Russia’s first Krasukha-4 electronic warfare unit lands in Syria.

[R4002]

.....

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. 

[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.

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!

[Pigmeat]

If they want to know about jamming they should consult the gang on 75/80 meters. Those guys have it down.

[MDK2]

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.

[R4002]

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.

[Josh]

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.

[Token]

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!

[R4002]

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.



 

[Josh]

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.

[Token]

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!

[Josh]

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/

[R4002]

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. 

[Pigmeat]

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!

[Token]

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!

[Josh]

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.