It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US electronic warfare useless against Iranian tech?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

Originally posted by JamesinOz2
Orangetom, I have no idea of US EW capability, which is why this thread is so interesting.
Going off on a tangent, I think we'll (unfortunately) see hostilities between Syria and Israel first, followed by unilateral Israeli action against Irans nuclear facilities, in a multifaceted strike. The huge NATO/US naval armada in the region could then be subject to anti-missile missile jamming technology from coastal radar stations as they attempt to contain the regional fallout. That's why the Debka article is of interest as the technology it refers to could equally be applied to the dozens of European ships off the Lebanese/Syrian coast as well as the US navy off the Iranian coast.
[edit on 16-10-2006 by JamesinOz2]


JamesinOz2,

I tend to agree. I think we will be seeing hostilities between Israel and Syria..also Israel and Iran.
One more thing Jamesin0z2..what is your experience with packet based data transmission. I am curious about this??

Thanks,
Orangetom


Orangtom, my experience is based on working in a data management role for large corporations and the military using frame relay and ATM packet shifting data transmission networks, and I specialised in fault rectification for anything that went wrong globally on our network within certain timeframes, including intercontinental submarine data cables that kept breaking for some reason and everything else that could go wrong under the sun. I did that for 8 years and am now having a little holiday. It was not a low stress role at times when dealing with American and British clients every day who's global networks were down.

Back on topic, I don't think the Israelis will necessarily have to rely upon bunker busters to achieve all of their goals in any action aganst Irans nuclear facilities. There might be other alternatives available to them. I'm not sure anyone will really know what the EW outcome will be until push comes to shove, unfortunately.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by JamesinOz2]




posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   
As the Iraeli-Lebanese conflict was just a proxy war testing the water, we cannot really judge either sides EW capabilities, just as OrangeTom said.

I am sure in a real conflict the full US EW will be unleashed! I wouldnt expect any electronic equipment to work in the area if this was the case, we certainly wouldnt be seeing any telivision pictures coming out.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeepCoverUK
As the Iraeli-Lebanese conflict was just a proxy war testing the water, we cannot really judge either sides EW capabilities, just as OrangeTom said.

I am sure in a real conflict the full US EW will be unleashed! I wouldnt expect any electronic equipment to work in the area if this was the case, we certainly wouldnt be seeing any telivision pictures coming out.



Deep Cover,

Proxy war....yes..much better word to describe what I was thinking than the word Ferret.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by JamesinOz2

Originally posted by orangetom1999

Originally posted by JamesinOz2
Orangetom, I have no idea of US EW capability, which is why this thread is so interesting.
Going off on a tangent, I think we'll (unfortunately) see hostilities between Syria and Israel first, followed by unilateral Israeli action against Irans nuclear facilities, in a multifaceted strike. The huge NATO/US naval armada in the region could then be subject to anti-missile missile jamming technology from coastal radar stations as they attempt to contain the regional fallout. That's why the Debka article is of interest as the technology it refers to could equally be applied to the dozens of European ships off the Lebanese/Syrian coast as well as the US navy off the Iranian coast.
[edit on 16-10-2006 by JamesinOz2]


JamesinOz2,

I tend to agree. I think we will be seeing hostilities between Israel and Syria..also Israel and Iran.
One more thing Jamesin0z2..what is your experience with packet based data transmission. I am curious about this??

Thanks,
Orangetom


Orangtom, my experience is based on working in a data management role for large corporations and the military using frame relay and ATM packet shifting data transmission networks, and I specialised in fault rectification for anything that went wrong globally on our network within certain timeframes, including intercontinental submarine data cables that kept breaking for some reason and everything else that could go wrong under the sun. I did that for 8 years and am now having a little holiday. It was not a low stress role at times when dealing with American and British clients every day who's global networks were down.

Back on topic, I don't think the Israelis will necessarily have to rely upon bunker busters to achieve all of their goals in any action aganst Irans nuclear facilities. There might be other alternatives available to them. I'm not sure anyone will really know what the EW outcome will be until push comes to shove, unfortunately.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by JamesinOz2]


JamesinOz2,

Wow!! I was wondering why you used the word packet based data transmission so fluently. The usage of the term just rolled off your keyboard with fluency born of experience. That clears up that question.

And yes with such a customer base...no doubt the stress levels were high. A whole lot of ..."They wanted it working yesterday."

As to the Israelis and bunker busters. What we have ...they usually have or have access to. Exceptions would be some of the more complex systems not really worth thier time or effort. Events would happen very rapidly in this area of the world. They dont need complex systems which take a long time to set up and maintain. Unless absolutely necessary they would rely heavily on the KISS Principle as much as possible. I wouldnt blame them for this at all. The war would be over before they could even set up this complex drivel of which we so often tend.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

Iran’s economy is based on oil and it is not a very efficient industry either. 80% of the economy is oil. The rest is gas and petrochemicals, mining and agriculture.


