well Duh... and what was their FIRST clue? the first impact???
Posted on 10/04/2007 7:46:14 PM PDT by james500
After Israeli missile strike on Syria confirmed by both sides, the question remains – how did Israel's non-stealth jets infiltrate Syrian airspace undetected? US aerospace experts tell Aviation Week magazine that Israel used new US-developed technology that lets users invade and manipulate enemy communication networks.
After Syrian President Bashar Assad admitted that Israeli planes carried out a missile strike in Syria and after the media blackout on the incident was lifted in Israel, many unanswered questions still remain regarding how IAF jets managed to infiltrate Syrian security.
An article published this week on the aerospace magazine Aviation Week & Space Technology's website offers the theory of experts in the field on how the Israeli F15 and F16 jets – which are not stealth fighters – managed to evade detection by Syrian air defense radar.
US aerospace industry and former US Air Force officials told Aviation Week's Senior Military Editor David A. Fulghum that Israel must have used "a technology like the US-developed 'Suter' airborne network attack system".
The cutting-edge technology allows users to invade enemy communication networks, to "see what enemy sensors see and even take over as systems administrator so sensors can be manipulated into positions so that approaching aircraft can't be seen", experts said.
In effect, the technology infiltrates and tricks enemy sensors by "directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control," the article explains.
The US system was recently tested successfully in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, officials told Aviation Week.
(Excerpt) Read more at ynetnews.com ...
well Duh... and what was their FIRST clue? the first impact???
IF true that is the most expensive Soviet Paper Weight I have ever heard of....
Gosh, that is beautiful, not only will they pay for these things, but Israel may blow them up! So they are humiliated twice! Syria and Iran would be the most recent Darwin Award Recipents! Oh my that is Shadenfreude city.....
Hint, hint, dead.
Yeah -- I haven't been following the mideast lately... what precipitated this I wonder?
BAE’s Suter program (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003170.html) shouldn’t have been released into the clear.
For one thing, Remote Data Placement (RDP) is still in its infancy. I was under the impression that there were technological hurdles left to overcome.
For instance, consider how a simple hard drive works. Your computer has data. That data is sent to a controller. The controller tells the hard drive where, when, and how much to magnetize a certain area of disk. Poof, your data is stored on the hard drive.
OK, that’s all well and good. But if a disk is out in the open, not in a hard drive, not inside a computer, not inside a room, then magnetism (e.g. manipulated via laser heat or magnetic pulse or multiple-sourced polarized EM waves) can be directed at the same disk from a distance.
Poof, data is stored onto the disk from some distance away. Hey, it’s a neat technical feat for whiz kids to brag about.
...But it becomes problematic to perform RDP when the disk media is inside a metal hard drive...and even more difficult when the metal hard drive is inside a metal computer case...and more difficult again when the metal computer case is inside a hardened bunker. So useful RDP is a “future technology.”
Of course, data can still be manipulated over open wires like telephone lines (that’s not new), but that runs into routine checksum and static routines for data integrity...such that an ordinary home PC can routinely overcome a large amount of hostile RDP just as it filters out routine static.
But if the U.S. and/or Israel has overcome the hurdles above...it would be big.
Hostile foes would be forced to abandon electronic communications...possibly even having to abandon all computers themselves (which make all smart weapons possible).
If RDP is active in the field without any counter-measures, then our foes would be reduced to pre-1960 weapons technology and communications (even strong encryption would become problematic for them to maintain at any reasonable battle field speed) across the board.
ICBM’s would have to go back to analog targeting and release processes for warheads or risk being reprogrammed in mid-flight, jammed, or otherwise hijacked. Anti-aircraft missiles would have to go back to pure analog detection/targeting.
RDP would give us full knowledge of all electronic funds transfered. We’d have spyware in the very real sense of the term in every bank on the planet.
If we’ve got functioning RDP deployed today, that would place us at the electronic version of the 1945 Trinity test.
And the funny part is Putin told Hugo “Chubby” Chavez that if you put 100,000 AK-47s in an area the size of a football stadium that it will form a formidable air defense shield.
Now you know the rest of the story.
If it is disinformation then it will drive them even more batty.
My fantasy is that Russia sold Israel transponders that make their aircraft invisible to the missile system they sold Syria. Thats leveraging your market position.
No doubt Syria and Iran have no clue at all what software easter eggs lie within the Russian missile system. Would Russia would sell a system to its badly behaving neighbors without a way for them to defeat it themselves if necessary?
“IF true that is the most expensive Soviet Paper Weight I have ever heard of....”
Saddam also bought a ton of soviet paper weights. The proof Soviet technology does not work is that Saddam is not available to tell you that himself.
For the Russians it is a perfect scheme. If your defensive weapons don’t work, no one is left to complain.
Brilliant.
