5 ms·

But surely the private pilots training against US military pilots get to see the current tactics, and the private radars and electronic warfare pods get to reco

But surely the private pilots training against US military pilots get to see the current tactics, and the private radars and electronic warfare pods get to record the current combat settings of US military radars and electronic warfare systems. There is no way this is not all classified top secret and a major target for foreign intelligence. So all his personnel, pilots and technicians, need clearance as if they were active military (maybe more, because advanced tactics and information on all different NATO allies and aircraft, not a single squadron like most service member know). Even if for some reason it is cheaper for the US military to have this in a private company instead of maintaining aggressor squadrons with Migs, how is this secure?

VLM 7y ago
That's not the secret sauce, in the same sense that keeping source closed doesn't usually improve code quality from a security standpoint. The other counter is there are 26 operators of the F-16. Frankly it would be easier both in practice and legality to get cooperation from some dude in Pakistan or Venezuela than a US citizen who can at least sorta be watched over. Most of the tactics are not terribly advanced in the sense of some mysterious secret martial arts kick that defeats all. Most of the time battles are won logistically long before the fighting starts. Everyone in the business kinda knows what F16s do, not any more of a secret than knowing what Mig29s do, the struggle is always having enough resources in the right places at the right times to do anything about it. Something that often surprises civilians is most US military manuals are freeware and have always been that way. If you want to learn how an Army Brigade Combat Team operates, you don't join the KGB and steal documents, you just download FM 3-96 and read it. This is why actual veterans get annoyed about fictional hollywood military stuff; if you don't understand the role of a BCT's information operations officer sufficient to portray one in a movie, its just sheer lazyness to make something up instead of simply reading the FM. Its all part of the interesting strategy to handling massive public communications networks; half a century ago you could have an edge if it depended on having a secret sauce. Now that anyone with a web browser can download the official F-16 flight manual your strategy for having an edge relies on other forms of secret sauces. A good analogy for the problem is that excellent world class scientific documentation exists for weight loss and athletic performance, yet most people will not train in those areas. Olympic athletes are not high performers because the textbooks for weight lifting are kept secret and only for their reading.
- wolf550e 7y ago
  Sigint agencies hoard 0days and know they get "burned" by using them against a serious opponent that records traffic and can analyze and reverse engineer malware. If the 0day is useful against your own systems, you would hesitate to use it before your systems are patched. I think electronic warfare and ECCM systems can have similar dynamics. I always assumed (without any evidence) there is secret firmware or settings for these systems that will only be used in time of war and not used during training. I guess Israeli Air Force knows countries like Iran have the Russian hardware and personnel/training for dealing with the Elta gear that Israel exports, but I also guess the Israeli Air Force has secret sauce, maybe using the same hardware, that they don't export and use only for striking strategic targets, knowing each strike teaches the opponent something.
  - closeparen 7y ago
    >I always assumed (without any evidence) there is secret firmware or settings for these systems that will only be used in time of war and not used during training. I believe the military takes training realism incredibly seriously, and wouldn't dream of "testing in production" with a weapons system.
- dlgeek 7y ago
  "A serious problem in planning against American doctrine is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine." (Attributed to an unnamed Soviet Staff Officer)
- codeisawesome 7y ago
  Love the analogy! Clarifies a lot.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  There are simulators for military aircraft. Falcon BMS simulates the F-16. DCS World has an entire collection of simulated aircraft. They come with manuals too. I don't know what actual pilots think of the accuracy of the simulation but they're clearly no ordinary video games.
bkohlmann 7y ago
Nearly all pilots are former US military (or allied countries) and contractors often get military security clearances. All the pilots flying these jets will have a vetted, active clearance commensurate with the types of tactics they are simulating / seeing from the military planes.
bitminer 7y ago
It's secure because it's in the contract. The company has to follow US industrial security rules. Written by US DoD. The employees are vetted and hold clearances. Why do you think the USAF (or US Navy) hadn't thought about this?
- rplst8 7y ago
  Agree. Google NISPOM.
angry_octet 7y ago
All the pilots will be retired US (or close ally) instructor pilots. They equipment and scenarios are still classified. The jets live on US bases or similarly secured facillities (e.g. Boeing).

VLM 7y ago

That's not the secret sauce, in the same sense that keeping source closed doesn't usually improve code quality from a security standpoint. The other counter is there are 26 operators of the F-16. Frankly it would be easier both in practice and legality to get cooperation from some dude in Pakistan or Venezuela than a US citizen who can at least sorta be watched over. Most of the tactics are not terribly advanced in the sense of some mysterious secret martial arts kick that defeats all. Most of the time battles are won logistically long before the fighting starts. Everyone in the business kinda knows what F16s do, not any more of a secret than knowing what Mig29s do, the struggle is always having enough resources in the right places at the right times to do anything about it. Something that often surprises civilians is most US military manuals are freeware and have always been that way. If you want to learn how an Army Brigade Combat Team operates, you don't join the KGB and steal documents, you just download FM 3-96 and read it. This is why actual veterans get annoyed about fictional hollywood military stuff; if you don't understand the role of a BCT's information operations officer sufficient to portray one in a movie, its just sheer lazyness to make something up instead of simply reading the FM. Its all part of the interesting strategy to handling massive public communications networks; half a century ago you could have an edge if it depended on having a secret sauce. Now that anyone with a web browser can download the official F-16 flight manual your strategy for having an edge relies on other forms of secret sauces. A good analogy for the problem is that excellent world class scientific documentation exists for weight loss and athletic performance, yet most people will not train in those areas. Olympic athletes are not high performers because the textbooks for weight lifting are kept secret and only for their reading.

wolf550e 7y ago
Sigint agencies hoard 0days and know they get "burned" by using them against a serious opponent that records traffic and can analyze and reverse engineer malware. If the 0day is useful against your own systems, you would hesitate to use it before your systems are patched. I think electronic warfare and ECCM systems can have similar dynamics. I always assumed (without any evidence) there is secret firmware or settings for these systems that will only be used in time of war and not used during training. I guess Israeli Air Force knows countries like Iran have the Russian hardware and personnel/training for dealing with the Elta gear that Israel exports, but I also guess the Israeli Air Force has secret sauce, maybe using the same hardware, that they don't export and use only for striking strategic targets, knowing each strike teaches the opponent something.
- closeparen 7y ago
  >I always assumed (without any evidence) there is secret firmware or settings for these systems that will only be used in time of war and not used during training. I believe the military takes training realism incredibly seriously, and wouldn't dream of "testing in production" with a weapons system.
dlgeek 7y ago
"A serious problem in planning against American doctrine is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine." (Attributed to an unnamed Soviet Staff Officer)
codeisawesome 7y ago
Love the analogy! Clarifies a lot.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
There are simulators for military aircraft. Falcon BMS simulates the F-16. DCS World has an entire collection of simulated aircraft. They come with manuals too. I don't know what actual pilots think of the accuracy of the simulation but they're clearly no ordinary video games.

bkohlmann 7y ago

Nearly all pilots are former US military (or allied countries) and contractors often get military security clearances. All the pilots flying these jets will have a vetted, active clearance commensurate with the types of tactics they are simulating / seeing from the military planes.

bitminer 7y ago

It's secure because it's in the contract. The company has to follow US industrial security rules. Written by US DoD. The employees are vetted and hold clearances. Why do you think the USAF (or US Navy) hadn't thought about this?

rplst8 7y ago
Agree. Google NISPOM.

angry_octet 7y ago

All the pilots will be retired US (or close ally) instructor pilots. They equipment and scenarios are still classified. The jets live on US bases or similarly secured facillities (e.g. Boeing).