Fading Signal: The Neglect of Electronic Warfare.

[Mike[_7_]]

Fading Signal: The Neglect of Electronic Warfare.
Lexington Institute.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1223.shtml

When you consider how much money Americans spend on defense -- about
$4 trillion so far in this decade alone -- it's amazing what a poor
job we do of maintaining our military arsenal. In the years since the
cold war ended, the Navy's fleet has shrunk by half to fewer than 300
ships, the Air Force's planes have "matured" to twice the age of the
commercial airline fleet, and the Army has largely abandoned the
production of heavy armored vehicles. There's a simple reason for all
these signs of military decay: the threat went away. No peer
adversary has taken the place of the Red Army or the Imperial Navy.

The decline of electronic warfare is harder to explain, because there
the threat never went away -- it got worse. Electronic warfare is the
fight for control of the electromagnetic spectrum, the medium via
which all of our communications and information systems operate.
During the cold war, each military service nurtured a community of
specialists adept at blocking or manipulating enemy transmissions
while countering enemy efforts to do the same to us. They jammed
radars, disrupted command links, confused sensors and in general made
it difficult for adversaries to employ any electronic device.

When you're really good at electronic warfare, your enemy is nearly
helpless. He can't see, he can't hear, he can't even turn on the
lights. Electronic warfare is the reason why Syria's military didn't
know it was under attack last year until Israeli bombs began exploding
at its sole nuclear-weapons facility -- even though the jets dropping
the bombs had to transit Syrian air space to get to the target. Like
cyber warfare, it's the kind of warfighting skill that only a
technologically advanced country can be really good at, so you'd think
U.S. military planners would want to exploit it for maximum
leverage.

Well, guess again. Aside from the U.S. Navy and a small band of
dedicated congressmen called the Electronic Warfare Working Group,
this arcane specialty has become an orphan in the budgeting process.
The Air Force walked away from electronic warfare when it decided that
stealthy aircraft could be invisible to any radar (it later learned
that wasn't entirely true). The Army aborted plans to build an
"aerial common sensor" that could find hostile emitters on the
battlefield, only to discover that insurgents in Iraq were using cell
phones and electronic bomb detonators to great effect. And the
Marines just stopped thinking about the subject.

The Navy held on, developing a replacement for the aging Prowler
jamming plane called the Growler (a variant of the F/A-18 Super
Hornet). Part of the reason was that naval aviators weren't as
impressed with stealth as their Air Force counterparts, and so they
continued investing in other approaches to defending aircraft. The
Army has now rediscovered electronic warfare as a result of setbacks
in Iraq, and has sent soldiers to train with Navy specialists. But
even the Navy has lagged in funding next-gen capabilities, which
probably require unmanned aircraft that can get closer to hostile
emitters.

Perhaps the time has come to put the Navy in charge of all joint
electronic warfare activities. The other services don't have their
acts together, and the Navy is less stressed at the moment than the
ground forces. That could change, but the problem right now is that a
vital skill is being neglected, and the Navy may be the only service
with enough expertise and imagination to keep it alive.

[Derek Lyons]

"W. D. Allen" > wrote:
>EW test question: How did Halsey know to send Air Force P-38s to knock
>Admiral Yamamoto out of the sky in the South Pacific during WWII?

Cryptography and signals intelligence - which aren't usually
considered forms of EW at all AFAIK.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[William Black[_1_]]

"W. D. Allen" > wrote in message
...

> EW test question: How did Halsey know to send Air Force P-38s to knock
> Admiral Yamamoto out of the sky in the South Pacific during WWII?
>
> The Old Crows know!

With nothing at all involving electronic warfare...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[christoph]

In article >,
"W. D. Allen" > wrote:

> In 1966 the North Vietnamese with their Russian instructors began shooting
> down U.S. aircraft over NVN. Someone in the Navy had the wisdom and
> foresight to have on hand 1,000 ALQ-51 deception repeaters originally
> dedicated to aircraft protection during execution of the Navy portion of the
> SIOP.
>
> Those ALQ-51s were rounded up from all over the globe (some were found in
> Antarctica)

I have to ask, is there a story behind the presence of ALQ-51s in
Antarctica?

Thanks!

--
"Hope. Wonderful thing; should be a controlled substance"

xristoph at earthlink dot net

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Derek Lyons ha scritto:
> "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
>> EW test question: How did Halsey know to send Air Force P-38s to knock
>> Admiral Yamamoto out of the sky in the South Pacific during WWII?
>
> Cryptography and signals intelligence - which aren't usually
> considered forms of EW at all AFAIK.

I was to write the same.... I have only to add that in the EW & Crypto
environment is easy to steal merits... Even very high brasses don't have
necessarly all the various "need to know" clearances to effectively
adjudge merits and esp. the following promotions & increase in resources....

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 17, 12:26 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> wrote:
> Derek Lyons ha scritto:
>
> > "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
> >> EW test question: How did Halsey know to send Air Force P-38s to knock
> >> Admiral Yamamoto out of the sky in the South Pacific during WWII?
>
> > Cryptography and signals intelligence - which aren't usually
> > considered forms of EW at all AFAIK.
>
> I was to write the same.... I have only to add that in the EW & Crypto
> environment is easy to steal merits... Even very high brasses don't have
> necessarly all the various "need to know" clearances to effectively
> adjudge merits and esp. the following promotions & increase in resources....
>
> Best regards from Italy,
> Dott. Piergiorgio.

It is the "decision-making" that is the key to the primacy of the
brass, IIRC the decision was made to hit Yamamoto despite the belief
that the act would reveal the Allies ability to read Naval codes.
JN-25D the latest.

"President Franklin D. Roosevelt requested Secretary of the Navy Frank
Knox, "Get Yamamoto." Knox instructed Admiral Chester W. Nimitz of
Roosevelt's wishes. Nimitz first consulted Adm. William F. Halsey,
Jr., Commander, South Pacific, and then authorized the mission on
April 17." wiki

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20060423.aspx

[[email protected]]

On Feb 16, 6:45*pm, christoph > wrote:
> In article >,
> *"W. D. Allen" > wrote:
>
> > In 1966 the North Vietnamese with their Russian instructors began shooting
> > down U.S. aircraft over NVN. Someone in the Navy had the wisdom and
> > foresight to have on hand 1,000 ALQ-51 deception repeaters originally
> > dedicated to aircraft protection during execution of the Navy portion of the
> > SIOP.
>
> > Those ALQ-51s were rounded up from all over the globe (some were found in
> > Antarctica)
>
> I have to ask, is there a story behind the presence of ALQ-51s in
> Antarctica?

Don't know for sure, but at teh time, the Navy was operating ski-
equipped P-2 Neptunes in Antartica. Seems a likely source.

--
Pete Stickney

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:50:59 -0800, "W. D. Allen"
> wrote:

>"...Perhaps the time has come to put the Navy in charge of all joint
>electronic warfare activities...."
>
>Now it can be told...
>
>In 1966 the North Vietnamese with their Russian instructors began shooting
>down U.S. aircraft over NVN. Someone in the Navy had the wisdom and
>foresight to have on hand 1,000 ALQ-51 deception repeaters originally
>dedicated to aircraft protection during execution of the Navy portion of the
>SIOP.

Let's note that the North Vietnamese air defenses began claiming US
aircraft in 1964 and throughout 1965 as well. The ill-fated first SAM
raid in which six F-105s were lost was conducted in July of 1965.
Let's not rewrite history.

The first USAF Weasels, the F-100F aircraft equipped with APR-25/26,
began flying SAM suppression raids on 1 December 1965.

When I started F-105 training at Nellis in September of 1965 we began
to get aircraft back from depot maintenance with three cannon plugs
installed in the inner bulkhead of the main gear wheel wells to
provide the power connection to the QRC-160 ECM pods, a software
upgradeable noise jammer.

