Russians can disable our navy in one fell swoop!

J

JOhnH

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
14,462
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
Right Seater
There are a lot of smart people on this board. How much credence do you put in this report? Is it just bluster? Can we defend against this (either now or in the future)? Can we do the same thing to them? Even if we can, wouldn't this change the entire balance of power in the world, giving an advantage to less technological countries (which is just about everyone but us)?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...-out-us-navy-with-single-electronic-bomb.html
 
Load of BS. Since all critical electronics in DoD systems are hardened against the ElectroMagnetic Pulse (EMP) associated with a Nuclear Weapon, such a claim is absurd. Not to mention if the fantasy gizmo was turned on, the Soviet plane would itself would be disabled and auger in.

Cheers
 
Sounds a bit Kim Jong Unish.

I dont doubt they could temporarily jam comms from a single ship while their ECM plane is close by, but all Navy ships....

Now, if they cut off the supply of K-cups, the Navy is going to in a tight spot.
 
Sounds like standard issue fear mongering
 
X3 Skier said:
Load of BS. Since all critical electronics in DoD systems are hardened against the ElectroMagnetic Pulse (EMP) associated with a Nuclear Weapon, such a claim is absurd. Not to mention if the fantasy gizmo was turned on, the Soviet plane would itself would be disabled and auger in.

Cheers
Click to expand...
That reminds me of the picture I saw of a guy sitting on a branch, and sawing off the branch between him and the tree trunk. o_O
 
It's no secret that Russia had made significant advances in EW. They've had serious jamming capabilities reported in both the Ukraine and Syria. Whether or not it's a "neutralizing" capability depends on the hardware involved. Degrading? Yes.

It's not a future warfare environment I'd ever want to fly in. Not just the EW spectrum but the advancements in air defense artillery are just as significant. Days of worrying about a lousy ZSU23-4 or SA-7 are long gone.
 
Aren't the days of manned combat aircraft coming to an end?

The design requirements to support and protect a human in the cockpit are pretty substantial, and it seems the per airplane cost could be better divided among a larger number of unmanned vehicles. Overwhelm the opposition defences with numbers and don't sweat the losses.
 
My fear is that we are so reliant on technology, especially in air, land, sea computerized, GPS reliant situational awareness, that one EMP can leave us deaf, dumb, and blind. I am sure there are back ups in place, but will they be effective enough?
 
GRG55 said:
Aren't the days of manned combat aircraft coming to an end?

The design requirements to support and protect a human in the cockpit are pretty substantial, and it seems the per airplane cost could be better divided among a larger number of unmanned vehicles. Overwhelm the opposition defences with numbers and don't sweat the losses.
Click to expand...

I'd think manned would even be more valuable in a high EW environment. If you interrupt the signal guiding a UAS, which we've done with EC-130s already, it eliminates that aircrafts capability. In a manned system, all they do is have to take over and revert to other forms of navigation. I know in the Army they still print out paper maps and are taught pilotage / dead reckoning. Backups to the backups.
 
Electronic Attack and Electronic Protection are real things.

Few militaries are going to speak in detail about what their actual capabilities are, but rest assured that they are doing a lot of work on both.
 
GRG55 said:
Aren't the days of manned combat aircraft coming to an end?

The design requirements to support and protect a human in the cockpit are pretty substantial, and it seems the per airplane cost could be better divided among a larger number of unmanned vehicles. Overwhelm the opposition defences with numbers and don't sweat the losses.
Click to expand...

Only in a country where we have the money to even consider this is this thought of as a military tactic.

So, no, the days of manned combat aircraft are not coming to an end in the near or mid future.
 
weilke said:
Sounds a bit Kim Jong Unish.

I dont doubt they could temporarily jam comms from a single ship while their ECM plane is close by, but all Navy ships....

Now, if they cut off the supply of K-cups, the Navy is going to in a tight spot.
Click to expand...

On one of the spec ops we went on, in the '80s, the supply officer screwed up and we went 50+ days without coffee. we also ran out of sugar and flour. This was on a fast attack submarine that was confined to begin with but when we went on the runs we put 2 layers of #10 cans of food through the boat and ate our way down.

As far as EMP goes, nothing above 100 kHz will go through seawater so whatever happens to the skimmers the submarines won't notice.
 
Everyone is assuming emp but they never actually said emp. Maybe they found a way to get a virus into the system?
 
The truth is the US is so far ahead of anyone else it doesn't want to admit it. Still, nothing is perfectly reliable. Need lots of backup systems. I would take these doomsday reports with a grain of salt. They are usually promoted by someone with an agenda. Doubtful ANYONE knows exactly what would happen in these scenarios. Just make sure we have good stable people at the top so level heads prevail.

Its a lot better just to have to train. War sucks.
 
The "SS-N-27 Sizzler" is probably a more serious threat. The Navy has said that they don't know if they can defend against it.

