5 ms·

This has to be propaganda designed for domestic consumption, because there is no way this would be effective. You know how cell towers are on the ground, and m

by woodman 10y ago

This has to be propaganda designed for domestic consumption, because there is no way this would be effective. You know how cell towers are on the ground, and missiles are in the air? Yeah, sky facing directional antennas in the hundreds of cruise missiles would defeat a 250,000 tower project. I'd be surprised if the functionality wasn't already built into the weapon systems - the handheld GPS unit I was issued in 2006 had the ability to detect jamming and selectively ignore the direction of the source.

Const-me 10y ago
To add to that, on the terminal part of the trajectory, visual navigation works exceptionally well. The missile matches video from its camera with a pre-downloaded aerial or satellite images. For example, BGM-109 Tomahawk have that thing on-board. For more info about the technology, google “Digital Scene-Matching Area Correlator”
Someone1234 10y ago
Older cruise missiles with less sophisticated guidance systems flew at higher altitudes, but that made them susceptible to anti-missile defences (from lasers to David's Sling). Modern ones "skim" along the terrain, this massively reduces their radar detection range (due to the horizon) and allows them to navigate around known defensive measures. This is also why both the US and Russia has spent millions of dollars on extremely sensitive microphones to literally "hear" an incoming cruise missile. A system like this, combined with a system to combat high altitude cruise missile attacks, could theoretically work. Or certainly limit/disrupt the ability for very low altitude weapons to enter your territory uncontested. Plus low altitude drones definitely have a future, particularly against a technologically advanced nation.
- DudeFromBuffalo 10y ago
  Well, the method of fire-and-forget has long been the holy grail of arms manufacturers for many decades now. What that has done, has create levels of precision and the acceptability of precision upper/lower bounds is relative to what optically, thermal imaging, and radar provide beyond the low altitude signature and physical characteristics of that projectile going down range (aka stealth, etc). I CAN say with some conviction that audio disruption has already been thought of and implemented as a counter jamming measure and counter counter jamming measure to increase effectiveness of projectiles fired at a target. The "tools" of the trade to hit a target are much more sophisticated than even stated here ... but the conceptual point of the jamming method ... is effective, but not impossible to defeat based on current tech Im aware of.
- woodman 10y ago
  > A system like this ... could theoretically work. Sorry, but no. You know how modern ones skim along terrain? Terrain maps. If you are using terrain maps to navigate, then you don't need GPS - so this system has no hopes of working against low altitude cruise missiles. Also, the cruise missiles would need to be flying lower than the cell towers - which would only be a problem if the directional antenna was sensitive to 180 degrees. Beamforming tech is so common now that it has found its way into wifi routers.
  - Someone1234 10y ago
    > You know how modern ones skim along terrain? Terrain maps. Terrain maps require active radar. Active radar increases your detectability. > If you are using terrain maps to navigate, then you don't need GPS - so this system has no hopes of working against low altitude cruise missiles. Some currently deployed US Navy Cruise Missiles already utilise GPS. Including the Block III TLAM[0]. They support INS (inaccurate), TERCOM (which has a radar signature), and DSMAC (which relies on TERCOM or GPS, and only increases final target accuracy). You'd definitely use GPS if you could use GPS, it is the most reliable and quietest system. This system proposes to neuter your ability to use GPS in Russian territory. > Also, the cruise missiles would need to be flying lower than the cell towers That isn't how radio signals work. [0] http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2 http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1...