That is truly hilarious! It's like saying "Iran's economy is based on the juice of life and it is not a very efficient industry either. 80% of the economy is the juice of life," etc.

paraphi, please do your self a favor and find out what percentage of "oil" ends up in your gas tank, and what percentage is consumed by the ENTIRE industry of human civilization.

Please note that the very buttons you are pressing at the moment, and the mouse you are wiggling around is based on petrochemicals.


I am afraid that no matter what is written in Wikipedia I have seen no significant evidence that Iran has any significant high tech industry which can indigenously develop and / or manufacture systems to rival western technology.


Oh I agree on the issue of Wiki bullcrap, but paraphi, their are numerous reputable sources out there, Janes, FAS, and countless others, and they all state pretty much the same thing when it comes to the issues of Iran's military. Look it up.


Thanks for you comments iskander

The points in turn.

Iran is not a diverse industrialised nation and certainly NOT a high technology economy or in possession of a significant high tech industry. Iran is principally an oil producer. Oil does not equal high tech.

As to efficiency... The Iranian oil and gas industry is inefficient in comparion to other nations in their extraction tech and methods.

Iran's defence industry is not high tech in comparison to the west. I repeat that I have seen nothing that demonstrates that Iran can indigenously develop and / or manufacture high tech kit. Maybe you should post the evidence which you feel exists.

Regards



[edit on 17/10/2006 by paraphi] corrected quotes

[edit on 17/10/2006 by paraphi]

[edit on 17/10/2006 by paraphi]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Iran is not a diverse industrialised nation and certainly NOT a high technology economy or in possession of a significant high tech industry. Iran is principally an oil producer. Oil does not equal high tech.


That is absolutely true paraphi. It all depends on how tricky they are able to get in spending that oil cash on high tech they do need. As we all know, even under the strict arms embargo, Saddam's oil cash was good enough for Germans, British, French, Chinese, etc, all of which managed to ship arms to him through various proxies.

I too have no doubt that Iran simply lacks domestic high tech culture, but what they do have asses to is oil money, and an entire world of high tech arms market.


As to efficiency... The Iranian oil and gas industry is inefficient in comparion to other nations in their extraction tech and methods.


True again, but at the same time what they do have is supply. Saudis have been pumping water in their wells for some time now, and even though their operation very well could be the most efficient in the world, they are simply running out of oil.

Iranians don't have that problem yet, and all the need to do is say the word, and all kinds of investors will be poring cash over their heads so they can bring their extraction efficiency up to required levels.


Iran's defence industry is not high tech in comparison to the west. I repeat that I have seen nothing that demonstrates that Iran can indigenously develop and / or manufacture high tech kit. Maybe you should post the evidence which you feel exists.


We are again in complete agreement. The only detail here is that Iran DOES manufacture various high tech items under license. Even though such manufacturing capacity can not yet be called domestic, but that's what tech transfer is all about, it only takes time.

There is a whole lot on Iranian military industrial sector on ATS forums, try running a general ATS search. I'll try to pull some links later today as well.

Nice talking with you paraphi.

edit:typos, yep.


[edit on 17-10-2006 by iskander]

[edit on 17-10-2006 by iskander]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   


JamesinOz2,
As to the Israelis and bunker busters. What we have ...they usually have or have access to. Exceptions would be some of the more complex systems not really worth thier time or effort. Events would happen very rapidly in this area of the world. They dont need complex systems which take a long time to set up and maintain. Unless absolutely necessary they would rely heavily on the KISS Principle as much as possible. I wouldnt blame them for this at all. The war would be over before they could even set up this complex drivel of which we so often tend.

Thanks,
Orangetom


Orangetom, I'm no expert but logic tells me in any possible future action against Irans underground facilities I'm not so sure that a very substantial amount of bunker busters will actually be successful in achieving their objectives. I'm not sure any kind of air based assault bar the unthinkable would be successful in fully neutralising Irans underground nuclear industry - its whole existence has been predicated on the notion that one day someone will bomb it from the air. I'd imagine a number of options are being considered to address this question.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by JamesinOz2]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by JamesinOz2


JamesinOz2,
As to the Israelis and bunker busters. What we have ...they usually have or have access to. Exceptions would be some of the more complex systems not really worth thier time or effort. Events would happen very rapidly in this area of the world. They dont need complex systems which take a long time to set up and maintain. Unless absolutely necessary they would rely heavily on the KISS Principle as much as possible. I wouldnt blame them for this at all. The war would be over before they could even set up this complex drivel of which we so often tend.

