USA Aegis system:no problem for the Russians

[DRumsfeld2000]

This is fascinating. If it is true it will, or perhaps should, certainly have an affect.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: USA Aegis system:no problem for the Russians

Wow.

[jpatter666]

Re: USA Aegis system:no problem for the Russians

Here's a response for what it is worth.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/rus...r-8b58c9b56515

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: USA Aegis system:no problem for the Russians

Thanks jpatter666
It's very tempting to accept a breathtaking yarn, especially where one has a keen interest in the topic.

The rebuttal makes good sense.

[Woodsman]

Re: USA Aegis system:no problem for the Russians

Thanks jpatter666
It's very tempting to accept a breathtaking yarn, especially where one has a keen interest in the topic.

The rebuttal makes good sense.

I missed the bit about the mass resignation. Now that is TOTAL bovine scatology. Don't think that has ever happened since John Paul Jones saw that whites of their eyes.

[gwynedd1]

Re: USA Aegis system:no problem for the Russians

Its not just coming from RT either.

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/11...efense-system/

[don]

Re: USA Aegis system:no problem for the Russians

The rebuttal makes good sense.

I missed that part - sounded more like a blow off than a substantive rebuttal.

If it's true, surprised the Russkies showed their hand, or turning that around, perhaps it shows the seriousness of their intent on their Black Sea shores.

Or could it be a cry for budgetary help from the draconian cuts from the Great Socialist?


from Mish . . .

Pentagon Says "Stop Defense Cut Madness"; Mish Investigates Alleged "Cuts"

Thanks to the sequester (long forgotten by most), alleged "cuts" in spending were scheduled to happen automatically.

But no one is Washington is happy with that prospect: Not McCain, not Obama, not defense hawks, not Republicans, not Democrats, not anyone that I can find.

Obama labeled the cuts "draconian". The Pentagon called them "mad".

Undoing the "Mad Defense Cuts"

The following headlines will tell you everything you need to know.

On November 12, Reuters reported Pentagon Number Two Urges End to U.S. Defense Cut 'Madness'

On October 8, The Hill reported Obama Warns of 'Draconian' Military Cuts

On September 10, the Daily Beast reported Obama Wants a Blank Check to Fight ISIS—and Congress Is Ready to Give It to Him.

On August 14, Reason.Com wrote Effects of Sequester Cuts Were Overstated, but GOP Hawks (and Obama) Want to Cancel It Anyway

On April 1, the National Journal wrote Ryan Budget Calls for Return to Pre-Sequester Defense Spending.

"House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan laid out a budget vision Tuesday that goes beyond President Obama's request by ramping up defense spending beyond the caps in 2016 and restoring them by 2017."

Cuts? What Cuts? Where? When?

Before you can undo cuts, don't you first have to have cuts? Logically, one should think so. So let's investigate the cuts.

Impact of Sequester on Defense Budget





The Mercatus Center put the "cuts" in perspective on August 21, 2012 (see above chart) in its report Defense Spending Will Continue To Grow In Spite of Automatic Cuts Set By BCA.

As a result of Congress’s failure to come up with a $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction plan, automatic spending cuts or “sequestration” set by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) is set to take place from 2013 to 2021. As the threat of sequestration looms, concerns about cutbacks in defense spending have become a significant issue surrounding debates tied to national security and American jobs.

To understand the effects of sequestration on future defense spending, it is important to understand how the BCA spending caps and sequestration apply to the base defense budget alone and when war spending is considered.

The expansion of the defense budget starts with the Department of Defense’s base budget (green region), which is the legal amount of spending approved by Congress. The base budget does not include war costs – categorized as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) – for military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other defense operations. Therefore, the additional costs for funding wars (blue region) are included in the chart to establish a full picture of defense spending.

As the chart shows, defense spending has almost doubled in the past decade in current dollar terms and will continue to grow in spite of automatic cuts set by the BCA. Clarifying these figures reveals that sequester cuts do not warrant the fears of policymakers who warn about “savage cuts” to the defense budget.

Washington Compromise

As I have pointed out before, the way compromise in Congress works is both sides get money for whatever ridiculous programs they want.

Recall that the sequester (automatic cuts) was supposed to force bipartisan compromise on tackling the deficit. It didn't. Both sides opted for the sequester instead.

The sequester called for a reduction in future budget increases (no actual cuts anywhere except a trivial amount in the first year). Now both parties complain about "draconian cuts" that never happened.

Reductions in the rate of future budget increases will now be restored.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...aQUtMZGQgiA.99

[lakedaemonian]

Re: USA Aegis system:no problem for the Russians

I would find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY for advanced warfighting capabilities such as electronic attack to be used against a peer/near-peer in peacetime, even during times of heightened tensions.

It's the equivalent of pulling out a hidden trump card when the stakes are fairly low and your opposition only has a pair of Two's. Best to save such capabilities(if real) until the stakes are high and the opposition is showing a pair of King's.

Even IF the story is true or partially true, the ESM(Electronic Support Measures) capability of that boat would have hoovered up and recorded the electronic attack emissions coming from that SU24 for analysis and countermeasure development/exploitation/dissemination.

A little known fact is that the emissions spectrum of military sensors are very, very closely protected to extend the life of competitive advantage over opponents.

Most of the time is spent using ESM "electronic vacuum cleaners" to hoover up the other side's emissions, rather than broadcasting emissions that can be used by the other side to develop countermeasures in order to blind it in war time.

Possibly the best known example of this in the cyber realm was the concurrent use of 4 zero-day exploits in the Stuxnet attack.

While those zero-day exploits can be recycled while patches are developed to plug the exploited holes, the efficacy of those exploits will drop over time.

