From the OP's article-First stanza:
"...the Pole-21 anti-missile jamming device..."
Further down:
"...Russia will be virtually impenetrable to missiles using satellite navigation."
Shouldn't that really be using only satellite navigation? Anything with a backup (e.g. inertial, celestial, terrestrial) should still be viable, though perhaps degraded in accuracy. But hardly impenetrable.
Onboard precise clock, very accurate ground/airspeed gauges, heading tracking would get you pretty close. Maybe not laser-guided close, but hey what are cluster-bombs for?
The terrain following guidance in cruise missiles had an accuracy of a few meters in the early 80s. The only place that tech doesn't work is over the ocean... where there aren't any Russian cell towers.
Yeah but all the backup stuff is still expensive to develop/build with good quality. I can buy a good GPS for a few hundred bucks. I don't think this is to defend against American missiles.
Celestial Nagivation? Do you mean missles can navigate by, like, finding the North Star? Are there cameras mounted on the sides that can track stars? That is fascinating!
This has to be propaganda designed for domestic consumption, because there is no way this would be effective. You know how cell towers are on the ground, and missiles are in the air? Yeah, sky facing directional antennas in the hundreds of cruise missiles would defeat a 250,000 tower project. I'd be surprised if the functionality wasn't already built into the weapon systems - the handheld GPS unit I was issued in 2006 had the ability to detect jamming and selectively ignore the direction of the source.
To add to that, on the terminal part of the trajectory, visual navigation works exceptionally well. The missile matches video from its camera with a pre-downloaded aerial or satellite images. For example, BGM-109 Tomahawk have that thing on-board.
For more info about the technology, google “Digital Scene-Matching Area Correlator”
Older cruise missiles with less sophisticated guidance systems flew at higher altitudes, but that made them susceptible to anti-missile defences (from lasers to David's Sling).
Modern ones "skim" along the terrain, this massively reduces their radar detection range (due to the horizon) and allows them to navigate around known defensive measures.
This is also why both the US and Russia has spent millions of dollars on extremely sensitive microphones to literally "hear" an incoming cruise missile.
A system like this, combined with a system to combat high altitude cruise missile attacks, could theoretically work. Or certainly limit/disrupt the ability for very low altitude weapons to enter your territory uncontested.
Plus low altitude drones definitely have a future, particularly against a technologically advanced nation.
Well, the method of fire-and-forget has long been the holy grail of arms manufacturers for many decades now. What that has done, has create levels of precision and the acceptability of precision upper/lower bounds is relative to what optically, thermal imaging, and radar provide beyond the low altitude signature and physical characteristics of that projectile going down range (aka stealth, etc). I CAN say with some conviction that audio disruption has already been thought of and implemented as a counter jamming measure and counter counter jamming measure to increase effectiveness of projectiles fired at a target. The "tools" of the trade to hit a target are much more sophisticated than even stated here ... but the conceptual point of the jamming method ... is effective, but not impossible to defeat based on current tech Im aware of.
> A system like this ... could theoretically work.
Sorry, but no. You know how modern ones skim along terrain? Terrain maps. If you are using terrain maps to navigate, then you don't need GPS - so this system has no hopes of working against low altitude cruise missiles. Also, the cruise missiles would need to be flying lower than the cell towers - which would only be a problem if the directional antenna was sensitive to 180 degrees. Beamforming tech is so common now that it has found its way into wifi routers.
> You know how modern ones skim along terrain? Terrain maps.
Terrain maps require active radar. Active radar increases your detectability.
> If you are using terrain maps to navigate, then you don't need GPS - so this system has no hopes of working against low altitude cruise missiles.
Some currently deployed US Navy Cruise Missiles already utilise GPS. Including the Block III TLAM[0].
They support INS (inaccurate), TERCOM (which has a radar signature), and DSMAC (which relies on TERCOM or GPS, and only increases final target accuracy).
You'd definitely use GPS if you could use GPS, it is the most reliable and quietest system. This system proposes to neuter your ability to use GPS in Russian territory.
