3 ms·

One of the oldest tricks in the (SIGINT) book is to trick the enemy into activating their radar and/or trigger a response to an incursion to collect all of the

One of the oldest tricks in the (SIGINT) book is to trick the enemy into activating their radar and/or trigger a response to an incursion to collect all of the resulting signals intelligence.

projectazorian 4y ago
Kind of have to wonder if after the last shootdown the PLA sent out a more specialized collection platform in the hopes that the US would take the bait yet again. I’m sure that NORAD doesn’t use their most advanced sensor platforms in such a circumstance, but there could be all kinds of interesting close range data to collect on the aircraft and weapons systems used to respond.
- anonymousiam 4y ago
  I wouldn't be so sure that NORAD doesn't use their "most advanced" sensor platforms. How would they be able to determine whether or not the threat was "real" before turning on their sensors? Are you suggesting that they have two tiers of sensor networks, and hold the "good" ones back for "real" threats?
leucineleprec0n 4y ago
Absolutely. This is the primary reason those “UFO’s” AKA balloons and drones are concerning: Signals intelligence (and/or radar jamming in the same vein which the DOD reported has occurred off the coast of Virginia). It’s alarming many leaped to suggest LEO satellites obviate the need for balloons/drones/spy planes because it really isn’t true; there are some things for which a proper resolution and capture is simply only possibly with proximity, at least more than a satellite has. In fact that’s why we still use U-2 spy planes (upgraded) and did for the balloon. Given the number of unidentified drone/balloon incursions reported by the Pentagon in the last few years near ships and air force bases I do wonder what’s been exposed about our radars and or datalinks. It also doesn’t necessarily matter that the data is encrypted (a weird refrain I saw) because the operating frequencies and behavior of the emitters on our aircraft, ships is in and of itself valuable information.

One of the oldest tricks in the (SIGINT) book is to trick the enemy into activating their radar and/or trigger a response to an incursion to collect all of the resulting signals intelligence.

projectazorian 4y ago

Kind of have to wonder if after the last shootdown the PLA sent out a more specialized collection platform in the hopes that the US would take the bait yet again. I’m sure that NORAD doesn’t use their most advanced sensor platforms in such a circumstance, but there could be all kinds of interesting close range data to collect on the aircraft and weapons systems used to respond.

anonymousiam 4y ago
I wouldn't be so sure that NORAD doesn't use their "most advanced" sensor platforms. How would they be able to determine whether or not the threat was "real" before turning on their sensors? Are you suggesting that they have two tiers of sensor networks, and hold the "good" ones back for "real" threats?

leucineleprec0n 4y ago

Absolutely. This is the primary reason those “UFO’s” AKA balloons and drones are concerning: Signals intelligence (and/or radar jamming in the same vein which the DOD reported has occurred off the coast of Virginia). It’s alarming many leaped to suggest LEO satellites obviate the need for balloons/drones/spy planes because it really isn’t true; there are some things for which a proper resolution and capture is simply only possibly with proximity, at least more than a satellite has. In fact that’s why we still use U-2 spy planes (upgraded) and did for the balloon. Given the number of unidentified drone/balloon incursions reported by the Pentagon in the last few years near ships and air force bases I do wonder what’s been exposed about our radars and or datalinks. It also doesn’t necessarily matter that the data is encrypted (a weird refrain I saw) because the operating frequencies and behavior of the emitters on our aircraft, ships is in and of itself valuable information.