Russia’s cutting-edge weaponry capable of ‘blinding’ enemy's army | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 74717748 Serbia 04/19/2017 09:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Somebody here put it very nicely - it's what you don't know about your opponent that usually gets you. The fact that Russians are broadcasting some mysterious new technology means that either it's actually a very old technology already known to both U.S. and Russia (like EMP) or just fake posturing. It's actually not that hard to electronically blind an opponent, at least in theory. You simply have to reliably detect opponent's radar pulses and then start repeating them out of sequence. The radar will still detect you presence, but it will not be able to determine your distance, making it practically unusable. The same trick applies to countering radar-guided missiles. They'll just detonate at any random distance from the target "thinking" that they're close to it. Infrared and optical-guided missiles will remain unaffected, though, but those are even easier to blind with on-board laser systems. Newer technologies probably use a pseudo-random ID sequence for radar pings to counter this problem, but it's really a statistical problem and thus generally unsolvable. Basically, it is the same problem that appears with denial-of-service (DoS) attacks that spoof Internet packets. Though, true, IP packets use a simple rising ID sequence that's trivial to predict and spoof. Pseudo-random sequences are much harder to predict, but keep sending random (spoofed) radar "reflection" packets fast enough, and that radar will be confused at least some of the time. Keep sending them at higher energy level than the real reflected packets have, and the radar will be unable to recognize/synchronize anything it receives. I'm not an expert in radar technology, but this is all just basic information theory. If I were expecting to be drawn into a war in the near future, I'd consider all of my radar stations to be highly unreliable, regardless of their technological generation. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 74718565 Singapore 04/19/2017 09:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 62732408 Canada 04/19/2017 09:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
pezzente User ID: 74682686 Italy 04/19/2017 09:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
pezzente User ID: 74682686 Italy 04/19/2017 09:17 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 74008706 United States 04/19/2017 09:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
TheBigFireForYou! User ID: 71740445 United States 04/19/2017 09:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | nobody in their right mind doubts that russia has serious weapons and countermeasures. if that were not the case, the US would have invaded them by now. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74008706 Last Edited by UnipartySchmuck on 04/19/2017 09:35 AM There's a 95% chance you are a candy ass uniparty tory. |
Pooch User ID: 68879988 Canada 04/19/2017 09:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Somebody here put it very nicely - it's what you don't know about your opponent that usually gets you. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74717748 The fact that Russians are broadcasting some mysterious new technology means that either it's actually a very old technology already known to both U.S. and Russia (like EMP) or just fake posturing. It's actually not that hard to electronically blind an opponent, at least in theory. You simply have to reliably detect opponent's radar pulses and then start repeating them out of sequence. The radar will still detect you presence, but it will not be able to determine your distance, making it practically unusable. The same trick applies to countering radar-guided missiles. They'll just detonate at any random distance from the target "thinking" that they're close to it. Infrared and optical-guided missiles will remain unaffected, though, but those are even easier to blind with on-board laser systems. Newer technologies probably use a pseudo-random ID sequence for radar pings to counter this problem, but it's really a statistical problem and thus generally unsolvable. Basically, it is the same problem that appears with denial-of-service (DoS) attacks that spoof Internet packets. Though, true, IP packets use a simple rising ID sequence that's trivial to predict and spoof. Pseudo-random sequences are much harder to predict, but keep sending random (spoofed) radar "reflection" packets fast enough, and that radar will be confused at least some of the time. Keep sending them at higher energy level than the real reflected packets have, and the radar will be unable to recognize/synchronize anything it receives. I'm not an expert in radar technology, but this is all just basic information theory. If I were expecting to be drawn into a war in the near future, I'd consider all of my radar stations to be highly unreliable, regardless of their technological generation. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 69414450 United States 04/19/2017 09:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 69409564 United Kingdom 04/19/2017 10:13 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
GT Big hair User ID: 2251477 United States 04/19/2017 10:19 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
