HFU HF Underground
General Category => General Radio Discussion => Topic started by: ChrisSmolinski on September 28, 2018, 1542 UTC
-
Russia’s first Krasukha-4 electronic warfare unit lands in Syria. It can jam spy satellites, enemy radar
The Krasukha-4 is highly advanced, although not the most sophisticated EW system in the Russian arsenal. But it fits Shoigu’s book. The system can jam communications systems, disable guided missiles and aircraft, and neutralize Low-Earth Orbit spy satellites and radars (AWACS) at ranges of 150-300km, which cover northern and central Israel. The Krasukha-4 can also damage opposing EW.
https://www.debka.com/russias-first-krasukha-4-electronic-warfare-unit-lands-in-syria-it-can-jam-spy-satellites-enemy-radar/
-
I guess the Israelis scared the crap out of the Midget of Moscow last week? I wonder if it works better than their "unlimited range atomic rocket" that crashed after takeoff in the Arctic Ocean awhile back?
-
Some related bits of info on the subject;
https://futurism.com/electronic-warfare-disables-aircraft-syria
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/03/15/electronic-warfare-how-the-u-s-army-could-lose-its-next-war/#b6fddb21b09f
http://tass.com/defense/942027
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20034/the-russians-are-jamming-us-drones-in-syria-because-they-have-every-reason-to-be
https://sputniknews.com/russia/201603071035897115-russia-electronic-warfare-systems/
-
This stuff keep yous awake at night?
-
I thought this was interesting;
"January 25, 2015
Anti-Maidan Kharkov - Facebook page
Translated from Russian by Kristina Rus
We will not name the author of this material, as he is an active officer of the armed forces of Russia, but he perfectly described the situation - What would happen if the Ukrainian military faced the Russian army?
The titles of some complexes we have SPECIFICALLY designated with the letters of the Latin alphabet not to write their name, as mentioning some of them is undesirable for the author. However, I think that military people will understand what are the systems in question:
"According to our Ukrainian partners, commenting on the latest ATO news, and referring to the "intercepted data from reports of the Russian army", today another division of the Russian army was destroyed near Lugansk...
------
I want to briefly explain to the Ukrainian colleagues, what is the modern Russian army, and what would happen, if it would come to visit them in reality, and not in their wet dreams.
Firstly, today we use digital radio communication with local encryption. You can intercept it, but you cannot decipher it. The code changes in 50 minutes, an hour, an hour and twenty-two minutes - on arbitrary unpredictable schedule. Ukrainian military and the armed forces of Novorossia are using an old analog model, which you can listen to. And the Russian army now has communications which was previously only on secure communication lines, - you can only hear the crackling and a characteristic murmur.
Secondly, if the Russian army appears in front of UAF, it will be easy to determine.
The first sign - failure of all means of communication, full discharging of batteries in vehicles, tanks and other equipment, at the same time, discharge of batteries in mobile phones, the targets, and radio stations. Then, there is a rupture of electric circuits throughout all the equipment - all of it. This is EMP. All engines stall, no way to restart. This is how the system "X" works (in order to protect the author we do not specify the name), with a range of up to 20 km.
Second - complete failure of all systems using LCD monitors, the failure of all target-locating devices of the air defense system. This is how the complex "Altair" works (this is a known complex in the world, we can name it).
Third - a failure to deploy any kinds of guided missile weapons - from MANPADS to PTURS [anti-tank guided reactive missile]. Upon launching, the ammunition liquidates itself.
This is a battalion complex "Z" - on the basis of MTLB [multi-target light armored transporter]. Range - 15 kilometers.
Fourth - it is impossible to use a drone and low-flying aircraft. Their on board electronics will fail. This is system "Y". Then there is a complex "Avtobaza", which can forcibly land a drone.
What will happen next? Dozens (hundreds, if necessary) of the latest combat helicopters, flying over all the roads, start hunting for single armored vehicles, trains, cars. Railroad is paralyzed, bridges blown up. The lights go out on the home front - electric stations are out of service. Civil and military headquarters on the home front and separate leaders simultaneously are liquidated by the recon-subversive groups aka Spetsnaz.
This is roughly how the Russian army would conduct military operations today. Therefore, the wet dreams about the "hero-cyborgs", spitting flame on hundreds of Russian tanks, are better left to science fiction writers.""
Hero cyborgs are certain Ukrainian military units, so you know.
