Yep, that's the friendly side, but the opposition side can also disrupt your SATNAV for its purposes as well.
Electronic Warfare
- Thread starter ngatimozart
- Start date
Yes that was implied.
I should have been clearer.
I think you greatly overestimate importance to western military(well, if western military choose to keep outdated tech is another question) of limited things that RF demonstrated.
I have to ask were are this cool capabilities in Syria? And all things that are new, they moved there to test from S-400 to PAK-FA prototype.
You say as if it very simple.
Well, it's not.
It can work on civilian network in some area probably.
Meaning shoot down satellite, right?
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
This is a reply to @John Fedup as well.
If someone messes with your cellular network at home, it fucks up the military just as much as the civvies.
You gotta mobilize your reservists at a steady stream - you think they're gonna get it by mail? With our notoriously incompetent mail service?
Reservists get called up via SMS or phone calls.
In Israel if you're a combat soldier you're expected to be in full gear assigned to an APC and ready to move within 24 hours from receiving the message.
Internet can work while regular cell networks don't? Not really, some networks combine the frequencies. Others are just easily jammable together.
But the problem is, you can't really jam comms indefinitely. Jam comms country-wide, and you're lit up like a chrismas tree in a place dark enough to fit this analogy.
So none really tries it in the first place. It takes some expensive equipment and careful planning just to make it work.
5G is pretty jammable, by the way. But its higher end of frequencies is high enough to greatly limit the range of jammers due to high atmospheric losses.
1.Internet can work while regular cell networks don't. Via phone cable, ADSL internet can work.
2.Yes it's possible to get mail in every house next morning.
And once again "easily jammable" is in dreams. First you need direct LOS on antenna you want to jam, second you need get on antenna power that is more, then its ability to filter signal.
So area that you actually can jam is limited. It requires aerial jamming probably to get big enough area, or at least some terrain advantage.
Bottom line it's impossible to "make it work" on such scale and unhindered.
All is jammable in real life, if you use enough power. While in internet all is jammable if you use enough imagination.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Yeah, physical lines exist, but I don't think they are as abundant as necessary to counter EW.1.Internet can work while regular cell networks don't. Via phone cable, ADSL internet can work.
2.Yes it's possible to get mail in every house next morning.
And once again "easily jammable" is in dreams. First you need direct LOS on antenna you want to jam, second you need get on antenna power that is more, then its ability to filter signal.
So area that you actually can jam is limited. It requires aerial jamming probably to get big enough area, or at least some terrain advantage.
Bottom line it's impossible to "make it work" on such scale and unhindered.
All is jammable in real life, if you use enough power. While in internet all is jammable if you use enough imagination.
Sure, in a superficial observation, you'd think some super powerful transmitter would have to increase noise density on every antenna in the country, but that's not really true.
I'm really rusty on the cell network layout, and I'll gladly accept corrections here, but I do recall that for a communication to succeed, a mobile station must communicate its data all the way to a local gate before being forwarded to the nearby base station (local antenna).
So you only really have to jam the gates.
For Israel specifically, Syria for example does have a few locations from which it can attempt to jam such communications via LoS. Israel maintains the same geographical advantage over Syria as well.
Syria uses this mountainous terrain to install its own intelligence gathering equipment.
However, none's really going to jam civilian comms like that because that's a lot of effort and resources into a very short term gain of negligible consequences.
Honestly, I forgot what point I tried to deliver here, so good night!
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7
There are such things as CONOPS (Concept of Operations) and OPSEC (Operational Security). What were the CONOPS for the Western intervention in Syria? They were for attacks against Daesh (ISIS) targets within Syria, not against a peer level opponent. EW was used against Daesh but apparently more for ISR purposes rather than offensive purposes. Such capabilities are always OPSEC and what makes it out into the public arena is vague about details. However if you were to undertake a websearch you will find examples.
It is if you know how. As I have said earlier the Russians have already spoofed GPS and they have done it during exercises.
Not necessarily. All you have to do is disrupt the satellite constellation enough to make it useless. In an all out war destroying the constellation would be the quickest and most effective way, but you have to destroy the whole constellation, not just part of it. However if you have limited goals and are not wanting to provoke an all out war, then other methods such as spoofing are better applied.
My question is how much do you know about GPS and how it works? There's a lot of science behind it and that equally applies to the Russian and PRC constellations.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Shooting down a satellite is unlikely even in a peer to peer war. That's like nuking a city you are clearly interested in occupying whole.
The debris is unpredictable and can easily spread to impact other sats elsewhere.
