Skip to comments.
Bolton: Iranian Jamming Technology Could Be Worse News Than Downed Drone
FOX ^
| 12/11/2011
Posted on 12/12/2011 6:26:23 AM PST by Just4Him
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
To: Travis McGee
I thought our frequency-hopping algorithms made jamming our drones impossible?
They make it hard to take control of the drone, but not jamming. You just jam the entire section of the spectrum where the transmitter operates. Simple in theory, hard in practice. You need to know how wide a band to jam. And you need some serious gear to do that but then that is what the Russians were selling them. Finally you tend to blind any of you own equipment operating in that range.
I have always been a big fan of the cheap drone. Think V-1 buzz bomb with a camera instead of a warhead. Have an assembly line crank them out by the thousands. Sure they will probably shoot down five out of six. But they are shooting million dollar a pop SAMs at you $200,000 a copy drones. You force them to wage economic warfare against themselves. And when you lose a drone no big deal.
21
posted on
12/12/2011 7:25:19 AM PST
by
GonzoGOP
(There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
To: RFEngineer
The antennas are shielded by the body of the aircraft. Depends on what it's made of. Fiberglass composite is invisible to RF. Carbon and aluminum aren't.
22
posted on
12/12/2011 7:25:28 AM PST
by
Thermalseeker
(If ignorance is bliss how come there aren't more happy people?)
To: Army Air Corps
Just suppose that the GPS signal is also jammed and the critter doesnt know where it is much less where home is.Backup nav systems should let it know pretty much where it is in 3D space.
23
posted on
12/12/2011 7:26:09 AM PST
by
fso301
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
I too thought the Iranian response was strange. Why publicize the fact they have the drone, especially if it was brought down with jamming technology? They would get a brief public relations bump but reveal a lot about their capabilities.
To: Travis McGee
US ambassadors don’t have clearance for such knowledge, so I highly doubt his guessing is accurate.
25
posted on
12/12/2011 7:42:13 AM PST
by
CodeToad
(Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
To: Thermalseeker
Depends on what it’s made of. Fiberglass composite is invisible to RF. Carbon and aluminum aren’t.
We can be confident that a stealth platform does not conduct RF through the wing/body of the aircraft.
To: BigBobber
A muslim would not miss the brownie points among their own. They brought down a dreaded weapon of the great satan after all.
27
posted on
12/12/2011 7:44:00 AM PST
by
DonaldC
(A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
To: Army Air Corps
Just suppose that the GPS signal is also jammed and the critter doesnt know where it is much less where home is.You still have inertial navigation...assuming that it was part of the system. Counting on GPS to always be there is a single point of failure kind of mistake. Ditto for assuming the satellite links will be there.
28
posted on
12/12/2011 7:53:53 AM PST
by
Myrddin
To: Just4Him
This whole episode is curious. Could Iranian radar even detect this thing up in the air? If not, how did they find it - did they somehow recieve and interpret the radio signal controlling the aircraft?
And, judging by its non-wrecked condition, it looks like it did not ‘crash’...so was it ‘jamming’, or was it ‘taking over the controls’?
If the Iranians/Russians are able to do this, it seems there is little they can’t do (I’m thinking satellite communications, etc.).
Wow....still hoping for a Trojan Horse scenario.
29
posted on
12/12/2011 8:04:36 AM PST
by
lacrew
(Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
To: Travis McGee
The frequency hopping or CDMA approach is resistant to jamming on a single frequency. You jam that kind of signal with a frequency hopper or CDMA. The technology to receive the signal is common as dirt. CDMA cellphones are a common example. In theory, the PN sequence we use should be hard to follow. The GPS version repeats on a 2 week cycle, but you can "join" that cycle by using the encrypted channel to get info on where the PN cycle is currently functioning. The jamming exercise is simply a denial of service attack using a technique that whacks enough receiver samples to prevent complete reception of a digital data packet. You don't even have to hit 100%. Just keep the reception disrupted.
30
posted on
12/12/2011 8:07:20 AM PST
by
Myrddin
To: PapaBear3625
This would actually be a good thing. Weve been getting too used to fighting against technologically-inferior opponents, and getting dependent upon weapons systems that rely upon nobody being in a position to jam signal reception:How is this possibly a good thing, sure you wrote that right or maybe I am missing your point?