If the technology as described above actually exists, L suspect it comes from this guy's research;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv_-uIcLbSI
-
So basically:
EMP burst (20 km range) knocks out most communications equipment, vehicles, etc...then,
broadband jamming knocks out HF/VHF/UHF/SATCOM/cellular or mobile networks, command and control systems, and of course, GPS. Goodbye UAVs/drones. Another reason to keep NDBs in operation and why the US military is teaching navigators to use compasses, celestial navigation and other methods that aren't GPS...they're well aware of the extreme capability of these Russian EW platforms.
I've read several articles about the Russian military electronic warfare units intercepting Ukrainian military and militia communications in the VHF high band, since they're using off the shelf amateur radio grade equipment (read: Baofeng UV-5Rs). I know that electronic warfare is at the core of the battle plan of the modern Russian military. A mixture of disabling/jamming radio-based systems and extensive interception and direction-finding capability. This includes the ability to jam frequency-hopping systems such as SINCGARS in the 30-88 MHz VHF-FM band for battlefield tactical communications and HAVE QUICK in the 225-400 MHz UHF-AM aircraft band used by the US military, NATO and several other countries.
The Russians are good at this. Jamming and interception is pretty much a given, its the EMP capability that "keeps me up at night".
-
Russia: A 3rd rate power with an outdated nuclear arsenal, a navy of rusting hulks, and a rapidly aging population of well under 200 million that it can't feed, all led by an egotistical, authoritarian dwarf who likes to make empty threats. In other words, it's one step up from North Korea. Plus, they've been fought to a standstill by Ukraine for years despite a huge military advantage. If that's not the definition of a "Paper Tiger", I don't know what is?
Now Josh, what's your problem with your home country? Your endless praise of Russia, a country whose leader threatened to launch missiles at the U.S. in 2004 and 2006 raises questions. Do you have a problem with America? Divided loyalties? Then get your butt to Russia, pucker up for Putin and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I don't think you'll be missed here.
I can't make a joke post about Elon Musk going off the deep end w/o you getting on your political soap box over nothing. What in the Hell is wrong with you?
-
Lol seriously.
The only thing I will address is I feel you and a lot of others are underestimating Russian military power. They're a country with advanced military sciences and manufacturing capability because that is where they put what money they have. They have subs right now off our coasts and under the polar caps with mirvs aimed at our cities, in 5 minutes a nuclear tipped slcm fired off the east coast could be in dc. Five minutes. This is for real, right now, today, and has been for years. Of course, we have pretty much the same arrangement with our subs lounging in their waters but it'll take a bit longer to reach Moscow.
-
Plus I assume everyone saw the recent picture of Vlad petting the leopard - and him posing shirtless with the fish he caught - a real "man's man" that Putin is - yet what Josh talks about cant be discounted.... Recall Wells' book "War of the Worlds" - have we become the complacent bunch?
But as Alfred E. Neumann said: "What? Me worry?"
-
Don't dodge the question. Why do you consistently praise Putin when he's threatened the country YOU live in multiple times in the past decade? He's poisoner, a murderer, and a defacto dictator that seizes territory from his neighbors and sends assassins around the world. He's ordered gassing of women and children in Syria, and committed genocide in Chechnya. A lovely individual!
Not surprisingly he order the rehabilitation of Stalin and his era, his personal hero, in 2017.
What's up with you and your love for a self-declared enemy of your own country, Josh? If you think he's so great there are plenty of planes going there every day. Get on one and tell Ed Snowden his traitorous butt hasn't been forgotten.
Your post is simply noise about another Russian "super-weapon" like the atomic rocket drone that went kerplunk in the Arctic Ocean, and originally hails from a Russian propaganda site meant to scare the gullible. They've had the things there for three years, it hasn't stopped the Israeli's flying second tier U.S. warplanes into Syria a blasting whatever they want at will, it won't stop them now.
-
Enjoying the taste of your own medicine? ;)
-
Ed Snowden is an American patriot and hero.
Here's why;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czokmy3EnVA
Binney is a patriot and hero too.
-
Unfortunately, such things appear online with great regularity and without a shred of evidence they actually do what is discussed. The internet is a great thing, but it also produces "experts" at a rate that is simply fantastic. Amazingly, when I look to hire such people there are not quite as many around who actually know anything. Lets look at this list, much of it appears to be overstatement when not downright dreams.
