18

According to this article,

the old U.S. system ... automatically identified all Israeli targets as a "friend," preventing Turkish fighter jets from firing at them, even if Turkish pilots were ordered to do so.

and the Turks have to develop some kind of a hack "technology" in order to override it.

I also heard similar assertion for US fighters sold to Arab nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Is this true? I find it weird that those countries spent billions on aircraft that will be useless in a potential conflict against the most powerful air force and one of the most powerful military in the region, whom some of them have fought several wars against.

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
Himawari90
  • 205
  • 1
  • 4
  • 4
    Not really an answer, but: Haaretz is a real newspaper, so something resembling a reliable source. But it's article is quoting an Iranian news agency, so not a very reliable original source. I've been unable to find a reputable news agency to confirm it. – DJClayworth Sep 13 '11 at 20:37
  • The Rumor Mill (tm) also has it that the avionics on the F-14s (?) that the US sold to Iran in the 70s were booby trapped and stopped working shortly after the revolution. If both claims were true it would constitute the beginnings of a pattern. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Sep 13 '11 at 21:57
  • 10
    Avionics do not allow a total override of a weapon system as these articles claim. As someone who not only designs aircraft avionics, but also flew military aircraft, I can state this with certainty. It's such a silly claim that I will barely dignify it with any research, hence it's not an answer, just a comment. It is purely propaganda and headline generation, nothing more... – Larian LeQuella Sep 14 '11 at 03:07
  • 1
    @Larian It might not be a trivial to do, but I think with sufficient software skills and hacks, any software-based system can be overridden.. That's why the article call it a "new technology", not just a simple adjustment. But I think this is off-topic, since the OP asked about whether there is a restriction in the first place, not whether the Turks overrode it – Louis Rhys Sep 14 '11 at 05:46
  • 2
    @Larian Once again, I find myself applauding your sanity. – Monkey Tuesday Sep 14 '11 at 06:14
  • If such a thing were actually true then I Believe we would be in violation of our treaty that allows the sale of said items. That said if the Turks fired on IDFAF planes that had not invaded turkish airspace then they would be risking war with the US. Something Turkey does not want. They may not be willing to be friends with them but they are not going to fight with our allies either. – Chad Sep 14 '11 at 18:04
  • @Larian: ::sigh:: That would be a pattern of planting logic bombs in high end weapon systems sold to shaky alies. *If* there was anything to it, and given that I haven't found anything like a reliable source to substantiate the rumor I wouldn't count on it. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Sep 15 '11 at 00:51
  • @Chad: I'm not familiar with the treaties governing the sales of military hardware to Turkey, but software and hardware upgrades to sold equipment aren't usually banned under such treaties (only transfer of the sold equipment to other countries without permission from the selling country is usually restricted, as may be specific uses like use against allies of the selling country except in self defence). – jwenting Sep 15 '11 at 10:27
  • 1
    @jwenting - If the US sold aircraft that seriptiously included hardware and software that would prevent their use against potential enemies of the purchaser then we could be in violation of the treaty. As such any information about a knowing violation would probably be classified. Anyone with real knowledge of such activity that outed it would be guilty of treason. I was not trying to suggest that Turkey was wrong for trying to alter the planes. Simply that any real evidence is likely not going to be available even if this is real. – Chad Sep 15 '11 at 13:45
  • 1
    I agree, Chad. I find it highly doubtful however that any such technology would have been included, and if included it could have been easily disabled by simply replacing the responsible systems with others available on the open market (many countries have modified their fleets to local specifications by replacing the factory supplied components by others, especially at the avionics level). No "local effort to crack the thing" needed at all, just slot out one black box and slot in another. – jwenting Sep 16 '11 at 06:47
  • @jwenting - Well the US Targeting system is part of what they want. It would be easy enough to provide inaccurate targeting data to other systems. It does not have to be off by much just enough that no US supplied weaponry can be effective against Allied IFF. It would look like a miss possibly due to pilot error. And I am not saying that it does not exist because it would break the treaty. But no one is going to provide proof of it because it is a death sentence. Not to mention it would likely literally start WWIII. – Chad Sep 16 '11 at 17:30
  • I've heard claims that France wasn't able to use its aircraft in the first gulf war, because the US wouldn't be able to distinguish between France's planes and Iraq's. I've also heard the anecdote about Nasser saying "stop sending surface-to-air missiles and to send surface-to-AIRCRAFT ones!" – Andrew Grimm Jan 30 '12 at 11:09

1 Answers1

19

Avionics do not allow a total override of a weapon system as these articles claim. As someone who not only designs aircraft avionics, but also flew military aircraft, I can state this with certainty. It's a silly claim. It is purely propaganda and headline generation, nothing more.

If such technology existed, don't you think that it would have been used to prevent the numerous instances of friendly fire deaths that the US has experienced? Wikipedia has a nice list of such events (I'll start it at 1991 to keep it with recent history), and you'll see that many are aircraft related.

The one incident that really stands out in this list is:

In the 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident, two U.S. Air Force F-15Cs involved with Operation Provide Comfort shot down two U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawks over northern Iraq, killing 29 military and civilian personnel.

Another instance is:

US Patriot missile batteries fired two missiles on a US Navy F/A-18C Hornet 50 mi (80 km) from Karbala, Iraq. One missile hit the aircraft of pilot Lieutenant Nathan Dennis White of VFA-195, Carrier Air Wing Five, killing him. This was the result of the missile design flaw in identifying hostile aircraft

To further put this insane conspiracy to rest, keep in mind that whenever a nation buys sophisticated equipment, they perform operational tests on it. Any inherent flaws would be quickly discovered in a thorough test program. And many of the scientists, engineers, and military officers of these nations are taught and trained in the US, so they are not exactly what you would call incompetent.

Larian LeQuella
  • 44,977
  • 18
  • 187
  • 208
  • While operational tests could detect if systems were physically inaccurate, would the operational tests be able to detect that Israeli targets are regarded as "friend"? – Andrew Grimm Jan 30 '12 at 11:03
  • 2
    @AndrewGrimm There is no mechanism from preventing a shot at an aircraft designated as friend. That doesn't matter to the missile or targeting system. Also, IFF codes are loaded independently of the electronics and circuits. If they discover that all Israeli craft are designated as friend somehow, it's as simple as flipping a switch to ignore that designation. – Larian LeQuella Jan 30 '12 at 11:32
  • The US won't even give the UK their IFF system, so UK troops don't identify as friend. I doubt they would give Israel the IFF system. – Nick Aug 09 '12 at 15:22
  • @Nick CITATION NEEDED! Having flown with many UK pilots on many missions, and even helped generate the ATO side by side with British Officers, you may be speaking of a different system, but it's certainly not IFF. Heck, UK forces have access to SAASM technology, which is much more sensitive. – Larian LeQuella Aug 10 '12 at 02:40
  • @LarianLeQuella http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/190th_Fighter_Squadron,_Blues_and_Royals_friendly_fire_incident "vehicles were marked with the agreed coalition Combat Identification markings including orange overhead canvas panels, thermal reflectors and Union Flags." UK land vehicles marked with thermal reflectors rather than IFF system. – Nick Aug 10 '12 at 06:57
  • 1
    @Nick first of all, wikipedia. And I take it you are unfamiliar with a technology called "Blue Force Tracker". Although, this particular question was specific to aircraft, which is the KIV-78 (I think, going by memory), which used Mode 4 (and sometimes 5) which all coalition aircraft have access to. – Larian LeQuella Aug 10 '12 at 16:40