US Military Plane Forced Down By North Korean Electronic Attack

reply to post by TDawgRex

Anything that relies upon signals, whether ground, air or space based can be jammed.

Not necessarily.

In either case - said jamming system is a self-illuminating target. The old AIM-7E and the new AIM-120s have a Home On Jam function that will passively track an emission source and make it go kaboom. The AGM-88 is, basically, a longer-ranged air-to-ground version with greater kinetic performance to improve survivability of the launching aircraft.

It was a role the F-4 became adapted for. The two-seat function of the F-4 worked exceptionally well in wild-weasel missions (not as common these days). Basically, you send an aircraft in with anti-radiation missiles (HARMs) and wait for a tracking radar to illuminate you as you launch a missile on its coordinates and pop countermeasures like it's New Years (when it is effective to do so, of course).

The strategy is not so popular in today's times because of the risk to life... but also because tracking systems have evolved, considerably. In the "old days" - a steady illumination of the target was required. It was much like pointing a spot-light onto an intruder so the snipers on the tower could peg him. The obvious limitation of this is that each tracking radar is limited to a single target. Today's systems are far more advanced. A combination of digital processing and AESA technologies are applied to allow a radar to 'bounce' between multiple targets and record their locations in a digital manner, with data uplinks serving to provide course corrections for missiles in the air. Terminal guidance is handled by active arrays on each missile (an improvement over previous generations that required the steady signal from a tracking radar to handle terminal guidance) - so the missile only has to get close.

There are several advantages to this. First - you can track multiple targets at a time. Second, it is no longer as easy to determine when a radar has begun tracking you (though not impossible). This all adds up to the age-old Wild Weasel missions not being used very often.

I think I drifted a tad off-topic.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Frogs

 

if they can lock down the gps on a plane, then they can do the same to missles. A system fully in place like that would make them virtually untouchable by modern tech...

Not necessarily not all smart weapons rely on GPS.
Besides "dumb iron bombs: The "HARM" mentioned: ( IIrc "High speed Anti-Radiation Missile") became famous on the "wild weasels" It looks for an anti aircraft missile ( SAM) radar transmitter; gets a lock and flies down the radar beam. to the antenna dish.I imagine we could easily direct a tv guided maverick into the nk'radar operators' underwear drawer. the NK's don't produce great "tech;" they can barely feed themselves.

Originally posted by quackers
Response? They have just as much right to defend their airspace as any other nation does.

They don't, however, have the right to attack a sovereign countries naval vessels in international waters. Which is what led to these exercises.

To be honest, I'm surprised the South Koreans didn't level Pyongyang after that.

I'm sure they would have if it wasn't for their newly found nuclear capabilities and the possibility of Seoul being attacked.

I wouldn't defend the rights of that murderous tyrannical regime for anything. The people trapped in North Korea are the ones who have rights, not their military or government.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

Anything that relies upon signals, whether ground, air or space based can be jammed.

Not necessarily.

In either case - said jamming system is a self-illuminating target. The old AIM-7E and the new AIM-120s have a Home On Jam function that will passively track an emission source and make it go kaboom. The AGM-88 is, basically, a longer-ranged air-to-ground version with greater kinetic performance to improve survivability of the launching aircraft.

It was a role the F-4 became adapted for. The two-seat function of the F-4 worked exceptionally well in wild-weasel missions (not as common these days). Basically, you send an aircraft in with anti-radiation missiles (HARMs) and wait for a tracking radar to illuminate you as you launch a missile on its coordinates and pop countermeasures like it's New Years (when it is effective to do so, of course).

The strategy is not so popular in today's times because of the risk to life... but also because tracking systems have evolved, considerably. In the "old days" - a steady illumination of the target was required. It was much like pointing a spot-light onto an intruder so the snipers on the tower could peg him. The obvious limitation of this is that each tracking radar is limited to a single target. Today's systems are far more advanced. A combination of digital processing and AESA technologies are applied to allow a radar to 'bounce' between multiple targets and record their locations in a digital manner, with data uplinks serving to provide course corrections for missiles in the air. Terminal guidance is handled by active arrays on each missile (an improvement over previous generations that required the steady signal from a tracking radar to handle terminal guidance) - so the missile only has to get close.