Josh, I realize you are quoting someone else here, but it will all appear as quotes of your post.
Firstly, today we use digital radio communication with local encryption. You can intercept it, but you cannot decipher it. The code changes in 50 minutes, an hour, an hour and twenty-two minutes - on arbitrary unpredictable schedule. Ukrainian military and the armed forces of Novorossia are using an old analog model, which you can listen to. And the Russian army now has communications which was previously only on secure communication lines, - you can only hear the crackling and a characteristic murmur.
Sure, everyone who is anyone today uses encrypted comms, not a surprise. However, when the description of what you hear, "you can only hear the crackling and a characteristic murmur", is so far from reality you really have to doubt the knowledge level of the reporter. This is right up there with "frequency hop spread spectrum is undetectable from normal static".
The first sign - failure of all means of communication, full discharging of batteries in vehicles, tanks and other equipment, at the same time, discharge of batteries in mobile phones, the targets, and radio stations. Then, there is a rupture of electric circuits throughout all the equipment - all of it. This is EMP. All engines stall, no way to restart. This is how the system "X" works (in order to protect the author we do not specify the name), with a range of up to 20 km.
A wildly inaccurate and overstated account of what EMP does. There are so many inaccuracies here, particularly when applied to military systems which are often EMP hardened, that it would be best just to say it is almost all wrong. For example, "all engines stall, no way to restart" ignores simple things like diesel engines (widely used in military applications) with mechanical fuel pumps, engines that use no electricity or electrical components in their operations and are completely unaffected by any kind of EMP. And I really want to know how an EMP discharges a chemical battery, like a lead-acid battery, that does not have control electronics.
And even if EMP did work like this, it would impact own forces the same way, so it could not be used on engaged hostiles. At would only apply to designated area preparation.
Second - complete failure of all systems using LCD monitors, the failure of all target-locating devices of the air defense system. This is how the complex "Altair" works (this is a known complex in the world, we can name it).
Amazing, a weapons system that attacks a specific type of monitor at battle field distances.
Another gross overstatement. And even if true, not all target locating devices of the air defense system use an LCD, in fact many are still CRT and other technologies, and so there would not be a "failure of all".
Third - a failure to deploy any kinds of guided missile weapons - from MANPADS to PTURS [anti-tank guided reactive missile]. Upon launching, the ammunition liquidates itself.
This is a battalion complex "Z" - on the basis of MTLB [multi-target light armored transporter]. Range - 15 kilometers.
"The ammunition liquidates itself". Again, even if true in someones hookah induced dream, would this not affect own systems if it causes a complete failure to deploy any kind of guided missile weapons?
Missile systems use far too many different types of guidance and control systems for any one device to work against them all. It mentions things like MANPADS (a fairly narrow group of weapons) without discussion of the fact that there are at least four grossly different guidance technologies for this class of weapon alone. Although most classically defined MANPADS are passive IR, there are also active RF and LASER beam riders, as well as wire guided. Sorry man, I just don't see one currently fielded technology defeating all of them. And I think I understand the problem fairly well. What protects ground assets typically does not apply so well to airborne.
Fourth - it is impossible to use a drone and low-flying aircraft. Their on board electronics will fail. This is system "Y". Then there is a complex "Avtobaza", which can forcibly land a drone.
Again, anything that blanket will also impact own forces. If something automatically disrupts all electronics on all drones and low flying aircraft then that is, in fact, all.
Sure, there are systems that can target and disrupt specific electronics on such platforms. But unless it is going to render your own use of them useless it must be specifically applied to a target. Before targeted application there must be detection and identification, and that is almost never 100%, even on the test range, let alone under real combat conditions.
All this description appears to be from a source that has seen a little info here, a little there, likely from sales brochure like claims of performance (yes, there are sales brochures for weapons systems), and lumped it all together without any real understanding or experience in application. If this was even remotely true against first rate forces, would Russia be experiencing any losses at all in Syria or any other hotspot where they operate? And yet they do.
The Russians have some extremely good engineers developing their systems, that is true. Just as do many other countries. But the Russians, and their systems, are not 10 feet tall and bullet proof.
T!
-
People believe what they want to believe
-
Russia: A 3rd rate power with an outdated nuclear arsenal, a navy of rusting hulks, and a rapidly aging population of well under 200 million that it can't feed, all led by an egotistical, authoritarian dwarf who likes to make empty threats. In other words, it's one step up from North Korea. Plus, they've been fought to a standstill by Ukraine for years despite a huge military advantage. If that's not the definition of a "Paper Tiger", I don't know what is?