    - woodman 10y ago
      > Active radar increases your detectability. An active radar pointed at the ground, so you'd need a pretty extensive detection network. Also, I don't think stealth is much of a concern once the cruise missiles are over the target's territory. BTW, TERCOM doesn't need to be continuously radiating when in use, it only needs to get a fix frequently enough to keep INS within acceptable accuracy bounds. > That isn't how radio signals work. It is when you're talking about trying to interfere with a weapons grade radio, by transmitting to the sidelobe instead of mainlobe.
      - 10y ago
- ajross 10y ago
  I don't buy it. First: just because you're close to the cell tower doesn't mean you're below it. Directional antennae work really well, it's trivial to shield yourself against jamming from below. Also, note that cruise missiles have inertial backup too. As long as they get a decent GPS fix in the non urban area outside the city where there are no jamming towers, they can still hit their target. Add that to the "duh, who's interested in bombing Russia?" angle and I agree: 100% propaganda for internal consumption.
  - Z1nfandel 10y ago
    My memory might be hazy, but I thought it was the other way around. INS as the primary navigation with periodic corrections from GPS. Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ
Theodores 10y ago
I think this has more to do with NATO having encircled the Russian Federation with those anti-missile-missiles that were apparently put on the border with Russia to counter a threat from Iran. This has been seen as an aggressive move in Russia and the current thinking inside the Kremlin is to go back to MAD with a credible deterrent and credible defence. Whether it is technically feasible or not is one thing, the bigger picture is what those clowns in NATO are doing and how that the world situation is pretty bad re: aggression towards Russia, a country we need in Europe for things like oil/gas and security. It is the sanity of our leaders and not the technical ability of their engineers that we should be questioning.
- woodman 10y ago
  > ... go back to MAD with a credible deterrent and credible defence. Whether it is technically feasible or not is one thing... It isn't credible if it isn't technically feasible, it is just a waste of money and it looks foolish. While I can understand how Russia would be upset about NATO neutering its nuclear arsenal with anti ballistic missile systems, I have a hard time believing that intelligent people actually think NATO wants to invade Russia. It is just frustration over a censor bar being placed over the dick waving.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    My impression is that Russia (Putin) feels threatened by NATO. That may not be the threat of invasion. It might be just the threat of being no longer the dominant power in the neighborhood, and therefore unable to push people around. But I think Russia may in fact fear invasion. Germany went from "no threat" to "building up their military but having a treaty with Russia" to "invading Russia" in nine years. If that invasion had been launched from the eastern Ukraine instead of from the middle of Poland, it very plausibly could have broken Russia. Russia doesn't have half of Poland as a buffer anymore. It doesn't even have (most of) Ukraine. I think that Russia is extremely over-sensitive - even paranoid - given the current circumstances. But circumstances change, sometimes rather rapidly. Given history (not just Germany, but also France), Russia has some grounds for fearing Europe. "But Europe is different now!" True... until it's not. Look, I'm not defending Putin. But he's not totally nuts to be worried.
cpleppert 10y ago
It doesn't even make any sense at all. Why would you install jammers on every tower? You clearly don't need to cover the whole country. The maintenance cost of trying to coordinate access with the telecom company and install extra equipment would be insane.
mc32 10y ago
I suppose this depends on whose weapons systems they are aiming to neutralize, a sophisticated adversary like NATO or one like N Korea or Iran?