Jedi warriors used a cloaking device to baffle the Klingons, but I may have my metaphors mixed up.
With something like a Patriot battery, all 3 components are co-located. But consider a distributed air-defense network. Or even one in which the local command/control node reports to a central command node. (Now who do we know that prefers centralized control? Hint, think Soviet era...) The reporting almost certainly is not hard-wired, land-line stuff. Particularly if you're designing a mobile system, or one that is supposed to survive battle damage to infrastructure, etc.
So there are a lot of comms going on via radio - computer to computer. This may include tracking messages from the radar computer back to the command site's computer - saying (in a formatted binary message) "Hey, I have a target at ..." It may also include requests to engage, authority to engage, etc. The command node may be able to direct the sensor to alter sensitivity, sweep different search sectors, go into a mode incompatible with picking up low flying aircraft, etc.
If you could electronically get on that same comm net's frequency, and you understand the message formats in use... And I assume they'd be encrypted some how... But suppose you could break into this... Then you'd own the radar, the command node, etc. You could push the radar around like you owned it. You could inject false targets, or cancel the reports of the ones the radar is sending.
Heck, you probably don't even have to be able to decrypt the traffic. Suppose you just "step on" the traffic enough, at the right times, to get the command node to reject all tracking messages from the radar? The radar is dutifully reporting seeing new targets, but the command node never gets an un-garbled message... Hence they never see it, never command the radar to go from search to fire-control/engagement mode... You sail through with the radar watching you with little interest, but the *system* ignoring you...
This is all just theory. If, if that is what happened, they'll figure it out after debriefing the radar crews: "How come you didn't order us to engage the targets?" - "What targets? How come you didn't report any?"
So yeah, it was a risk revealing such a thing is possible (if in fact it is). But the real bite in the shorts is that there may be no good remediation for it. Or maybe they didn't sweat revealing this capability 'cause they have something else up their sleeve too? Or maybe the remediation for this is worse than the effect, or can be taken advantage of in some other way. It is a game of cat 'n mouse, and the advantage is generally with the attacker, since they control the pace and the engagement and the defense is well, on the defense, reacting to the attacker.
So basically, maybe they didn't hide their aircraft from the sensors, or jam the radars. Maybe they hid their aircraft from the system, and in-effect jammed the system...???
“Thats leveraging your market position.”
Capitalism in action. That would be proof we really did win the cold war.
It would not be so easy with China since some liberal traitor would sell them our technology. Or give it to them.
Maybe there's a simpler explanation.
"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee..."
I just hope the Chicoms dont figure out how we did it.
As I posted on the other thread about this article...
The thing I find curious is what is the Suter system. I can only find 3 references to it on the web. One is in this article. The second is from an article written by the same David Fulghum mentioned in the article on 25 Jan 06. And the 3rd is on a Hungarian blog on 30 Jan 06 which is almost word for word from the 25 Jan article (so it’s probably sourced from the earlier article).
I’m hoping that this is not a case where an “Air Force source” gave out some info to a reporter that he darn well should not have.
The Syrian radar *did* track the F-15I's over Turkey, which is why the Israeli drop tanks were found so fast in that remote, rugged, rural terrain (because the drop tanks left a radar track to the ground).
It's that the Syrian systems didn't see the Israelis until *after* the IDF missiles were launched, and didn't hit any of the attackers even then, that makes a big deal.
That target was in deep Syria. Syria can't defend any of its airspace, clearly.
Blinding the Syrian AD system is entirely feasible. Doesn’t have to be high tech to do it, either. Could be as simple as Mossad agents having the right phone numbers, right names, and right accents to get away with telling dispersed Syrian radar units to shut down for 5 minutes for a “maintenance check.”
The Syrians *did* track the F-15I’s from the attack point onward. That’s worth considering. That’s how the Syrians were able to recover the Israel F-15I drop tanks so quickly from such remote, rugged terrain in Turkey.
But the Syrians didn’t hit any of the Israeli aircraft, which means they failed to defend their airspace.
The danger in clearing the Suter program for release is that you tip off your opponents to begin researching their own such attack programs (eventually).
In the short term, once opponents figure out that the U.S. and Israel are doing RDP in the field, they pretty well have to choose to forego the use of computers (including inside smart weapons) in the military and banking sectors.
The longer that they leave them turned on, the longer that their own machines are spying on them.
Of course, turning them off sends their military programs back to pre-1960 levels of high-tech. As if a Korean-War-era Warsaw Pact military (sans nukes!) would be a meaningful threat to NATO today.
So leaking such programs would change the geopolitical playing field. The military option would be *out* for our foes if they learn that we can do RDP.
Frankly, I’m unsure that we can. There are significant technical hurdles to remote data placement...and the Israeli aircraft *were* spotted by the Syrian AD system (remember the drop tanks were tracked).
Just fly low where the radar does not cover.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.