Full disclosure, I have some practical experience in the RF field but not with GPS.
To the best of my knowledge, jamming GPS is different from jamming communications satellites because it only has a transmission module, whereas communication satellites have receivers as well, equipped with LNAs that can be compressed (i.e semi unpredictable output) and thrown off their linear zone.
So to jam GPS, you probably have to jam the receivers on the ground.
Not really sure if the following is true, but you need LoS between the jammer and the jammed system, as L-band GPS waves are not earth hugging. Or at least, minimal physical barriers (can pierce through building walls, not a mountain).
And in principle you just send high power RF gibberish in the GPS frequency, sufficiently to raise the noise level of receivers, to get into the negative SNR region.
From my experience, some receivers can still produce viable data with an SNR of -9dB. Don't ask me how this sorcery was done.
The debris is unpredictable and can easily spread to impact other sats elsewhere.
Full disclosure, I have some practical experience in the RF field but not with GPS.
To the best of my knowledge, jamming GPS is different from jamming communications satellites because it only has a transmission module, whereas communication satellites have receivers as well, equipped with LNAs that can be compressed (i.e semi unpredictable output) and thrown off their linear zone.
So to jam GPS, you probably have to jam the receivers on the ground.
Not really sure if the following is true, but you need LoS between the jammer and the jammed system, as L-band GPS waves are not earth hugging. Or at least, minimal physical barriers (can pierce through building walls, not a mountain).
And in principle you just send high power RF gibberish in the GPS frequency, sufficiently to raise the noise level of receivers, to get into the negative SNR region.
From my experience, some receivers can still produce viable data with an SNR of -9dB. Don't ask me how this sorcery was done.
If we talk about Israel 95%+.
No company, or post office for that matter use cellular internet.
Give up.
You tried to say that there is such threat if dedicated enemy want to disrupt reservist gathering.
I know it, knowing it, i still say it's not enough. West invested resources in inertial navigation and use GPS as correction(sometimes GPS is not only source of such correction), not main source.
Because area covered by EW is relatively small, it's not effective.
And remember we are talking about satellites, so if you want to spoof and not just degrade it should be aerial based jamming.
I would say i know everything about GPS, that are in open sources. General knowledge you know.
To spoof GPS you need to be between satellite and antenna. GPS use difference time of signal arrival from several sources to determine position.
You need to spoof till either 2 left, or at least majority of satellites if there is more then 3 visible(that is for military application, as elevation is usually known) if military don't filter satellites.
Spoofing GPS from your territory on enemy territory...
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
I said it was theoretically possible, not that it's very practical.
But I do remember reading about the IDF jamming civilian frequencies in Lebanon in 2006. Don't recall exactly in what context.
But I do remember reading about the IDF jamming civilian frequencies in Lebanon in 2006. Don't recall exactly in what context.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Probably another reason for dusting off the old celestial navigation kit and relearning how to use it.
General warning for the thread and not directed at you. When source challenged, citing wiki will lead to a ban — multiple mods have indicated displeasure at that person (but not you). This requirement is not open negotiation and there will be no context where this will be accepted.
Last edited:
Link to "new investigative report" is broken, at least for me
Jammers at dachas add to Russia’s ability to silence GPS - GPS World
A new investigative report by the Russian independent media group “The Project” into luxury dachas owned by high-ranking government officials revealed thatwww.gpsworld.com
Seems this article at least for GPS novice like me is quite interesting. Shown some suggestions on how Russian did it.
--------------------
If you looking for good overview(it's not technological, more geographic and repercussion centred one), then this one i find pretty good compilation from open sources:
The Global Positioning System and Military Jamming: The geographies of electronic warfare
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #14
That's a good overview. It opens as a pdf file.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #15
Catch all thread about Electronic Warfare (EW)
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #16
Rafael have a new ground vehicle INS system that can be used when GPS is down. It's based on using imagery from the vehicles video sensors and comparing that to highly accurate Digital Elevation Maps (DEM) that are composed using overhead imagery and other sources. It is something similar to that which I worked with in geoscience over the last 20 years but that was using GPS. We were able to work with accuracies of +/- 3cm and if stationery, sub cm accuracies. However at that time, to geolocate a vehicle without using GPS and using an INS was highly computer intensive and required a very large storage capacity, plus technology that we didn't have access too. However the principles are the same, and are in fact the same as any navigation principal; locating yourself in 4 dimensions on an oblate shaped sphere: longitude, latitude, elevation and time with a degree of accuracy of sub cm and sub second.