You are correct that the Navy had the ALQ-51 in many aircraft by late
1965. It was a "gate-stealer" which delivered a delayed pulse back to
the emitting radar to confuse the range estimation of the system.

The essential difference is that the noise jammer was broad-band and
worked on a number of frequencies including those of both Fan-Song and
Firecan (gun-tracking) radars. The gate-stealer was optimized for SA-2
freqs.

The USAF lagged in getting the pods to the field with the first pods
not showing up until October of 1966. (I flew my entire 100 mission
NVN tour without ever carrying an ECM pod.) We did however lead the
USN in deployment of our RHAW gear and the delivery of the relatively
sophisticated Wild Weasel aircraft, particularly the F-105F which
arrived in theater in May of '66. The Weasel equipment and tactics
proved considerably more effective than the USN's A-4 led Iron Hand
systems.

Rapid delivery of upgrades to the AGM-45 Shrike software as well as
pod deployment after the summer of '66 pretty much kept the USAF ahead
of the sailors after that period.

Today I don't think either service is doing poorly when it comes to
degradation of defenses.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[[email protected]]

On Feb 16, 4:50*pm, "W. D. Allen" > wrote:
> "...Perhaps the time has come to put the Navy in charge of all joint
> electronic warfare activities...."
>
> Now it can be told...
>
> In 1966 the North Vietnamese with their Russian instructors began shooting
> down U.S. aircraft over NVN. Someone in the Navy had the wisdom and
> foresight to have on hand 1,000 ALQ-51 deception repeaters originally
> dedicated to aircraft protection during execution of the Navy portion of the
> SIOP.
They weren't all for SIOP airplanes - and it's not a question of
wisdom and foresight - The USAF had a very active ECM program as
well. All their bombers carried huge batteries of jammers and about a
half ton of chaff, with dedicated receivers for detection of threats,
and dedicated system managers to run them.
The USAF had also been procuring podded jammers through the QRC (Quick
Reaction Contract) program. More on this later.

The Air Force, with bigger airplanes with more electric power
available, went in for large, powerful Noise Jammers, which would
blank out any weaker signals (Like returning blips, which are very
weak) coming into the radar's antenna. Since the reception pattern of
a radar antenna isn't simply where it's pointed, but also includes
sidelobes and backlobes, a strong signal can blot out a huge sector of
the radar's coverage. (Unless they lower the gain (Turn down the
volume) of the receiver to isolate the jamming transmitter,s azimuth -
but if they do that, they lose any weaker blips from non-jamming
airplanes.
These systems work well against Early Warning and GCI systems,
but not so well against weapons control radars - since they blatently
broadcast their Azimuth and Elevation angles (but not range) to the
receiver. If you're lucky, and can shoot enough watts into an
antenna,
you can either burn out the amplifiers in the receiver, or, if the
receiver has self-protection circuits (Most do) force the radar to
automatically shut down. (And a big radar takes from 5-15 minutes to
bring back on line if this happens. That's a long time with airplanes
moving at 8-10 miles/minute)

The Navy, with smaller airplanes and less electricity available, went
in for Deception Jammers. These are very sophisticated in concept,
automatically listening to, and analyzing the characteristics of an
incoming radar, and putting out pulses of its own that, hopefully,
will fool the automatic tracking circuits in a fire control radar
(Deception jammers work best against dedicated tracking radars.) and
make it point somewhere else. Two things to remember here - the only
work well against automatically tracking radars, and they are only
really effective against fire control radars looking at that
particular airplane.


> Those ALQ-51s were rounded up from all over the globe (some were found in
> Antarctica), refurbished, and sent to Southeast Asia for installation in
> carrier aircraft. Meanwhile the Air Force was compelled to use ALQ-76 pod
> noise jammers, which the Navy considered little more than tracking beacons..
> In fact, USAF found it necessary to ask the Navy for fifty of the ALQ-51s
> for their RF-101 recce aircraft that were flying solo over NVN.

And it was discovered that, against SA-2s (And, later, SA-3s) that,
once the Pod formations were developed, which blanked out a volume of
the sky that made very unlikey for an SA-2 launched into it to hit one
of the 4 airplanes in that volume, the Air Force noise jammer solution
worked much better.
The problem is, the Navy through both necessity (small airplanes, not
much electricity) and mirror-imaging, (Thinking that the Bad Guys were
doing the same things that they were, in this case, building
sophisticated automatic tracking systems) built jammers that worked
fairly well at fooling the automatic systems.

But the Soviets (And, hence, their clients) didn't do that.
Early Soviet SAMs didn't use automatically tracking conical scan or
monopulse trackers. They used a pair of overlapping pulse radars, one
searching in azimuth, and one in elevation, on slightly different
frequencies, so that they didn't interfere with each other, and both
reporting their angle and range information. The tracking wsas
actually done by 3 guys in the radar van, one using a handwheel to
hold a marker over the Azimuth blip, one over the Elevation blip, and
another over the combined range blips. This gave the fire control
system a smoother track than an autmatic system, was easier to make
and maintain, and, inadvertently, negated most of the Navy's clever
deception techniques. A pair of eyes with a human brain behind them
is unexcelled at recognizing patterns, and pulling out information
from a seemingly worthless hash. It didn't take long for the tracking
opertors to learn which of the returns coming from an airplane
carrying a Deception Jammer was real, and which were the false
signals.
The noise jammers with their stronger signals and wider frequency
ranges (Which would cover both the Az and El radars of an SA-2,
usually), used singly, would pinpoint an individual airplane in
Azimuth and Elevation, but block out range infomration.
This allowed the shooters to guide their missile, which used a
collision course (make the target's bearing to the missile constant)
approach to make it likely that the missile would get close enough to
the target for its fuze to activate. And an SA-2 had a big warhead -
the fuze would activate about 100 yards out.
This turned the USAF away from using noise jammers on fighters -
until some clever folks at AFSD (The Air Force Systems Division)
figured out that if you put noise jammers on avery airplane in a
flight, and put the airplanes in the proper relation with each other,
the combined jamming signals would blank out a large volume, and that
a missile fired into that volume was unlikely to come close enough to
an airplane to fuze.

> Electronic warfare is an occult and complex discipline that doesn't go bang,
> has no tailhook and won't go Mach 2+. It's damn hard to push for black boxes
> when knuckle draggers want more boom for the buck. They have to learn the
> hard way they can't haul their bomb load to the target before they recognize
> they need electronic protection as well as missile protection, bullet
> protection, etc.

That's true, in a lot of ways, but we've also reached a point where we
don't need as many dedicated assets - We've come a long way at making
our passive systems (Elint receivers and such) smarter and more able
to make it possible to avoid threats, and at making our transmitters
(Which are largely a measure of last resort, since if you transmit,
you tell everybody where you are) more powerful, more economical in
their use of electricity, and smarter, (Used to be that deception
"False Target" generators could only analyze a pulse after it had been
received, so the first target in line was the real one.
(You get a bunch of tranmitters weaving and dodging past each other,
and it gets a bit more difficult to sort out who is who).
Now, the jammer will map the radar's characteristics and make its
pulses wherever it wants to - the false target generator on an EA-6B
or B-52 can white out a scope with individual blips forced into
sidelobes and backlobes.
Stealth airplanes, with much reduced signatures, and hence, detection
ranges, don't benefit from onboard transmitters.
And, with modern satellite elint and photint, it's hard to spring a
radar from a surprise location.
That all being said - there's not a lot of public visibility for
electronic warfare. It perks away, in its own small corner of the
budget, and nobody ever hears about it until some slighted Congressman
comissions a GAO report to criticize a particular program.
(Which leads the Press to leap after something that they can't
understand, being fed soundbites from others who can't, or won't
understand, and who have some axe to grind.)


> EW test question: How did Halsey know to send Air Force P-38s to knock
> Admiral Yamamoto out of the sky in the South Pacific during WWII?

SIGINT, of course.

