Electronic Warfare thread What kinds of electronic attacks can

>>31860560
There's essentially 3 types or areas that fall under EW (for the purpose of this explanation):

1. Jamming
2. Deception jamming
3. Cyber warfare


#1 is typical things like spot jamming, barrage jamming, etc - broadcasting signals to overwhelm their receiving systems and prevent them from identifying their own radar pulses. This form of jamming has some uses, especially for jamming comms, but a lot of modern radar systems are quite jam resistant, essentially by either working outside the frequency limits of the jammer, pulsing hard at random frequencies, forcing the jammer to spread its energy out and be weak relative, or by using complex modulation that makes its signal easier to identify among noise.

#2 is more common against radars, but has been around for quite some time, it involves things like blinking, range-gate / velocity-gate pull-off, terrain bouncing, cross polarisation, digital radio frequency memory jamming, etc. These techniques don't blind the radar, but instead confuse it; blinking for example is where you have two jets take turns broadcasting copies of the radar's return signal, making it look like the target is is jumping in space. Terrain bounce is when you bounce the radar signal off the ground, making a missile think that it's target is on the ground. Range-gate pull-off is when you emit the radar return with growing intensity, fooling the radar into turning down its gain until finally you stop emitting and their radar, set to a very low gain, can't see you any longer. DRFM deception jamming can take the forms of those other methods, but works better because your sample signal doesn't degrade and because digital computing lets you do various / multiple things to a signal with the same hardware.

1/x

>>31860707
>>31860560
Deception jamming is somewhat the mainstay of modern EW, but it's a game of cat and mouse, with radars being programmed to recognise and ignore various techniques. There's only so much they can do against super-fast and super-accurate / subtle EW systems.

#3 is newer and is more fancy, spooky and classified. Even when air-gapped, no system is unhackable (and yes that applies to the F-35 as well). Cyber warfare is somewhat loosely termed and can arguably range from really advanced deception jamming, tailored to specific equipment (eg, say the US knows that a certain signal will cause an S-400's automated aiming systems to turn in pursuit of a better signal, they could abuse that to keep the S-400 aimed in one direction unless manually controlled), all the way to injecting computer viruses into enemy systems. The latter is unknown and you'll hear a lot of vatniks claim it's impossible (and for some systems perhaps it is), but radio comms are prevalent and if you know the encryption of enemy comms, the programming of their systems, their comms protocols, you basically own everything on their network.

So what evidence is there that such things are possible? Look up Suter, developed by BAE (the guys who do the B-2, F-22 and F-35's EW systems), as well as Project Olympic Games (aka Stuxnet), as well as Project Nitro Zeus. Stuxnet wasn't deployed via aircraft, and there's no reason to believe Nitro Zeus would have been either, but Nitro Zeus would have invaded military comms networks to shut down Iran's IADS.

File: reading.png (159KB, 1339x499px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1339x499px

>>31860560

Want some reading OP?

>>31860707
>>31860762

Nice.

Not OP but I'm lurking. If anyone has resources or reading to post, please do so.

>>31860794
OP here, please do c:

File: Jamming .jpg (781KB, 1597x1377px) Image search: [Google]

781KB, 1597x1377px

>>31860707
1

File: Deception Jamming.jpg (38KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 333x500px

2

File: Cyber Warfare.gif (4MB, 356x200px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 356x200px

3

>>31861158
>>31861167
>>31861196
Pretty much

How do self contained systems like the ALQ-135 and ALQ-165 work as opposed to systems like the ALQ-99+218?

File: IMG_5566.jpg (575KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 3264x2448px

bumping with Growlers I saw at NASWI and an airshow

File: 1420329831830.gif (80KB, 250x174px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 250x174px

>>31861167
I kekd audibly, thanks

I have no experience with radars and radio waves but I do think they're interesting. I'm just trying to bump this thread since the topic is so fucking cool.

>>31861764
Different power generation, they don't have their own antennas usually, stuff like that. It really depends on what you want them to do.

>>31860794
The fuck did you get those? wikileaks?
Spooky

File: 071016-F-1234S-023.jpg (390KB, 1800x1193px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 1800x1193px

>>31860794
I'll trade you 100+ aircraft manual pdfs for all your pdfs.

>>31863157
Psst, this is a BLUE board..

>>31863242
I know, sorry.
He did deserve them though.

>>31863259
Indeed he did.

What kind of electronic attacks?

Use a satellite to guide an S-300 or use low melting point metals as explosives to destroy expensive equipment.

>>31861099

https://a.desu.sh/qzidxp.zip

>>31862993

Why?

Not that it matters. Tonight is the night for spooks.

>>31863233

Good deal buddy.

File: EC47_1.jpg (27KB, 800x285px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 800x285px

>>31863809
I'll post a link and give you the user and password of an online library when I get home, which won't be for another 5 hours.

>>31860762
You left off #4: Passive scan. Using the enemy's signal space to map their defenses, communications, possibly even act as a flying SIGINT vector.

