> >the source code to the plane and it's radar, etc.
> >>> >> Obviously the USAF does, but do the Israeli,
> >>> >> the Belgians, or anyone else?
> >>> >
> >>> >For some boxes, we did not provide the source code.
> >> >This hasn't kept the Israeli's from uncompiling it
> >>> >and selling the technology to other countries.
> >>>
> >>> The USA is the only country to receive such code from Israel.
> >>> Check who owns F-16s - do you seriously imagine that Israel
> >>> would sell improved code to an enemy state?
> >
> >>Given that they sold Python AAM's and wanted to sell an
> >>advanced AWACS style capability to China I wouldnt rule
> >>it out.
> >
> >The Python is an Israeli-developed missile, they have the right
> >to sell it to any market they're not locked out of.
> >
> >The AWACS was offered openly, and cancelled at the US' request.
> >That's wrong?
> >
> >Now, the subject was F-16 code - how many F-16s does China fly?
> >
> >>> Same thing happened with the improved Patriot programming.
> >>> Israel had a vital interest in making it work right - and got
> >>> enough real-life experience to see what needed fixing
> >
> >>And some sources believe they then sold that know how to China
> >
> >Some sources will believe anything...
> >
> >If China got secret US technology, they most likely got it directly
> >from the US - didn't you follow the news about Chinese activities
> >inside the USA?
> >Misdirecting blame is a standard way to deflect attention.
> >That's been done before - remember how Israeli agent Pollard
> >was blamed for exposing US agents to the Russians?
> >And then we heard that Aldrich Ames, the American who wrote
> >the report blaming Pollard, was the traitor?
> >
> >>http://the-tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/china.13w.html
> >>http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20010430/aw34.htm
> >
> >These two tentative reports are years old - and are still unconfirmed.
> >If there were much truth in them, they'd have been confirmed by now.
>
> The Israelis will sell anything to anybody. They are not "allies" of the
> US, they are a money sucking parasite.

And there it is. With all the underlying anti-semitism building up in this
thread, I was waiting for someone to just come right out and say something
flagrantly neo-Nazi like that.

Its those crafty bloodsucking Jews! Zieg Heil! Don't you know they eat
babies too?

Never mind the fact that France and Germany were cheerfully selling Saddam
Hussein brand new Roland surface to air missiles, land mines, ammunition and
cruise missiles only a couple of months before our invasion! It's the damn
dirty Jews we should all be worried about!

Or that Russia sent military advisors and GPS jamming equipment to help
Saddam repel our invasion and kill our boys.....everyone knows the Jews are
the real problem!

And while China isn't exactly our best friend out there, military
hostilities between us and them are nowhere near imminent... as they were
with Saddam. Now I don't advocate Israel selling high-tech weapons to China,
but I really don't feel it's a huge Jew conspiracy either. They know we're
their friends. And since we're being honest lets face facts here; China got
more sensitive defense technology from us under Clinton than they could ever
hope to get from Israel. And you can bet that if trade restrictions were
relaxed with China tomorrow, Northrop, McDonnell Douglass and LockMart reps
would be on the first plane over there trying to sell them AWACS and F-16s
directly.

It's all just business. Now run along; your white sheet is probably getting
wrinkled and you have crosses to burn. Watch out for those Jews!

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.
New York City

[Gene Storey]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote
> "Gene Storey" > wrote
> > The F-16 was built as an international fighter, and those countries that do
> > their own development and depot work, would have an interest in all
> > aspects of the flight computers. The radar and various other computer
> > code would also be available. I know the radar software was available
> > to our university, as many of us wrote algorithms against it for our Masters.
> > My groups project was to better track turbine velocities of targets, as a
> > possible enhancement to cruise missile detection. One would hope that
> > today the missiles would be designed to hide the turbine :-)
> >
> > "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote
> > > The F-16 is a very popular airplane. I'm just curious who has copies of
> > > the source code to the plane and it's radar, etc. Obviously the USAF does,
> > > but do the Israeli, the Belgians, or anyone else?
>
>
> What!! I thought that the radar was the most top-secret portion of the
> plane, and that the radar algorithms were a military secret. They hand it
> out to graduate students??
>
> Could you have gotten access to the flight control software? Could
> the Belgian government?

Yes, the Belgium depot at Gosselies was heavily involved with the F-16
MLU (Mid-Life Upgrade).

Yes, all software that was meant to be changed over time is available to
several universities in their engineering schools. The highest classification
I saw was For Official Use Only, and not releasable to the public :-)
That included flight, engine and radar software.

The government doesn't provide F-16 radars to just any school that asks
for them, and very few students are interested in radar unless they are going
to become government contractors, or government employees. So it's not
like these things are all over and kids are dinking with them. These things
cost millions, and are expensive to power-up and run for several hours, so
you spend hours on simulators before ever getting allowed to run your code
live out the antenna. It's very tedious and I have to say, very glad it was
over. I didn't want to be the one that blew-up the radar and had to fill out
all the reports to get replacement parts.

