military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (01/18/91)
From: att!druhi!fidder Question on battelfield communications. I was under the impression that when we attacted Iraq that all forms of electronic communication would be jammed. How is it that CNN was able to do live broadcasts even during the actual raids ? I know that CBS was asking the same question, and that CNN made the comment that either side could shut them down at any time (which apparently the Iraq's have done). A related question is why was the supprise so apparently complete ? It is not like we didn't advertise that we were going in soon after the 15th... Is it possible that the first wave took out all the primary communication channels (except CNN ofcourse), and that the field commands had no authority to strike back on there own ? What weapon systems would have been used on the communication links ? Just curious... what does a Tomahawk cost ? Things are going to get real interesting in the next few weeks. Ted Fidder
rutenbrg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Andrew David Rutenberg) (01/19/91)
From: Andrew David Rutenberg <rutenbrg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> I gather the cruise missiles each cost $1.2 million. We've used about 100 so far. I gather an F-15 costs about $14 million, so we've probably saved money (and U.S. lives). Andrew Rutenberg Rutenbrg@pucc.bitnet
garyb@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Gary Barton) (01/19/91)
From: garyb@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Gary Barton) In article <1991Jan18.003548.8604@cbnews.att.com> you write: > > >From: att!druhi!fidder > > >Question on battelfield communications. > >I was under the impression that when we attacted Iraq that all forms of >electronic communication would be jammed. How is it that CNN was able >to do live broadcasts even during the actual raids ? I know that CBS >was asking the same question, and that CNN made the comment that either >side could shut them down at any time (which apparently the Iraq's have >done). >From listening to their descriptions, I think it's clear that they had some sort of battery powered transmitter, perhaps even a small satellite uplink of some sort. More realistically, I expect they used a lower power radio transmitter to get out of Iraq and into one of the neighboring countries (S.A.), where the signal was picked up and forwarded into an open phone line. I base this observation on the fact that while they had a two way capability, it was clear that when they were talking from Baghdad, they could not receive any inbound questions. They got around this by occasionally pausing and prompting the Atlanta based personnel for questions. I would guess, at that point they would release the mic, and listen for incoming messages. As for why they how they found a channel that was not being jammed, I am uncertain? However, I doubt if we have the technology to jam all frequencies over an area the size of Iraq. More realisticallly, we were probably jamming frequencies in small tactical areas, during bombing runs, etc. However, Baghdad is certainly one of the areas I would expect we would be jamming in and around... > >A related question is why was the supprise so apparently complete ? It >is not like we didn't advertise that we were going in soon after the 15th... >Is it possible that the first wave took out all the primary communication >channels (except CNN ofcourse), and that the field commands had no >authority to strike back on there own ? What weapon systems would have >been used on the communication links ? > According to various sources, the military commanders believe the Iraqi air force is hiding out. Speculation is that they will attempt to ride out the initial storm, and wait for time when they stand a chance of surviving long enough to cause some trouble. For example, given the choices below which would you choose? a) Throw everything at them during the initial attacks knowing that you will be at an extreme disadvantage in air-to-air combat, particulary at night. b) Preserve what you can with the intent of using your planes to harass attempts to support allied ground forces later. This might be able to prolong the conflict on the ground, which is certainly going to more costly to your enemy than a large air battle. Of course these are extreme strategies (with an obvious slant toward my position) and in reality they could just be holding back, waiting for a good time for a counter air attack. Regardless, most people believe that whatever their strategy, Iraqi air force will eventually be decimated. Given the choice of losing a quick and relatively painless air battle versus the possibility of increasing the cost of a ground war, I think they'll opt for the latter. Perhaps we are seeing the initial stages of the worlds first guerilla air war ;-) On a side note, after seeing the video of what was apparently a Patriot missle going after and stopping an incoming SCUD, I began to wonder if this was lucky shot, or if the system could really be effective against ballistic missles. SCUDs may not be the world fastest missiles, but this apparent success is still amazing to me. While I realize that this is a relatively new system, if anyone can point me to some unclassified references describing this system and its capabilities, I would be very appreciative. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | Gary Barton | System Software Development | | Lead Engineer | Harris Computer Systems Division | | garyb@hcx1.csd.ssd.harris.com | 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. | | gbarton@ssd.harris.com | Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33309 | | uunet!hcx1!garyb | (305) 974-1700 | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (System Administrator) (01/21/91)
From: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (System Administrator)
In-Reply-To: message from military@cbnews.ogi.edu
|Just curious... what does a Tomahawk cost ?
