6 ms·

MALD-X Advanced Air Launched Decoy Test Is a Bigger Deal Than It Sounds

27 points by cascom 8y ago

madeuptempacct 8y ago
This is aimed purely at Russia (not implying there is anything wrong with that). The question is whether or not Russia is able to differentiate between decoys and real jets. At the very least, this will slow down the decision making process or force a trade of missile for decoy. At $350,000 a pop, that's a fairly expensive trade, though if it makes a hole in an air defense net, it makes sense. Russia has proven unable to back up claims of its S-300/S-400 systems being able to intercept even the slowest of US cruise missiles (Tomawhawks are embarrassingly slow and high), so in practice, this probably WILL really confuse Russian systems.
- dfsegoat 8y ago
  I think it is aimed at anywhere in the world where we would need to put a strike package into a non-permissive environment. People are catching on quickly to the fact that if they can keep our air assets out - they can keep America from projecting power. This has led to the proliferation of layered air-defense systems, etc. and the concept of "Anti Access/Area Denial".
kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
Seems like this would be defeatable by radar that sends out pings with an unpredictable characteristic that the decoy won't be able to mimic with a stronger return signal.
- moftz 8y ago
  The decoy has its own radar signature, its really small. It can mimic a larger object by receiving, amplifying, and then transmitting the signal the enemy radar signal. Smaller objects can get closer to radar before they are detected so the decoy projects an image of a larger aircraft to hide within. The radar sees the plane and starts tracking it. The decoy can likely use some fancy signal processing to move the image of the object around and even project multiple objects. Add more decoys and you can overload the object tracking of the radar station. The radar might be in range to see the actual decoy at some point but ideally the radar is seeing a bunch of phantom planes and missiles at this point so the decoy just blends in with the swarm. Radar already does something similar to what you are suggesting, there are spread spectrum techniques that are much more jam/spoof-proof than just a constant ping or even a linear frequency sweep. You pseudo-randomly hop frequencies to avoid having someone broadcast a really strong signal at one frequency and to have someone be able to track your pattern of hopping. The pattern is generated similar to crypto, you start with a seed (the plaintext) and encrypt it with a key to get the pattern that you hop with.
- rfdave 8y ago
  Electronic Warfare is the general term for that. The Association of Old Crows https://www.crows.org/ https://www.crows.org/ is the relevant professional society, along with IEEE
mr_overalls 8y ago
> Considering this new MALD is networked, swarming and cooperative tactics among a group of MALD-Xs/MALD-Ns could work to achieve their full potential as a team. This includes classifying, prioritizing, and delegating jamming and decoy duties on the fly during their relatively short lifespan. By working together autonomously they can act at speeds that can break the enemy's decision cycle and cripple their ability to respond fast enough to impact what's going on in the battle-space. It's often lamented that the best minds of our generation are spending their careers optimizing clicks on cat pictures. However, I'm not sure that using advanced AI to kill people is much better. And given that this particular project is actually being publicized, it gives me the chills to speculate on what kinds of advanced AI is being developed in black projects. I mean, imagine a pack of Boston Dynamics' agile robots running through the streets - equipped with a facial recognition database and a weapons platform. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OKZ_n8QW4w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OKZ_n8QW4w
- bassman9000 8y ago
  I'm not sure that using advanced AI to kill people is much better bright minds worked in the US and other nuclear programs, included soviet ones, to keep geopolitical balance with minimum deaths. And with AI you want the brightest minds working on it: it doesn't matter how compassionate and good willed you are, there's always going to be another state actor willing to use it against you. And you can bet they'll employ their brightest. Assuming anything else is naive and suicidal.
- nerdponx 8y ago
  I don't think that anyone is planning on automating the killing process any time soon. Even drone kills aren't automated yet -- you still have analysts in Virginia verifying kill targets.
ohitsdom 8y ago
If the US is developing this as an offensive weapon, they have to be thinking of how they would defend against such tactics. Anyone know? Or does the US just trust their radar to be more advanced to correctly identify any decoy?
- madeuptempacct 8y ago
  First of all, this doesn't apply to the US in the way that it applies to other countries. The US has over-whelming air superiority. It's biggest concern are Brahmos II missiles taking out one of its 9 carrier battle groups. The way the US handles this threat is having an AWACS plane on each carrier providing over-the-horizon radar coverage and being able to guide its hypersonic anti-missile missiles to the approaching missiles in time. That, or getting its F/A-18Es in the air off of the carrier to intercept any incoming aircraft (not really a thing anymore).
- ortusdux 8y ago
  I've read a few articles about the use of cell networks as distributed radar systems. One article I read postulated that such a network would defeat most modern stealth radar techniques. I know NASA is investigating using towers to track drones. https://gizmodo.com/nasa-wants-to-track-drones-using-cell-towers-1708943361 https://gizmodo.com/nasa-wants-to-track-drones-using-cell-to...
- nerdponx 8y ago
  That's probably the part you don't read about in the news.
chx 8y ago
> So basically, when you talk about 'day one' air combat operations against a peer-state adversary Is that a realistic threat? A peer-state adversary? Is it a legit concern the USA will need to enter into air combat against a country?
- bassman9000 8y ago
  you want to make sure anyone thinks it would be suicidal to challenge you in order to call it deterrance e.g. if the US Navy wasn't vastly superior, shipping routes would be constantly threatened if you get to the point of being at actual peer level, you're past done. Look at China: they're still not there, and yet they're aggressively taking positions in the South China sea
  - close04 8y ago
    This isn't to challenge Russia or China, that war will be fought at least initially from behind a computer screen and if they do their job right the other side will take some huge blows where it hurts before the first bullet is fired - civilian life: utilities companies, internet infrastructure, communications & satellites, etc. A soldier is trained to have a harder life. How about your average Joes? This is aimed squarely at selling to allies and at projecting power in some random corner of the world that couldn't respond in kind even if they wanted to. All the fancy tech all sides are parading is mostly for propaganda reasons. How useful is a drone that relies on GPS signals that to this day are easily spoofed or jammed? How useful is an ultra-expensive stealth fighter that's not invisible to enemy radar? A war between peer-countries is not good for the wallet. Unlike small wars against enemies that are more likely to fling rocks at you [0]. Then you get the chance to equip your (also rock flinging) local allies with your tech, assist them in fighting, etc. For a price of course. [0] relative power compared to big game military.
    - mr_overalls 8y ago
      > How useful is a drone that relies on GPS signals that to this day are easily spoofed or jammed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system
spitfire 8y ago
The article says they have a range of 500Miles and a flight time of 1hr - that's 500M/hr. Do current radar systems track a plane with enough frequency/detail to observe an aircrafts performance (turn rate, climb, speed, etc)? I ask, because they claim to be matching an aircrafts electronic signature, which is fine. But if they're not also matching their performance envelope that seems like an easy way to identify the decoys. Though it still might take enough time to be a useful tool.
- lainga 8y ago
  It's said that the US AESA radar on the F-22 can perform aircraft identification by counting the spin rate and number of blades on the opposing aircraft's compressor.
sorokod 8y ago
Is there an equivalent of "Signature Augmentation System" that targets LIDAR sensors?

27 points by cascom 8y ago

This is aimed purely at Russia (not implying there is anything wrong with that). The question is whether or not Russia is able to differentiate between decoys and real jets. At the very least, this will slow down the decision making process or force a trade of missile for decoy. At $350,000 a pop, that's a fairly expensive trade, though if it makes a hole in an air defense net, it makes sense. Russia has proven unable to back up claims of its S-300/S-400 systems being able to intercept even the slowest of US cruise missiles (Tomawhawks are embarrassingly slow and high), so in practice, this probably WILL really confuse Russian systems.

dfsegoat 8y ago
I think it is aimed at anywhere in the world where we would need to put a strike package into a non-permissive environment. People are catching on quickly to the fact that if they can keep our air assets out - they can keep America from projecting power. This has led to the proliferation of layered air-defense systems, etc. and the concept of "Anti Access/Area Denial".

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago

Seems like this would be defeatable by radar that sends out pings with an unpredictable characteristic that the decoy won't be able to mimic with a stronger return signal.

moftz 8y ago
The decoy has its own radar signature, its really small. It can mimic a larger object by receiving, amplifying, and then transmitting the signal the enemy radar signal. Smaller objects can get closer to radar before they are detected so the decoy projects an image of a larger aircraft to hide within. The radar sees the plane and starts tracking it. The decoy can likely use some fancy signal processing to move the image of the object around and even project multiple objects. Add more decoys and you can overload the object tracking of the radar station. The radar might be in range to see the actual decoy at some point but ideally the radar is seeing a bunch of phantom planes and missiles at this point so the decoy just blends in with the swarm. Radar already does something similar to what you are suggesting, there are spread spectrum techniques that are much more jam/spoof-proof than just a constant ping or even a linear frequency sweep. You pseudo-randomly hop frequencies to avoid having someone broadcast a really strong signal at one frequency and to have someone be able to track your pattern of hopping. The pattern is generated similar to crypto, you start with a seed (the plaintext) and encrypt it with a key to get the pattern that you hop with.
rfdave 8y ago
Electronic Warfare is the general term for that. The Association of Old Crows https://www.crows.org/ https://www.crows.org/ is the relevant professional society, along with IEEE

mr_overalls 8y ago

> Considering this new MALD is networked, swarming and cooperative tactics among a group of MALD-Xs/MALD-Ns could work to achieve their full potential as a team. This includes classifying, prioritizing, and delegating jamming and decoy duties on the fly during their relatively short lifespan. By working together autonomously they can act at speeds that can break the enemy's decision cycle and cripple their ability to respond fast enough to impact what's going on in the battle-space. It's often lamented that the best minds of our generation are spending their careers optimizing clicks on cat pictures. However, I'm not sure that using advanced AI to kill people is much better. And given that this particular project is actually being publicized, it gives me the chills to speculate on what kinds of advanced AI is being developed in black projects. I mean, imagine a pack of Boston Dynamics' agile robots running through the streets - equipped with a facial recognition database and a weapons platform. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OKZ_n8QW4w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OKZ_n8QW4w

bassman9000 8y ago
I'm not sure that using advanced AI to kill people is much better bright minds worked in the US and other nuclear programs, included soviet ones, to keep geopolitical balance with minimum deaths. And with AI you want the brightest minds working on it: it doesn't matter how compassionate and good willed you are, there's always going to be another state actor willing to use it against you. And you can bet they'll employ their brightest. Assuming anything else is naive and suicidal.
nerdponx 8y ago
I don't think that anyone is planning on automating the killing process any time soon. Even drone kills aren't automated yet -- you still have analysts in Virginia verifying kill targets.

ohitsdom 8y ago

If the US is developing this as an offensive weapon, they have to be thinking of how they would defend against such tactics. Anyone know? Or does the US just trust their radar to be more advanced to correctly identify any decoy?

madeuptempacct 8y ago
First of all, this doesn't apply to the US in the way that it applies to other countries. The US has over-whelming air superiority. It's biggest concern are Brahmos II missiles taking out one of its 9 carrier battle groups. The way the US handles this threat is having an AWACS plane on each carrier providing over-the-horizon radar coverage and being able to guide its hypersonic anti-missile missiles to the approaching missiles in time. That, or getting its F/A-18Es in the air off of the carrier to intercept any incoming aircraft (not really a thing anymore).
ortusdux 8y ago
I've read a few articles about the use of cell networks as distributed radar systems. One article I read postulated that such a network would defeat most modern stealth radar techniques. I know NASA is investigating using towers to track drones. https://gizmodo.com/nasa-wants-to-track-drones-using-cell-towers-1708943361 https://gizmodo.com/nasa-wants-to-track-drones-using-cell-to...
nerdponx 8y ago
That's probably the part you don't read about in the news.

chx 8y ago

> So basically, when you talk about 'day one' air combat operations against a peer-state adversary Is that a realistic threat? A peer-state adversary? Is it a legit concern the USA will need to enter into air combat against a country?

bassman9000 8y ago
you want to make sure anyone thinks it would be suicidal to challenge you in order to call it deterrance e.g. if the US Navy wasn't vastly superior, shipping routes would be constantly threatened if you get to the point of being at actual peer level, you're past done. Look at China: they're still not there, and yet they're aggressively taking positions in the South China sea
- close04 8y ago
  This isn't to challenge Russia or China, that war will be fought at least initially from behind a computer screen and if they do their job right the other side will take some huge blows where it hurts before the first bullet is fired - civilian life: utilities companies, internet infrastructure, communications & satellites, etc. A soldier is trained to have a harder life. How about your average Joes? This is aimed squarely at selling to allies and at projecting power in some random corner of the world that couldn't respond in kind even if they wanted to. All the fancy tech all sides are parading is mostly for propaganda reasons. How useful is a drone that relies on GPS signals that to this day are easily spoofed or jammed? How useful is an ultra-expensive stealth fighter that's not invisible to enemy radar? A war between peer-countries is not good for the wallet. Unlike small wars against enemies that are more likely to fling rocks at you [0]. Then you get the chance to equip your (also rock flinging) local allies with your tech, assist them in fighting, etc. For a price of course. [0] relative power compared to big game military.
  - mr_overalls 8y ago
    > How useful is a drone that relies on GPS signals that to this day are easily spoofed or jammed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system

spitfire 8y ago

The article says they have a range of 500Miles and a flight time of 1hr - that's 500M/hr. Do current radar systems track a plane with enough frequency/detail to observe an aircrafts performance (turn rate, climb, speed, etc)? I ask, because they claim to be matching an aircrafts electronic signature, which is fine. But if they're not also matching their performance envelope that seems like an easy way to identify the decoys. Though it still might take enough time to be a useful tool.

lainga 8y ago
It's said that the US AESA radar on the F-22 can perform aircraft identification by counting the spin rate and number of blades on the opposing aircraft's compressor.

sorokod 8y ago

Is there an equivalent of "Signature Augmentation System" that targets LIDAR sensors?