[tw]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:19:03 GMT, Glenfiddich
>
> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:18:29 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>"Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:02:51 GMT, "C.D.Damron" wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> >"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:
> > >>> >> The F-16 is a very popular airplane. I'm just curious who has
> copies
> > >>of
> > >>> >the source code to the plane and it's radar, etc.
> > >>> >> Obviously the USAF does, but do the Israeli,
> > >>> >> the Belgians, or anyone else?
> > >>> >
> > >>> >For some boxes, we did not provide the source code.
> > >> >This hasn't kept the Israeli's from uncompiling it
> > >>> >and selling the technology to other countries.
> > >>>
> > >>> The USA is the only country to receive such code from Israel.
> > >>> Check who owns F-16s - do you seriously imagine that Israel
> > >>> would sell improved code to an enemy state?
> > >
> > >>Given that they sold Python AAM's and wanted to sell an
> > >>advanced AWACS style capability to China I wouldnt rule
> > >>it out.
> > >
> > >The Python is an Israeli-developed missile, they have the right
> > >to sell it to any market they're not locked out of.
> > >
> > >The AWACS was offered openly, and cancelled at the US' request.
> > >That's wrong?
> > >
> > >Now, the subject was F-16 code - how many F-16s does China fly?
> > >
> > >>> Same thing happened with the improved Patriot programming.
> > >>> Israel had a vital interest in making it work right - and got
> > >>> enough real-life experience to see what needed fixing
> > >
> > >>And some sources believe they then sold that know how to China
> > >
> > >Some sources will believe anything...
> > >
> > >If China got secret US technology, they most likely got it directly
> > >from the US - didn't you follow the news about Chinese activities
> > >inside the USA?
> > >Misdirecting blame is a standard way to deflect attention.
> > >That's been done before - remember how Israeli agent Pollard
> > >was blamed for exposing US agents to the Russians?
> > >And then we heard that Aldrich Ames, the American who wrote
> > >the report blaming Pollard, was the traitor?
> > >
> > >>http://the-tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/china.13w.html
> > >>http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20010430/aw34.htm
> > >
> > >These two tentative reports are years old - and are still unconfirmed.
> > >If there were much truth in them, they'd have been confirmed by now.
> >
> > The Israelis will sell anything to anybody. They are not "allies" of the
> > US, they are a money sucking parasite.
>
> And there it is. With all the underlying anti-semitism building up in this
> thread, I was waiting for someone to just come right out and say something
> flagrantly neo-Nazi like that.

Come on, the Isrealis (who are not "The Jews" - by no means all Isralei are
Jewsih , and I woudl hazard a guess that the majority of Jews are not
citizens of Israel) have a long track record of selling whatever they can to
somewhat questionable regimes - Argentina and Apartheid Soth Africa to name
but too. Mr Minyard exaggerates as usual but as usual (I grudgingly admit)
there is a kernel of truth there.

> Its those crafty bloodsucking Jews! Zieg Heil! Don't you know they eat
> babies too?

Who mentioned Jews? He was talking about Israel.

> Never mind the fact that France and Germany were cheerfully selling Saddam
> Hussein brand new Roland surface to air missiles, land mines, ammunition
and
> cruise missiles only a couple of months before our invasion!

I think you might want to check yer facts there...

> It's the damn
> dirty Jews we should all be worried about!

Again, who mentioned Jews?

> And while China isn't exactly our best friend out there, military
> hostilities between us and them are nowhere near imminent... as they were
> with Saddam.

Well, invading countries does tend to make hostilities "imminent" I
suppose..

> Now I don't advocate Israel selling high-tech weapons to China,
> but I really don't feel it's a huge Jew conspiracy either.

So why bring it up?

> They know we're their friends. And since we're being honest lets face
facts here; China got
> more sensitive defense technology from us under Clinton than they could
ever
> hope to get from Israel.

Was Clinton shipping them state of the art missiles? I had no idea.

> It's all just business.

One definition of "just business" could be "selling anything to anyone"

> Now run along; your white sheet is probably getting
> wrinkled and you have crosses to burn. Watch out for those Jews!

You're a strange one.