Indeed. It's China we need to worry about: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies?srnd=premium
-
.....
Again, anything that blanket will also impact own forces. If something automatically disrupts all electronics on all drones and low flying aircraft then that is, in fact, all.
Sure, there are systems that can target and disrupt specific electronics on such platforms. But unless it is going to render your own use of them useless it must be specifically applied to a target. Before targeted application there must be detection and identification, and that is almost never 100%, even on the test range, let alone under real combat conditions.
All this description appears to be from a source that has seen a little info here, a little there, likely from sales brochure like claims of performance (yes, there are sales brochures for weapons systems), and lumped it all together without any real understanding or experience in application. If this was even remotely true against first rate forces, would Russia be experiencing any losses at all in Syria or any other hotspot where they operate? And yet they do.
The Russians have some extremely good engineers developing their systems, that is true. Just as do many other countries. But the Russians, and their systems, are not 10 feet tall and bullet proof.
T!
Indeed. Well said Token. I know that the "Russian version" of the classic 30-76 MHz or 30-88 MHz FM tactical radio system is 20-70 MHz or similar. They do make use of higher frequencies - namely VHF high band 137-174 MHz, including their forces in Ukraine, some of which are using COTS radios like the [in]famous Baofeng UV-5R and similar radios in addition to their encrypted and frequency-hopping military spec radios. Regardless, a wideband jammer will jam communications, telemetry, MANPADS systems (that use RF), Link-11 and similar datalink systems that operate in the UHF spectrum, SATCOM systems, and so on and so forth. Given the similarity in frequency usage, it would be very difficult for an enemy to operate wideband jammers against a technologically sophisticated enemy without causing serious degradation to their own systems.
Putin is not to be trusted, paper tiger or not. The guy was a KGB operative for Christ's sake.
-
I know that the "Russian version" of the classic 30-76 MHz or 30-88 MHz FM tactical radio system is 20-70 MHz or similar. They do make use of higher frequencies - namely VHF high band 137-174 MHz, including their forces in Ukraine, some of which are using COTS radios like the [in]famous Baofeng UV-5R and similar radios in addition to their encrypted and frequency-hopping military spec radios. Regardless, a wideband jammer will jam communications, telemetry, MANPADS systems (that use RF), Link-11 and similar datalink systems that operate in the UHF spectrum, SATCOM systems, and so on and so forth. Given the similarity in frequency usage, it would be very difficult for an enemy to operate wideband jammers against a technologically sophisticated enemy without causing serious degradation to their own systems.
Yes, the frequency ranges used, HF, VHF, and UHF, between opposing forces are often very similar. The performance of the frequencies under certain conditions and terrain are what drive the selection of frequency ranges, and opposing forces often have approximately the same communications requirements.
So, just looking at VHF-Lo as an example (and any band could be selected for similar examples):
The Russian (and before that USSR) ground forces used to (and still do, to some extent) make use of the range 20 - 70 MHz a great deal. During the cold war manpack radios like the R-10x family covered 20 - 68 MHz in multiple radios (R-109 21.5-28.5 MHz, R-108 28-36.5 MHz, R-105 36-46.1 MHz, R-107 20-52 MHz, etc). Other R-10x radios (like the R-104) covered HF. Vehicle borne radios like the R-123 (20-51.5 MHz) and later R-173 (30-76 MHz) covered much the same frequency ranges.
As you said, "western" forces often used approximately the same frequency ranges for the same applications, although the west typically used 30 MHz and up (to about 76 or 88 MHz), instead of 20 MHz and up. The point is that there is a great deal of overlap.
Any affective EA (Electronic Attack) will have to planned and coordinated. You must know own-forces communications requirements and channels. You must optimize impact to enemy forces while not degrading own-forces communications or use of the spectrum. There is no device out there that automatically jams all the bad guys use of spectrum while also automatically not jamming your use of spectrum. In essence there is no IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) for all radio signals that automatically tells the jammer "this is a friendly signal, don't jam it".
So you build up an EOB (Electronic Order of Battle). You have own forces communications needs and planning. You have hostile forces historic activities, knowledge of their tactics and techniques, knowledge of their in-theater hardware and its capabilities, and probable communications needs. With all of that you build a plan on how to attack the spectrum to degrade enemy effectiveness.