> Also, the cruise missiles would need to be flying lower than the cell towers
An active radar pointed at the ground, so you'd need a pretty extensive detection network. Also, I don't think stealth is much of a concern once the cruise missiles are over the target's territory. BTW, TERCOM doesn't need to be continuously radiating when in use, it only needs to get a fix frequently enough to keep INS within acceptable accuracy bounds.
> That isn't how radio signals work.
It is when you're talking about trying to interfere with a weapons grade radio, by transmitting to the sidelobe instead of mainlobe.
If the cliff materialized between the time the path was plotted and uploaded to the missile prior to launch, then no. The missile has an internal map, the radar measurements are like mile markers on the highway - used to find your position on the map, not used to tell you what is ahead (that is what the map is for).
You're underestimating the mind-blowing awesomeness of high-end inertial navigation in general, and the awesomeness of inertial navigation inputs mixed in with other sensor systems in particular. It should be possible to build a system that can handle some sophisticated jamming and still keep flying with a high degree of precision...
...but the spectacle of Iran downing one of our drones a few years back using GPS spoofing makes me wonder if maybe defense contractors are hiring engineers who couldn't get jobs working at the phone company, or something. So yeah. Bleh.
(the maker of the laser ring gyros used in the F-15 used to brag that the plane could go up, patrol, and land and the indicated coordinates were in the same hangar. I'm sure the tech has only gotten better.)
That's the point of filtering inputs from multiple navigation sources, though. One of them should be able to go wrong, it should be apparent, and the rest of the system should just be able to continue to function. There's ample experience integrating GPS, inertial, stellar (!), and so on.
Mostly I was responding the parent's comment about inertial, which is way off base. Inertial navigation is amazing.
I don't buy it. First: just because you're close to the cell tower doesn't mean you're below it. Directional antennae work really well, it's trivial to shield yourself against jamming from below. Also, note that cruise missiles have inertial backup too. As long as they get a decent GPS fix in the non urban area outside the city where there are no jamming towers, they can still hit their target.
Add that to the "duh, who's interested in bombing Russia?" angle and I agree: 100% propaganda for internal consumption.
I think this has more to do with NATO having encircled the Russian Federation with those anti-missile-missiles that were apparently put on the border with Russia to counter a threat from Iran.
This has been seen as an aggressive move in Russia and the current thinking inside the Kremlin is to go back to MAD with a credible deterrent and credible defence.
Whether it is technically feasible or not is one thing, the bigger picture is what those clowns in NATO are doing and how that the world situation is pretty bad re: aggression towards Russia, a country we need in Europe for things like oil/gas and security. It is the sanity of our leaders and not the technical ability of their engineers that we should be questioning.
> ... go back to MAD with a credible deterrent and credible defence. Whether it is technically feasible or not is one thing...
It isn't credible if it isn't technically feasible, it is just a waste of money and it looks foolish. While I can understand how Russia would be upset about NATO neutering its nuclear arsenal with anti ballistic missile systems, I have a hard time believing that intelligent people actually think NATO wants to invade Russia. It is just frustration over a censor bar being placed over the dick waving.
My impression is that Russia (Putin) feels threatened by NATO. That may not be the threat of invasion. It might be just the threat of being no longer the dominant power in the neighborhood, and therefore unable to push people around.
But I think Russia may in fact fear invasion. Germany went from "no threat" to "building up their military but having a treaty with Russia" to "invading Russia" in nine years. If that invasion had been launched from the eastern Ukraine instead of from the middle of Poland, it very plausibly could have broken Russia.
Russia doesn't have half of Poland as a buffer anymore. It doesn't even have (most of) Ukraine. I think that Russia is extremely over-sensitive - even paranoid - given the current circumstances. But circumstances change, sometimes rather rapidly. Given history (not just Germany, but also France), Russia has some grounds for fearing Europe.
"But Europe is different now!" True... until it's not.
Look, I'm not defending Putin. But he's not totally nuts to be worried.
> ... threat of being no longer the dominant power...
That is pretty obvious, with the silly resumption of strategically useless bomber flights nearly 10 years ago.
> Germany went from "no threat" to ...