> The Old Crows know!
Even better - how did we map out the Soviet's Tall King air defence
radar network without direct photo coverage, and the Sovs going silent
whenever the ELINT airplanes were flying around?

--
Pete Stickney

[Jim Wilkins]

On Feb 17, 11:07*am, wrote:
...
>
> Even better - how did we map out the Soviet's Tall King air defence
> radar network without direct photo coverage, and the Sovs going silent
> whenever the ELINT airplanes were flying around?
>
> --
> Pete Stickney

OTH?

Nice writeup. Thanks.

Jim Wilkins

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 17, 12:57 pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 11:07 am, wrote:
> ...
>
>
>
> > Even better - how did we map out the Soviet's Tall King air defence
> > radar network without direct photo coverage, and the Sovs going silent
> > whenever the ELINT airplanes were flying around?
>
> > --
> > Pete Stickney
>
> OTH?
>
> Nice writeup. Thanks.
>
> Jim Wilkins

http://www.tbp.org/pages/Publications/Bent/Features/F99Poteat.pdf

The Oxcart mission planners were especially concerned
about just how widespread the Soviet's early-warning
radar was and where it was located. It seemed impossible,
however, to determine the number, exact location,
or any other technical information on those installations.
I recalled a story from my Cape Canaveral days in the
early 1950s, when the signal from a ground-based radar
located nearly a thousand miles beyond our horizon
was picked up at the Cape -- the signal was reflected
off a Thor missile during a test flight. The suggestion
was then made that this same phenomenon (later called
bi-static intercept) could be used to intercept Soviet
high-powered radar located well over the horizon by pointing
the ELINT antennas at the Soviet ballistic missiles
during their flight testing, by using the missile's radio beacon
for pointing, or simply programming the ELINT antennas
to follow the missile's predicted trajectory.
The idea to gain greater knowledge of Soviet air
defense capabilities through bi-static interception was
approved by CIA management, and project Melody was
born. There were no computers in those days, so our
feasibility studies and engineering calculations involved
solving spherical trigonometry equations using slide
rules, tables of logarithms, and hand-cranked calculators.
Melody was installed at a CIA monitoring site on
the shores of the Caspian Sea in northern Iran. Over
the ensuing years, Melody produced bi-static intercepts
of virtually all the ground-based Soviet missile tracking
radar, including all their anti-ballistic missile tracking
sites located at a test range nearly a thousand miles
away. The fixed location of Melody and limited trajectories
of the Soviet missiles being tracked, however,
still did not provide the locations of all the air defense
radar installations throughout the Soviet Union that
were needed by the Oxcart mission planners.
A new Soviet early-warning radar, called the Tall King,
began to appear about this time, which if deployed
widely, appeared to improve significantly the Soviets'
air defenses. The new, very large, and obviously powerful
Tall King radar quickly became the Oxcart's nemesis


Melody's success with the high-powered, missile related
radar led to the idea of using the moon as a distant
bi-static reflector to intercept and locate the Tall
King radar systems deployed in the Soviet Union.
At the same time, the Lincoln Laboratory, America's
premier radar-development house, had been engaged
in a "radar astronomy race" with its Soviet counterpart
to see which side would be first to detect and characterize
the moon's surface using radar. Lincoln won
handily. I visited Dr. John Evans at the labs and discussed
the moon radar results and the bi-static moon
idea. Drawing on the labs' understanding of the moon
as a reflector of radar signals, sensitive ELINT receivers,
tuned to the Tall King frequency, were attached to
the giant 60-foot RCA radar antenna just off the New
Jersey Turnpike near Moorestown and pointed at the
moon. (The labs' giant radar antenna was preoccupied
with further radar astronomy experiments.) The
ELINT receivers were also optimized for the effects
of the moon as a reflector, that is, using the lab's
"matched filter" techniques. Over time, as the Earth
and moon revolved and rotated, all the Soviet radar
sites came into view one at a time, and their precise
geographic locations were plotted. The extremely large
number of installations that were found, and the rather
complete coverage of the Soviet Union, were not good
news for the Oxcart program office -- or for the U.S.
Air Force Strategic Air Command, which had to plot
wartime bomber penetration routes.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Jack Linthicum ha scritto:

>>>> EW test question: How did Halsey know to send Air Force P-38s to knock
>>>> Admiral Yamamoto out of the sky in the South Pacific during WWII?
>>> Cryptography and signals intelligence - which aren't usually
>>> considered forms of EW at all AFAIK.
>> I was to write the same.... I have only to add that in the EW & Crypto
>> environment is easy to steal merits... Even very high brasses don't have
>> necessarly all the various "need to know" clearances to effectively
>> adjudge merits and esp. the following promotions & increase in resources....
>>
>> Best regards from Italy,
>> Dott. Piergiorgio.
>
> It is the "decision-making" that is the key to the primacy of the
> brass, IIRC the decision was made to hit Yamamoto despite the belief
> that the act would reveal the Allies ability to read Naval codes.
> JN-25D the latest.

meh... I can understand Vince's misunderstanding, but you, Jack, really
surprise me... I was saying not about Yamamoto, but in larger and
broader terms, and not only the spook/black gizmo people of the US of
A... I wonder how you haven't get the point...

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 20:13:12 +0000 (UTC), W. D. Allen
> wrote:

>
>"...the Navy may be the only service with enough expertise and imagination
>to keep it (electronic warfare) alive.
>
>That was definitely the case during the Vietnam war!
>
>WDA
>Former NAVAIR program manager for EW
>
>end
>_________________________
>
Kept it alive, arguably so. But if we want to address bringing it into
robust vigor during the Vietnam years, I think there were some joint
force partners in the effort. (EB-66, EC-121, EB-47, EC-47, F-100F,
F-105F & G, F-4C, ALQ-67, 72, 87, 94, 101, OV-1 Mohawk, QU-22B, Igloo
White, Teaball, AGM-45, AGM-78, ....etc. etc.) Some systems orginated
from USN programs, some from Army, some from AF. Lots of stuff went
on.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Jack Linthicum]

On Apr 6, 1:29 pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 20:13:12 +0000 (UTC), W. D. Allen
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"...the Navy may be the only service with enough expertise and imagination
> >to keep it (electronic warfare) alive.
>
> >That was definitely the case during the Vietnam war!
>
> >WDA
> >Former NAVAIR program manager for EW
>
> >end
> >_________________________
>
> Kept it alive, arguably so. But if we want to address bringing it into
> robust vigor during the Vietnam years, I think there were some joint
> force partners in the effort. (EB-66, EC-121, EB-47, EC-47, F-100F,
> F-105F & G, F-4C, ALQ-67, 72, 87, 94, 101, OV-1 Mohawk, QU-22B, Igloo
> White, Teaball, AGM-45, AGM-78, ....etc. etc.) Some systems orginated
> from USN programs, some from Army, some from AF. Lots of stuff went
> on.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"www.thunderchief.orgwww.thundertales.blogspot.com

Add Black Crow

[John D Salt]

W. D. Allen > wrote in
:

>
> "...the Navy may be the only service with enough expertise and
> imagination to keep it (electronic warfare) alive.

Cheer up. Maybe every enemy we face in future will be (in the charming
phrase of a former colleague of mine from Fort Halstead) "armed with the
electronic equivalent of a sharpened mango".

:-(

All the best,

John.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Apr 6, 2:17 pm, John D Salt <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
> W. D. Allen > wrote :
>
>
>
> > "...the Navy may be the only service with enough expertise and
> > imagination to keep it (electronic warfare) alive.
>
> Cheer up. Maybe every enemy we face in future will be (in the charming
> phrase of a former colleague of mine from Fort Halstead) "armed with the
> electronic equivalent of a sharpened mango".
>
> :-(
>
> All the best,
>
> John.