by woodman 10y ago

Const-me 10y ago

To add to that, on the terminal part of the trajectory, visual navigation works exceptionally well. The missile matches video from its camera with a pre-downloaded aerial or satellite images. For example, BGM-109 Tomahawk have that thing on-board. For more info about the technology, google “Digital Scene-Matching Area Correlator”

Someone1234 10y ago

Older cruise missiles with less sophisticated guidance systems flew at higher altitudes, but that made them susceptible to anti-missile defences (from lasers to David's Sling). Modern ones "skim" along the terrain, this massively reduces their radar detection range (due to the horizon) and allows them to navigate around known defensive measures. This is also why both the US and Russia has spent millions of dollars on extremely sensitive microphones to literally "hear" an incoming cruise missile. A system like this, combined with a system to combat high altitude cruise missile attacks, could theoretically work. Or certainly limit/disrupt the ability for very low altitude weapons to enter your territory uncontested. Plus low altitude drones definitely have a future, particularly against a technologically advanced nation.

DudeFromBuffalo 10y ago
Well, the method of fire-and-forget has long been the holy grail of arms manufacturers for many decades now. What that has done, has create levels of precision and the acceptability of precision upper/lower bounds is relative to what optically, thermal imaging, and radar provide beyond the low altitude signature and physical characteristics of that projectile going down range (aka stealth, etc). I CAN say with some conviction that audio disruption has already been thought of and implemented as a counter jamming measure and counter counter jamming measure to increase effectiveness of projectiles fired at a target. The "tools" of the trade to hit a target are much more sophisticated than even stated here ... but the conceptual point of the jamming method ... is effective, but not impossible to defeat based on current tech Im aware of.
woodman 10y ago
> A system like this ... could theoretically work. Sorry, but no. You know how modern ones skim along terrain? Terrain maps. If you are using terrain maps to navigate, then you don't need GPS - so this system has no hopes of working against low altitude cruise missiles. Also, the cruise missiles would need to be flying lower than the cell towers - which would only be a problem if the directional antenna was sensitive to 180 degrees. Beamforming tech is so common now that it has found its way into wifi routers.
- Someone1234 10y ago
  > You know how modern ones skim along terrain? Terrain maps. Terrain maps require active radar. Active radar increases your detectability. > If you are using terrain maps to navigate, then you don't need GPS - so this system has no hopes of working against low altitude cruise missiles. Some currently deployed US Navy Cruise Missiles already utilise GPS. Including the Block III TLAM[0]. They support INS (inaccurate), TERCOM (which has a radar signature), and DSMAC (which relies on TERCOM or GPS, and only increases final target accuracy). You'd definitely use GPS if you could use GPS, it is the most reliable and quietest system. This system proposes to neuter your ability to use GPS in Russian territory. > Also, the cruise missiles would need to be flying lower than the cell towers That isn't how radio signals work. [0] http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2 http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1...
  - woodman 10y ago
    > Active radar increases your detectability. An active radar pointed at the ground, so you'd need a pretty extensive detection network. Also, I don't think stealth is much of a concern once the cruise missiles are over the target's territory. BTW, TERCOM doesn't need to be continuously radiating when in use, it only needs to get a fix frequently enough to keep INS within acceptable accuracy bounds. > That isn't how radio signals work. It is when you're talking about trying to interfere with a weapons grade radio, by transmitting to the sidelobe instead of mainlobe.
    - 10y ago
ajross 10y ago
I don't buy it. First: just because you're close to the cell tower doesn't mean you're below it. Directional antennae work really well, it's trivial to shield yourself against jamming from below. Also, note that cruise missiles have inertial backup too. As long as they get a decent GPS fix in the non urban area outside the city where there are no jamming towers, they can still hit their target. Add that to the "duh, who's interested in bombing Russia?" angle and I agree: 100% propaganda for internal consumption.
- Z1nfandel 10y ago
  My memory might be hazy, but I thought it was the other way around. INS as the primary navigation with periodic corrections from GPS. Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ

Theodores 10y ago

I think this has more to do with NATO having encircled the Russian Federation with those anti-missile-missiles that were apparently put on the border with Russia to counter a threat from Iran. This has been seen as an aggressive move in Russia and the current thinking inside the Kremlin is to go back to MAD with a credible deterrent and credible defence. Whether it is technically feasible or not is one thing, the bigger picture is what those clowns in NATO are doing and how that the world situation is pretty bad re: aggression towards Russia, a country we need in Europe for things like oil/gas and security. It is the sanity of our leaders and not the technical ability of their engineers that we should be questioning.

woodman 10y ago
> ... go back to MAD with a credible deterrent and credible defence. Whether it is technically feasible or not is one thing... It isn't credible if it isn't technically feasible, it is just a waste of money and it looks foolish. While I can understand how Russia would be upset about NATO neutering its nuclear arsenal with anti ballistic missile systems, I have a hard time believing that intelligent people actually think NATO wants to invade Russia. It is just frustration over a censor bar being placed over the dick waving.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  My impression is that Russia (Putin) feels threatened by NATO. That may not be the threat of invasion. It might be just the threat of being no longer the dominant power in the neighborhood, and therefore unable to push people around. But I think Russia may in fact fear invasion. Germany went from "no threat" to "building up their military but having a treaty with Russia" to "invading Russia" in nine years. If that invasion had been launched from the eastern Ukraine instead of from the middle of Poland, it very plausibly could have broken Russia. Russia doesn't have half of Poland as a buffer anymore. It doesn't even have (most of) Ukraine. I think that Russia is extremely over-sensitive - even paranoid - given the current circumstances. But circumstances change, sometimes rather rapidly. Given history (not just Germany, but also France), Russia has some grounds for fearing Europe. "But Europe is different now!" True... until it's not. Look, I'm not defending Putin. But he's not totally nuts to be worried.

cpleppert 10y ago

It doesn't even make any sense at all. Why would you install jammers on every tower? You clearly don't need to cover the whole country. The maintenance cost of trying to coordinate access with the telecom company and install extra equipment would be insane.

mc32 10y ago

I suppose this depends on whose weapons systems they are aiming to neutralize, a sophisticated adversary like NATO or one like N Korea or Iran?