The Comedian :D User ID: 40899983 United States 04/19/2017 10:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Somebody here put it very nicely - it's what you don't know about your opponent that usually gets you. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74717748 The fact that Russians are broadcasting some mysterious new technology means that either it's actually a very old technology already known to both U.S. and Russia (like EMP) or just fake posturing. It's actually not that hard to electronically blind an opponent, at least in theory. You simply have to reliably detect opponent's radar pulses and then start repeating them out of sequence. The radar will still detect you presence, but it will not be able to determine your distance, making it practically unusable. The same trick applies to countering radar-guided missiles. They'll just detonate at any random distance from the target "thinking" that they're close to it. Infrared and optical-guided missiles will remain unaffected, though, but those are even easier to blind with on-board laser systems. Newer technologies probably use a pseudo-random ID sequence for radar pings to counter this problem, but it's really a statistical problem and thus generally unsolvable. Basically, it is the same problem that appears with denial-of-service (DoS) attacks that spoof Internet packets. Though, true, IP packets use a simple rising ID sequence that's trivial to predict and spoof. Pseudo-random sequences are much harder to predict, but keep sending random (spoofed) radar "reflection" packets fast enough, and that radar will be confused at least some of the time. Keep sending them at higher energy level than the real reflected packets have, and the radar will be unable to recognize/synchronize anything it receives. I'm not an expert in radar technology, but this is all just basic information theory. If I were expecting to be drawn into a war in the near future, I'd consider all of my radar stations to be highly unreliable, regardless of their technological generation. I like you. You should post more. Saint Comedian, Patron Saint of Bringing the Butthurt to Dipshits ‘There are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot.’ - General Mattis, USMC, Secretary of Defense [link to www.godlikeproductions.com] "Subterfuge and social pressure are the wheel and fire of the 21st century" - Some asshole Legal Disclaimer: All comments are intended as humor and/or fiction and not advice, and not to be confused with any event or person, living or dead. |
The Comedian :D User ID: 40899983 United States 04/19/2017 10:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | nobody in their right mind doubts that russia has serious weapons and countermeasures. if that were not the case, the US would have invaded them by now. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74008706 For what purpose, you illiterate retard? Saint Comedian, Patron Saint of Bringing the Butthurt to Dipshits ‘There are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot.’ - General Mattis, USMC, Secretary of Defense [link to www.godlikeproductions.com] "Subterfuge and social pressure are the wheel and fire of the 21st century" - Some asshole Legal Disclaimer: All comments are intended as humor and/or fiction and not advice, and not to be confused with any event or person, living or dead. |
The Comedian :D User ID: 40899983 United States 04/19/2017 10:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This from an Italian whose cat avatar is smarter than he is. Saint Comedian, Patron Saint of Bringing the Butthurt to Dipshits ‘There are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot.’ - General Mattis, USMC, Secretary of Defense [link to www.godlikeproductions.com] "Subterfuge and social pressure are the wheel and fire of the 21st century" - Some asshole Legal Disclaimer: All comments are intended as humor and/or fiction and not advice, and not to be confused with any event or person, living or dead. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 74719082 United States 04/19/2017 10:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | According to Russia’s Electronic Warfare Force Commander Major-General Yuri Lastochkin, modern Russian military technology surpasses Western rivals by a number of characteristics, including the range of its operation.. Quoting: Tess. [link to tass.com] Russian media claim its military is now capable of neutralising US warships with electronic jamming devices... American destroyer USS Donald Cook was effectively left helpless when a Russian plane used the technology while the vessel was in the Black Sea several years ago, the report claimed.. [link to www.dailymail.co.uk] The Russians locked onto the Donald Cook with their Bastion Coastal Missile Defense System during the Crimea Crisis when Obama had sent the Donald Cook steaming towards Crimea. The Russian commander said he never saw a ship make U turn so quickly as did the Donald Cook after having been locked on with the Bastion. |
PIR User ID: 74516824 United States 04/19/2017 10:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 74008706 United States 04/19/2017 10:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 73146648 United States 04/19/2017 10:41 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Somebody here put it very nicely - it's what you don't know about your opponent that usually gets you. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74717748 The fact that Russians are broadcasting some mysterious new technology means that either it's actually a very old technology already known to both U.S. and Russia (like EMP) or just fake posturing. It's actually not that hard to electronically blind an opponent, at least in theory. You simply have to reliably detect opponent's radar pulses and then start repeating them out of sequence. The radar will still detect you presence, but it will not be able to determine your distance, making it practically unusable. The same trick applies to countering radar-guided missiles. They'll just detonate at any random distance from the target "thinking" that they're close to it. Infrared and optical-guided missiles will remain unaffected, though, but those are even easier to blind with on-board laser systems. Newer technologies probably use a pseudo-random ID sequence for radar pings to counter this problem, but it's really a statistical problem and thus generally unsolvable. Basically, it is the same problem that appears with denial-of-service (DoS) attacks that spoof Internet packets. Though, true, IP packets use a simple rising ID sequence that's trivial to predict and spoof. Pseudo-random sequences are much harder to predict, but keep sending random (spoofed) radar "reflection" packets fast enough, and that radar will be confused at least some of the time. Keep sending them at higher energy level than the real reflected packets have, and the radar will be unable to recognize/synchronize anything it receives. I'm not an expert in radar technology, but this is all just basic information theory. If I were expecting to be drawn into a war in the near future, I'd consider all of my radar stations to be highly unreliable, regardless of their technological generation. I like you. You should post more. :fivestars: The USAF had Bombers, B-58 and B-52 in the 1960s able to "wipe out" enemy radar, very effective. They called it ECM, Electronic Counter Measures. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 68343495 Russia 04/19/2017 10:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Solidlift User ID: 48764880 United States 04/19/2017 10:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | lol, US drops MOAB and Russia runs to their state controlled media. Boy you should see all our brand new state of the art military weapons!!!! They're soooo futuristic and powerful! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 69414450 This. Welcome to what a cold war looks like (for some of you younger ppl). Lots of propaganda & saber rattling. "You sumbitches couldn't close an umbrella..." -Sheriff Buford T. Justice |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 74719082 United States 04/19/2017 10:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | lol, US drops MOAB and Russia runs to their state controlled media. Boy you should see all our brand new state of the art military weapons!!!! They're soooo futuristic and powerful! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 69414450 The thinking behind the decision to drop a huge bomb in Afghanistan could only have been hatched in an asylum for either the mentally deranged or haters of America. In a country where there is never any national unity unless their is a common, non-Muslim foe to fight, the dropping of the bomb can only be understood as a means by which the asylum’s denizens sought to further unite Afghans and their Arab allies against the United States and NATO, and to get the former to kill its soldier-children and deepen its debt by deepening its intervention there and, thus, re-enforce its earlier and irreversible Afghan defeat. This MOAB managed to killed less than 100 IS fighters. Probably not a cost effective use of the bomb; a good lesson to IS to stay out of easily identifiable cave systems; and a really craven replacement for the personal courage and massive killing that even now may be too late to defeat the Islamists. Good job, President Kushner, good job! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 74654891 South Africa 04/19/2017 10:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Somebody here put it very nicely - it's what you don't know about your opponent that usually gets you. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74717748 The fact that Russians are broadcasting some mysterious new technology means that either it's actually a very old technology already known to both U.S. and Russia (like EMP) or just fake posturing. It's actually not that hard to electronically blind an opponent, at least in theory. You simply have to reliably detect opponent's radar pulses and then start repeating them out of sequence. The radar will still detect you presence, but it will not be able to determine your distance, making it practically unusable. The same trick applies to countering radar-guided missiles. They'll just detonate at any random distance from the target "thinking" that they're close to it. Infrared and optical-guided missiles will remain unaffected, though, but those are even easier to blind with on-board laser systems. Newer technologies probably use a pseudo-random ID sequence for radar pings to counter this problem, but it's really a statistical problem and thus generally unsolvable. Basically, it is the same problem that appears with denial-of-service (DoS) attacks that spoof Internet packets. Though, true, IP packets use a simple rising ID sequence that's trivial to predict and spoof. Pseudo-random sequences are much harder to predict, but keep sending random (spoofed) radar "reflection" packets fast enough, and that radar will be confused at least some of the time. Keep sending them at higher energy level than the real reflected packets have, and the radar will be unable to recognize/synchronize anything it receives. I'm not an expert in radar technology, but this is all just basic information theory. If I were expecting to be drawn into a war in the near future, I'd consider all of my radar stations to be highly unreliable, regardless of their technological generation. You have not factored in the thought that Russia knows that the deep state within the US wants a war. What do you do as a martial arts expert, if some stupid bully starts to look for trouble with you. You show them quickly that they had best be careful. That was what the Donald Cook was about. Of course we also realize that the deep state probably did not register the message, because they are inbred hicks. Due to their short attention spans, Russia is now reminding the deep state again |