The digital ones are damned hard to record and break out

[Eunometic]

On Feb 16, 7:37 am, Mike > wrote:
> Fading Signal: The Neglect of Electronic Warfare.
> Lexington Institute.http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1223.shtml
>
> When you consider how much money Americans spend on defense -- about
> $4 trillion so far in this decade alone -- it's amazing what a poor
> job we do of maintaining our military arsenal. In the years since the
> cold war ended, the Navy's fleet has shrunk by half to fewer than 300
> ships, the Air Force's planes have "matured" to twice the age of the
> commercial airline fleet, and the Army has largely abandoned the
> production of heavy armored vehicles. There's a simple reason for all
> these signs of military decay: the threat went away. No peer
> adversary has taken the place of the Red Army or the Imperial Navy.
>

I note that the USN Grumman EA-6B is being used to create a jammed
space around ground US patrols in Iraq.

The jamming prevents the detonation of improvised explosive devices.
Presumably highly directional
electronically shaped antenna create temporal grace around the patrol.

The USAF apparently can't do this mission due to the degradation of
this type of aircraft.

The money is going into the occupation of Iraq. Eventually advanced
tech will be needed, maybe to
protect Taiwan for a little longer from a rapidly empowering China.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Apr 8, 6:36 am, Eunometic > wrote:
> On Feb 16, 7:37 am, Mike > wrote:
>
> > Fading Signal: The Neglect of Electronic Warfare.
> > Lexington Institute.http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1223.shtml
>
> > When you consider how much money Americans spend on defense -- about
> > $4 trillion so far in this decade alone -- it's amazing what a poor
> > job we do of maintaining our military arsenal. In the years since the
> > cold war ended, the Navy's fleet has shrunk by half to fewer than 300
> > ships, the Air Force's planes have "matured" to twice the age of the
> > commercial airline fleet, and the Army has largely abandoned the
> > production of heavy armored vehicles. There's a simple reason for all
> > these signs of military decay: the threat went away. No peer
> > adversary has taken the place of the Red Army or the Imperial Navy.
>
> I note that the USN Grumman EA-6B is being used to create a jammed
> space around ground US patrols in Iraq.
>
> The jamming prevents the detonation of improvised explosive devices.
> Presumably highly directional
> electronically shaped antenna create temporal grace around the patrol.
>
> The USAF apparently can't do this mission due to the degradation of
> this type of aircraft.
>
> The money is going into the occupation of Iraq. Eventually advanced
> tech will be needed, maybe to
> protect Taiwan for a little longer from a rapidly empowering China.

Cite, on the jamming being successful?

[William Black[_1_]]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
...

> I note that the USN Grumman EA-6B is being used to create a jammed
> space around ground US patrols in Iraq.
>
> The jamming prevents the detonation of improvised explosive devices.
> Presumably highly directional
> electronically shaped antenna create temporal grace around the patrol.

The British did something similar in Northern Ireland.

The IRA switched to command detonated devices.

After the British started looking for the wires after the bang they moved on
to more sophisticated radio equipment such as that found on the dead IRA
people shot in Gibraltar which required a series of thumb wheels to be set
to the correct number to transmit the firing signal.

The stuff is 'Radio Amateur' technology and can be picked up in any major
city.

It is reasonable to assume that the Iraqi bad guys have access to all this
sort of thing at that technical escalation will happen in exactly the same
way...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


..

[Jeff[_11_]]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> "William Black" > wrote:
>
>> It is reasonable to assume that the Iraqi bad guys have access to all
>> this sort of thing at that technical escalation will happen in exactly
>> the same way...
>
> Or they'll stick to line-of-sight stuff like IR or lasers, or they'll
> switch to using mobile phones and planting the bombs in areas where
> people will complain abou too frequent mobile phone outages.
>
> Or they'll shift to using something that detects a jam of the radio-
> command-link and then activates a motion sensor... after all, jamming
> means "the patrol is coming, get ready".
>

The more sophisticated jammers only switch on when a signal is detected,
hopefully quickly enough to stop a detonation.

Jeff

[Jack Linthicum]

On Apr 8, 6:36 am, Eunometic > wrote:
> On Feb 16, 7:37 am, Mike > wrote:
>
> > Fading Signal: The Neglect of Electronic Warfare.
> > Lexington Institute.http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1223.shtml
>
> > When you consider how much money Americans spend on defense -- about
> > $4 trillion so far in this decade alone -- it's amazing what a poor
> > job we do of maintaining our military arsenal. In the years since the
> > cold war ended, the Navy's fleet has shrunk by half to fewer than 300
> > ships, the Air Force's planes have "matured" to twice the age of the
> > commercial airline fleet, and the Army has largely abandoned the
> > production of heavy armored vehicles. There's a simple reason for all
> > these signs of military decay: the threat went away. No peer
> > adversary has taken the place of the Red Army or the Imperial Navy.
>
> I note that the USN Grumman EA-6B is being used to create a jammed
> space around ground US patrols in Iraq.
>
> The jamming prevents the detonation of improvised explosive devices.
> Presumably highly directional
> electronically shaped antenna create temporal grace around the patrol.
>
> The USAF apparently can't do this mission due to the degradation of
> this type of aircraft.
>
> The money is going into the occupation of Iraq. Eventually advanced
> tech will be needed, maybe to
> protect Taiwan for a little longer from a rapidly empowering China.

http://icasualties.org/oif/IED.aspx

IED Deaths by month, 1746 to April 1, 4024 total U.S. deaths, equal
43% of all dead are victims of IEDs. No number on wounded, but the
given ratio is 16 wounded for each death. ie about 28k

[William Black[_1_]]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
. com...
>

> The more sophisticated jammers only switch on when a signal is detected,
> hopefully quickly enough to stop a detonation.

They'll make electronic garage door openers, radio type car alarm tags and
a huge assortment of other things entertaining to use...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[William Black[_1_]]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> BTW, do those jammers send white noise, or are they smart enough to
> fake a signal? Say, I build a small detonator from RC car parts, and it
> depends on the transmitter sending "left, right, left..." every 30
> seconds, with a timer starting on every signal, counting down until the
> opposite side timer is started.
>
> With a white noise jammer, no signal gets through anymore, 30 seconds
> later you get *bang*...

All this stuff came out at the inquest into the people shot in Gib. The
claim was made that the security forces should be able to jam the signal.

They explained in some detail why they couldn't.

It seems that the IRA people used a Trio Radio Amateur 144 MHz pocket radio
system that requires a sequence of reversals transmitted by VHF FSK to
trigger an open channel. The sequence is set by a row of five thumbwheels,
each of ten digits.

So you've got a million, minus one, possible combinations.

I leave as an exercise for the reader the calculation of the linear
recursive sequence necessary to trigger the thing prematurely...

This, of course, assumes the security forces know the radio frequency and
the FSK baud rate and frequency shift.

White noise generators don't work once the bad guys get up to 'radio
amateur' levels of knowledge of triggering technology...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[BlackBeard]

On Apr 8, 7:41*am, "William Black" >
wrote:
> "Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
>
>
> > BTW, do those jammers send white noise, or are they smart enough to
> > fake a signal? Say, I build a small detonator from RC car parts, and it
> > depends on the transmitter sending "left, right, left..." every 30
> > seconds, with a timer starting on every signal, counting down until the
> > opposite side timer is started.
>
> > With a white noise jammer, no signal gets through anymore, 30 seconds
> > later you get *bang*...
>
> All this stuff came out at the inquest into the people shot in Gib. The
> claim was made that the security forces should be able to jam the signal.
>
> They explained in some detail why they couldn't.
>
> It seems that the IRA people used a Trio Radio Amateur 144 MHz pocket radio
> system that requires a sequence of reversals transmitted by VHF FSK to
> trigger an open channel. *The sequence is set by a row of five thumbwheels,
> each of ten digits.
>
> So you've got a million, minus one, possible combinations.
>
> I leave as an exercise for the reader the calculation of the linear
> recursive sequence necessary to trigger the thing prematurely...
>
> This, *of course, assumes the security forces know the radio frequency and
> the FSK baud rate and frequency shift.
>
> White noise generators don't work once the bad guys get up to 'radio
> amateur' levels of knowledge of triggering technology...
>

Gibraltar was 20 years ago. They've learned a lot since then and
deaths from IED's have dropped dramatically since the USN's EW experts
have trained the soldiers to use the equipment correctly.

