Vault

Not in an ICBM you don't, but you do in a Cruise missile. :D Topol looks like an SA-14 to me.

Topol it's a cruise missile isn't it? is it a variant of the Klub family of cruise missiles?

Those commodities are a bonus Weta... but TBH I'd pick the Su-34 purely for aesthetic reasons.

You have good taste Zakobi, she's a beautiful aircraft isn't she. For me the fullback is the most aesthetically pleasing aircraft ever to of graced the skies...

Su-34

GG you don't really know if the KA-52 can or can't carry the Kh-25 do you? I'm curious to why you think the KA-52 can't carry the Kh-25. Do you know something I don't?.

GG The PDF I posted above cleary shows a KH-25 on the KA-52, why do say allegedly?.

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=0fe5a95e4b18f8680f83d91f6dff7c38afcb2953a801e514ce018c8114394287

GG I'm pretty damn sure DCS encrypts packet data, the packet editor I used automatically decodes the hex inside the packets to plain text and all the plain text was random jargon which is a good sign that DCS's packets are encrypted, TBH I was more interested to see if DCS was wrapping raw data inside the packets to send over the network but there not. I confirmed my suspisions by sending some text into DCS's chat and recorded the sent packets and I couldn't decode any of the sent packets hex data back into plain text that corresponded with the message I'd sent into chat as it was just random jargon.

I had a look at DCS's network packets and they are encrypted which is standard security against attackers using packet editors, what I don't understand is why would you encrypt network data and not memory data? Does it really use that much more cpu cycles? I'm sure there's a reason for it but if you dont protect the raw data all an attacker needs to do is target and edit that raw data before it's processed by a certain .dll in DCS for encryption. When handling DCS's raw data all an attacker needs to be skilled at is hex, he doesn't need to know about encryption because DCS will decrypt/encrypt data for him, Forget ACMI exploits there for noobs, by editing the raw data it may be possible to execute more advanced cheats for example like turn aircraft labels on and off on MP servers on the attackers machine and you wouldn't know about it.. If it's impossible to encrypt the raw data because of MP lag then we need some form of program that'll read the clients PC for suspect running processes and a file integrity check that will run before DCS joins a server this isn't fool proof but it'll keep 99.9% of cheats away from the code.

Huge database of High resolution pictures http://www.fighterjetz.com/

Thanks for answering GGT, I dont even play MP, I'm out of this one.

I agree GGT but encrypted and raw data is what sets the noobs and the pro's apart, GGT does DCS and LOMAC encrypt the data that's held in memory?. :music_whistling:

Hi AS, I dont really understand what your saying mate, I'm under the impression that if a game is holding unencrypted data in memory then it's a hexploiters wet dream, if LOMAC or DCS is running unencrypted data you are at risk and I dont mean from LUA.

Kuky if LOMAC doesn't encrypt the data that's held in memory then you've got a reason to be concerned. If LOMAC encrypts all the data held in memory I wouldn't let it concern you mate. :thumbup:

Various videos of low and fast flying UK military aircraft by Mark Jayne. Cad West "The Mach loop" http://www.mjaviation.co.uk/Videos/MachLoop.wmv RAF Valley http://www.mjaviation.co.uk/Videos/RAFValley.wmv Cad West http://www.mjaviation.co.uk/Videos/CadWest.wmv Cad East http://www.mjaviation.co.uk/Videos/CadEast.wmv The Bwlch http://www.mjaviation.co.uk/Videos/Bwlch.wmv

MJaviation http://www.mjaviation.co.uk/ pictures belong to Mark Jayne. 493rd F-15E's of the 43rd FW at Corris corner in the UK. Rare pictures of RSAF Typhoon in primer colours. GR9's. RAF Typhoons at Corris corner and West Cad UK. Harrier T10's at Bwlch in the UK.

F-15E's of the 493rd Grim Reaper's fighter squadron. http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=144097 Various pictures from http://lowfly.net/5.html

The frequency is very important GG, because of the frequencies wavelengths. The picture that Groove posted is visually stating that the JSF offers no VLO protection against VHF radar, the JSF will have a much larger RCS under the scrutiny of an UESA compared to an X band AESA, the JSF RCS & VLO performance figures against X band radar are not applicable to a UHF radar, when an object is under the scrutiny of UESA it uses an electronically steered narrow beam to emit a CW of UHF radar that offers sufficient high rate update precision to support remote targeting of an object with a low RCS.