>>31863809
Because as an engineer I'm interested in reading them but as an American I'm not going to read a bunch of classified shit I'm not supposed to. Also I pray you're not leaking anything new, if so enjoy breaking rocks

File: files.png (12KB, 693x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 693x200px

>>31863937

Sweet, I have more if you want.

>>31864155

Don't worry, none of them are classified. All declassified shit.

>>31864171
In that case. Fuck yeah.

>>31864187

Take your pick m8

>>31860560
I've got a 16 hour shift coming up thanks guys. I'm looking to have the NG pay for college while I pick up a bachelor's in cyber security. I figure cyber attacks will just be as deadly as a traditional or asymmetric attack so might as well git gud while I can.

>>31864642

If you're going for cyber security, you'll end up reading Applied Cryptography 2nd edition, so I'd recommend you to start reading it.

File: alq-128.jpg (82KB, 740x441px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 740x441px

>>31862687
Well, a simple thing I guess would be jamming enemy radar. If an F-15E enters enemy territory and gets locked up by radar, what do the onboard systems to to counter it?

>>31864732
>Any major IADS RADAR left active at the point Strike Eagles are going in

>>31864771
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJOWHdMVMAY

>>31864732
Depends on the radar illuminating the Strike Eagle and the type of defensive measures it's capable of. It's not completely implausible that those Strike Eagles with new AESA radars could put out enough power to fuck over most smaller self contained radars with pure jamming.

Most likely, not much could be done to to the overwhleming power of a ground based radar in the pure jamming sense. On the other hand, the Eagle's jammer will have more luck trying to spoof any missiles, or deceiving radars, and of course cyber attacks are not power based. Again, depends on the systems involved.

>>31865560
>Most likely, not much could be done to to the overwhleming power of a ground based radar in the pure jamming sense.

This is only sort of true. Physics is the fighter's friend. It's not as simple as comparing the power output of the fighter's jamming vs the output of the radar at it's source, since the radar waves will lose energy over distance. Jamming can at least reduce the range of detection until the fighter gets close enough that the radar can burn through.

>>31864832
The Gulf War was kind of interesting there. Opening shots they had F-117s, the latest and greatest, sneak in and take out central IADS control. And then Wild Weasel F-4's HARM'd and cluster bombed the shit out of the radar sites that came online in a panic.

>>31860560
Here's something historical worth reading.
http://www.allworldwars.com/Tactics-and-Techniques-of-Electronic-Warfare-by-Bernard-Nalty.html

>>31865868
Poobah's Party

>>31865643
Well, yes, but it's a lot easier to make a powerful, huge ground radar than duty cycle your aircraft radar up to the point it could be damaged.

>>31864727
Thanks I'll check it out when I'm off.

So how fucked are we if some Slavaboo sends a USB with some porn and a shitton of viruses in a case package?

How much damage could get done from pivoting? Could he knock out an FOB all because Pvt.Cucknuts was having a case of blue balls?

>>31869349
Most military systems will just not recognise any USB that doesn't meet special requirements. Some militaries also have segregated networks, meaning that even if Private Blueballs gets the virus onto the computer somehow, it won't be able to get onto the network where the juicy stuff is, simply because he doesn't have the authorisation to be jumping onto the higher level systems (his platoon leader might not even have regular access to such a machine).

>>31863809
> Thread about jamming and other spooky hacking shit.
> Sends out pdf for people to read

How do i know that i wont get Stuxed by this?

>>31869632
Because the stuff is declassified. It's safe for public consumption

>>31870409
Wouldn't declassified be more representative of information no longer containing information that could compromise National Security, rather than whether or not people can safely view it?

>>31870695
If you're that paranoid I hope you haven't clicked on any wikileaks links then.

>>31870721
I'm not that paranoid. How would I, someone with zero training on classified information, be able to recognized what is and is not classified/contains classified info, when someone who was repeatedly informed of these things was able to claim that they didn't know what the classification markings were when viewed?

Besides, if the gov't tries to go after me because I read some shit on wikileaks, they're going to have to justify a lot of spending on prisons.

A strong radio signal, lol every body knows that's how You jam electronics.

File: IMG_5882.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

Growler from VAQ-133

>>31860707
>Cyber warfare

Could cyberwarfare get serious enough to force countries into developing very specific and special electronic systems that require exceptionally specialized personnel for each system?

Or is just too expensive?

I was thinking about how the nuclear silos still use computer components from the 70s making any cyber attack much more harder just because these system have manuals that simply don't exist anymore and work on very primitive languages and hardware.

>>31870740
the "classification markings" in hillary's case were small "C"s on the top and bottom of documents, not actual proper classifications. that's the only reason she's not in jail right now.

>>31871708

Yes but those small "C"s were abbreviations for a big red CLASSIFIED stamp. It's the same thing, it just doesn't take as much real estate on the paper.

>>31871783
yeah, hillary was able to use the "how was i supposed to know it was classified?" explanation though. a small c could be put there as a mistake for example. she still should have asked if it was classified though.

>>31869476
Not sure about the Army now, but current Navy systems completely lock out your account in a way that only the regional IAM is allowed to turn off if you put in a thumb drive.

One reservist got hit by that when he put his secure DHS drive in one time.

