If memory serves, that article was about a concept and its possible application. It was the AF Chief of Staff, Gen. Schwartz, who said the country possessed the nascent capability of taking out SAMS using cyber.

I have been in the software and hardware development industry for 35 years, with a Computer Science degree. I can say without equivocation that there was NOTHING in that report that even inferred that we have the capability to remotely (without a physical connection to the site) control SAM or any other installations of an enemy. There were introductory remarks about such capabilities. But that was just a list of POTENTIAL levels of cyber capabilities.

AND OUR GPS IS USELESS??

CHINA SPENDS BILLIONS ON SATELITE WARFARE…

WE BETTER WAKE UP

Fair enough. I see your point. It’s easy for me to do combat analysis from my favorite chair.

Daniel Russ
civilianmilitaryintelligence group.com

“Air combat is decidedly not a knife fight. It is a kill from a distance.” again, from D. Russ.

Mr. Russ, I disagree w/ your first comment and agree w/ the second.

If the F-4 driver flew over Vietnam, he was hobbled by the need to visually ID his target, engage initially w/ a suspect AIM-7 system, which failed well over half the time, close in for an AIM-9 kill against a family of more manueverable MiGs, having to manuever to get a tail shot because of seeker limitations, and perhaps having no gun,(’til the E model came along.) then it looks and I suspect feels alot more like a knife fight than a gun fight.

But that was then.

Today, with better missiles, sensors, and support, ideally the kills will be beyond visual range. While all current ‘fighters’ have a gun, it’s primarily for defense in the air to air arena. Because there’s a lot of high quality, relatively cheap aam’s out there, it’s better to avoid getting in their envelope and just bring the jet home rather than relying on the gun to make sure the jet gets back to a runway rather than in the weeds.

That said, technology manifests throughout combat history as a way to increase killing distance. One F4 driver told me that air combat is a knife fight. I bit my tongue because I was talking to a veteran.

But I disagree.

Air combat is decidedly not a knife fight. It is a kill from a distance. And it won’t make any difference whether you are killed by bombs or ones and zeroes. Who knows what the future brings?

I do think it’s sort of ironic that a JAG has to approved Reaper targets. I mean, even if you are hiding in a cave in the middle of the desert, the blow is delivered by a lawyer.

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com

You’ve got the DoD trying to ban ALL MP3 music players and ANY digital mass storage device on all DoD installations, because our security shits cant’ handle it, while the insurgents still use ipods and cell phones to touch off IEDs.

The DoD hasn’t got he brains for “cyber warfare”.

Any kid playing Marilyh Manson can outwit the DoD, so, give it up.

It’s too “hard”.

Plus, computers are just a “force multiplier”.

Hard to tell whos eforce they are multiplying, but, they can have their uses, provided:

1) You know computers.

2) You know that it’s bombs and bullets that kill, and not computers.

The AF will spend lots of taxpayer dollars on buildings, signs, labels, patches and desktop computers.… but the real stuff will be lacking.…

For those who say satellites will do the job?? SATCOM is jammed so easily it’s not funny. Those signals coming from the satellites are so weak a 1/2 watt transmitter with a lantern battery will jam downlinks for weeks. And if you really want to take out SATCOM all you need is an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) device. They’re all over the place.

S/F Gordon

As a Patriot missile tech (14E), let me tell you, hacking into the system may, *may* stun an advanced system, but not disable it.

The Syrians had less experience with their ADA, they just bought it. And we do not know what systems were guarding their reactor.

Replace radio links with fiber, add firewall, anti-spoof measures or better yet not be online.

The best defense is a good offense, say a JDAM on the array.

I’d emphasize that I want whoever is controlling day-to-day operations to be spending time with the grunts and locals on a nearly daily basis. You cannot understand our current battlefields unless you do that.

That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the genius flying the UAV as much as I do the grunt carrying the M4 — but I’ve had enough of commanders who relied on data streams without being out in the field and being screw-ups without ever knowing they were.