And then you apply the plan and adjust as necessary. But you can't just "jam it all". Even when you use a wideband jammer you notch the jamming to not impact own forces spectrum needs, unless own forces don't use the band in question at all you never just wack the whole band.
T!
-
If they want to know about jamming they should consult the gang on 75/80 meters. Those guys have it down.
-
If they want to know about jamming they should consult the gang on 75/80 meters. Those guys have it down.
W6WBJ will have a job when and if he finally exhausts all his appeals.
-
I know that the "Russian version" of the classic 30-76 MHz or 30-88 MHz FM tactical radio system is 20-70 MHz or similar. They do make use of higher frequencies - namely VHF high band 137-174 MHz, including their forces in Ukraine, some of which are using COTS radios like the [in]famous Baofeng UV-5R and similar radios in addition to their encrypted and frequency-hopping military spec radios. Regardless, a wideband jammer will jam communications, telemetry, MANPADS systems (that use RF), Link-11 and similar datalink systems that operate in the UHF spectrum, SATCOM systems, and so on and so forth. Given the similarity in frequency usage, it would be very difficult for an enemy to operate wideband jammers against a technologically sophisticated enemy without causing serious degradation to their own systems.
Yes, the frequency ranges used, HF, VHF, and UHF, between opposing forces are often very similar. The performance of the frequencies under certain conditions and terrain are what drive the selection of frequency ranges, and opposing forces often have approximately the same communications requirements.
So, just looking at VHF-Lo as an example (and any band could be selected for similar examples):
The Russian (and before that USSR) ground forces used to (and still do, to some extent) make use of the range 20 - 70 MHz a great deal. During the cold war manpack radios like the R-10x family covered 20 - 68 MHz in multiple radios (R-109 21.5-28.5 MHz, R-108 28-36.5 MHz, R-105 36-46.1 MHz, R-107 20-52 MHz, etc). Other R-10x radios (like the R-104) covered HF. Vehicle borne radios like the R-123 (20-51.5 MHz) and later R-173 (30-76 MHz) covered much the same frequency ranges.
As you said, "western" forces often used approximately the same frequency ranges for the same applications, although the west typically used 30 MHz and up (to about 76 or 88 MHz), instead of 20 MHz and up. The point is that there is a great deal of overlap.
Any affective EA (Electronic Attack) will have to planned and coordinated. You must know own-forces communications requirements and channels. You must optimize impact to enemy forces while not degrading own-forces communications or use of the spectrum. There is no device out there that automatically jams all the bad guys use of spectrum while also automatically not jamming your use of spectrum. In essence there is no IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) for all radio signals that automatically tells the jammer "this is a friendly signal, don't jam it".
So you build up an EOB (Electronic Order of Battle). You have own forces communications needs and planning. You have hostile forces historic activities, knowledge of their tactics and techniques, knowledge of their in-theater hardware and its capabilities, and probable communications needs. With all of that you build a plan on how to attack the spectrum to degrade enemy effectiveness.
And then you apply the plan and adjust as necessary. But you can't just "jam it all". Even when you use a wideband jammer you notch the jamming to not impact own forces spectrum needs, unless own forces don't use the band in question at all you never just wack the whole band.
T!
Token, you've done your homework, nice!
The PRC-25/PRC-77 series manpack portable radios (and VRC-12 series mobile radios) 30-76 MHz in 50 kHz steps and then the next generation of gear that dropped down to 25 kHz steps and made it 30-88 MHz basically became the "de facto" standard for forces using the "Western" plan - the Russians and forces in their sphere of influence use their similar frequency range as well.
Combine that with militia and irregular forces using HF-SSB gear, CB and CB-like 25-30 MHz equipment and COTS VHF/UHF equipment (and of course, mobile networks) and you still have the problem of jamming large chunks of frequencies means you're also interfering with your own forces' ability to communicate. I remember reading Black Hawk Down and discussion of jamming the 800MHz band to knock out analog mobile phone networks since that was the preferred communications method for Somali militias at that point in time...while the US and UN forces are using "FM" (30-88 MHz).
For urban combat operations, having the ability to use higher frequencies (UHF) with repeaters or even tactical HF to deal with multipath, frequency congestion in the land mobile bands and other problems that weren't in the picture decades ago could make or break a communications network. Of course, the portable radios used by the military now generally cover 30-512 MHz instead of 30-88. I know that the Russians export (or exported) tanks with the R-123 and R-173 radios installed to military forces around the world.
