Dutch Radio Geek Tracking Libyan Airstrikes

jfruhlinger writes "The days when citizens could only learn about a distant war from the government or the institutional press are long over. A Dutch ex-military geek exemplifies the new way information comes out, tracking attack flights on Libya, and even tweeting messages to the US command responsible for the strikes."

Re:Pertinent part of the article

[zAPPzAPP]

Wait, they don't switch these off, when they go for a bombing run?
Doesn't this defeat the whole idea of stealth?

HF

[fauxhemian]

I've been able to track a lot of aircraft movements on Shortwave/HF radio from Ireland - and it's surprising just how much information still goes out over unencrypted links. Friday night, there was a marked increase in French AWACS and support aircraft activity - and then on Saturday other frequencies came alive with a whole host of NATO aircraft; for instance RAF Transports, Tankers, Surveillance, Strike and Fighter aircraft. Some aircraft discussed the targets they'd hit, the ordinance they had used and their current bearings and distance from Benghazi. There have been some intriguing transmissions - for instance aircraft operating at altitudes which are beyond their published service ceilings and voices co-ordinating movements from countries whose governments voiced opposition to the NFZ. Over the years frequency hopping and encryption have reduced the number of military transmissions to be read and understood on HF, but clearly there's still interesting ones out there. On a tangent - an Israeli Numbers Station , designated E10 and famous for lending the title to a Wilco album amongst other things, stopped transmitting on March 1st of this year - given the recent events in Egypt, it's interesting timing.

Re:Pertinent part of the article

[Hazel Bergeron]

I don't understand why that would help. You have to provide the information in order to not smack into another aircraft, so every other aircraft/ATC in the vicinity needs to know how to decrypt the information. This means that the decryption keys are effectively public.

Anyway, is the US still consistent with its rule about most of the spectrum being a-ok to listen in on? Unlike the UK's Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, where the default assumption is that you can't. And, of course, assuming he's in Holland... what about Dutch law?

(also, "begs the question" etc.)

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies

[erroneus]

Not sure where you get your own propaganda, but this latest involvement is extremely unpopular with the majority of people in the US.

Ironically, though, I actually back this operation where I did not believe Afghanistan and Iraq should have been engaged in. Why? Well, when a nation seeks to oust its leader and the leader responds with crimes against humanity, we are honor-bound to defend those civilians under attack by their own leadership. (Likewise, we should also take more aggressive actions against China and other countries for the same reasons)

I recognize the fact that the majority of the US are mindless. But even in this case, the mindless aren't fully in support of the current actions. But with that said, we don't (yet) have feet on the ground for this one. As far as I know, we are just launching fireworks at military hardware put in place by Libyan leadership to suppress and attack the people.

Re:Pertinent part of the article

[ElectricTurtle]

Considering that many aerial engagements are now done sight-unseen by radar only, IFF is really important, doubly so in a no-fly zone. These are not particularly stealthy aircraft involved here either.

Re:Gatta love this one...

[blair1q]

And it's merely a presumption that the information being transmitted was accurate.

Weasel: Here! I'm over here
Ack-Ack: I have you now, infidel! (*budda-budda-budda*)
Weasel: Ahem.
Ack-Ack: (spinning) Curses!
Weasel: Fox 1!
Ack-Ack: (exploding) grrrrrrrglglglglg