There are several advantages to this. First - you can track multiple targets at a time. Second, it is no longer as easy to determine when a radar has begun tracking you (though not impossible). This all adds up to the age-old Wild Weasel missions not being used very often.

I think I drifted a tad off-topic.

No drift detected
You were right on target
Drag in bag copies FAC. Fox 2, Fox 3!

reply to post by Aim64C


As you say, jamming is a self illuminating target. While certian systems can be jammed ( I prefer strawberry myself ), the thing that is doing the jamming can be targetted as well.

As you point out, that is the HARMs primary mission.

reply to post by Aim64C


Always nice to have a Weasel with you. As long as the FUF can jink, the GIB can can do his magic.

Originally posted by Violater1
reply to post by Aim64C

 

Always nice to have a Weasel with you. As long as the FUF can jink, the GIB can can do his magic.

That comment sounds like it comes from an XSCIB.

reply to post by megabytz


Sorry I had forgotten than only the west and its allies are allowed to do that, everyone else is a war criminal.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Frogs

 

if they can lock down the gps on a plane, then they can do the same to missles. A system fully in place like that would make them virtually untouchable by modern tech...

The GPS systems in planes are passive as are most GPS systems. The only part of the GPS system that transmits is the sattelites.

Nuke 'em all.

Finish them...

Whilst jamming is obvious, it is even more FUN to SKEW the signals Even more fun to SKEW radio alarm clocks of your neighbours


Wavebubble

GPS Jamming

Low cost GPS jammer

GPS Jammer

Iraq used some of the Russian jammers. It was one of the first things that went Boom.
First thing you blow up is command control and communications.

are you guys really telling me that your military planes have to make emergency landings when GPS is unavailable???? Please, tell me another fairy-tale. So, when there is a huge solar-storm raging, the US can't wage war because the GPS-signals are compromised???????? so much for your assymetrical warfare models...

reply to post by quackers

Sorry I had forgotten than only the west and its allies are allowed to do that, everyone else is a war criminal.

Basically. Having virtually uncontested dominance tends to beget the privilege to determine what is and isn't acceptable.

If I lived in North Korea, right now, it would be unacceptable to not worship ... who the hell is in power over there, these days, Kimmy, or his son? Either way - meet the new boss, same as the old one. Living over there comes with a dose of brainwashing - Kimmy is such an awesome and fearsome leader that no country in the world dares to invade his perfect paradise that he has set up for his people.

.... Yeah... I may not always agree with the way we do things over here... but I really couldn't give a damned if Kimmy throws a fit over us flying around outside his border. He's damned lucky we haven't JDAMed his ass, yet.

reply to post by Hellhound604

are you guys really telling me that your military planes have to make emergency landings when GPS is unavailable???? Please, tell me another fairy-tale. So, when there is a huge solar-storm raging, the US can't wage war because the GPS-signals are compromised???????? so much for your assymetrical warfare models...

Protocol. When navigational equipment isn't functioning properly, none of the brass like to have it flying around. The aircraft was more than capable of flying without it (hell, you can fly more accurately without GPS - which is not really all that well suited to variable altitudes).

It has nothing to do with solar storms and everything to do with electronic jamming signals (which can work in a number of ways - but basically serve to confuse the GPS receiver).

Ordnance-grade GPS is not nearly as vulnerable to jamming as your run-of-the-mill civilian GPS. However, not all military aircraft are equipped with the more modern GPS receivers. Many cargo aircraft flying these days were made prior to 1990 and are running communications and navigation equipment circa 1970. Solid state is like god damned voodoo to these things.

The sad part is that I'm not really doing a good job at exaggerating... There is at least one example of every claim - literally.

