How Electronic Warfare Shapes the Russia-Ukraine War (apnews.com) 93
"On Ukraine's battlefields, the simple act of powering up a cellphone can beckon a rain of deathly skyfall," reports the Associated Press. "Artillery radar and remote controls for unmanned aerial vehicles may also invite fiery shrapnel showers."
And the same technology can also be used to target navigation, guidance, and communications systems "to blind and deceive the enemy." This is electronic warfare, a critical but largely invisible aspect of Russia's war against Ukraine. Military commanders largely shun discussing it, fearing they'll jeopardize operations by revealing secrets.... It is used against artillery, fighter jets, cruise missiles, drones and more. Militaries also use it to protect their forces.
It's an area where Russia was thought to have a clear advantage going into the war. Yet, for reasons not entirely clear, its much-touted electronic warfare prowess was barely seen in the war's early stages in the chaotic failure to seize the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv. [A former U.S. Army commander tells the AP "What we're learning now is that the Russians eventually turned it off because it was interfering with their own communications so much."] It has become far more of a factor in fierce fighting in eastern Ukraine, where shorter, easier-to-defend supply lines let Russia move electronic warfare gear closer to the battlefield.
"They are jamming everything their systems can reach," said an official of Aerorozvidka, a reconnaissance team of Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicle tinkerers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of safety concerns. "We can't say they dominate, but they hinder us greatly." A Ukrainian intelligence official called the Russian threat "pretty severe" when it comes to disrupting reconnaissance efforts and commanders' communications with troops. Russian jamming of GPS receivers on drones that Ukraine uses to locate the enemy and direct artillery fire is particularly intense "on the line of contact," he said.
Later the article says Ukraine's Aerorozvidka has also modified camera-equipped drones "to pinpoint enemy positions and drop mortars and grenades. Hacking is also used to poison or disable enemy electronics and collect intelligence."
So far Ukraine has captured "captured important pieces of hardware — a significant intelligence coup — and destroyed at least two multi-vehicle mobile electronic warfare units." They've been aided by technology and intelligence from NATO members (including from satellites and surveillance aircraft). But the article also calls Elon Musk's Starlink "a proven asset." Its more than 2,200 low-orbiting satellites provide broadband internet to more than 150,000 Ukrainian ground stations. Severing those connections is a challenge for Russia. It is far more difficult to jam low-earth orbiting satellites than geostationary ones.
Musk has won plaudits from the Pentagon for at least temporarily defeating Russian jamming of Ukrainian satellite uplinks with a quick software fix. But he has warned Ukrainians to keep those terminals powered down when possible — they are vulnerable to geolocation — and recently worried on Twitter about redoubled Russian interference efforts.
The article points out that to "stay nimble," Ukraine is also using cutting-edge technologies including software-defined radio and 3D printing.
And the same technology can also be used to target navigation, guidance, and communications systems "to blind and deceive the enemy." This is electronic warfare, a critical but largely invisible aspect of Russia's war against Ukraine. Military commanders largely shun discussing it, fearing they'll jeopardize operations by revealing secrets.... It is used against artillery, fighter jets, cruise missiles, drones and more. Militaries also use it to protect their forces.
It's an area where Russia was thought to have a clear advantage going into the war. Yet, for reasons not entirely clear, its much-touted electronic warfare prowess was barely seen in the war's early stages in the chaotic failure to seize the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv. [A former U.S. Army commander tells the AP "What we're learning now is that the Russians eventually turned it off because it was interfering with their own communications so much."] It has become far more of a factor in fierce fighting in eastern Ukraine, where shorter, easier-to-defend supply lines let Russia move electronic warfare gear closer to the battlefield.
"They are jamming everything their systems can reach," said an official of Aerorozvidka, a reconnaissance team of Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicle tinkerers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of safety concerns. "We can't say they dominate, but they hinder us greatly." A Ukrainian intelligence official called the Russian threat "pretty severe" when it comes to disrupting reconnaissance efforts and commanders' communications with troops. Russian jamming of GPS receivers on drones that Ukraine uses to locate the enemy and direct artillery fire is particularly intense "on the line of contact," he said.
Later the article says Ukraine's Aerorozvidka has also modified camera-equipped drones "to pinpoint enemy positions and drop mortars and grenades. Hacking is also used to poison or disable enemy electronics and collect intelligence."
So far Ukraine has captured "captured important pieces of hardware — a significant intelligence coup — and destroyed at least two multi-vehicle mobile electronic warfare units." They've been aided by technology and intelligence from NATO members (including from satellites and surveillance aircraft). But the article also calls Elon Musk's Starlink "a proven asset." Its more than 2,200 low-orbiting satellites provide broadband internet to more than 150,000 Ukrainian ground stations. Severing those connections is a challenge for Russia. It is far more difficult to jam low-earth orbiting satellites than geostationary ones.