Solidlift User ID: 48764880 United States 04/19/2017 10:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Somebody here put it very nicely - it's what you don't know about your opponent that usually gets you. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74717748 The fact that Russians are broadcasting some mysterious new technology means that either it's actually a very old technology already known to both U.S. and Russia (like EMP) or just fake posturing. It's actually not that hard to electronically blind an opponent, at least in theory. You simply have to reliably detect opponent's radar pulses and then start repeating them out of sequence. The radar will still detect you presence, but it will not be able to determine your distance, making it practically unusable. The same trick applies to countering radar-guided missiles. They'll just detonate at any random distance from the target "thinking" that they're close to it. Infrared and optical-guided missiles will remain unaffected, though, but those are even easier to blind with on-board laser systems. Newer technologies probably use a pseudo-random ID sequence for radar pings to counter this problem, but it's really a statistical problem and thus generally unsolvable. Basically, it is the same problem that appears with denial-of-service (DoS) attacks that spoof Internet packets. Though, true, IP packets use a simple rising ID sequence that's trivial to predict and spoof. Pseudo-random sequences are much harder to predict, but keep sending random (spoofed) radar "reflection" packets fast enough, and that radar will be confused at least some of the time. Keep sending them at higher energy level than the real reflected packets have, and the radar will be unable to recognize/synchronize anything it receives. I'm not an expert in radar technology, but this is all just basic information theory. If I were expecting to be drawn into a war in the near future, I'd consider all of my radar stations to be highly unreliable, regardless of their technological generation. I like you. You should post more. The USAF had Bombers, B-58 and B-52 in the 1960s able to "wipe out" enemy radar, very effective. They called it ECM, Electronic Counter Measures. Exactly. Along with the EB-66, EC-121, F-105G, F-4G, etc. "You sumbitches couldn't close an umbrella..." -Sheriff Buford T. Justice |
Gelatinous Mass User ID: 73899585 United States 04/19/2017 10:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Somebody here put it very nicely - it's what you don't know about your opponent that usually gets you. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74717748 The fact that Russians are broadcasting some mysterious new technology means that either it's actually a very old technology already known to both U.S. and Russia (like EMP) or just fake posturing. It's actually not that hard to electronically blind an opponent, at least in theory. You simply have to reliably detect opponent's radar pulses and then start repeating them out of sequence. The radar will still detect you presence, but it will not be able to determine your distance, making it practically unusable. The same trick applies to countering radar-guided missiles. They'll just detonate at any random distance from the target "thinking" that they're close to it. Infrared and optical-guided missiles will remain unaffected, though, but those are even easier to blind with on-board laser systems. Newer technologies probably use a pseudo-random ID sequence for radar pings to counter this problem, but it's really a statistical problem and thus generally unsolvable. Basically, it is the same problem that appears with denial-of-service (DoS) attacks that spoof Internet packets. Though, true, IP packets use a simple rising ID sequence that's trivial to predict and spoof. Pseudo-random sequences are much harder to predict, but keep sending random (spoofed) radar "reflection" packets fast enough, and that radar will be confused at least some of the time. Keep sending them at higher energy level than the real reflected packets have, and the radar will be unable to recognize/synchronize anything it receives. I'm not an expert in radar technology, but this is all just basic information theory. If I were expecting to be drawn into a war in the near future, I'd consider all of my radar stations to be highly unreliable, regardless of their technological generation. Excuse me, SIR. Where do you get off posting technically accurate information on GLP? Sheesh. |
Bud Fox User ID: 2574216 United States 04/19/2017 10:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | For instance, I wonder if (part of) the reason we attacked that Syrian air base wasn't just to test Russian responses and defenses to a ship-borne cruise missile attack. Maybe the Donald cook incident was done for this purpose as well, knowing full well that something like that could happen. Same with our constant probes of China. The Russians have been doing the same, with the subs in the gulf and flying bombers close to UK/US/Nato borders. Blue Horseshoe loves GLP |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 74674384 United States 04/19/2017 11:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Psalm119 User ID: 48882215 United States 04/19/2017 11:10 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 70963863 United States 04/19/2017 11:13 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I wonder how much chess and gamesmanship has been going on the past few years between Russia and and US. Quoting: Bud Fox For instance, I wonder if (part of) the reason we attacked that Syrian air base wasn't just to test Russian responses and defenses to a ship-borne cruise missile attack. Maybe the Donald cook incident was done for this purpose as well, knowing full well that something like that could happen. Same with our constant probes of China. The Russians have been doing the same, with the subs in the gulf and flying bombers close to UK/US/Nato borders. We (US & Russia citizens) being charged ringside seats for a clinching match. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 73410514 United States 04/19/2017 11:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The story might be believable, unless you read the original story about the alleged Donald Cook incident that has been circulating around now for years. In poorly translated Russian it claimed something like half the officers on the boat quit the Navy after the incident because they were so scared. Does that sound believable to anyone? That a little electronic jamming by a country we aren't at war with would make dozens of career officers resign their commissions and get off the boat in a forgien country? Because that was the original story. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 71717448 United Kingdom 04/19/2017 11:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |