how easy would it be for some one to hack into the new f35 and

I'll bite, locating the aircraft would be the only plausible one of those, just need to gain access to the datalink, which I'll have to assume is very, very difficult, and if the datalink was compromised the pilots would just turn it off, detecting datalink emissions is technically plausible but impossibly impractical.

Hacking in to the flight computer should be impossible by any means that exist in the real world, it is probably not coupled in to the data systems because there's no reason to do so. You could use space magic to induce current in the flight computer to flip bits the way you want, but this is pure sci-fi.

Ejecting the pilot should be entirely impossible, the seat is probably entirely separate from the rest of the aircraft and entirely mechanical apart from the thermal batteries it might have. With space magic you could, once again, induce current in the circuitry to fire the gas generators but this is once again entirely sci-fi.

>how easy would it be for some one to hack into the new f35 and fly it or eject the pilot

Absolutely impossible

Inb4 350 replies that forget communication's are encrypted

>>31647206
Why not just use SAMs to shoot these paper planes down instead?

I knew it wasn't that hard

File: this shit is getting retarded.jpg (11KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 251x242px

F-35 BTFO

>>31647298
They can't see them

>>31647298
>turn radar on to spot F-35
>see radar noise
>spot missiles a few seconds before they land on you

Great plan there mate.

>>31647298
Why not rape the pilot and take his eyes out and kill his family?

>>31647206
Very easy if you have access to source code.
Impossible if you don't.

>>31650296
Nope. Even with the full source code you'd need the correct and current encryption key to access the data-link.

Even then, most of what OP wants to do are things that can't be done remotely. Seeing where the aircraft is and what it's sensors can see would be a huge advantage, but would be practically impossible for an opposing force.

>>31647206
Actually impossible.

>>31648682
>All F-35s are SEAD

>>31650382
>most of what OP wants to do are things that can't be done remotely.
>implying F-35 is not fitted with billion backdoors specifically for that purpose

>>31651395
It's a fighter jet. Not your iPhone.

>>31647297
Encryption isn't unbreakable

>>31651707
are you proud of that post? proud of what you did there? moron.
even if you had an encrypted feed, you would still need time to decrypt it, by which time your window of opportunity has passed.

please make sure your brain is engaged before clicking post next time. idiot.

>tfw start flight school next month
>tfw they've started selecting for f-35 now (at least in the Navy)
>tfw it's a possibility that I'll be flying the f-35 in like 2 years

I'll probably get stuck flying helos, but at least there's a chance. Wish me luck guys.

>>31651707

Depends.

Brute force? Practically impossible.

Side channel / implementation? Good luck trying to even get access to test it.

>>31647298
>use missiles to shoot down planes
what a concept

There's absolutely no reason for any modern aircraft to have its data link and mission systems integrated with its vehicle systems.

>>31650678
Even if they aren't hauling payload for it, their sensors are still running SEAD anyways.

>>31650678
barracuda is always on my kid