Don't quote me on this (I heard it once, but I blew it off, and now I don't
remember), but it is something like $1,200,000 apeice, and they deliver a
warhead of about a ton (2000lbs) of TNT (Note this is the convential version,
and not the Tactical Nuclear version).
Gary
---
UUCP: ogicse!clark!pro-freedom!gsnow | Pro-Freedom: 206/253-9389
ProLine: gsnow@pro-freedom | Vancouver, Wa
ARPANet: crash!pro-freedom!gsnow@nosc.mil | Apple*Van
InterNet: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com | Vancouver Apple Users Groupstevew@wyse.wyse.com (Steve Wilson x2580 dept303) (01/22/91)
From: stevew@wyse.wyse.com (Steve Wilson x2580 dept303) >From: att!druhi!fidder >Question on battelfield communications. > >I was under the impression that when we attacted Iraq that all forms of >electronic communication would be jammed. How is it that CNN was able >to do live broadcasts even during the actual raids ? I know that CBS >was asking the same question, and that CNN made the comment that either >side could shut them down at any time (which apparently the Iraq's have >done). The CNN crew was using a commercial portable satellite uplink system to talk out of Baghdad. This is a micro-wave system which involves aiming the ground station dish at the satellite. The only way to jam such a system would be to send a signal on the same frequency aimed at the satellite that was significantly stronger than the ground station being jammed(a guess that these are using FM modulation techniques so capture effect would come into play...) This would also imply that you were perhaps jamming out other users of the satellite that you didn't want to affect...not a good idea. My guess is that most of the jamming efforts are being done for systems that are either based in the HF spectrum were competing signals due a effective number on each other, or directed jamming in the electronic warfare sense, i.e. trying to confuse enemy radar. If you have seen any of the pictures where people were monitoring Radio Baghdad on 11.990 Mhz you would have heard a whistle in the backround...now that was jamming ;-) >Just curious... what does a Tomahawk cost ? I heard they were going for $1 Million a shot...ABC posted a number stating that we'd expended 200 Million worth of Tomahawks by the 3rd or 4th day of battle. As a side note I think I also heard that the Patriots go for around $1.2 Million each. Steve Wilson
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (01/23/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) > >Question on battelfield communications. > As for why they how they found a channel that was not being jammed, I > am uncertain? However, I doubt if we have the technology to jam all > frequencies over an area the size of Iraq. More realisticallly, we > were probably jamming frequencies in small tactical areas, during > bombing runs, etc. However, Baghdad is certainly one of the areas I > would expect we would be jamming in and around... Remember, there is only one (1) frequency spectrum in the world and everybody - military, civilian, U.S., Iraqi - uses it. And modern technology *could* allow the jamming of the entire spectrum. But then, you'd be jamming all the friendly frequencies, too - and interfering with your own operations. So, obviously, you protect the frequencies that you have to use. Also, we're not going to jam any key frequencies that are providing us with critical information. There's a tradeoff - do we destroy it - or monitor it? Also, it is the receiver of the signal that is the target for jamming - not the transmitter. And then there are anti-jam methods - like increasing power to 'burn' through the jamming - frequency-hopping transmitters etc. It's all very complex - I probably oversimplified it - but I'd rather not get into *details* of radio electronic combat. mike schmitt "Jam it 'till it Hertz" Whats the best anti-jammer? A 155mm artillery round!
pt@dciem (Paul Tomblin) (01/23/91)
From: cognos!geovision!pt@dciem (Paul Tomblin) garyb@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Gary Barton) writes: >On a side note, after seeing the video of what was apparently a >Patriot missle going after and stopping an incoming SCUD, I began to >wonder if this was lucky shot, or if the system could really be >effective against ballistic missles. SCUDs may not be the world >fastest missiles, but this apparent success is still amazing to me. The thing that boggled my mind was how confident the local commander was in it. If I was relying on an unproven weapon system to defend one of the most important air bases we had, I would have salvo'd off 5 or 6 of them, and scrambled every plane I had to get them out of the way. Instead, we see no unusual aircraft activity beforehand, and only one Patriot fired, and what appears to be normal ops happening at the airbase during and after. Talk about confidence. Way to go, Patriot. -- Paul Tomblin, Department of Redundancy Department. ! My employer does The Romanian Orphans Support Group needs your help, ! not stand by my Ask me for details. ! opinions.... pt@geovision.gvc.com or {cognos,uunet}!geovision!pt ! Me neither.