Musk has won plaudits from the Pentagon for at least temporarily defeating Russian jamming of Ukrainian satellite uplinks with a quick software fix. But he has warned Ukrainians to keep those terminals powered down when possible — they are vulnerable to geolocation — and recently worried on Twitter about redoubled Russian interference efforts.
The article points out that to "stay nimble," Ukraine is also using cutting-edge technologies including software-defined radio and 3D printing.
Re:Correction, it's a Russia US/NATO war (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Correction, it's a Russia US/NATO war (Score:5, Informative)
Primarily the 2014 US/NATO coup which started the civil war. These things happening on one's border are clear provocation. You think think we wouldn't invade Mexico under similar circumstances?
There was no coup. Yanukovych was unanimously IMPEACHED by Ukrainian parliament. His own party left him and he had already fled like a coward.
Re:Correction, it's a Russia US/NATO war (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, seems to me the Senate just agreed to about $40 Billion for Ukraine. That's pure loss. And Ukraine isn't a proxy war, neither is Syria. Syria started because the asshat, Assad, running Syria was pissing on the 90 percent of the pop that isn't Alawite. Russian jumped in because the sawed-off runt running Russia though it would be wonderful base to threaten the rest of the Med. and NATO countries.
Ukraine started because Russia's latest homicidal maniac decided he needed Ukraine to make his dick look bigger than a peanut. Ukraine asked for help, the U.S. provided. So stop with the All-Sides-Be-Equal bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Syria started because the asshat, Assad, running Syria
There was also a small group of religious fanatics involved, which added their part to the tensions, then later profited hugely from it and even had their own state.
Not just Russia jumped in then, the US as well. Do you know what these two countries have in common? Bad experiences with muslim fanatics.
Re: (Score:2)
The US$40 billion goes to US arms manufacturer replacing the aging munitions being sent to Ukraine. So it's really an alleviation of the normal defense budget, and not a pure loss.
That said, it is happening because Russia felt their energy monopoly over Europe was threatened, and because they felt that they can't let Ukraine stop being their buffer state. It wasn't anyone's fault but Russia's.
Re: (Score:1)
And the violent incursions by Russia into Georgia, Lithuania,.. now Ukraine to specifically underline Russia's wish that they do not join the EU and NATO and join a strategic pact with them have nothing to do with it? Ask those same people if attacking nations while possessing 20-30 times the military strength is how you build a strategic alliance. And why they only began when the US presence in Europe began a drastic draw down.
Ukraine is a legitmate country (Score:2)
If you have to feed the trolls, can't you at least change the Subject to something less trollish?
And I think Ukraine is a legitimate country frequently attacked by and even colonized by Russia. Then there was Stalin's Holodomor. Ukraine has legitimate historical grievances against Russia, but Ukraine did NOT invade Russia.
I do think it would be interesting and even relevant to ask the Ukrainian immigrants who came from Russia which country they'd prefer to be citizens of. But without the Russian army monito
Re: (Score:2)
Some countries like Germany hesitate more than others.
And for good reasons. Anything that has to do with war is especially iffy for Germans, which should be obvious. What's less obvious is that due to its force low-profile military for like 40 years after WW2, they have, similar to Japan, developed a more pacifistic culture. Unlike, say, the US, entering a war is not a boost for your poll numbers, but more likely to push them down. Military ranks are not publicly respected and rarely on display. You see very few military officers in talk shows or otherwise on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's plenty to deny it, including the SecDef and the President saying Ukraine will decide when peace should occur.
Re:Correction, it's a Russia US/NATO war (Score:5, Informative)
US/NATO doesn't want the war to necessarily end right away and has done nothing to help reach a peaceful settlement.
As was shown in 2014, peace with Russia cannot be achieved through negotiation or reason. The only way to achieve peace with modern Russia to defeat it militarily. In this sense NATO is doing the most important thing that can lead to peace. Supplying weapons to Ukraine and building more weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Here we have a classic examples of how typical propaganda is built. There are no clear, verifiable statements, and no actual claims being made. Instead it's all weasel words and suggestions.
"It was the intention of many". Impossible to verify, and also vacuous in its own right. It doesn't much matter if some (or even many) people had this intention. What matters is exactly WHO had this intention, and what their influence was.
"There is no denying". Simply appeal to emotion, that of course this has to be corr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
US/NATO isn't fighting. They are laughing at how foolish Putin is, and how incompetent the Russian military is.