Electronic warfare is a fascinating topic and with the changing nature of warfare in the 21st century it will only become more and more important...even as militias continue to use CB rigs and 2 meter ham mobiles in their Toyota technicals or smartphones instead of the "standard" 30-88 MHz tactical band.
-
The Russians used their leet df systemz to locate UA military units by their smart phone calls, drawing grad or artty fire for their boldness. The UA quickly said no smart phones in the ao.
More recently, the dod banned active duty members in combat zones from using fitbit and the like apps as they reveal the wearers location to anyone looking.
-
More recently, the dod banned active duty members in combat zones from using fitbit and the like apps as they reveal the wearers location to anyone looking.
The fitbit and similar things for DoD was not a real time issue, there was no danger of drawing fire or the like, or giving your position away right now. But it was a rather large, and obvious, OPSEC issue as it plotted after the fact the movements of the person wearing them, up to and including patrol patterns of security.
When this data came out it shocked me and my co-workers that this was not a previously recognized potential. Such devices have not been allowed at any facility I have worked on since they (wearables) became a thing.
T!
-
I read about Russian military commanders sending texts to Ukrainian soldiers after hitting them with artillery (which had been aimed via the help of DFing their cellular signals) asking how they liked their the artillery now?
I recently watched a clip from "Hornets Nest" - a documentary about the Afghanistan war and it shows American and Afghani military personnel with both their usual SINCGARS multi-band radios and COTS handheld HTs (Baofengs, Icoms) and a Radio Shack analog VHF/UHF scanner with a telescopic whip that the Afgani translator was using to monitor the Taliban's VHF-high band radio chatter in real time. Seemed like the Baofeng HTs were being used to listen in to the analog VHF networks used by the Afghani militia units. I guess in this case it makes more sense to not jam the the enemy's communications system but actually allow them to continue using it because it makes an easy monitoring target and source of large amounts of useful tactical intelligence.
-
Certain hummers are equipped with icom gear (not as in Icom the radio maker) that provides for df fixes on v/uhf comms, these roll out on patrol and are a great asset to our guys.
-
Certain hummers are equipped with icom gear (not as in Icom the radio maker) that provides for df fixes on v/uhf comms, these roll out on patrol and are a great asset to our guys.
There are a couple of definitions for ICOM, but in this case I think you mean the acronym for Integrated COMmunications.
T!
-
Just remembered this gem;
""In 2001 I, as the President of the Russian Federation and the supreme commander, deemed it advantageous to withdraw the radio-electronic center Lourdes from Cuba. In exchange for this, George Bush, the then U.S. president, has assured me that this decision would become the final confirmation that the Cold War was over and both of our states, getting rid of the relics of the Cold War, will start building a new relationship based on cooperation and transparency. In particular, Bush has convinced me that the U.S. missile defense system will never be deployed in Eastern Europe.
The Russian Federation has fulfilled all terms of the agreement. And even more. I shut down not only the Cuban Lourdes but also Kamran in Vietnam. I shut them down because I gave my word of honor. I, like a man, has kept my word. What have the Americans done? The Americans are not responsible for their own words. It is no secret that in recent years, the U.S. created a buffer zone around Russia, involving in this process not only the countries of Central Europe, but also the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Caucasus. The only response to this could be an asymmetric expansion of the Russian military presence abroad, particularly in Cuba. In Cuba, there are convenient bays for our reconnaissance and warships, a network of the so-called "jump airfields." With the full consent of the Cuban leadership, on May 11 of this year, our country has not only resumed work in the electronic center of Lourdes, but also placed the latest mobile strategic nuclear missiles "Oak" on the island. They did not want to do it the amicable way, now let them deal with this," Putin said."
http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/politics/01-08-2012/121804-russia_army_base-0/
-
Certain hummers are equipped with icom gear (not as in Icom the radio maker) that provides for df fixes on v/uhf comms, these roll out on patrol and are a great asset to our guys.
There are a couple of definitions for ICOM, but in this case I think you mean the acronym for Integrated COMmunications.
T!
Or Integrated COMSEC [communications security]?