"They called themselves "sand sailors," and they did their job well by
reducing IED fatalities at their bases. Monthly U.S. troop deaths from
IEDs have dropped since reaching a high of 90 in May to 17 last month,
in part because of their efforts, the military said in awarding Bronze
Stars to Dye and others."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/20/navy_specialists_lead_ied_fight/


BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

[William Black[_1_]]

"BlackBeard" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 7:41 am, "William Black" >
wrote:
> "Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
>
>
> > BTW, do those jammers send white noise, or are they smart enough to
> > fake a signal? Say, I build a small detonator from RC car parts, and it
> > depends on the transmitter sending "left, right, left..." every 30
> > seconds, with a timer starting on every signal, counting down until the
> > opposite side timer is started.
>
> > With a white noise jammer, no signal gets through anymore, 30 seconds
> > later you get *bang*...
>
> All this stuff came out at the inquest into the people shot in Gib. The
> claim was made that the security forces should be able to jam the signal.
>
> They explained in some detail why they couldn't.
>
> It seems that the IRA people used a Trio Radio Amateur 144 MHz pocket
> radio
> system that requires a sequence of reversals transmitted by VHF FSK to
> trigger an open channel. The sequence is set by a row of five thumbwheels,
> each of ten digits.
>
> So you've got a million, minus one, possible combinations.
>
> I leave as an exercise for the reader the calculation of the linear
> recursive sequence necessary to trigger the thing prematurely...
>
> This, of course, assumes the security forces know the radio frequency and
> the FSK baud rate and frequency shift.
>
> White noise generators don't work once the bad guys get up to 'radio
> amateur' levels of knowledge of triggering technology...
>

Gibraltar was 20 years ago. They've learned a lot since then and
deaths from IED's have dropped dramatically since the USN's EW experts
have trained the soldiers to use the equipment correctly.

"They called themselves "sand sailors," and they did their job well by
reducing IED fatalities at their bases. Monthly U.S. troop deaths from
IEDs have dropped since reaching a high of 90 in May to 17 last month,
in part because of their efforts, the military said in awarding Bronze
Stars to Dye and others."

----------------------------

Almost certainly the big drop was caused by training people how to spot the
bloody things.

Messing with the trigger mechanism is very much a secondary thing, the best
solution is not to park next door to one...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Jeff[_11_]]

> > BTW, do those jammers send white noise, or are they smart enough to
> > fake a signal? Say, I build a small detonator from RC car parts, and it
> > depends on the transmitter sending "left, right, left..." every 30
> > seconds, with a timer starting on every signal, counting down until the
> > opposite side timer is started.
>
> > With a white noise jammer, no signal gets through anymore, 30 seconds
> > later you get *bang*...


But that is not a system that you would want to use for real, any kind of
failure or signal interuption would cause a detonation.


> All this stuff came out at the inquest into the people shot in Gib. The
> claim was made that the security forces should be able to jam the signal.
>
> They explained in some detail why they couldn't.

They certainaly could jam the signal, what they could not do eaisly is
detonate the device when they wished.

> It seems that the IRA people used a Trio Radio Amateur 144 MHz pocket
> radio
> system that requires a sequence of reversals transmitted by VHF FSK to
> trigger an open channel. The sequence is set by a row of five thumbwheels,
> each of ten digits.
>
> So you've got a million, minus one, possible combinations.
>
> I leave as an exercise for the reader the calculation of the linear
> recursive sequence necessary to trigger the thing prematurely...
>
> This, of course, assumes the security forces know the radio frequency and
> the FSK baud rate and frequency shift.
>
> White noise generators don't work once the bad guys get up to 'radio
> amateur' levels of knowledge of triggering technology...
>

White noise will *allways* work as long as you can get a loud enough signal,
its just a matter of power and range.
However, the more intelligent jammers use other signal patterns to jam known
types of transmission, and "look through" their own transmissions to analyze
the target signal.

Jeff

[Jeff[_11_]]

>> All this stuff came out at the inquest into the people shot in Gib. The
>> claim was made that the security forces should be able to jam the signal.
>>
>> They explained in some detail why they couldn't.
>
> They certainaly could jam the signal, what they could not do eaisly is
> detonate the device when they wished.
>
>> It seems that the IRA people used a Trio Radio Amateur 144 MHz pocket
>> radio
>> system that requires a sequence of reversals transmitted by VHF FSK to
>> trigger an open channel. The sequence is set by a row of five
>> thumbwheels,
>> each of ten digits.


As a matter of interest the bomb intended for Gibraltar was NOT radio
controlled, it was a timer device that was found in the car (still in
Spain).

The SAS did not know this, however, and were acting on what had become
common practise for the IRA in N Ireland from the mid 70's, which was to use
radio control.

Jeff

[Jack Linthicum]

On Apr 8, 11:59 am, BlackBeard > wrote:
> On Apr 8, 7:41 am, "William Black" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
> > > BTW, do those jammers send white noise, or are they smart enough to
> > > fake a signal? Say, I build a small detonator from RC car parts, and it
> > > depends on the transmitter sending "left, right, left..." every 30
> > > seconds, with a timer starting on every signal, counting down until the
> > > opposite side timer is started.
>
> > > With a white noise jammer, no signal gets through anymore, 30 seconds
> > > later you get *bang*...
>
> > All this stuff came out at the inquest into the people shot in Gib. The
> > claim was made that the security forces should be able to jam the signal.
>
> > They explained in some detail why they couldn't.
>
> > It seems that the IRA people used a Trio Radio Amateur 144 MHz pocket radio
> > system that requires a sequence of reversals transmitted by VHF FSK to
> > trigger an open channel. The sequence is set by a row of five thumbwheels,
> > each of ten digits.
>
> > So you've got a million, minus one, possible combinations.
>
> > I leave as an exercise for the reader the calculation of the linear
> > recursive sequence necessary to trigger the thing prematurely...
>
> > This, of course, assumes the security forces know the radio frequency and
> > the FSK baud rate and frequency shift.
>
> > White noise generators don't work once the bad guys get up to 'radio
> > amateur' levels of knowledge of triggering technology...
>
> Gibraltar was 20 years ago. They've learned a lot since then and
> deaths from IED's have dropped dramatically since the USN's EW experts
> have trained the soldiers to use the equipment correctly.
>
> "They called themselves "sand sailors," and they did their job well by
> reducing IED fatalities at their bases. Monthly U.S. troop deaths from
> IEDs have dropped since reaching a high of 90 in May to 17 last month,
> in part because of their efforts, the military said in awarding Bronze
> Stars to Dye and others."
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/20/navy_specialist...
>
> BB
>
> I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
> It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

also, they don't drive down Ambush Alley as much. And the death rate
is now nearly that of 2004, 207 died that year.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, William Black
> writes
>
>"Jeff" > wrote in message
. com...
>>
>
>> The more sophisticated jammers only switch on when a signal is detected,
>> hopefully quickly enough to stop a detonation.
>
>They'll make electronic garage door openers, radio type car alarm tags and
>a huge assortment of other things entertaining to use...

You'll just have to wait for the HMMWVs to drive past before your car
will unlock, your garage door open or your cordless phone ring.

It's counterproductive to shut down a neighbourhood, you just need to
prevent detonations within lethal distance.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 4:37*pm, Mike > wrote:
> Fading Signal: The Neglect of Electronic Warfare.
> Lexington Institute.http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1223.shtml
>
> When you consider how much money Americans spend on defense -- about
> $4 trillion so far in this decade alone -- it's amazing what a poor
> job we do of maintaining our military arsenal. *In the years since the
> cold war ended, the Navy's fleet has shrunk by half to fewer than 300
> ships, the Air Force's planes have "matured" to twice the age of the
> commercial airline fleet, and the Army has largely abandoned the
> production of heavy armored vehicles. *There's a simple reason for all
> these signs of military decay: the threat went away. *No peer
> adversary has taken the place of the Red Army or the Imperial Navy.
>
> The decline of electronic warfare is harder to explain, because there
> the threat never went away -- it got worse. *Electronic warfare is the
> fight for control of the electromagnetic spectrum, the medium via
> which all of our communications and information systems operate.
> During the cold war, each military service nurtured a community of
> specialists adept at blocking or manipulating enemy transmissions
> while countering enemy efforts to do the same to us. *They jammed
> radars, disrupted command links, confused sensors and in general made
> it difficult for adversaries to employ any electronic device.
>
> When you're really good at electronic warfare, your enemy is nearly
> helpless. *He can't see, he can't hear, he can't even turn on the
> lights. *Electronic warfare is the reason why Syria's military didn't
> know it was under attack last year until Israeli bombs began exploding
> at its sole nuclear-weapons facility -- even though the jets dropping
> the bombs had to transit Syrian air space to get to the target. *Like
> cyber warfare, it's the kind of warfighting skill that only a
> technologically advanced country can be really good at, so you'd think
> U.S. military planners would want to exploit it for maximum
> leverage.
>
> Well, guess again. *Aside from the U.S. Navy and a small band of
> dedicated congressmen called the Electronic Warfare Working Group,
> this arcane specialty has become an orphan in the budgeting process.
> The Air Force walked away from electronic warfare when it decided that
> stealthy aircraft could be invisible to any radar (it later learned
> that wasn't entirely true). *The Army aborted plans to build an
> "aerial common sensor" that could find hostile emitters on the
> battlefield, only to discover that insurgents in Iraq were using cell
> phones and electronic bomb detonators to great effect. *And the
> Marines just stopped thinking about the subject.

Well, the reason for that is simple. The Navy never actually diid
Electronic Warfare. They still do what they did in WWII
"Raster Warfare". Since sending a squadaron of jets to harass
emeny positions, isn't electonic warfare, it's grid warfare.

And the Air Force had to walk from electronic warfare.
Since the idiots still don't understand that nothing is as
stealthy as an electonic Satellite.. Since the "Radar"
the idiots are evading, isn't radar, it's the media.





> The Navy held on, developing a replacement for the aging Prowler
> jamming plane called the Growler (a variant of the F/A-18 Super
> Hornet). *Part of the reason was that naval aviators weren't as
> impressed with stealth as their Air Force counterparts, and so they
> continued investing in other approaches to defending aircraft. *The
> Army has now rediscovered electronic warfare as a result of setbacks
> in Iraq, and has sent soldiers to train with Navy specialists. *But
> even the Navy has lagged in funding next-gen capabilities, which
> probably require unmanned aircraft that can get closer to hostile
> emitters.
>
> Perhaps the time has come to put the Navy in charge of all joint
> electronic warfare activities. *The other services don't have their
> acts together, and the Navy is less stressed at the moment than the
> ground forces. *That could change, but the problem right now is that a
> vital skill is being neglected, and the Navy may be the only service
> with enough expertise and imagination to keep it alive.

[William Black[_1_]]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, William Black
> > writes
>>
>>"Jeff" > wrote in message
. com...
>>>
>>
>>> The more sophisticated jammers only switch on when a signal is detected,
>>> hopefully quickly enough to stop a detonation.
>>
>>They'll make electronic garage door openers, radio type car alarm tags
>>and
>>a huge assortment of other things entertaining to use...
>
> You'll just have to wait for the HMMWVs to drive past before your car will
> unlock, your garage door open or your cordless phone ring.
>
> It's counterproductive to shut down a neighbourhood, you just need to
> prevent detonations within lethal distance.
>

It also gives a nice easy system to tell the snipers that they're coming.

Sound of telephone ringing, a voice says "They are at point Mustapha" (or
"Aunty Fatima says your washing is ready" if they're being really paranoid
about things)

The guy knows they'll be around the corner any minute and redies his .50
calibre sniper rifle...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, William Black
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> You'll just have to wait for the HMMWVs to drive past before your car will
>> unlock, your garage door open or your cordless phone ring.
>>
>> It's counterproductive to shut down a neighbourhood, you just need to
>> prevent detonations within lethal distance.
>>
>
>It also gives a nice easy system to tell the snipers that they're coming.
>
>Sound of telephone ringing, a voice says "They are at point Mustapha" (or
>"Aunty Fatima says your washing is ready" if they're being really paranoid
>about things)
>
>The guy knows they'll be around the corner any minute and redies his .50
>calibre sniper rifle...

You need less than that. Not much help for the snipers...

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

Jeff wrote:
>>> BTW, do those jammers send white noise, or are they smart enough to
>>> fake a signal? Say, I build a small detonator from RC car parts, and it
>>> depends on the transmitter sending "left, right, left..." every 30
>>> seconds, with a timer starting on every signal, counting down until the
>>> opposite side timer is started.
>>> With a white noise jammer, no signal gets through anymore, 30 seconds
>>> later you get *bang*...
>
>
> But that is not a system that you would want to use for real, any kind of
> failure or signal interuption would cause a detonation.
[snip]


Providing they kill someone they do not care. Terrorist organisations
have repeatedly show that they consider local civilians to be targets.
Western soldiers are just higher valuse targets.

Andrew Swallow

[BlackBeard]

On Apr 8, 7:41*pm, Mike Williamson >
wrote:
> wrote:
> > * * And the Air Force had to walk from electronic warfare.
> > * * Since the idiots still don't understand that nothing is as
> > * * stealthy as an electonic Satellite.. Since the "Radar"
> > * * the idiots are evading, isn't radar, it's the media.
>
> * *I hate to interrupt a good show of rhetoric, but the Air Force
> hasn't "had to walk from" electronic warfare, as we still have
> a dedicated electronic attack platform, that has been deployed
> for the last 4 years and counting- an online base "paper" article
> noted one of the two deployed squadrons passing the 10,000th combat
> flight hour associated with that deployment in January of
> last year.
>
> * *As to the rest of the paragraph- *what??
>
> Mike

You are replying (arguing with) to a failed turing-test net-bot. Your
replies to it will only instigate further senseless posts. Ignoring
it completely (and not mentioning its name) is the only way to get it
to go away.

(it is a 'failure' in the worst way because occasionally its handlers
tweak its answers to attempt to debunk doubters. That is scientific
fraud.)

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

[BlackBeard]

On Apr 8, 9:15*am, "William Black" >
wrote:

>
> Almost certainly the big drop was caused by training people how to spot the
> bloody things.
>

Not according to the article.

"Thomas said the technology works by "basically providing a protective
bubble around a vehicle," jamming incoming signals and blocking the
remote detonation of bombs."

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

[William Black[_1_]]

"BlackBeard" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 9:15 am, "William Black" >
wrote:

>
> Almost certainly the big drop was caused by training people how to spot
> the
> bloody things.
>

Not according to the article.

"Thomas said the technology works by "basically providing a protective
bubble around a vehicle," jamming incoming signals and blocking the
remote detonation of bombs."

-----------------------

If that's the case then expect the lull to last for only a couple of months,
until the bad guys get hold of a technology that works.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, William Black
> writes
>"BlackBeard" > wrote in message
...
>Not according to the article.
>
>"Thomas said the technology works by "basically providing a protective
>bubble around a vehicle," jamming incoming signals and blocking the
>remote detonation of bombs."
>
>-----------------------
>
>If that's the case then expect the lull to last for only a couple of months,
>until the bad guys get hold of a technology that works.