Why? Because cargo aircraft aren't expected to be flying where there are GPS jammers, and it is not critical to their wartime function. Having their GPS jammed is an inconvenience, at most. The people in charge just don't want to be standing in front of their superiors, explaining why a multi-million dollar aircraft crashed (or - whatever) after reporting -something- didn't work right (it could be the damned latrine - if the plane crashes... why was it allowed to fly without a functioning latrine? Boards of inquiry suck). Since it's an exercise - there was no justifiable reason to not enact CYA.

ahhh, that makes sense then. Believe me I know GPS's and avionics. I have designed military avionics myself, and therefore it was quite a mystery to read the article, and found that Military GPS's were so vulnerable to jamming, and when they are jammed, the plane had to make an emergency landing. I interpreted the article as meaning that the plane couldn't fly without GPS. I was wondering if the latest planes threw out all other forms of NAV-aids, and that caused the ridicule in my comment. (BTW. solar storms do influence the accuracy of the GPS signals). In my mind the term "Emergency landing" means what it says, a life-or-death situation. They should have used another term, like minor-equipment malfunction landing, or something like that.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Hellhound604

 

are you guys really telling me that your military planes have to make emergency landings when GPS is unavailable???? Please, tell me another fairy-tale. So, when there is a huge solar-storm raging, the US can't wage war because the GPS-signals are compromised???????? so much for your assymetrical warfare models...

Protocol. When navigational equipment isn't functioning properly, none of the brass like to have it flying around. The aircraft was more than capable of flying without it (hell, you can fly more accurately without GPS - which is not really all that well suited to variable altitudes).

It has nothing to do with solar storms and everything to do with electronic jamming signals (which can work in a number of ways - but basically serve to confuse the GPS receiver).

Ordnance-grade GPS is not nearly as vulnerable to jamming as your run-of-the-mill civilian GPS. However, not all military aircraft are equipped with the more modern GPS receivers. Many cargo aircraft flying these days were made prior to 1990 and are running communications and navigation equipment circa 1970. Solid state is like god damned voodoo to these things.

The sad part is that I'm not really doing a good job at exaggerating... There is at least one example of every claim - literally.

Why? Because cargo aircraft aren't expected to be flying where there are GPS jammers, and it is not critical to their wartime function. Having their GPS jammed is an inconvenience, at most. The people in charge just don't want to be standing in front of their superiors, explaining why a multi-million dollar aircraft crashed (or - whatever) after reporting -something- didn't work right (it could be the damned latrine - if the plane crashes... why was it allowed to fly without a functioning latrine? Boards of inquiry suck). Since it's an exercise - there was no justifiable reason to not enact CYA.

reply to post by Hellhound604

In my mind the term "Emergency landing" means what it says, a life-or-death situation. They should have used another term, like minor-equipment malfunction landing, or something like that.

Agreed.

But this is the media - they are functionally retarded by virtue. When my father served in Vietnam, they would encounter 5% casualties and see the headlines label it as "heavy casualties" (which is a term the military reserves until around 30+%).

Then you had entire platoons get wiped out and not a squawk about it.

It's sensationalism.

Originally posted by StarPeace
Nuke 'em all.

Finish them...

The correct quote is:

Nuke 'em all.

Then fight 'em at night.

They'll glow...get it?

The only reason why Pyongyang doesn't currently look like Falluja, is because North Korea has nuclear weapons. If there is one thing that the American military is exceptionally careful about, it's ensuring that they never attack anyone who has even a vague chance of feasibly hitting back.

After all, someone might get hurt. Someone whose life is actually considered valuable, that is.

Originally posted by petrus4
The only reason why Pyongyang doesn't currently look like Falluja, is because North Korea has nuclear weapons. If there is one thing that the American military is exceptionally careful about, it's ensuring that they never attack anyone who has even a vague chance of feasibly hitting back.

After all, someone might get hurt. Someone whose life is actually considered valuable, that is.

Which is exactly the reason Iran and the rest should have nuclear weapons on long range missiles.

America is the threat, not them.