Josh is talking about the LLVI guys I believe - LLVI being Low Level Voice Intercept - combining DF capability with intercept/monitoring/scanning capability on the most often used bands for tactical comms - most of the stuff I've seen seems to focus on VHF high band, although I'm sure there are other bands in use. I believe they use computers with AOR handheld receivers and DF antennas for these purposes. The LLVI units deploy close to the action to intercept and DF low power handheld radio transmissions.
I've seen images of American and Afghani National Army (ANA) radio guys using a handheld AOR AR8200 scanner/receiver with a telescopic whip antenna as well as cheaper amateur radio and similar grade scanners and handheld VHF/UHF transceivers. I saw one picture of a solider or marine with what looked like a RadioShack VHF/UHF scanner and a telescopic whip antenna, the guy standing next to him had a Baofeng UV-5R with a large whip antenna - apparently both radios were being used for tactical voice interception purposes.
Having the capability to not only instantly DF tactical comms but hear the effect your battlefield actions are having upon the enemy in real time by listening to their radio chatter has got to be a major asset to our guys in the field, as Josh mentioned.
If you look at images of captured Taliban equipment stashes, aside from the usual AK-series rifles, Russian machine guns, 7.62x39 and 7.62x54R ammunition, there's often mobile phones and handheld VHF radios, most of which appear to be Icom IC-V8 or similar bare bones (but rugged) 2-meter FM transceivers. I've seen images of Syrian militia forces with CB or 11-meter and/or VHF antennas on their technicals. Basically the same antenna configuration as many a backcountry Virginia hunting truck I've seen [export CB 10-meter radio with 26-28 or so MHz coverage + an amplifier and a modified 2-meter amateur radio, bonus points for simply dropping in a VHF marine band radio instead].
One wonders how much captured or cloned Russian or US military radio gear is in the hands of these militias. Seems like the 20-70 or 30-76 or 30-88 MHz band is more a traditional military band whereas 25-30 MHz, 136-174 MHz and 400-500 MHz are the purview of irregular forces. Whatever they can get their hands on, I suppose. But I digress...
Ah, unconventional warfare.
-
Right after the seizing of the Crimea. Sounds like tough talk in state media by a tinhorn dictator of a shitheel country with no real options? Dollars to donuts the only Russian missiles in Cuba are some surface to air units Gorby forgot on his way out the door.
If he can't whip the much smaller Ukraine in years of trying, what kind of threat is Putin? Tell him to go sit with Maduro and Kim at the "little man, big mouth, no action" table where he belongs, the damned piss-ant!
-
Certain hummers are equipped with icom gear (not as in Icom the radio maker) that provides for df fixes on v/uhf comms, these roll out on patrol and are a great asset to our guys.
There are a couple of definitions for ICOM, but in this case I think you mean the acronym for Integrated COMmunications.
T!
Or Integrated COMSEC [communications security]?
I intentionally left the Security (un said SEC) off of my repsonse because I have seen it used both ways, with and without implied SEC. Yeah, I understand (or think I do, anyway) the inclusion of Security is how the Acronym was origianlly derived.
It varies a bit from community to community, but I have seen ICOM (implied but not said SEC) used when discussing either own gear or OPFOR and integrated security (encryption). And I have seen ICOM (without the SEC, so just Intergrated Communicaitons) when discussing OPFOR that has no encryption. Example, monitoring in the clear transmissions using something like an AOR.
T!
-
From Luhansk to Idlib, HAM radio gear in conflict short of war is alive and well. There's a vid somewhere on innernets of the kurds listening via HAM radios to isis commanders bitch about not getting their fair share of lamb when the other isis asshat got his, Afghan soldiers taunting isis asshats over the air, Ukrainians and NovoRossians taunting each other via v/uhf, etc etc.
Thank god for China and the barfing dual band hand helds!
https://baofengtech.com/uv-5r
Dunno if this applies to the barfing rigs, but the one I had, canna remember the brand, had a over the air lock out feature, if the radio received the code it was locked out and shut down or something like that. Inscrutable, those Chinese.
-
There are a couple of definitions for ICOM, but in this case I think you mean the acronym for Integrated COMmunications.
I intentionally left the Security (un said SEC) off of my repsonse because I have seen it used both ways, with and without implied SEC. Yeah, I understand (or think I do, anyway) the inclusion of Security is how the Acronym was origianlly derived.