GG if the JSF is susceptible to VHF it will also be susceptible to UHF, UHF can impart more energy onto a given surface for longer periods of time than VHF that's why the USN's UESA uses UHF and not VHF, the really interesting part is that the first USN E-2D Advanced Hawkeye codenamed Delta 1 is carrying the full RMP upgrade which consists of the UESA radar backed up by a highly advanced IRST surveillance system made by Raytheon. Delta 1 has passed its second preliminary design review and its looking like the UESA in the RPM upgrade is here to stay. The fact that UESA offers sufficient precision for OTH remote targeting against fast moving targets with a low RCS is very impressive.

GG if you want an example of a very impressive UHF radar look up the USN's UESA, the USN's UESA entered LRIP in 2006, for a UHF based radar it's very impressive. UHF also has a higher resistance to jamming than radar operating in the microwave region. A USEA will also have a higher LPI capability when compared to a X band LPI AESA. The point I'm trying to make is that there is currently a LRIP batch of operational LPI UESA OTH radars in the US inventory, which is capable of handing off accurate hi rate targetting data remotely against low RCS targets. Systems like these are very dangerous to the JSF if it is suseptible to VHF. I'm not advocating that "VHF/UHF kills JSF" and I'm not saying "VHF/UHF" is magical, I'm remaining neutral, but I'm up for a discussion on it.

Thanks for the reply GG, I didn't know that it was maintenance and BIT program data that was compromised in the hack. FC/search LPI radars are not limited to decimetric and centimetric radar frequencies, AFAIK if VHF can detect the JSF then so can UHF, GG do you think that if an emitter is able hop between VHF and UHF frequencies, change phases and operate over the massive spectrum of wavelengths that VHF and UHF utilizes, it would make jamming extremely difficult?, I think it would be extremely difficult to jam. Yes VHF's are more susceptible to clutter, filters can help towards some of the clutter, also if a track appears on a VHF scope but fails to appear on an X band scope it would effectively become a type of NCTR against 5th gen fighters, which would make you a high priority target. I agree VHF would make a very poor TWS type of missile guidance, software and processing power could improve VHF's accuracy though, I do believe that VHF is sufficiently ample to guide a missile with a dual ARH IR seeker to be flown near enough to the JSF to acquire it and initiate terminal homing. Yep, I meant ARH it's a typo, the JSF will be optimal against X band radar especially in a head on aspect, an ARH missile will always have a lower PK against the JSF, but I think as the range decreases and the side on aspect increases the PK will increase, but the PK will always remain lower against the JSF at any given distance when compared to the RCS of 4th gen aircraft, I think you can raise the PK of a missile considerably against the JSF by utilizing dual seekers for terminal homing amd a dog leg flight path for the missile. If you can vector an interceptor/fighter through DL then you can vector a DL'd missile, it would form a poor TWS type of guidance with an intercept path that is more inefficient than an X band guided missile, but I think a missile that utilized a dual ARH/IR seeker head for terminal guidance seeker would give an acceptable PK. If the JSF is vulnerable to VHF/UHF is the F-22 also vulnerable to VHF?. GG you have put across some very valid points, but I think it's a bit naive to dismiss a technology that is possibly able to track the JSF considering that the JSF is reliant on VLO technology for its survival, as we already know VHF has already indirectly attributed to the shooting down of an aircraft that utilized VLO technology, I used to be as confident as you are about VLO technology, but I no longer think VLO technology is invulnerable to all frequencies. True.

Thanks for offering to look for it. I hope you find it. ;)

I didn't think they released the details of what highly sensitive data was compromised. If I understand correctly Physics dictates that the receiving antenna needs to be a minimum of 50% of the size of the wavelength. Now lets say the JSF is roughly about 15 metres in length, that would mean the JSF is physically incapable of carrying an antenna that is capable of picking up wavelengths in excess of 30 metres, so not only can the JSF be tracked by VHF radar, the JSF's RWR would fail to alert the pilot that he's being tracked, if you can't receive the wavelength you also can't jam it, You're correct FC, SAHR and ARM all use centimetric X band radar because of the accuracy it offers but I'm 99.9% sure that VHF radar is accurate enough to guide a DL IR missile through a fighter that is DL to a ground based VHF radar into a very small killbox considering old school Soviet ground based tracking radars used VHF, also at what range/aspect does an X band ARM seeker head have to to the JSF to effectivley "burn through" the JSF's range/aspect VLO parameters? At the very least you will be able to vector a non emitting interceptor/fighter at the JSF through DL for an attack. So yes it's interesting, very interesting if the JSF is vulnerable to VHF radar. If I've got something wrong please feel free to correct me.

Topol, AFAIK the JSF's VLO performance against various frequency/wavelengths figures are classified, but after the recent leak of classified data on the JSF you never know, if the VLO JSF offers no protection against VHF multimetric wavelengths that would be very interesting indeed.