31
posted on
12/12/2011 8:08:01 AM PST
by
Las Vegas Ron
(Rush Limbaugh = the Beethoven of talk radio)
To: PapaBear3625
Undoubtedly Pooty sent Iran a jammer.
The good thing would be our early ability to find a good work-around or even a good hard hitting counter-measure.
Who knows what the actual config of the drone nobama gave them was. Probably not setup or equipped like what nobama “thought” he was giving his bretheren, more or less just a way to feel them out. I will give our Mil and CIA more credit than to be as dumb as nobama.
I don’t care what Russia gives them, two things are in play. One, most everything Ruski Mil sucks in real life (excepting AK-47) and if Russia gave them a ballbearing, we can count on the stupid camel jocks to either file on it or pack sand in it.
32
posted on
12/12/2011 8:28:14 AM PST
by
X-spurt
To: lacrew
This whole episode is curious. Could Iranian radar even detect this thing up in the air? If not, how did they find it - did they somehow recieve and interpret the radio signal controlling the aircraft?The classic approach to "stealth" aims to disperse the signal striking the target in multiple directions or absorb the signal to attenuate the reflected signal. That works when the radar transmitter/receiver is in a single location. The new approach is a form of "crowd sourcing" using ganged radar receivers at multiple locations. The "ping" from a transmitter is received by multiple receivers at widely separated locations. That data is correlated to resolve a target. The short answer is that "stealth" is a technology that is nearing its useful life as detection techniques have improved. The advent of an RF rich environment creates an "ocean" through which aircraft must travel. The RF acts as a passive transmitter. If you fly an absorbing object through that "ocean", it creates a detectable disruption. The "ganged" receiver approach can resolve a target that way, albeit with "fuzzier" resolution than a standard radar T/R approach.
BTW, you "beat" the ganged radar by breaking the data links used to "gang" the receivers. That puts your "stealth" back in business. The bad guys have been using buried fiber optic cable for the data links.
33
posted on
12/12/2011 8:28:23 AM PST
by
Myrddin
To: RFEngineer
We can be confident that a stealth platform does not conduct RF through the wing/body of the aircraft. Not necessarily. Fiberglass aircraft, for incidence, are almost invisible to radar and it's not because they are absorbing or reflecting RF energy. BTW, I'm also an RF Engineer, I've worked on a couple of stealth projects, specifically range testing various materials for echo signature.
34
posted on
12/12/2011 8:29:34 AM PST
by
Thermalseeker
(If ignorance is bliss how come there aren't more happy people?)
To: Las Vegas Ron
It's a good thing to know in advance so you don't send your best assets in to be slaughtered because you underestimated your opponent. They tipped their hand too early. We've been exceptionally bold on the assumption that we were dealing with technically inferior opponents. This incident exposes that we have a more substantial opponent. Forewarned is forearmed.
35
posted on
12/12/2011 8:34:01 AM PST
by
Myrddin
To: GonzoGOP
Good thinking!
As my old Granddad always told me “Son, use your head for more than just a hat-rack”
36
posted on
12/12/2011 8:34:42 AM PST
by
X-spurt
To: Myrddin
37
posted on
12/12/2011 8:42:47 AM PST
by
patton
("Je pense donc je suis," - My Horse.)
To: Myrddin; PapaBear3625
It's a good thing to know in advance so you don't send your best assets in to be slaughtered because you underestimated your opponent.Ah, now I get it...duh, must need more coffee!
Thanks for the reply ;)
38
posted on
12/12/2011 8:58:05 AM PST
by
Las Vegas Ron
(Rush Limbaugh = the Beethoven of talk radio)
To: Travis McGee
If they are Jamming GPS signal from Sats,then you not using Freq-Hoping. Also, Frequency Hopping makes it harder to Jam,not impossible you just have to Jam much wider channel. Also,where is guarantee that the Drone was using it, instead something much simpler,because its cheap.
39
posted on
12/12/2011 9:12:28 AM PST
by
alex2011
To: Myrddin
Interesting...sounds like it takes alot of equipment and processign power to ‘defeat’ stealth. No way the Iranians did this by themselves.
Perhaps our pals the Russians have been gently stabbing us in the back.
40
posted on
12/12/2011 9:54:13 AM PST
by
lacrew
(Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson