5 ms·
To be fair, the report is authored by an US entity. I'm sure if they could have studied US operations without losing their funding they would have found similar
by ccnafr 8y ago
To be fair, the report is authored by an US entity. I'm sure if they could have studied US operations without losing their funding they would have found similar deployments by US forces, albeit, I think not as widespread. The US has always seemed to have better tech, and GPS spoofing is cheap, from what the article states, which makes it ideal for the cash-bootstrapped Russian military.
- duxup 8y ago> I'm sure if they could have studied US operations without losing their funding they Is that actually the case?
- wongarsu 8y ago> The US has always seemed to have better tech While the US can spend a lot more on its military and has a corresponding lead, the US is mostly focused on offensive technology (like its carrier groups). Russia, being geographically much closer to "enemy" territory, has a much bigger focus on defensive capabilities and excels in many areas. For example the Russian S400 air defense system is usually seen as superior to the American Patriot system. With GPS spoofing being mostly a defensive technology it seems exactly like the thing Russia would focus on and the US would neglect.
- blackflame7000 8y agoS400 is no where near as good as our Aegis system. I know because I worked on it. The patriot missile did have some spectacular fails though where an anti-missile became confused and shot right into the ground https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YS4i2InVB-Y https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YS4i2InVB-Y Although I will give the Russians props for possibly being the first nation to land the missile back in its own tube. https://youtu.be/gNNkRuSw_0Q?t=52 https://youtu.be/gNNkRuSw_0Q?t=52
- SiempreViernes 8y agoYou worked on both the Aegis and the S400? That seems a bit implausible. Or do you mean you worked on one of them and therefore can compare them (without experience of the other)?
- m0zg 8y agoThen there's also S500 now, which can shoot down anything that flies, including stealth planes, ballistic missiles, hypersonic planes, and LEO satellites. This is a typical example of asymmetric warfare. The US spends 1.5 trillion building a super plane, Russians spend 1/1000th of that building the thing that can make use of such a plane a costly proposition (even if it can't _reliably_ shoot it down), and offers it for export eventually, too.
- ndesaulniers 8y agoWhich one they use for shooting down passenger planes over Ukraine?
- edaemon 8y agoMH17 was shot down by a Buk missile system, which is a less sophisticated medium-range system.
- agapon 7y agoNo, there isn't. It's in designs, at best, or just another pipe dream, at worst.
- blackflame7000 7y agoJust like the SR-71 that flew over Russia with impunity because they couldn't hit it if their countries life depended on it. Oh, yea and we built that almost 50 years ago and you still couldn't hit it today. There are stories of Russias MiG aircraft just falling out of the sky when attempting to reach the altitude of the SR. Russians then built the Stainless steel Mig 25 which was then of course stolen and revealed just how bad the Russians are with metallurgy.
- m0zg 8y agoI don't see why the US would want to spoof GPS, given that it runs the constellation, and can just re-enable encryption of high precision data ruining it for everybody but the US Military.