Whereupon the ECM gear will be modified to suit. The kit being used in
2005 is pretty much obsolete now... the WIS guys don't sit on their
laurels either.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[William Black[_1_]]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, William Black
> > writes
>>"BlackBeard" > wrote in message
...
>>Not according to the article.
>>
>>"Thomas said the technology works by "basically providing a protective
>>bubble around a vehicle," jamming incoming signals and blocking the
>>remote detonation of bombs."
>>
>>-----------------------
>>
>>If that's the case then expect the lull to last for only a couple of
>>months,
>>until the bad guys get hold of a technology that works.
>
> Whereupon the ECM gear will be modified to suit. The kit being used in
> 2005 is pretty much obsolete now... the WIS guys don't sit on their
> laurels either.
>

True.

But the countermeasures people have to react. It's not something you can be
proactive about...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[beausabre]

On Apr 8, 9:54 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> >>> BTW, do those jammers send white noise, or are they smart enough to
> >>> fake a signal? Say, I build a small detonator from RC car parts, and it
> >>> depends on the transmitter sending "left, right, left..." every 30
> >>> seconds, with a timer starting on every signal, counting down until the
> >>> opposite side timer is started.
> >>> With a white noise jammer, no signal gets through anymore, 30 seconds
> >>> later you get *bang*...
>
> > But that is not a system that you would want to use for real, any kind of
> > failure or signal interuption would cause a detonation.
>
> [snip]
>
> Providing they kill someone they do not care. Terrorist organisations
> have repeatedly show that they consider local civilians to be targets.
> Western soldiers are just higher valuse targets.
>
> Andrew Swallow

SNIP

Actually, a paper I read points out to the fanatic of any stripe, it's
the act, not the result that's important. If I get killed before I can
kill the enemy, that's unfortunate, but I 'm still a hero/martyr since
I died in the attempt.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Apr 9, 12:39 pm, beausabre > wrote:
> On Apr 8, 9:54 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jeff wrote:
> > >>> BTW, do those jammers send white noise, or are they smart enough to
> > >>> fake a signal? Say, I build a small detonator from RC car parts, and it
> > >>> depends on the transmitter sending "left, right, left..." every 30
> > >>> seconds, with a timer starting on every signal, counting down until the
> > >>> opposite side timer is started.
> > >>> With a white noise jammer, no signal gets through anymore, 30 seconds
> > >>> later you get *bang*...
>
> > > But that is not a system that you would want to use for real, any kind of
> > > failure or signal interuption would cause a detonation.
>
> > [snip]
>
> > Providing they kill someone they do not care. Terrorist organisations
> > have repeatedly show that they consider local civilians to be targets.
> > Western soldiers are just higher valuse targets.
>
> > Andrew Swallow
>
> SNIP
>
> Actually, a paper I read points out to the fanatic of any stripe, it's
> the act, not the result that's important. If I get killed before I can
> kill the enemy, that's unfortunate, but I 'm still a hero/martyr since
> I died in the attempt.

could you? would you?

[Derek Lyons]

BlackBeard > wrote:

>You are replying (arguing with) to a failed turing-test net-bot. Your
>replies to it will only instigate further senseless posts. Ignoring
>it completely (and not mentioning its name) is the only way to get it
>to go away.


Sure - but occasionally it _does_ come up with some real gems... My
favorite happened in one of these interminable USAF v. USN threads:

"There was never born a sailor not willing to fight to the death of
the last USAF pilot." (Or something to that effect.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Eunometic]

On Apr 10, 2:25 am, "William Black" >
wrote:
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in . ..
>
>
>
> > In message >, William Black
> > > writes
> >>"BlackBeard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>Not according to the article.
>
> >>"Thomas said the technology works by "basically providing a protective
> >>bubble around a vehicle," jamming incoming signals and blocking the
> >>remote detonation of bombs."
>
> >>-----------------------
>
> >>If that's the case then expect the lull to last for only a couple of
> >>months,
> >>until the bad guys get hold of a technology that works.
>
> > Whereupon the ECM gear will be modified to suit. The kit being used in
> > 2005 is pretty much obsolete now... the WIS guys don't sit on their
> > laurels either.
>
> True.
>
> But the countermeasures people have to react. It's not something you can be

I really doubt any new equipment will be needed. There might be some
reprogramming required but an aircraft like the EA-6B
could be configured, in flight, to listen to hundreds of frequencies,
analyze dozens of modulation schemes or just plain triangulate an
emitter on the basis of energy as it flies around.

There is going to be no problem jamming a cellphone in a tight radius
around the troops its protecting and no problem jamming a broad range
of frequencies commonly used. If there is an emitter within a radius
around the troops its going to be recorded for later analysis and that
particular remote detonation system is likely to be neutralized.

It's not perfect, but it will cut down casualties.

[William Black[_1_]]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 10, 2:25 am, "William Black" >

>> But the countermeasures people have to react. It's not something you can
>> be
>
> I really doubt any new equipment will be needed. There might be some
> reprogramming required but an aircraft like the EA-6B
> could be configured, in flight, to listen to hundreds of frequencies,
> analyze dozens of modulation schemes or just plain triangulate an
> emitter on the basis of energy as it flies around.
>
> There is going to be no problem jamming a cellphone in a tight radius
> around the troops its protecting and no problem jamming a broad range
> of frequencies commonly used. If there is an emitter within a radius
> around the troops its going to be recorded for later analysis and that
> particular remote detonation system is likely to be neutralized.

You assume they'll stick to radio.

Infra red lasers, as an example, are freely available and simple to use.

So, come to think of it, is the Internet...

These people are not stupid.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Apr 10, 2:24 pm, "William Black" >
wrote:
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Apr 10, 2:25 am, "William Black" >
> >> But the countermeasures people have to react. It's not something you can
> >> be
>
> > I really doubt any new equipment will be needed. There might be some
> > reprogramming required but an aircraft like the EA-6B
> > could be configured, in flight, to listen to hundreds of frequencies,
> > analyze dozens of modulation schemes or just plain triangulate an
> > emitter on the basis of energy as it flies around.
>
> > There is going to be no problem jamming a cellphone in a tight radius
> > around the troops its protecting and no problem jamming a broad range
> > of frequencies commonly used. If there is an emitter within a radius
> > around the troops its going to be recorded for later analysis and that
> > particular remote detonation system is likely to be neutralized.
>
> You assume they'll stick to radio.
>
> Infra red lasers, as an example, are freely available and simple to use.
>
> So, come to think of it, is the Internet...
>
> These people are not stupid.
>
> --
> William Black
>
> I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
> Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
> I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
> All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
> Time for tea.

Motion detectors?

[Paul J. Adam]

In message
>,
Jack Linthicum > writes
>On Apr 10, 2:24 pm, "William Black" >
>wrote:
>> You assume they'll stick to radio.
>>
>> Infra red lasers, as an example, are freely available and simple to use.
>>
>> So, come to think of it, is the Internet...
>>
>> These people are not stupid.

>Motion detectors?

In use for a decade or two. Started out with Lebanese Hezbollah,
proliferated to Iraq in 2005 or so.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[[email protected]]

Raytheon Wins Contract For Radar-Jamming Variant Of It's Miniature Air
Launched Decoy

See:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Raytheon_Wins_Contract_For_Radar_Jamming_Variant_O f_It_Miniature_Air_Launched_Decoy_999.html

What advantages (if any) do expendables like this have
over regular jamming aircraft like the EA-6B?

[Dean A. Markley]

wrote:
> Raytheon Wins Contract For Radar-Jamming Variant Of It's Miniature Air
> Launched Decoy
>
> See:
>
> http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Raytheon_Wins_Contract_For_Radar_Jamming_Variant_O f_It_Miniature_Air_Launched_Decoy_999.html
>
> What advantages (if any) do expendables like this have
> over regular jamming aircraft like the EA-6B?
Standoff ability for one.