You might have a better grasp of the history than me, but it was my impression that by 1933 everybody was keenly aware of how dangerous Germany was getting - with the book burning and Nazi parading. Hopefully Russia has learned not to trust treaty partners that behave so. That is a pretty long lead time, and the only country that I can think of right now that exhibits similar behavior is Turkey. So unless Russia is concerned about a Neo-Ottoman empire invasion, they really don't have an excuse.
Germany was headed toward being a threat in 1933, for those with eyes to see. But they weren't a threat yet, because they had no military. It had been gutted by the treaty at the end of World War I. They couldn't have invaded Russia, or even Poland, with what they had in 1933.
In 1931 Germany's rearmament was public knowledge, and oddly enough the Soviets were well aware - because they were the ones training German airforce pilots. That plus the withdrawal from the League of Nations was a pretty big hint. Now I can agree with the argument that the Soviets didn't know that Germany was going to target them, but by 1933 it was clear that Germany was going to cause some major problems in Europe.
In 1931 Germany's rearmament may have been public knowledge, but it didn't amount to much. Police that could become military reserve? Training pilots? OK, that was breaking the treaty (and TIL that it was going on before 1933), but where were the actual non-reserve divisions? Where were the tanks? The airplanes? The warships? They weren't there. Conscription wasn't reintroduced until 1935.
> Where were the tanks? The airplanes? The warships?
I don't know about the tanks, but the airplanes and warships were all over the place - they just weren't property of the German military. Germany was building subs in the Netherlands, and aircraft in Russia - they got around the treaty by offshoring production and selling to other nations, allowing them to refine their designs and build their industry. They did a similar thing with the officer corps - they just changed their titles, but continued perfecting and growing their training program. Conscription is pretty much the last thing to happen, if you want to watch for trouble - watch the officer training program. All that was going on in the 1920s btw.
All this might sound like Monday morning quarterbacking, but the pattern is repeated throughout history. Watch Turkey. If they rebuild their officer corps before their economy totally collapses, they'll try to annex northern Syria and northern Iraq. They've started developing domestic production of weapon systems, dropped very strong hints that they aren't interested in remaining a NATO partner, and they have a madman as chief executive - enthusiastically put their by nationalists.
> the bigger picture is what those clowns in NATO are doing and how that the world situation is pretty bad re: aggression towards Russia
If the Russian government feels threatened by an ABM system that can shoot down maybe 10-20 missiles and isn't any more sophisticated than the S-400/500, then either their ballistic missile count is much lower than their claim, or NATO aren't the ones being clowns.
Our system is hardly better than what the Russians have, but because people like your read sites like RT uncritically, you think we have some magical shield that can stop thousands of nukes and their countermeasures. Our system can perhaps drop a handful of launches from a rogue state like North Korea or Iran, depending on the sophistication of their counter-measures. Some analysts think it may not be able to shoot down anything by a determined rogue state. Its also been tailored via various agreements and protests by Russia to only have so much capacity and to be in locations where it can only affect N Korea and the Middle East. The idea that it invalidates MAD is hysterical.
Worse, if you worry about countries joining the EU and NATO, maybe Russian should stop invading its neighbors, annexing their lands, and stop blowing up civilians. Want friends? Be friendly.
It doesn't even make any sense at all. Why would you install jammers on every tower? You clearly don't need to cover the whole country. The maintenance cost of trying to coordinate access with the telecom company and install extra equipment would be insane.
So, practically speaking this can't be constantly on (in many areas) because it jams even their own navigation systems. Does this mean it will only be activated when there's a threat (perceived threat such as observed escalation, or detected such as a detected launch)? And then, this doesn't necessarily protect the area, it just means the weapons navigating by these jammed mechanisms will be more likely to hit a random target than the desired target. Effective for protecting strategic assets, but ineffective at actually protecting your territory in general.
Cell towers as defense aren't new. In 2008 Egypt was showing off a passive radar system that detected objects by how they reflected cell tower emissions.