Thanks,
Orangetom


Orangetom, I'm no expert but logic tells me in any possible future action against Irans underground facilities I'm not so sure that a very substantial amount of bunker busters will actually be successful in achieving their objectives. I'm not sure any kind of air based assault bar the unthinkable would be successful in fully neutralising Irans underground nuclear industry - its whole existence has been predicated on the notion that one day someone will bomb it from the air. I'd imagine a number of options are being considered to address this question.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by JamesinOz2]


I suspect that we have been working steadily and quietly on the problem for some time now.

Just curious if you remember seeing some of the early Afganistan strikes in the mountains against the Taliban?? Did you notice any of the strikes which appeared to be two to three bombs going down the same trajectory as if riding the same beam per se?? I recall this. It happens so fast in the videos you see that unless you are very quick...you think it is one bomb but watch closer...two to three bombs down the same hole. Ive seen it in the strikes on reinforced targets in Iraq too. A number of those concrete reinforced hangers were hit like this.
My point is ....what does this do with bunker busters in mind??? Very deep penetration bunker buster designs??? Im talking about a series of bombs designed to penetrate 50 or more feet in the ground before going off...followed by another and another and another..and another. Probably less than 15 feet of error ..or closer in probability.

I'll tell you the one which really surprised me. IN the town in Iraq named Fallujah a fighter had released a bomb and as the target was a building in a neighborhood in this town. What you saw in the video screen was the cross hairs on a building and the dialogue as the bomb was released. The camera showed the street corner and as the bomb was released some fifty people came around the corner and headed down the street twords where the Marines were coming up the street. The pilot requested permission to target this group of people. After a second or two of delay permission was granted. What startled me was that the cross hair moved from the target building just off the street corner in the neighborhood and into the center of the mass of people. My impression was that the bomb was redirected in flight. AT some point the pilot overflew the target and the locations reversed in the viewer but the cross hairs remianed in the center of the group of people walking up the street. Suddenly the bomb went off in the middle of this group of people.
Up to that viewing of the video..I never thought of the possibility to redirect a bomb in flight to a new target once released.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Hey OT,

It was an LGB. You can re-target the bomb in flight because it is simply following the laser to the target. You can't make huge changes because each control input bleeds energy from the munition, so it won't physically be able to make the target if the delta is too big. Obviously the later the change in the bomb's time of flight, and the bigger the distance, the less chance you give the bomb of hitting what you want it to hit. But yes, it is entirely possible to re-target with LGBs. Also useful if collateral issues crop up before impact, and I know of a few occasions where this occured. Bit harder with JDAM though!



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
Hey OT,

It was an LGB. You can re-target the bomb in flight because it is simply following the laser to the target. You can't make huge changes because each control input bleeds energy from the munition, so it won't physically be able to make the target if the delta is too big. Obviously the later the change in the bomb's time of flight, and the bigger the distance, the less chance you give the bomb of hitting what you want it to hit. But yes, it is entirely possible to re-target with LGBs. Also useful if collateral issues crop up before impact, and I know of a few occasions where this occured. Bit harder with JDAM though!



Very intresting explaination. Thanks for this. As I stated..I was stunned to realize what I was actually observing. I have marveled at it since seeing this video.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Maybe alternatives to air delivered munitions are being considered? Interestingly, in another Debka article today, one of their senior Generals said Israel should prepare for possible conflict with Syria as well as Iran, indicating that such a possibility has been dicsussed.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamesinOz2
Maybe alternatives to air delivered munitions are being considered? Interestingly, in another Debka article today, one of their senior Generals said Israel should prepare for possible conflict with Syria as well as Iran, indicating that such a possibility has been dicsussed.



I tend to agree except. Israel will have problems with the rest of the Muslim world period. THese two nations against Israel just tend to be out front more often and hence more noticable. Nothing new there.
It is just a matter of time. When ..not if. Also I think the Israelis have been discussing this for over 30 years now. THey would be nuts not to have discussed it and fitted it into plans.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamesinOz2
Maybe alternatives to air delivered munitions are being considered? Interestingly, in another Debka article today, one of their senior Generals said Israel should prepare for possible conflict with Syria as well as Iran, indicating that such a possibility has been dicsussed.



I tend to agree except. Israel will have problems with the rest of the Muslim world period. THese two nations against Israel just tend to be out front more often and hence more noticable. Nothing new there.
It is just a matter of time. When ..not if. Also I think the Israelis have been discussing this for over 30 years now. THey would be nuts not to have discussed it and fitted it into plans.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   
OT1999, yes, I can imagine they've been discussing options for a while however I got more of a sense of immediacy from the context of the statement, so unfortunately perhaps sooner than later? Who knows.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by JamesinOz2
OT1999, yes, I can imagine they've been discussing options for a while however I got more of a sense of immediacy from the context of the statement, so unfortunately perhaps sooner than later? Who knows.



I agree with you once again. I believe time is running out for the begining of the next big conflict in that area.

Orangetom



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join