How do the EW capability of various countries stack up? How much of is based on technology, power, and operator skill?

I'm particularly interested in comparisons for Iran, China and Russia vs US and Japan. It's for a role playing game.

>>31873646
Pretty fuckin' classified. NGJ should be cool, other than that who knows.

>>31864171
>>31860794

I NEED THIS. As long as it's not classified.

>>31871340
>
Could cyberwarfare get serious enough to force countries into developing very specific and special electronic systems that require exceptionally specialized personnel for each system?
For aircraft, or in general? If the former, then no, because a programmer isn't going to be able to make meaningful patches or adjustments to code during a mission. If the latter, then we already have Cyber Command, the NSA, etc.

>>31873646
Iran seems pretty meh; they're more a victim than a perpetrator. That said, I'm sure they're ahead of other nations in their region (with the exception of Israel).

Russia's traditionally been strong with cyber, although generally it's been more their civilian criminal underground that have been the threat. Their military would likely be hiring grey hatters though.

China is probably the #1 threat to US cyber security, simply because they've been investing heavily into computing in general; they have about as many / more top-100 supercomputers as the US and often there's a Chinese system sitting at #1. They also have a large internal market for software development, with companies like Baidu replacing Google in China and even having a strong hand in the world's field of AI development. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if China has the largest cyber warfare force in the world.

While China might have the most powerful cyber force, I still believe that the US has the greatest cyber weapons; thanks to many years of the NSA backdooring US equipment that's been used around the world, and thanks to the US having one of the most innovative white/grey-hat scenes and one of / the most experience launching cyber attacks on other nations (alongside Israel). That said, the US needs to continue to invest heavily into cyber if it wants to remain on top (if it even is today). China is still accelerating.

>>31874705
>although generally it's been more their civilian criminal underground that have been the threat. Their military would likely be hiring grey hatters though.

Ehhh, lately both FSB and GRU have been masquerading as Black/Grey hats (and often stepping on each other's toes). Guccifer 2.0 is one of their ops, for instance.

China seems more focused on what they can use once stolen, Russia on how they can manipulate us.

File: F-16IQ.jpg (65KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1200x630px

Does the F-16 carry any on-board ECM systems like the F-15 and F/A-18? I can't seem to find much information on this.
>>31873946
What's NGJ gonna bring to the table over the ALQ-99?

>>31875715
It'd depend on the Block and national variant, there's some details here: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8442

>What's NGJ gonna bring to the table over the ALQ-99?
Vastly more computing power, more output power and it uses GaN AESA arrays instead of mechanically gimballed antennas, making it capable of jamming more systems. NGJ is meant to enable a host of cyber warfare capabilities.

>>31875715
AESA arrays (99 interferes with EA-18G's radar when active and lacks cyber capability), more transmitting power, new, more powerful hardware, open architecture, and it's much stealthier. It's basically an upgrade in every possible way.

>>31875813
>>31875795
>AESA jammer
That's pretty fucking cool.
This is a pretty basic question, but the way a Growler would jam an enemy radar would be
>ALQ-218 detects radar emissions
>data from 218 is sent to ALQ-99
>99 steers it antennas to where the emissions are coming from
>data from 218 is also sent to HARMs
>Growler fires HARM
Right?
I'm trying to get the basics here, EW is pretty cool.
Also, what sort of self-defense measures does the F-35 have other than using its own APG-81 to jam?

>>31876027
>Also, what sort of self-defense measures does the F-35 have other than using its own APG-81 to jam?
Being really hard to spot with radar.
The AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda Passive EWO suite.

>>31876027
Well, he might not fire a HARM if his goal is to jam.

>>31860762
Oh fuck its Dragon 029. I love your stuff.

Hope you'll put out another video.

>>31860762

>but radio comms are prevalent and if you know the encryption of enemy comms, the programming of their systems, their comms protocols, you basically own everything on their network.

2spooky4me

>>31876027
>but the way a Growler would jam an enemy radar would be
Pretty much; exactly how the ALQ-99 would jam may vary depending on the threat, but that is the overall process.

>Also, what sort of self-defense measures does the F-35 have other than using its own APG-81 to jam?
Officially it just has the APG-81, chaff / flares and (in a separate compartment) towed decoys like the ALE-70.
It is also possible that it has other methods of jamming, because of how everything is integrated, but there's no solid reason to believe that they're using the VHF / UHF arrays in the wings / elevators, or Ku-band MADL arrays for jamming.

>>31876563
While I'm here, I'm hitting 3 million total views in a day or two; I'm not going to do a "OMG THNX GUYS 3 MIL" video, but I was thinking of doing something like a Year In Review (a video that mentions the F-35 vs F-15E results, the F-35 pilot survey, the Exercise Northern Lightning results, etc), or something like a lightning (pun intended) round of myth busting; just taking a bunch of comments that have been made on videos or perhaps F-35, etc articles and doing quick 10 second counters or whatever. Any better ideas though? Episode 5 isn't happening until Lockheed and the JPO agree on the LRIP 9 / 10 contracts; I need that cost data.

>>31876715
>I need that cost data
Don't we all.