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:39:21 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:19:03 GMT, Glenfiddich >
>wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:18:29 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:02:51 GMT, "C.D.Damron" wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:
>> >>> >> The F-16 is a very popular airplane. I'm just curious who has
>copies
>> >>of
>> >>> >the source code to the plane and it's radar, etc.
>> >>> >> Obviously the USAF does, but do the Israeli,
>> >>> >> the Belgians, or anyone else?
>> >>> >
>> >>> >For some boxes, we did not provide the source code.
>> >> >This hasn't kept the Israeli's from uncompiling it
>> >>> >and selling the technology to other countries.
>> >>>
>> >>> The USA is the only country to receive such code from Israel.
>> >>> Check who owns F-16s - do you seriously imagine that Israel
>> >>> would sell improved code to an enemy state?
>> >
>> >>Given that they sold Python AAM's and wanted to sell an
>> >>advanced AWACS style capability to China I wouldnt rule
>> >>it out.
>> >
>> >The Python is an Israeli-developed missile, they have the right
>> >to sell it to any market they're not locked out of.
>> >
>> >The AWACS was offered openly, and cancelled at the US' request.
>> >That's wrong?
>> >
>> >Now, the subject was F-16 code - how many F-16s does China fly?
>> >
>> >>> Same thing happened with the improved Patriot programming.
>> >>> Israel had a vital interest in making it work right - and got
>> >>> enough real-life experience to see what needed fixing
>> >
>> >>And some sources believe they then sold that know how to China
>> >
>> >Some sources will believe anything...
>> >
>> >If China got secret US technology, they most likely got it directly
>> >from the US - didn't you follow the news about Chinese activities
>> >inside the USA?
>> >Misdirecting blame is a standard way to deflect attention.
>> >That's been done before - remember how Israeli agent Pollard
>> >was blamed for exposing US agents to the Russians?
>> >And then we heard that Aldrich Ames, the American who wrote
>> >the report blaming Pollard, was the traitor?
>> >
>> >>http://the-tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/china.13w.html
>> >>http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20010430/aw34.htm
>> >
>> >These two tentative reports are years old - and are still unconfirmed.
>> >If there were much truth in them, they'd have been confirmed by now.
>>
>> The Israelis will sell anything to anybody. They are not "allies" of the
>> US, they are a money sucking parasite.
>
>And there it is. With all the underlying anti-semitism building up in this
>thread, I was waiting for someone to just come right out and say something
>flagrantly neo-Nazi like that.

So, anyone who disagrees with the Israeli Govt is an anti-semite nazi??
You really are sick.
>
>Its those crafty bloodsucking Jews! Zieg Heil! Don't you know they eat
>babies too?
>
>Never mind the fact that France and Germany were cheerfully selling Saddam
>Hussein brand new Roland surface to air missiles, land mines, ammunition and
>cruise missiles only a couple of months before our invasion! It's the damn
>dirty Jews we should all be worried about!

Once again, your silly rant has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
>
>Or that Russia sent military advisors and GPS jamming equipment to help
>Saddam repel our invasion and kill our boys.....everyone knows the Jews are
>the real problem!
>
>And while China isn't exactly our best friend out there, military
>hostilities between us and them are nowhere near imminent... as they were
>with Saddam. Now I don't advocate Israel selling high-tech weapons to China,
>but I really don't feel it's a huge Jew conspiracy either. They know we're
>their friends. And since we're being honest lets face facts here; China got
>more sensitive defense technology from us under Clinton than they could ever
>hope to get from Israel. And you can bet that if trade restrictions were
>relaxed with China tomorrow, Northrop, McDonnell Douglass and LockMart reps
>would be on the first plane over there trying to sell them AWACS and F-16s
>directly.
>
>It's all just business. Now run along; your white sheet is probably getting
>wrinkled and you have crosses to burn. Watch out for those Jews!
>
>Thomas J. Paladino Jr.
>New York City
>
You, sir, are a disgusting racist. Disagreement with the GOI does not make
one an anti-semite, but you cannot see that fact because of your
disturbing racism.

Al Minyard

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message news:emWBb.6458$US3.497@okepread03...
> > What!! I thought that the radar was the most top-secret portion of the
> > plane, and that the radar algorithms were a military secret. They hand it
> > out to graduate students??
> >
> > Could you have gotten access to the flight control software? Could
> > the Belgian government?
>
> Yes, the Belgium depot at Gosselies was heavily involved with the F-16
> MLU (Mid-Life Upgrade).
>
> Yes, all software that was meant to be changed over time is available to
> several universities in their engineering schools. The highest classification
> I saw was For Official Use Only, and not releasable to the public :-)
> That included flight, engine and radar software.


I'm still trying to understand.

Does this mean that they gave you some of the code, and some object files.
In other words, did they give you some *.c files, but keep a few
things secret in the *.o files.

>
> The government doesn't provide F-16 radars to just any school that asks
> for them, and very few students are interested in radar unless they are going
> to become government contractors, or government employees. So it's not
> like these things are all over and kids are dinking with them. These things
> cost millions, and are expensive to power-up and run for several hours, so
> you spend hours on simulators before ever getting allowed to run your code
> live out the antenna. It's very tedious and I have to say, very glad it was
> over. I didn't want to be the one that blew-up the radar and had to fill out
> all the reports to get replacement parts.

You must have some interesting stories. I'd be happy to read any you
might want to share.

