4 ms·

Whether there is a kill switch or not is somewhat irrelevant. There is a larger than nonzero chance that there is a kill switch, and the US cannot be trusted an

by mmcnl 2y ago

Whether there is a kill switch or not is somewhat irrelevant. There is a larger than nonzero chance that there is a kill switch, and the US cannot be trusted anymore. So we have to assume there is a kill switch.

ascorbic 2y ago
That's basically what the article says. And that even if there isn't a kill switch, these weapons rely on constant updates and cutting those off is effectively a kill switch, even if it wasn't designed as one.
silvestrov 2y ago
Lack of maintenance parts is just a kill switch with a timer. Jet Fighters need a lot of maintenance, they are not like cars. So a kill switch in software is not needed. If the US stops shipping parts, then it is only a matter of time before the Jet Fighters is an expensive paper weight.
- spixy 2y ago
  Huge part of F35 (like the engine) is made in EU/UK. We could "kill switch" USA as well. https://www.ft.com/content/1503a69e-13e4-4ee8-9d05-b9ce1f7cc89e https://www.ft.com/content/1503a69e-13e4-4ee8-9d05-b9ce1f7cc...
  - justin66 2y ago
    It’s false to say that all F-35 engines are made in the same country.
- jki275 2y ago
  Iran is still flying F14s.
  - mayama 2y ago
    F35 is networked heavily, for its sensor fusion and various abilities. It has probably 25 million LOC and is heavily software dependent. It should be viewed somewhat as a closed software product that needs heavy vendor support right from mission planning.
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      You don't have to use the ALIS in an F35. Israel uses it's own version of ALIS it co-developed with India and France (forgetting the name - will add once I remember). The fusion aspect was added because of NATO's Air Force fusion/unified command policy in Europe and MENA before the current administration.
      - alephnerd 2y ago
        > forgetting the name BNET and IAI+Thales+BEL's Datalink
    - jki275 2y ago
      Yes, but also no. Some of the capabilities, sure -- you're never going to be able to use them if you don't have the things it needs to talk to. The lack of those things don't turn it into a brick. It's still a highly capable fifth gen LO fighter/bomber without them.
- bambax 2y ago
  Exactly. There probably is a kill switch (the temptation to add one is just impossible to resist), but it's not even needed. Stop maintenance, and in a matter of days these things can't fly.
unethical_ban 2y ago
With absolutely no military experience, I find this thought process hard to believe. Namely that the existence of backdoors is hard to conceal forever, and that their discovery would do worse damage than what Trump is doing now. Given most administrations seemed interested in maintaining friendship with Europe, I don't see the strategic benefit.
- vanviegen 2y ago
  > I don't see the strategic benefit. Selling expensive weapons that can never be used against oneself sounds like a pretty significant strategic benefit to me. Are there risks? Sure, but the US could just shrug if exposed. A kill switch seems likely.
rurban 2y ago
One of the kill switches are the Intel ME, AMD PSP, Windows OS, Google. Apple? Who knows if they will participate in such national security measure. Also core routers, interxions, sealines, Level 3 et al.
coldburst 2y ago
Having a kill switch "just in case" really is a strategically logical move. Consider the case of Iran: In the 1960s and 1970s, the US delivered several US-built aircraft to Iran, including F-4s, F-5s, and F-14s, some of the most advanced fighters of that era. After the 1979 revolution, US-Iran relations collapsed. Despite the US cutting off spare parts and maintenance, Iran has been able to keep the aircraft operational to this day (likely through effortful reverse engineering). So now there is an adversary that is armed with equipment you provided. The obvious way to avoid that is to install a kill switch.
- r00fus 2y ago
  > After the 1979 revolution, US-Iran relations collapsed. Amusing way of putting it, if you ignore the US/UK instigated 1953 coup of Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah who was busy selling out Iran to the western powers, yeah you can assuming US-Iran relations "collapsed". I'd say they collapsed in 1953 and 1979 was the aftermath.

by mmcnl 2y ago

ascorbic 2y ago

That's basically what the article says. And that even if there isn't a kill switch, these weapons rely on constant updates and cutting those off is effectively a kill switch, even if it wasn't designed as one.

silvestrov 2y ago

Lack of maintenance parts is just a kill switch with a timer. Jet Fighters need a lot of maintenance, they are not like cars. So a kill switch in software is not needed. If the US stops shipping parts, then it is only a matter of time before the Jet Fighters is an expensive paper weight.

spixy 2y ago
Huge part of F35 (like the engine) is made in EU/UK. We could "kill switch" USA as well. https://www.ft.com/content/1503a69e-13e4-4ee8-9d05-b9ce1f7cc89e https://www.ft.com/content/1503a69e-13e4-4ee8-9d05-b9ce1f7cc...
- justin66 2y ago
  It’s false to say that all F-35 engines are made in the same country.
jki275 2y ago
Iran is still flying F14s.
- mayama 2y ago
  F35 is networked heavily, for its sensor fusion and various abilities. It has probably 25 million LOC and is heavily software dependent. It should be viewed somewhat as a closed software product that needs heavy vendor support right from mission planning.
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    You don't have to use the ALIS in an F35. Israel uses it's own version of ALIS it co-developed with India and France (forgetting the name - will add once I remember). The fusion aspect was added because of NATO's Air Force fusion/unified command policy in Europe and MENA before the current administration.
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      > forgetting the name BNET and IAI+Thales+BEL's Datalink
  - jki275 2y ago
    Yes, but also no. Some of the capabilities, sure -- you're never going to be able to use them if you don't have the things it needs to talk to. The lack of those things don't turn it into a brick. It's still a highly capable fifth gen LO fighter/bomber without them.
bambax 2y ago
Exactly. There probably is a kill switch (the temptation to add one is just impossible to resist), but it's not even needed. Stop maintenance, and in a matter of days these things can't fly.

unethical_ban 2y ago

With absolutely no military experience, I find this thought process hard to believe. Namely that the existence of backdoors is hard to conceal forever, and that their discovery would do worse damage than what Trump is doing now. Given most administrations seemed interested in maintaining friendship with Europe, I don't see the strategic benefit.

vanviegen 2y ago
> I don't see the strategic benefit. Selling expensive weapons that can never be used against oneself sounds like a pretty significant strategic benefit to me. Are there risks? Sure, but the US could just shrug if exposed. A kill switch seems likely.

rurban 2y ago

One of the kill switches are the Intel ME, AMD PSP, Windows OS, Google. Apple? Who knows if they will participate in such national security measure. Also core routers, interxions, sealines, Level 3 et al.

coldburst 2y ago

Having a kill switch "just in case" really is a strategically logical move. Consider the case of Iran: In the 1960s and 1970s, the US delivered several US-built aircraft to Iran, including F-4s, F-5s, and F-14s, some of the most advanced fighters of that era. After the 1979 revolution, US-Iran relations collapsed. Despite the US cutting off spare parts and maintenance, Iran has been able to keep the aircraft operational to this day (likely through effortful reverse engineering). So now there is an adversary that is armed with equipment you provided. The obvious way to avoid that is to install a kill switch.

r00fus 2y ago
> After the 1979 revolution, US-Iran relations collapsed. Amusing way of putting it, if you ignore the US/UK instigated 1953 coup of Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah who was busy selling out Iran to the western powers, yeah you can assuming US-Iran relations "collapsed". I'd say they collapsed in 1953 and 1979 was the aftermath.