[jk]

Re: USA Aegis system:no problem for the Russians

I would find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY for advanced warfighting capabilities such as electronic attack to be used against a peer/near-peer in peacetime, even during times of heightened tensions.

It's the equivalent of pulling out a hidden trump card when the stakes are fairly low and your opposition only has a pair of Two's. Best to save such capabilities(if real) until the stakes are high and the opposition is showing a pair of King's.

Even IF the story is true or partially true, the ESM(Electronic Support Measures) capability of that boat would have hoovered up and recorded the electronic attack emissions coming from that SU24 for analysis and countermeasure development/exploitation/dissemination.

A little known fact is that the emissions spectrum of military sensors are very, very closely protected to extend the life of competitive advantage over opponents.

Most of the time is spent using ESM "electronic vacuum cleaners" to hoover up the other side's emissions, rather than broadcasting emissions that can be used by the other side to develop countermeasures in order to blind it in war time.

Possibly the best known example of this in the cyber realm was the concurrent use of 4 zero-day exploits in the Stuxnet attack.

While those zero-day exploits can be recycled while patches are developed to plug the exploited holes, the efficacy of those exploits will drop over time.

would the u.s. ship have turned off its radars to protect their spectra?

[seanm123]

Re: USA Aegis system:no problem for the Russians

Not quite sure what they are trying to say, they defeated SPY-1 radar at very close range? This is a system that reportedly can detect and destroy incoming missiles threats at 175 nm for standard anti-ship missiles and 45 nm for wave skimming missiles. Perhaps the Russians would have a better chance with a close range torpedo, or surfacing a sub under the hull of one of our ships?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: USA Aegis system:no problem for the Russians

would the u.s. ship have turned off its radars to protect their spectra?

The way I understand it is:

During peacetime most/all active emitting systems can be used, but with discretion, especially if being potentially baited into emitting for opposition ESM collection purposes.

Threat levels and rules of engagement would both play a considerable role in the use of active emitters.

A good chunk(but not all) of US Navy activity possesses multiple overlapping layers of both active/passive sensors and has some of the longest experience in terms of cross platform sensor fusion(aerial platform hundreds of kilometers away orbitting at 30,000 feet datalink to each and every US Navy ship that is not emitting) that is all the rage now with both Air and Ground forces.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: USA Aegis system:no problem for the Russians

Not quite sure what they are trying to say, they defeated SPY-1 radar at very close range? This is a system that reportedly can detect and destroy incoming missiles threats at 175 nm for standard anti-ship missiles and 45 nm for wave skimming missiles. Perhaps the Russians would have a better chance with a close range torpedo, or surfacing a sub under the hull of one of our ships?

If that US Navy vessel was sailing solo, I would think there's a good possibility it had some active/passive sensor support from US/NATO platforms like Maritime Surveillance aircraft, AWACs, and other ELINT sensor platforms that could have potentially picked up that SU24 via its own emissions on takeoff.

Speculation......but I doubt that Destroyer was "sailing solo" in terms of active/passive overlapping sensor fusion.

Here's the way it's been described to me by folks in the business of driving and fighting ships:

Imagine standing on an indoor football field in pitch black darkness with two teams arrayed against each other.

The players on the field are armed with various knives, pistols, and rifles to represent their offensive capability.

The players are equipped with flashlights of varying light lumen power and width of beam to represent their active emitting sensors. Eyeballs represent passive detection sensors.

Each side is supported by overhead spotlights in the ceiling rafters that represent airborne sensor support platforms.

You can "see" a "flashlight/spotlight" from MUCH farther away that the operator can see you.

Who is going to turn their flashlight on first?

That's my very rough idea of the hide and seek "game" of Navy ship stuff.

It's my understanding that of all the growing vulnerabilities the US may possess against peers(such as Russia and/or China) one of the areas where the US is believed to possess excellent capability and likely overmatch
is in Navy platform based very high performance missiles interceptors.

[ddn3f]

Re: USA Aegis system:no problem for the Russians

If the DDG's SPY was off, then it's ESM should have picked up that Russian Aircraft flying around. Also the other aircraft and sensors in the air would have caught that Russian aircraft and would be sending the DDG those radar tracks. If the Russians were jamming, the ship's ESM would quickly pick that up as well. The ESM would give the bearing of the jamming and that would lead right to the Russian aircraft. So in Lakedaemonian's analogy, those ESM eyes would tell you which direction the enemy is when they turn on their flashlights. But having a bearing is not good enough to shoot at an enemy, you need a radar track. Now even if that Russian plane was successful in jamming the SPY, the ship could still shoot using radar tracks sent to it from other friendly aircraft in the vicinity.

Ships have so much more to fear from submarines than they do from aircraft. When wargames are played between surface ships and subs, those subs tend to win. Well I guess they should, since their job is to hunt other subs, which are much harder to find than surface ships.

[ASH]

Re: USA Aegis system:no problem for the Russians

To some excellent comments from others expressing skepticism on technical and practical grounds, I add the observation (similar to Woodsman's comment) that the "reporting" itself simply reads like ham-fisted propaganda.

[FrankL]

Re: USA Aegis system:no problem for the Russians

To some excellent comments from others expressing skepticism on technical and practical grounds, I add the observation (similar to Woodsman's comment) that the "reporting" itself simply reads like ham-fisted propaganda.

Add to that the recent proof in the form of 'satellite evidence' that the Malaysian Airlines MH17 was shot down by an Ukranian fighter jet.

clearly this propaganda is not aimed at western readers, but mostly at their own population. Much like western propaganda directed at western citizen.