[Gene Storey]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote
>
> Does this mean that they gave you some of the code, and some object files.
> In other words, did they give you some *.c files, but keep a few
> things secret in the *.o files.

It was all in Ada, and you compiled all of your software on a DEC Alpha, and
downloaded it into the firmware card, and plugged that back into the radar.
There's something called a Security Classification Guide. While any one or
two things might be unclassified, by tying them all together makes it classified
at some level. There hasn't been much new in radar algorithms in the last
20 years. Everyone knows a lot about DSP, tracking, etc :-) Every Mig
I know of has an F-16 detector in its RHAW, ha. Stuff like PRF, Frequency,
and algorithms actually used weren't published, which supposedly makes the
enemy have to work for it in their ESM gear. I'm sure the Soviets could
probably of told NATO more about the radar from just signal analysis, then
even Westinghouse engineers knew :-)

[C.D.Damron]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:NBxCb.1583$z74.1418@okepread03...
> It was all in Ada, and you compiled all of your software on a DEC Alpha,
and
> downloaded it into the firmware card, and plugged that back into the
radar.
> There's something called a Security Classification Guide. While any one
or
> two things might be unclassified, by tying them all together makes it
classified
> at some level. There hasn't been much new in radar algorithms in the last
> 20 years. Everyone knows a lot about DSP, tracking, etc :-) Every Mig
> I know of has an F-16 detector in its RHAW, ha. Stuff like PRF,
Frequency,
> and algorithms actually used weren't published, which supposedly makes the
> enemy have to work for it in their ESM gear. I'm sure the Soviets could
> probably of told NATO more about the radar from just signal analysis, then
> even Westinghouse engineers knew :-)


You might be right on some of the radar software, but there are probably a
dozen languages used on F-16's, mostly variants of Ada 83, Ada 94,
MIL-STD-1750A assembly, JOVIAL, C, and C++.

Some source code, expecially EW-oriented code, was not released.

[Simon Robbins]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> I'm still trying to understand.
>
> Does this mean that they gave you some of the code, and some object files.
> In other words, did they give you some *.c files, but keep a few
> things secret in the *.o files.

Bear in mind that software is used all over the place in a modern jet,
there's not simply a single computer that does everything. The company that
I work for does sonobuoy processors, crypto comms boxes, datalinks, etc. for
a number of US and UK aircraft programs. These products and their code is
the intellectual property of the company and is not releasable to the
customer. It's like any other embedded software product. Having said that,
often algorithms and research is done jointly with Universities or "customer
friend" organisations, such as QinetiQ (formerly DERA) in the UK, but it's
unusual for them to be given access to the product itself.

So basically, from my industry standpoint, we do not deliver source code to
the RAF, USAF, USMC or anybody else. Software Design Documents are
delievered, but the customers aren't interested in reverse engineering our
product. They have the budgets to come to us for enhancements or upgrades,
and they know we're the best suited to do the work which is why they came to
us in the first place. Plus copyright and patents are in place and protected
just as in the public sector.

Si

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:19:05 -0500, Charles Talleyrand > wrote:
>
>"Gene Storey" > wrote in message news:emWBb.6458$US3.497@okepread03...
>> > What!! I thought that the radar was the most top-secret portion of the
>> > plane, and that the radar algorithms were a military secret. They hand it
>> > out to graduate students??
>> >
>> > Could you have gotten access to the flight control software? Could
>> > the Belgian government?
>>
>> Yes, the Belgium depot at Gosselies was heavily involved with the F-16
>> MLU (Mid-Life Upgrade).
>>
>> Yes, all software that was meant to be changed over time is available to
>> several universities in their engineering schools. The highest classification
>> I saw was For Official Use Only, and not releasable to the public :-)
>> That included flight, engine and radar software.
>
>
>I'm still trying to understand.
>
>Does this mean that they gave you some of the code, and some object files.
>In other words, did they give you some *.c files, but keep a few
>things secret in the *.o files.

It was probably written in Ada.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote in message ...
> The company that
> I work for does sonobuoy processors, crypto comms boxes, datalinks, etc. for
> a number of US and UK aircraft programs.





I've just always wondered.
What does a sonobouy cost. It seems one could use lots of them quicky,
and there is no recovery mechanism. How expensive is all this?

[Gene Storey]

When you're trying to protect a ship that costs billions, then mere hundreds
of thousands a day is noise :-)

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote
>
> I've just always wondered.
> What does a sonobouy cost. It seems one could use lots of them quicky,
> and there is no recovery mechanism. How expensive is all this?

[Simon Robbins]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> I've just always wondered.
> What does a sonobouy cost. It seems one could use lots of them quicky,
> and there is no recovery mechanism. How expensive is all this?

Not sure that I would be allowed to divulge costs, but they're pretty cheap,
i.e. hundreds of pounds, rather than thousands. As a rule of thumb, active
buoys tend to cost more than passive, and generally speaking the greater the
number of hydrophones, the more expensive they are. But the greater cost is
I'm sure fielding the aircraft to drop and monitor them.