It varies a bit from community to community, but I have seen ICOM (implied but not said SEC) used when discussing either own gear or OPFOR and integrated security (encryption). And I have seen ICOM (without the SEC, so just Intergrated Communicaitons) when discussing OPFOR that has no encryption. Example, monitoring in the clear transmissions using something like an AOR.
T!
Interesting, I guess I always "read" it as having the "SEC" included but in many cases that was an assumption based on the context...although as stated, a lot of comms are in the clear using good old VHF/UHF gear that's available as COTS equipment.
From Luhansk to Idlib, HAM radio gear in conflict short of war is alive and well. There's a vid somewhere on innernets of the kurds listening via HAM radios to isis commanders bitch about not getting their fair share of lamb when the other isis asshat got his, Afghan soldiers taunting isis asshats over the air, Ukrainians and NovoRossians taunting each other via v/uhf, etc etc.
Thank god for China and the barfing dual band hand helds!
https://baofengtech.com/uv-5r
Dunno if this applies to the barfing rigs, but the one I had, canna remember the brand, had a over the air lock out feature, if the radio received the code it was locked out and shut down or something like that. Inscrutable, those Chinese.
Plenty of pictures of Ukrainian military, militia and Russian "little green men" with UV-5Rs, UV-82s and other similar Chinese VHF/UHF HTs as their inter-squad and intra-squad radios. One of the articles I've read about Russian signals intelligence activities in Ukraine involved transcripts of chatter between Ukrainian militias on 145.xxxx MHz frequencies. I know that, like the Japanese radios they're cloning to various degrees, some of the Chinese VHF/UHF gear has "remote stun" and "remote disable/enable" capability included as part of the various selective calling (DTMF, CTCSS, DCS) capability of those radios. I can't say for sure about the UV-5R in particular, however.
Integrated communications security using $30 Chinese VHF/UHF handhelds? The best you'll get is maybe voice inversion. Makes me wonder if there are militia commanders in Ukraine ordering a pallet of Baofengs and programming all of them up with the same channel plan or just leaving each unit to their own devices.
The AOR receivers are military-grade radios apparently, especially compared to the bowww-fengz - which are surprisingly tough little radios. I have used the UV-5R extensively for backpacking, hiking, driving two cars across Europe (no seriously, using the PMR446 UHF license free frequencies) and FRS/MURS and even Part 90 land mobile work and they're good little radios. They don't have the intermod rejection capability of a Motorola but for the price you can't go wrong....and if you're fighting the Russians on a budget I have a feeling they fit the bill quite well.
-
Right after the seizing of the Crimea. Sounds like tough talk in state media by a tinhorn dictator of a shitheel country with no real options? Dollars to donuts the only Russian missiles in Cuba are some surface to air units Gorby forgot on his way out the door.
If he can't whip the much smaller Ukraine in years of trying, what kind of threat is Putin? Tell him to go sit with Maduro and Kim at the "little man, big mouth, no action" table where he belongs, the damned piss-ant!
I'm reminded of Mussolini’s attempt to invade Greece. That didn't go so well.
-
I agree totally with Chris... China is the one to worry about and they have "units" all over Russia. Hell Russia is so paranoid they complained about imported Tea Pots from China saying they have a 'strange chip' inside of them... Pure propaganda BS from the midget.
Can anyone say Neutron bomb ? Illegal? Not during war my friend. :-)
Like Hitler said; 'if you tell a lie big enough and often enough, it will be believed'.
-
Where have you been, my helmeted friend?
-
Right after the seizing of the Crimea. Sounds like tough talk in state media by a tinhorn dictator of a shitheel country with no real options? Dollars to donuts the only Russian missiles in Cuba are some surface to air units Gorby forgot on his way out the door.
If he can't whip the much smaller Ukraine in years of trying, what kind of threat is Putin? Tell him to go sit with Maduro and Kim at the "little man, big mouth, no action" table where he belongs, the damned piss-ant!
I'm reminded of Mussolini’s attempt to invade Greece. That didn't go so well.
Russia would roll through Ukraine like they did through Hungary in 56. A more recent example is what they did to Georgia during the 0bama regime. All Vlad is doing right now is building intel and resources near the ao and making sure there's enough contractors and conscripts in Luhansk to keep the Ukrainian regime out. If an outsider with 1st world military technology got involved immediately the Russians could be stopped, but I don't suppose that's in the works. But who knows what kind of shitshow the lunatics and psychopaths who find their way to power have planned for us.