What makes the Rafael concept interesting is the DEM mesh block that they are using, how accurate it is, and how it is able to be manipulated in the user program to compare and contrast with the video imagery in real time and deliver accurate navinfo for tactical use. That's a major break through in bringing that level of capability down to combat vehicle level.
www.c4isrnet.com
What makes the Rafael concept interesting is the DEM mesh block that they are using, how accurate it is, and how it is able to be manipulated in the user program to compare and contrast with the video imagery in real time and deliver accurate navinfo for tactical use. That's a major break through in bringing that level of capability down to combat vehicle level.
New Rafael system helps vehicles navigate in GPS-denied environments
Rafael Advanced Defense Systems has created a system that combines vehicle-mounted cameras with 3D models and mapping algorithms to help manned and unmanned vehicles operate in GPS-denied environments.
www.c4isrnet.com
Ananda
The Bunker Group
New European Parliament report calls for hemming in use of military AI on battlefield
The European Parliament has set out its definitive position on the military uses of artificial intelligence (AI) in a newly adopted report. Noting that the technology...
www.janes.com
Hope it's alright to put it in this thread. The usage of AI in battle field is developing capabilities. Still can be considered part of Electronics Warfare.
However I put this article just to say to my self, what the heck those guys in Brussels thinking ? Do you think by doing this every body else will do the same ? Do you think the Russian, the Chinese will reign in using AI potential in battle field ?
The Azerbaijan usage of smart drones already shown how the potential on using AI to pacified conventional battle line. The Turks still not using full AI when operating their battle drones for Azeris behalf, and it's enough to destroy the Armenian battle lines.
What those Brussels Liberal think ? Every body will stay away from using AI on developing battle drones ? It works, and if the EU did not want to develop that, some body else will.
On this occasion I do understand why UK choose Brexit. Sometimes it's better than letting Brussels Idiots run your life.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Our domestic Liberals are just as naive, think junior. I suspect there be be some rather frightening AI weapons coming from China in the not to distant future.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #19
It's an ethics problem and I can see their point quite clearly. I have serious ethical and moral issues WRT AI being autonomous on the killing of humans. I always believe that the final kill / no kill decision should be made by a human and a human only. Once you delegate that authority to machines , there is no taking it back. The other think about AI is once it achieves the ability to make its own decisions and rationalise, does that make it a sentient being? If that's the case we have created something that can out think and out smart us well beyond any capability that we can ever dream of. So one of the first things we teach it is how to make war and kill, which is not exactly the brightest thing to do. We could be sowing the seeds of our own destruction because we would have created sentient beings with no emotions.New European Parliament report calls for hemming in use of military AI on battlefield
The European Parliament has set out its definitive position on the military uses of artificial intelligence (AI) in a newly adopted report. Noting that the technology...
Hope it's alright to put it in this thread. The usage of AI in battle field is developing capabilities. Still can be considered part of Electronics Warfare.
However I put this article just to say to my self, what the heck those guys in Brussels thinking ? Do you think by doing this every body else will do the same ? Do you think the Russian, the Chinese will reign in using AI potential in battle field ?
The Azerbaijan usage of smart drones already shown how the potential on using AI to pacified conventional battle line. The Turks still not using full AI when operating their battle drones for Azeris behalf, and it's enough to destroy the Armenian battle lines.
What those Brussels Liberal think ? Every body will stay away from using AI on developing battle drones ? It works, and if the EU did not want to develop that, some body else will.
On this occasion I do understand why UK choose Brexit. Sometimes it's better than letting Brussels Idiots run your life.
I do agree that the political leadership of the PRC, Russia and NK will have no compunction in let AI loose against their enemies. However two wrongs don't make a right and it is a dilemma that we will have to find a solution for.
There needs to be a pretty detailed conversation about what is/isn't AI in ROE and "kill decisions."
If I send a datalink track to an AI controlled platform to launch a missile which is grabbed in flight to be cued by an unmanned sensor platform which is the human's only "eyes" on the target...is that sufficient? My opinion yes...but not something that has really been fleshed out.
And there are already weapon systems that can go "full auto" with only very limited windows for human intervention once the system has already done its job.
My thoughts are that we have to open the aperture a bit on granting autonomy to "simple AIs" - ie those dedicated to doing limited functions within operating parameters. "Terminator" style AIs that can replicate human sentient thought (whether alone or in aggregate) are a different problem altogether - that would definitely be dangerous but also not really anything even close to achievable now.