Si

[[email protected]]

"Simon Robbins" > wrote:

>"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
>> I've just always wondered.
>> What does a sonobouy cost. It seems one could use lots of them quicky,
>> and there is no recovery mechanism. How expensive is all this?
>
>Not sure that I would be allowed to divulge costs, but they're pretty cheap,
>i.e. hundreds of pounds, rather than thousands. As a rule of thumb, active
>buoys tend to cost more than passive, and generally speaking the greater the
>number of hydrophones, the more expensive they are. But the greater cost is
>I'm sure fielding the aircraft to drop and monitor them.
>
>Si
>
By a very very long shot yes. Sonos are cheap, probably a couple
hundred dollars each, especially the passive ones. Just a cheaply
made audio board and a cheap low power VHF transmitter, about a
half watt of RF. A long (sometimes several hundred feet of cheap
twinlead wire, a salt-water battery, a ceramic transducer
(microphone) and a thin aluminum tube with a little four bladed
'prop' for descent stability. We used them by the thousand and
occasionally they'd become 'time expired' and they'd load maybe
40 or 50 on a local training flight and ask us to jettison them
over the ocean. I recall asking if I could save some for use in
the local Ham Radio Club and taking them apart for the little
transmitter. Great for 'Transmitter Hunts' :)

-Gord.

"I'm trying to get as old as I can,
and it must be working 'cause I'm
the oldest now that I've ever been"

[Thomas Schoene]

Simon Robbins wrote:
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I've just always wondered.
>> What does a sonobouy cost. It seems one could use lots of them
>> quicky, and there is no recovery mechanism. How expensive is all
>> this?
>
> Not sure that I would be allowed to divulge costs, but they're pretty
> cheap, i.e. hundreds of pounds, rather than thousands. As a rule of
> thumb, active buoys tend to cost more than passive, and generally
> speaking the greater the number of hydrophones, the more expensive
> they are. But the greater cost is I'm sure fielding the aircraft to
> drop and monitor them.

In the US, you can find the contract award with numebrs and total contract
costs as public information. For example:

Sparton Defense Electronics, DeLeon Springs, Fla., is being awarded a
$7,136,416 firm-fixed-price contract for 6,303 AN/SSQ-62E sonobuoys and
associated data.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/c02202003_ct075-03.html

That's a bit over a thousand dollars each (earlier contracts were similar,
in the range of $900 to $1300, usually). But the SSQ-62E is a directional
active (DICASS) buoy, about the most sophisticated type available.

Still, the cost has always been a concern and the Navy has made many efforts
to field cheaper buoys for initial searches. While it's attractive to
imagine laying patterns of buoys every hour or so in front of a convoy, the
sheer inventory needed for this is daunting. NATO could have run out very
fast in a notional WW3 Battle of the Atlantic.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[[email protected]]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote:

>Simon Robbins wrote:
>> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I've just always wondered.
>>> What does a sonobouy cost. It seems one could use lots of them
>>> quicky, and there is no recovery mechanism. How expensive is all
>>> this?
>>
>> Not sure that I would be allowed to divulge costs, but they're pretty
>> cheap, i.e. hundreds of pounds, rather than thousands. As a rule of
>> thumb, active buoys tend to cost more than passive, and generally
>> speaking the greater the number of hydrophones, the more expensive
>> they are. But the greater cost is I'm sure fielding the aircraft to
>> drop and monitor them.
>
>In the US, you can find the contract award with numebrs and total contract
>costs as public information. For example:
>
>Sparton Defense Electronics, DeLeon Springs, Fla., is being awarded a
>$7,136,416 firm-fixed-price contract for 6,303 AN/SSQ-62E sonobuoys and
>associated data.
>
>http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/c02202003_ct075-03.html
>
>That's a bit over a thousand dollars each (earlier contracts were similar,
>in the range of $900 to $1300, usually). But the SSQ-62E is a directional
>active (DICASS) buoy, about the most sophisticated type available.
>
>Still, the cost has always been a concern and the Navy has made many efforts
>to field cheaper buoys for initial searches. While it's attractive to
>imagine laying patterns of buoys every hour or so in front of a convoy, the
>sheer inventory needed for this is daunting. NATO could have run out very
>fast in a notional WW3 Battle of the Atlantic.