This is absolutely crazy. Being a retired AF SP and Aviator (30 years), the Colonel is correct there is NO substitute, to your own skin looking down the barrel of any weapon system, trust me it is a hell of a motivator, I say that from experience.

Second, not all AF Aviators are Officers and YES it is very true that the enlisted corps is the backbone of ALL services and those men and women do work a lot more and for far less pay than the officers.

Third, on MOST important, ALL of these discussions are focusing on personal perspectives. The Colonel knows (I am sure he does) that no ONE element of the modern battlefield is the “Fix”. It is the combination of ALL services and ALL weapon systems and their operators that is what makes our MILITARY so much more advanced and effective than those of other countries.

At the USAF Senior NCO Academy (Which is attended to by all services and many of our allies) we discuss the very fact that each service brings to the battlefield their experitise and equipment in order to accomplish the MISSION.

So PEOPLE, take off the blinders and realize that the word TEAM means “Together Everyone Achieves More”.

The effictiveness of our TEAM will ALWAYS depend on EVERYONE not one weapon system.

Taking pride in one’s service and/or weapons system is great, but it is a forest NOT a tree.

Now is your turn to rip into me, have fun, I am extremely thick skined like all NCO’s old and new.

U.S. aerospace industry and retired military officials indicated that a technology like the U.S.-developed “Suter” airborne network attack system developed by BAE Systems and integrated into U.S. unmanned aircraft by L-3 Communications was used by the Israelis. The system has been used or at least tested operationally in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last years.

The technology allows users to invade communications networks, see what enemy sensors see and even take over as systems administrator so sensors can be manipulated into positions so that approaching aircraft can’t be seen, they say. The process involves locating enemy emitters with great precision and then directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control.

Damn I’m gooooood

Juan

“Secondly, there are potential offensive applications of cyber that also are essential to the way we do business. Traditionally, for
example, we take down integrated air defenses via kinetic means. But if it were possible to interrupt radar systems or surface to air missile systems via cyber, that would be another very powerful tool in the tool kit allowing us to accomplish air missions assigned by the Joint Force Commander. We will develop that – have – capability and we’ll certainly mature both of those aspects, offense and defense, as we go forward, and we will provide
that via a new numbered Air Force, 24th Air Force, to whatever architecture is ultimately approved for national cyber responsibilities. And again, I think that will all be a little clearer to us within a matter of weeks.“
=======================================
Also thought it was interesting when Gen Schwartz mentioned that some new UAS payloads create so much information that additional analysts will be necessary. LTG Deptula made similar references to adding 2500 more USAF analysts today in several articles just to analyze views that are up to 2.5 mile x 2.5 mile mosaics.

I wouldn’t think it would take that much analysis even on a wide field of view or with a SAR picture to spot the air defense systems depicted. They sure don’t look like they would be very good at shoot and scoot ala SA-6 either.

But did anyone note the “Assassin’s Mace” article on “Wired” that supposedly is being developed by the Chinese to replicate 10,001 air defense radars all around the actual one to defeat HARMs? I was also somewhat surprised to learn that HARM won’t fit internally in F-35, but SDMs do glide a really long distance, and maybe they will get that stealth cruise missile to work. Anyway, wonder if that Assasssin’s Mace will work as well as GPS jammers did in Iraq?

BTW Mark, note the smiley face…normally not a sign of heartfelt indignation. I was having too much fun making fun of some USAF policies to be indignant…

Also, returning to a serious note, General Schwartz made a great point that Airman sharing convoys with Soldiers will carry that experience with them throughout their career. Suspect some of them will be in the Cdr’s office asking why all the enlisted guys are in Afghanistan turning wrenches and doing launch/recovery while the officers are back home with mama. Right now it isn’t as much an issue because contractors are doing a lot of it.

dd, your the one that said it. i have no issue with uav drivers or any other mos, just people that run their mouth. every job has a purpose if your not happy with yours reenlist for another.