Dean

[Eunometic]

On Apr 11, 4:24 am, "William Black" >
wrote:
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Apr 10, 2:25 am, "William Black" >
> >> But the countermeasures people have to react. It's not something you can
> >> be
>
> > I really doubt any new equipment will be needed. There might be some
> > reprogramming required but an aircraft like the EA-6B
> > could be configured, in flight, to listen to hundreds of frequencies,
> > analyze dozens of modulation schemes or just plain triangulate an
> > emitter on the basis of energy as it flies around.
>
> > There is going to be no problem jamming a cellphone in a tight radius
> > around the troops its protecting and no problem jamming a broad range
> > of frequencies commonly used. If there is an emitter within a radius
> > around the troops its going to be recorded for later analysis and that
> > particular remote detonation system is likely to be neutralized.
>
> You assume they'll stick to radio.
>
> Infra red lasers, as an example, are freely available and simple to use.

Even with an optical or acoustic link (diode laser etc) is used it
should be relatively easy to jam or predetonate
electronics itself rather than the link. I've seen airport radar
false trigger photo prox switches.

Vietnam era B-52's had a microwave system to jam infrared homing
missiles by beaming into their seeker.


>
> So, come to think of it, is the Internet...
>
> These people are not stupid.

T


>
> --

[[email protected]]

On Apr 12, 7:01 am, Mike Williamson
> wrote:
> wrote:
> > Raytheon Wins Contract For Radar-Jamming Variant Of It's Miniature Air
> > Launched Decoy
>
> > See:
>
> >http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Raytheon_Wins_Contract_For_Radar_Jamm...
>
> > What advantages (if any) do expendables like this have
> > over regular jamming aircraft like the EA-6B?
>
> They are cheaper and more can be built. You can also send
> it into situations that are more dangerous (you already
> expect to lose it, after all) than you would accept for
> a manned mission.
>
> Presumably it will not be as versatile as a specialized, manned EW
> platform, given that they spend more dollars and weight on the
> electronic package, but it will be employed in those missions for
> which it provides the best result.
>
> Mike

But the jammer carried can't be very sophisticated, since:

A. It must be small and light enough to fit into the small Air-
Launched-
Decoy-derrived airframe.

B. It must be cheap enough to be expendable.

C. Once it runs out of fuel and crashes, the enemy intel types will
doubtless get their hands on it (or will it have a self-destruct
system?).

Can a simple jammer like this, even if it's operating as an "In Your
Face!" (IYF!)
jammer (up close and personal to the enemy radar site), overcome the
ECCM
capability of an advanced SAM system?

[William Black[_1_]]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
...

> Even with an optical or acoustic link (diode laser etc) is used it
> should be relatively easy to jam or predetonate
> electronics itself rather than the link. I've seen airport radar
> false trigger photo prox switches.

It depends...

If you have a random digital sequence used as a trigger code they'll have to
cycle through the possibilities at the correct frequency and data rate.

A 'long cycle LRS' takes the time it takes...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[tankfixer]

In article <25be0da4-ab1b-45a1-9050-64e90dcf360d@
1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Feb 16, 7:37 am, Mike > wrote:
> > Fading Signal: The Neglect of Electronic Warfare.
> > Lexington Institute.http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1223.shtml
> >
> > When you consider how much money Americans spend on defense -- about
> > $4 trillion so far in this decade alone -- it's amazing what a poor
> > job we do of maintaining our military arsenal. In the years since the
> > cold war ended, the Navy's fleet has shrunk by half to fewer than 300
> > ships, the Air Force's planes have "matured" to twice the age of the
> > commercial airline fleet, and the Army has largely abandoned the
> > production of heavy armored vehicles. There's a simple reason for all
> > these signs of military decay: the threat went away. No peer
> > adversary has taken the place of the Red Army or the Imperial Navy.
> >
>
> I note that the USN Grumman EA-6B is being used to create a jammed
> space around ground US patrols in Iraq.

Where did you rear that ?

> The jamming prevents the detonation of improvised explosive devices.
> Presumably highly directional
> electronically shaped antenna create temporal grace around the patrol.
>
> The USAF apparently can't do this mission due to the degradation of
> this type of aircraft.

They guy in the aircraft may very well be USAF.
The Ea-6B are dual crewed since the EF-111 went away.


>
> The money is going into the occupation of Iraq. Eventually advanced
> tech will be needed, maybe to
> protect Taiwan for a little longer from a rapidly empowering China.


--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

[Mike Kanze]

>They guy in the aircraft may very well be USAF. The Ea-6B are dual crewed since the EF-111 went away.

I thought the USN reverted its three or four expeditionary ("purple") EA-6B squadrons back to "fleet" (USN only) outfits not too long ago, due to the aging of this National Asset platform and the need to conserve the remaining good airframes until the EF-18G Growler comes on line. If so, then the USMC Prowlers have become the only EA-6Bs primarily land-based or "expeditionary."

I might be wrong, though...

--
Mike Kanze

"Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure."

- Mark Skousen

"tankfixer" > wrote in message ...
In article <25be0da4-ab1b-45a1-9050-64e90dcf360d@
1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Feb 16, 7:37 am, Mike > wrote:
> > Fading Signal: The Neglect of Electronic Warfare.
> > Lexington Institute.http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1223.shtml
> >
> > When you consider how much money Americans spend on defense -- about
> > $4 trillion so far in this decade alone -- it's amazing what a poor
> > job we do of maintaining our military arsenal. In the years since the
> > cold war ended, the Navy's fleet has shrunk by half to fewer than 300
> > ships, the Air Force's planes have "matured" to twice the age of the
> > commercial airline fleet, and the Army has largely abandoned the
> > production of heavy armored vehicles. There's a simple reason for all
> > these signs of military decay: the threat went away. No peer
> > adversary has taken the place of the Red Army or the Imperial Navy.
> >
>
> I note that the USN Grumman EA-6B is being used to create a jammed
> space around ground US patrols in Iraq.

Where did you rear that ?

> The jamming prevents the detonation of improvised explosive devices.
> Presumably highly directional
> electronically shaped antenna create temporal grace around the patrol.
>
> The USAF apparently can't do this mission due to the degradation of
> this type of aircraft.

They guy in the aircraft may very well be USAF.
The Ea-6B are dual crewed since the EF-111 went away.


>
> The money is going into the occupation of Iraq. Eventually advanced
> tech will be needed, maybe to
> protect Taiwan for a little longer from a rapidly empowering China.


--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
> >They guy in the aircraft may very well be USAF. The Ea-6B are dual crewed since the EF-111 went away.
>
> I thought the USN reverted its three or four expeditionary ("purple") EA-6B squadrons back to "fleet" (USN only) outfits not too long ago, due to the aging of this National Asset platform and the need to conserve the remaining good airframes until the EF-18G Growler comes on line. If so, then the USMC Prowlers have become the only EA-6Bs primarily land-based or "expeditionary."

Could be. Last I had heard they were dual crew.


> I might be wrong, though...



--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

[[email protected]]

On Apr 8, 10:41*pm, Mike Williamson
> wrote:
> wrote:
> > * * And the Air Force had to walk from electronic warfare.
> > * * Since the idiots still don't understand that nothing is as
> > * * stealthy as an electonic Satellite.. Since the "Radar"
> > * * the idiots are evading, isn't radar, it's the media.
>
> * *I hate to interrupt a good show of rhetoric, but the Air Force
> hasn't "had to walk from" electronic warfare,

That's simple to understand why, since the air force idiots
are the perfect students of *rhetoric*, and redefine "electric"
"electronic" and "warfare" and "force" and "air" and "radar"
as they go along. Which is mostly why Digital, GPS, Cruise Missles,
Laser-guided Bombs, Internet, and Drones were developed
for the cranks.






as we still have
> a dedicated electronic attack platform, that has been deployed
> for the last 4 years and counting- an online base "paper" article
> noted one of the two deployed squadrons passing the 10,000th combat
> flight hour associated with that deployment in January of
> last year.
>
> * *As to the rest of the paragraph- *what??
>
> Mike