These must be quite sophisticated directional buoys Thomas. While
I don't really know much about them I know that the simple
non-directional ones are considerably cheaper than that. If I
remember the type was AN/SSQ 517 and 518. they had (I think) a
selectable life of an hour (or so) or several hours. We turfed
them out at a great rate. A basic pattern was 9 buoys (that was
to get an idea of the targets direction then you extended the
pattern with one buoy then two buoys then one etc. Then when you
had a good reading on his direction you might try localizing him
with 'MAD' (using the 'stinger' on the tail of most ASW a/c) at
very low altitudes (~100 feet). these 'stingers' are part of the
'Magnetic Anomaly Detection' system which detect the changes in
the earth's magnetic field made by a large metal body (the
submarine)
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Glenfiddich > wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 04:54:25 GMT, "Gord Beaman" wrote:
>>"Thomas Schoene" > wrote:
>>>Simon Robbins wrote:
>>>> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message...
>>>>> What does a sonobouy cost. It seems one could use lots of them
>>>>> quicky, and there is no recovery mechanism. How expensive is all
>>>>> this?
>>>>
>>>> Not sure that I would be allowed to divulge costs, but they're pretty
>>>> cheap, i.e. hundreds of pounds, rather than thousands. As a rule of
>>>> thumb, active buoys tend to cost more than passive, and generally
>>>> speaking the greater the number of hydrophones, the more expensive
>>>> they are. But the greater cost is I'm sure fielding the aircraft to
>>>> drop and monitor them.
>>>
>>>In the US, you can find the contract award with numebrs and total contract
>>>costs as public information. For example:
>>>
>>>Sparton Defense Electronics, DeLeon Springs, Fla., is being awarded a
>>>$7,136,416 firm-fixed-price contract for 6,303 AN/SSQ-62E sonobuoys and
>>>associated data.
>>>
>>>http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/c02202003_ct075-03.html
>>>
>>>That's a bit over a thousand dollars each (earlier contracts were similar,
>>>in the range of $900 to $1300, usually). But the SSQ-62E is a directional
>>>active (DICASS) buoy, about the most sophisticated type available.
>...
>>These must be quite sophisticated directional buoys Thomas. While
>>I don't really know much about them I know that the simple
>>non-directional ones are considerably cheaper than that. If I
>>remember the type was AN/SSQ 517 and 518. they had (I think) a
>>selectable life of an hour (or so) or several hours. We turfed
>>them out at a great rate. A basic pattern was 9 buoys (that was
>>to get an idea of the targets direction then you extended the
>>pattern with one buoy then two buoys then one etc. Then when you
>>had a good reading on his direction you might try localizing him
>>with 'MAD' (using the 'stinger' on the tail of most ASW a/c) at
>>very low altitudes (~100 feet). these 'stingers' are part of the
>>'Magnetic Anomaly Detection' system which detect the changes in
>>the earth's magnetic field made by a large metal body (the
>>submarine)
>
>Directional sonobuoys are more like helo dunking heads.
>They need both a 'compass' and a directional sensor array - and
>an active also needs a pinger.
>That'll add a fair bit to the cost of a simple listening buoy.

More correctly you mean 'above the cost' of a simple listening
buoy I assume, and of course you're right.

Active buoys certainly would be very much more expensive. As I
pointed out, simple buoys are, well, simple.
--

-Gord.

[Simon Robbins]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
link.net...
> That's a bit over a thousand dollars each (earlier contracts were similar,
> in the range of $900 to $1300, usually). But the SSQ-62E is a directional
> active (DICASS) buoy, about the most sophisticated type available.

Actually, that's incorrect. The US uses DICASS, but the UK CAMBS VI digital
sonobuoy is much better. (I wrote the test range software for CAMBS 6 last
year.)

Si

[Simon Robbins]

"Glenfiddich" > wrote in message
...
> Directional sonobuoys are more like helo dunking heads.
> They need both a 'compass' and a directional sensor array - and
> an active also needs a pinger.
> That'll add a fair bit to the cost of a simple listening buoy.

Directional buoys do it by having hydrophones out of phase with each other,
i.e. a DIFAR type buoy, whereas LOFAR was just a single omni-directional
sensor. Directional buoys have a compass in their upper (floating) units.

Yes, as a rule of thumb, active buoys are more expensive, but new large
array passive buoys like Barra use 25 digitally samples hydrophones and cost
a great deal more than DICASS or CAMBS active buoys.

Si

[Simon Robbins]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...

> More correctly you mean 'above the cost' of a simple listening
> buoy I assume, and of course you're right.
>
> Active buoys certainly would be very much more expensive. As I
> pointed out, simple buoys are, well, simple.

It's not as simple as that. Modern passive buoys *can* be very expensive,
more so that the best active buoys. Barra for example has five carbon fibre
arms which extend for several metres upon which hydrophones are hung to
create a very high fidelity array.

The simplest buoys, like LOFAR are as you say very simple, but there's not
much call for them these days. Passive tracking is getting more difficult
all the time. Despite their shrinking fleet, the Russians can certainly
teach us a thing or two about stealth when it comes to submarines. These
days the whole ASW approach is shifting towards multi-static localisation
rather than the old localise by cross-reference passive contacts and then
localise for attack with active.

Si

[Thomas Schoene]

Simon Robbins wrote:
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> link.net...