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (01/24/91)
From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) In article <1991Jan22.015042.19969@cbnews.att.com> stevew@wyse.wyse.com >>From: att!druhi!fidder >>Question on battelfield communications. >>I was under the impression that when we attacted Iraq that all forms of >>electronic communication would be jammed. How is it that CNN was able > >The CNN crew was using a commercial portable satellite uplink system >to talk out of Baghdad. This is a micro-wave system which involves >aiming the ground station dish at the satellite. The only way >to jam such a system would be to send a signal on the same frequency >aimed at the satellite that was significantly stronger than the >ground station being jammed... Close, actually sat uplinks are (fairly) low power all things considered, quite directional, and subject to swamping by all kinds of ground 'clutter' including jamming by nearby signals. Depending on the location of the cnn uplink disk, the direction or sat that disk was linked with, and the surrounding (s) around the dish, it may or may not have been swamped either on a single channel or completely. Even if BBC used the same sat, but a different uplink dish at a different location, then bbc could have been jammed and cnn not. (The other could be be true too). The number of variables is huges, but common sense prevails. The signals (and jamming) are terribly directional and affected immensely by local conditions and locations. Even disk design could have been a factor. We have a disk that is located on a building, in the flyway of a ground telephone MW link. We have gotten the disk to work nearly perfectly by adding mw absorb cow flops around the outside edge. Another possibility, I haven't looked at, is the possibility that cnn was using a K band instead of C band (or backwards), while everyone else was using the other (if anything it's probably that way because of ted turner and the age of cnn compared to bbc). We are used to all the majors having and using both C & K bands, but over there, that case could well be vastly different. al -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE
davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) (01/24/91)
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) In article <1991Jan18.003548.8604@cbnews.att.com> you write: | >I was under the impression that when we attacted Iraq that all forms of | >electronic communication would be jammed. How is it that CNN was able | >to do live broadcasts even during the actual raids ? garyb@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Gary Barton) writes: | >From listening to their descriptions, I think it's clear that they had | some sort of battery powered transmitter, perhaps even a small | satellite uplink of some sort. Subsequent comments on a CBC show indicates that the BBC reporters may have had a low-capacity uplink: they could only use it outdoors at particular times. Several times they made it available to others when their **apparently** more conventional communications channels were unusable. --dave -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA | lethe!dave 72 Abitibi Ave., | Willowdale, Ontario, | Even cannibals don't usually eat their CANADA. 416-223-8968 | friends.
darragh@maths.tcd.ie (Darragh J. Delany) (01/25/91)
From: darragh@maths.tcd.ie (Darragh J. Delany) In article <1991Jan22.015042.19969@cbnews.att.com> stevew@wyse.wyse.com (Steve Wilson x2580 dept303) writes: >I heard they were going for $1 Million a shot...ABC posted a >number stating that we'd expended 200 Million worth of Tomahawks >by the 3rd or 4th day of battle. > Seems kind of a waste to use them for conventional warhead delivery in that case >As a side note I think I also heard that the Patriots go for >around $1.2 Million each. I believe the figure is actually $400k. So does anyone know what a SCUD or FROG would cost these days, it would be nice to know exactly what sort of cost effectiveness ratio they give, ie is it cheaper to attack or defend (this is of course academic in the current situation but in terms of any subsequent arms race the hard cash element is worth knowing about). Darragh -=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=- Darragh J. Delany, e-mail: djdelany@vax1.tcd.ie Dept. of Computer Science, djdelany@cs.tcd.ie Trinity College, Dublin, darragh@maths.tcd.ie Rep. of Ireland, EC phone: 01-851048 -=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=- "Sweaty Snugglebunnies do it better"