"missile defence", ha. As a russian, I now have to buy more foil for the cases of uncontrollable urge to march, sing hymns and praise Putin.
jokes aside, near kremlin now there's a zone where most gps devices are really off. Jamming is already used, though most think it's primarily designed to counter drones, not rockets.
and that's the only scenario this stuff makes sense. Missiles aren't wholly dependent on GPS and are designed to expect jammed or spoofed GPS. More than likely this to deter drone attacks which are GPS dependent. Sounds like the Kremlin is worried about drone attacks at their leadership. I suspect the blowback from Syria is heating up, on top of that passenger plane from Egypt that was recently blown up. Playing it off as protecting Russians from "missile attack" is domestic propaganda to not admit that serious blowback against Russia from Islamic terrorists is a large and growing concern.
"civil" glonass is probably affected in the same way, I think, but I don't really know. They use some 3rd party (chinise?) gps/glonass jammer which shows that signal is coming from one of international airports (VKO in case of kremlin jamming), which are already a no fly zone for most civil drones
Jamming GPS won't do much against US cruise missiles because the primary guidance is optically-corrected inertial i.e. there is a camera that matches terrain features for fine-grained localization. IIRC, some variants also have a terminal guidance package that knows what the target looks like and can make corrections toward the target as it comes within range.
The only thing jamming GPS might impact is the inflight re-targeting features, but military GPS is not easily jammed and the inertial system should still be able to do the job until the optical localization can get a fix.
Should work great against cheap drones and such though.
55 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 75.8 ms ] threadThe article doesn't make it explicit, but the Pole-21 system seems to be (at least in part) a satellite navigation jammer[0].
[0] - https://www.sott.net/article/327171-New-Russian-hi-tech-jamm...
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a110286.pdf
The Trident Missile (sub launched missile) uses it in conjunction with inertial nav to correct its course mid-flight.
Wow, that's one wishful thinking, especially considering lame attempt to disrupt them when missiles basically already approached their target.
For more info about the technology, google “Digital Scene-Matching Area Correlator”
Modern ones "skim" along the terrain, this massively reduces their radar detection range (due to the horizon) and allows them to navigate around known defensive measures.
This is also why both the US and Russia has spent millions of dollars on extremely sensitive microphones to literally "hear" an incoming cruise missile.
A system like this, combined with a system to combat high altitude cruise missile attacks, could theoretically work. Or certainly limit/disrupt the ability for very low altitude weapons to enter your territory uncontested.
Plus low altitude drones definitely have a future, particularly against a technologically advanced nation.
Sorry, but no. You know how modern ones skim along terrain? Terrain maps. If you are using terrain maps to navigate, then you don't need GPS - so this system has no hopes of working against low altitude cruise missiles. Also, the cruise missiles would need to be flying lower than the cell towers - which would only be a problem if the directional antenna was sensitive to 180 degrees. Beamforming tech is so common now that it has found its way into wifi routers.
Terrain maps require active radar. Active radar increases your detectability.
> If you are using terrain maps to navigate, then you don't need GPS - so this system has no hopes of working against low altitude cruise missiles.
Some currently deployed US Navy Cruise Missiles already utilise GPS. Including the Block III TLAM[0].
They support INS (inaccurate), TERCOM (which has a radar signature), and DSMAC (which relies on TERCOM or GPS, and only increases final target accuracy).
You'd definitely use GPS if you could use GPS, it is the most reliable and quietest system. This system proposes to neuter your ability to use GPS in Russian territory.
> Also, the cruise missiles would need to be flying lower than the cell towers
That isn't how radio signals work.
[0] http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1...
An active radar pointed at the ground, so you'd need a pretty extensive detection network. Also, I don't think stealth is much of a concern once the cruise missiles are over the target's territory. BTW, TERCOM doesn't need to be continuously radiating when in use, it only needs to get a fix frequently enough to keep INS within acceptable accuracy bounds.
> That isn't how radio signals work.
It is when you're talking about trying to interfere with a weapons grade radio, by transmitting to the sidelobe instead of mainlobe.
So they can't navigate a sudden cliff in the way?
...but the spectacle of Iran downing one of our drones a few years back using GPS spoofing makes me wonder if maybe defense contractors are hiring engineers who couldn't get jobs working at the phone company, or something. So yeah. Bleh.