>> But the SSQ-62E
>> is a directional active (DICASS) buoy, about the most sophisticated
>> type available.
>
> Actually, that's incorrect. The US uses DICASS, but the UK
> CAMBS VI digital sonobuoy is much better. (I wrote the test
> range software for CAMBS 6 last year.)

I didn't mean to say that SSQ-26 was the best buoy available, but that
directional active is the most complex general category of buoy. Sorry for
any confusion.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Simon Robbins]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> I didn't mean to say that SSQ-26 was the best buoy available, but that
> directional active is the most complex general category of buoy. Sorry
for
> any confusion.

Oh, I'm with you now. Yes, that's correct. Remember of course that an active
buoy also needs an RF downlink to receive ping commands, as well as the
regular RF telemetry uplink. So technologically, they are more complicated.
Essentially they're used to compliment a passive field. Traditionally, a
passive buoy field is used to find and classify a target (since you can get
signature information from the acoustics) and then active buoys are dropped
to localise for attack.

Si

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 04:54:25 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>"Thomas Schoene" > wrote:
>
>>Simon Robbins wrote:
>>> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I've just always wondered.
>>>> What does a sonobouy cost. It seems one could use lots of them
>>>> quicky, and there is no recovery mechanism. How expensive is all
>>>> this?
>>>
>>> Not sure that I would be allowed to divulge costs, but they're pretty
>>> cheap, i.e. hundreds of pounds, rather than thousands. As a rule of
>>> thumb, active buoys tend to cost more than passive, and generally
>>> speaking the greater the number of hydrophones, the more expensive
>>> they are. But the greater cost is I'm sure fielding the aircraft to
>>> drop and monitor them.
>>
>>In the US, you can find the contract award with numebrs and total contract
>>costs as public information. For example:
>>
>>Sparton Defense Electronics, DeLeon Springs, Fla., is being awarded a
>>$7,136,416 firm-fixed-price contract for 6,303 AN/SSQ-62E sonobuoys and
>>associated data.
>>
>>http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/c02202003_ct075-03.html
>>
>>That's a bit over a thousand dollars each (earlier contracts were similar,
>>in the range of $900 to $1300, usually). But the SSQ-62E is a directional
>>active (DICASS) buoy, about the most sophisticated type available.
>>
>>Still, the cost has always been a concern and the Navy has made many efforts
>>to field cheaper buoys for initial searches. While it's attractive to
>>imagine laying patterns of buoys every hour or so in front of a convoy, the
>>sheer inventory needed for this is daunting. NATO could have run out very
>>fast in a notional WW3 Battle of the Atlantic.
>
>These must be quite sophisticated directional buoys Thomas. While
>I don't really know much about them I know that the simple
>non-directional ones are considerably cheaper than that. If I
>remember the type was AN/SSQ 517 and 518. they had (I think) a
>selectable life of an hour (or so) or several hours. We turfed
>them out at a great rate. A basic pattern was 9 buoys (that was
>to get an idea of the targets direction then you extended the
>pattern with one buoy then two buoys then one etc. Then when you
>had a good reading on his direction you might try localizing him
>with 'MAD' (using the 'stinger' on the tail of most ASW a/c) at
>very low altitudes (~100 feet). these 'stingers' are part of the
>'Magnetic Anomaly Detection' system which detect the changes in
>the earth's magnetic field made by a large metal body (the
>submarine)

Are those the "DIFAR" buoys?

Al Minyard

[[email protected]]

Alan Minyard > wrote:

>>These must be quite sophisticated directional buoys Thomas. While
>>I don't really know much about them I know that the simple
>>non-directional ones are considerably cheaper than that. If I
>>remember the type was AN/SSQ 517 and 518. they had (I think) a
>>selectable life of an hour (or so) or several hours. We turfed
>>them out at a great rate. A basic pattern was 9 buoys (that was
>>to get an idea of the targets direction then you extended the
>>pattern with one buoy then two buoys then one etc. Then when you
>>had a good reading on his direction you might try localizing him
>>with 'MAD' (using the 'stinger' on the tail of most ASW a/c) at
>>very low altitudes (~100 feet). these 'stingers' are part of the
>>'Magnetic Anomaly Detection' system which detect the changes in
>>the earth's magnetic field made by a large metal body (the
>>submarine)
>
>Are those the "DIFAR" buoys?
>
>Al Minyard

No Al...a DIFAR buoy is 'passive directional', more complicated
than these passive non-directional jobbies. These are at the
bottom of the food chain and use the operator's ear to evaluate
the strength of the noise from the target. With a basic 9 buoy
pattern of these and a sharp operator you can fix a sub's
position pretty accurately then by listening to each buoy in
succession (they're all on different frequencies of course) you
can track him pretty well. There's a good URL to explain sono's
at:
http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14030/css/14030_106.htm

I'm by no means an expert with these things, my job was to help
get them and their operators (the real experts in this field) -
called AESops - (Airborne Electronic System Operators) out to the
area and home again. They taught us (FE's) a few rudimentary
facts so that we wouldn't feel too out of touch! :)
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>I'm by no means an expert with these things, my job was to help
>get them and their operators (the real experts in this field) -
>called AESops - (Airborne Electronic System Operators) out to the
>area and home again. They taught us (FE's) a few rudimentary
>facts so that we wouldn't feel too out of touch! :)

Oops! it's airborne electronic 'sensor' operators...
--

-Gord.