SS-N-27
"The 3M-54, 3M-54E, 3M-54TE and 3M-54AE have a second stage that performs a supersonic sprint in the terminal approach to the target, reducing the time that target's defense systems have to react."

"The Russian domestic variant (3M54) and export variants (3M54E/3M54TE) fly at sub-sonic speeds while achieving supersonic speed as they near their target. They are also capable of performing very high angled defensive high speed maneuvers in contrast to the common linear flight path of other anti-ship cruise missiles."

Imagine a missile able to be launched from land, surface ships or submarines that cruises at sub-sonic speeds at a low altitude until near the target and then accelerates to Mach. 3 and begins performing high angle defensive maneuvers until impact. Now imagine a dozen of these arriving on target at the same time.

On a side note, aren't most of our Navy ships still using Windows XP for control of systems? http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-navys-most-tenacious-enemy-may-be-windows-xp
 
coloradobluesky said:
The US has 25 aircraft carriers. Russia has ONE.
Click to expand...

Are we calling what the Russians have an "aircraft carrier?" I guess in the most technical sense, it is. But it requires its own tug to travel with it everywhere as it can't reliably propel itself under its own power. I would personally call it a floating target. :p

I think there's a lot of rhetoric being thrown around.
 
rtk11 said:
Are we calling what the Russians have an "aircraft carrier?" I guess in the most technical sense, it is. But it requires its own tug to travel with it everywhere as it can't reliably propel itself under its own power. I would personally call it a floating target. :p

I think there's a lot of rhetoric being thrown around.
Click to expand...
I think technically it's a "through deck" cruiser isn't it? Or was that just the earlier future amusement parks?
 
There's an old joke that goes, "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you."

That's not really true.

I could tell you, but then I'd have to inform our company security officer about the disclosure. He'd then have to advise the DoD. One or more USG agencies would become involved, and eventually the matter would end up assigned to a couple of field agents.

Then it would be their job to kill you and make it look like an accident.

Probably a plane crash.
 
topgun260 said:
Imagine a missile able to be launched from land, surface ships or submarines that cruises at sub-sonic speeds at a low altitude until near the target and then accelerates to Mach. 3 and begins performing high angle defensive maneuvers until impact. Now imagine a dozen of these arriving on target at the same time.
Click to expand...

Now imagine a ship-based laser picking them out of the sky. (Well, I can imagine, can't I)?

rtk11 said:
I would personally call it a floating target. :p
.
Click to expand...
:D:D:D
 
Half Fast said:
There's an old joke that goes, "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you."

That's not really true.

I could tell you, but then I'd have to inform our company security officer about the disclosure. He'd then have to advise the DoD. One or more USG agencies would become involved, and eventually the matter would end up assigned to a couple of field agents.

Then it would be their job to kill you and make it look like an accident.

Probably a plane crash.
Click to expand...
Don't worry much. Those two guys work for the government so they aren't very good at their jobs. I'm still here...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Anthony said:
My fear is that we are so reliant on technology, especially in air, land, sea computerized, GPS reliant situational awareness, that one EMP can leave us deaf, dumb, and blind. I am sure there are back ups in place, but will they be effective enough?
Click to expand...

The navy has brought back celestial navigation for just this purpose.
 
Hacker said:
Few militaries are going to speak in detail about what their actual capabilities are, but rest assured that they are doing a lot of work on both.
Click to expand...
"I don't care if it works or not, as long as they put their heads down when I call 'Magnum'" ;)

Nauga,
and the fear of success
 
GRG55 said:
Aren't the days of manned combat aircraft coming to an end?

The design requirements to support and protect a human in the cockpit are pretty substantial, and it seems the per airplane cost could be better divided among a larger number of unmanned vehicles. Overwhelm the opposition defences with numbers and don't sweat the losses.
Click to expand...
I hope not. If we ever get to the point of being able to wage war without risking lives on our side that changes the moral compass of war. Makes it to easy to turn to force for conflict resolution. Heck I think we should reinstate the draft. We have been in a perpetual state of war ever since 9/11. I bet that would be a little different if it wasn't a volunteer force being deployed.

Today's politicians did learn from Vietnam.....don't draft soldiers. I think that's about all they learned.

Making it even easier to support the military industrial complex with war revenue and allowing war to be political fodder scares me.
 
Both the US and Russia (and a couple of other countries) have serious EW capabilities. Still, much research goes on into things like GPS-denied, GPS-spoofing, etc.

Civilian networks are a different matter.

I am certain that each country has weaknesses as well as strengths, and it would be foolish to rest on our laurels.
 
DutchRoller said:
Maybe because they have no desire to project their power around the world but only in their own backyard. Seems logical to me.
Click to expand...
With their 23,000+ miles of coastline seems like they may need more backyard protection if that's what they use it for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top