(the maker of the laser ring gyros used in the F-15 used to brag that the plane could go up, patrol, and land and the indicated coordinates were in the same hangar. I'm sure the tech has only gotten better.)
Mostly I was responding the parent's comment about inertial, which is way off base. Inertial navigation is amazing.
Add that to the "duh, who's interested in bombing Russia?" angle and I agree: 100% propaganda for internal consumption.
Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ
This has been seen as an aggressive move in Russia and the current thinking inside the Kremlin is to go back to MAD with a credible deterrent and credible defence.
Whether it is technically feasible or not is one thing, the bigger picture is what those clowns in NATO are doing and how that the world situation is pretty bad re: aggression towards Russia, a country we need in Europe for things like oil/gas and security. It is the sanity of our leaders and not the technical ability of their engineers that we should be questioning.
It isn't credible if it isn't technically feasible, it is just a waste of money and it looks foolish. While I can understand how Russia would be upset about NATO neutering its nuclear arsenal with anti ballistic missile systems, I have a hard time believing that intelligent people actually think NATO wants to invade Russia. It is just frustration over a censor bar being placed over the dick waving.
But I think Russia may in fact fear invasion. Germany went from "no threat" to "building up their military but having a treaty with Russia" to "invading Russia" in nine years. If that invasion had been launched from the eastern Ukraine instead of from the middle of Poland, it very plausibly could have broken Russia.
Russia doesn't have half of Poland as a buffer anymore. It doesn't even have (most of) Ukraine. I think that Russia is extremely over-sensitive - even paranoid - given the current circumstances. But circumstances change, sometimes rather rapidly. Given history (not just Germany, but also France), Russia has some grounds for fearing Europe.
"But Europe is different now!" True... until it's not.
Look, I'm not defending Putin. But he's not totally nuts to be worried.
That is pretty obvious, with the silly resumption of strategically useless bomber flights nearly 10 years ago.
> Germany went from "no threat" to ...
You might have a better grasp of the history than me, but it was my impression that by 1933 everybody was keenly aware of how dangerous Germany was getting - with the book burning and Nazi parading. Hopefully Russia has learned not to trust treaty partners that behave so. That is a pretty long lead time, and the only country that I can think of right now that exhibits similar behavior is Turkey. So unless Russia is concerned about a Neo-Ottoman empire invasion, they really don't have an excuse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_re-armament
I don't know about the tanks, but the airplanes and warships were all over the place - they just weren't property of the German military. Germany was building subs in the Netherlands, and aircraft in Russia - they got around the treaty by offshoring production and selling to other nations, allowing them to refine their designs and build their industry. They did a similar thing with the officer corps - they just changed their titles, but continued perfecting and growing their training program. Conscription is pretty much the last thing to happen, if you want to watch for trouble - watch the officer training program. All that was going on in the 1920s btw.
All this might sound like Monday morning quarterbacking, but the pattern is repeated throughout history. Watch Turkey. If they rebuild their officer corps before their economy totally collapses, they'll try to annex northern Syria and northern Iraq. They've started developing domestic production of weapon systems, dropped very strong hints that they aren't interested in remaining a NATO partner, and they have a madman as chief executive - enthusiastically put their by nationalists.
If the Russian government feels threatened by an ABM system that can shoot down maybe 10-20 missiles and isn't any more sophisticated than the S-400/500, then either their ballistic missile count is much lower than their claim, or NATO aren't the ones being clowns.
Worse, if you worry about countries joining the EU and NATO, maybe Russian should stop invading its neighbors, annexing their lands, and stop blowing up civilians. Want friends? Be friendly.
jokes aside, near kremlin now there's a zone where most gps devices are really off. Jamming is already used, though most think it's primarily designed to counter drones, not rockets.
The only thing jamming GPS might impact is the inflight re-targeting features, but military GPS is not easily jammed and the inertial system should still be able to do the job until the optical localization can get a fix.
Should work great against cheap drones and such though.
And here is the manufacturer's spec sheet: http://www.ntc-reb.ru/pole.html