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 01:15:28 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
>>>These must be quite sophisticated directional buoys Thomas. While
>>>I don't really know much about them I know that the simple
>>>non-directional ones are considerably cheaper than that. If I
>>>remember the type was AN/SSQ 517 and 518. they had (I think) a
>>>selectable life of an hour (or so) or several hours. We turfed
>>>them out at a great rate. A basic pattern was 9 buoys (that was
>>>to get an idea of the targets direction then you extended the
>>>pattern with one buoy then two buoys then one etc. Then when you
>>>had a good reading on his direction you might try localizing him
>>>with 'MAD' (using the 'stinger' on the tail of most ASW a/c) at
>>>very low altitudes (~100 feet). these 'stingers' are part of the
>>>'Magnetic Anomaly Detection' system which detect the changes in
>>>the earth's magnetic field made by a large metal body (the
>>>submarine)
>>
>>Are those the "DIFAR" buoys?
>>
>>Al Minyard
>
>No Al...a DIFAR buoy is 'passive directional', more complicated
>than these passive non-directional jobbies. These are at the
>bottom of the food chain and use the operator's ear to evaluate
>the strength of the noise from the target. With a basic 9 buoy
>pattern of these and a sharp operator you can fix a sub's
>position pretty accurately then by listening to each buoy in
>succession (they're all on different frequencies of course) you
>can track him pretty well. There's a good URL to explain sono's
>at:
>http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14030/css/14030_106.htm
>
>I'm by no means an expert with these things, my job was to help
>get them and their operators (the real experts in this field) -
>called AESops - (Airborne Electronic System Operators) out to the
>area and home again. They taught us (FE's) a few rudimentary
>facts so that we wouldn't feel too out of touch! :)

Many thanks. I worked on the circuit boards for both in the early
70's, in the Magnavox circuit board engineering lab, but the
details have grown (very) fuzzy.

Al Minyard

[Simon Robbins]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> No Al...a DIFAR buoy is 'passive directional', more complicated
> than these passive non-directional jobbies.

FYI, DIFAR has been superceded in the UK inventory by HIDAR, which operates
in "S" mode with an analog telemetry uplink identical to DIFAR (to retain
compatibility) or in "H" mode using digital telemetry. I don't believe LOFAR
is used any longer by the RAF, no idea about the US forces.

Si

[J]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Simon Robbins wrote:
> > "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> I've just always wondered.
> >> What does a sonobouy cost. It seems one could use lots of them
> >> quicky, and there is no recovery mechanism. How expensive is all
> >> this?
> >
> > Not sure that I would be allowed to divulge costs, but they're pretty
> > cheap, i.e. hundreds of pounds, rather than thousands. As a rule of
> > thumb, active buoys tend to cost more than passive, and generally
> > speaking the greater the number of hydrophones, the more expensive
> > they are. But the greater cost is I'm sure fielding the aircraft to
> > drop and monitor them.
>
> In the US, you can find the contract award with numebrs and total contract
> costs as public information. For example:
>
> Sparton Defense Electronics, DeLeon Springs, Fla., is being awarded a
> $7,136,416 firm-fixed-price contract for 6,303 AN/SSQ-62E sonobuoys and
> associated data.
>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/c02202003_ct075-03.html
>
> That's a bit over a thousand dollars each (earlier contracts were similar,
> in the range of $900 to $1300, usually). But the SSQ-62E is a directional
> active (DICASS) buoy, about the most sophisticated type available.
>
> Still, the cost has always been a concern and the Navy has made many
efforts
> to field cheaper buoys for initial searches. While it's attractive to
> imagine laying patterns of buoys every hour or so in front of a convoy,
the
> sheer inventory needed for this is daunting. NATO could have run out very
> fast in a notional WW3 Battle of the Atlantic.
>
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

I visited Sparton Defense Electronics once (Sept '92), with another DOD
employee. We had been at Homestead as part of the team investigating the
damage, and stopped so he could visit some contacts. I remember being
surprised at the small size of their plant. Having dealt with the aircraft
manufactures I guess I expected the usual large defense contractor with an
complex of buildings covering several hundred-thousand square feet. Instead
it wasn't any larger than many industrial buildings found in any small
city/large town in the US or Canada. Heck every Mall I have seen was bigger.

Red Rider

Before anyone corrects our spelling it is Sparton, not Spartan.