We can even say the entire approach that Russia takes to war is bone-headed. They intimidate their enemies through terror (which isn't working, despite Kadyrov trying), they use strategies that rely on throwing their own troops away, hoping that they have more people than the enemy has bullets. Not good strategy.
Russian soldiers don't want to fight (for good reasons), so they have to be forced into
Re: (Score:2)
ROFL. If that were true, it would have been over in a week at most.
Re:Correction, it's a Russia US/NATO war (Score:4, Funny)
Pretty much this.
Before the war, everyone thought Russia had the second best military in the world. Now, it's kinda dubious whether they have the second best military in Ukraine...
Re:Correction, it's a Russia US/NATO war (Score:4)
You can't say the the Russian military is a joke and then also suggest that if we don't spend a hundred billion dollars and escalate toward nuclear war then they'll take over all of Europe next. Pick one and stick with it.
The Russian military is currently a joke. If given the chance to stop and regroup they will invest in ever more serious and deadly weapons, especially nuclear. If we don't spend $100 billion now whilst it's still a joke, we will have to spend trillions later.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggested we should spend trillions of dollars and escalate towards nuclear?
Re: (Score:2)
The Russian armed forces are a joke, in that they can't fight a modern army without wetting themselves, but they are more than capable of massacring civilians by the thousands.
A better analogy would be to compare Russia with a mad dog on the loose, one that must be put down for the sake of all those living nearby.
A mad dog is indeed a fearsome beast to deal with... but only until the dogcatcher shows up with a .30-06.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia could very easily have avoided it, ya know?
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you Comrade Carlson!
Re: (Score:2)
Correction, it's a Russia US/NATO war
Nonsense.
If it was a NATO war, cruise missiles would be slamming into targets *inside* Russia - Blowing up rail lines and weapons depots. Destroying airfields. Russian naval assets in the Black Sea would all be on the sea floor.
None of that is happening.
Re: Correction, it's a Russia US/NATO war (Score:2)
Impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
But that is the kind of thing that is going to be critical now that initial lessons have been learned and Russians aren't doing those tens of kilometers long columns
Yeah, instead they are trying to cross the same river in the same place over and over.
Russia has a LOT to learn from this, their showing has been pathetic. Pathetic in terms of equipment, pathetic in terms of strategy, pathetic in terms of tactics, pathetic in terms of C&C, in fact it's hard to think of anything the Russian military did well here.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
That's what selling of cushy high paying officer jobs does to you. The problem is that when war tests those people and finds them lacking, they get purged and actually competent people step in to fill their shoes.
Which is one of the reasons why you're no longer hearing about all that many amazing successes and how Ukraine is winning the war any more. Russians are both now fighting a war that they actually know how to fight rather than try to adopt the Desert Storm v2 strategies AND a lot of the commanding o
Re:The first rule of EW warfare (Score:5, Informative)
A war is not a filtration system, in which the capable ones automatically survive and the dumbasses all die or get replaced. Some of the Russian Armed Forces most embarrassing blunders occurred months after the start of the war. A capable captain may still die, if he is sent to a doomed river crossing by an incompetent colonel. It's the average competence of a unit, which matters most, and a hefty dose of luck.
Regarding the current lack of "amazing successes": these were called "amazing" not because Ukrainians obliterated the Russian army. These were called "amazing", because western intelligence services expected the Ukrainian army to collapse within days, which they clearly did not. They still don't seem to collapse, but we got used to it and no longer call it "amazing". Given how Severodonietsk still hangs in there, I don't see much improvement on the Russian side.
Re: (Score:1)
Would the fact that Ukrainian army went through the exact same process in 2014 change your mind, or the fact that it started off way, WAY worse than Russian army or would you still continue to deny reality?
Because Ukrainian officers didn't just install shitty wheels to pocket the difference as Russian did. They sold vehicles entirely, either whole or as spare parts or worst of all, for scrap. That was a huge problem for their military in 2014.
Today, these people have been purged, and actually competent offi
Re: (Score:2)
Would the fact that Ukrainian army went through the exact same process in 2014 change your mind,
Ukraine went through a complete reorganization (and got new equipment) in the last 7 years. Lower-level groups of soldiers have been given a lot more autonomy to make decisions. They can react immediately to changes on the battlefield (which is impossible with the kind of top-heavy military structure Russia has).
Russia needs to reorganize and retrain their military to operate differently. That sort of thing takes years, not months.
In some ways, Russia is performing better militarily than they did in the fir
Re: (Score:1)
And neither does China in fact neither does a Combined China and Russia... That is the echo of disappointment in the the fake American social media political agenda. They all wanted to ride the cesspool of social media "white privilege" for a while longer as their only hope of undermining the American government lays there.
Re: (Score:2)
Ukrainians are well aware, that much of their army assets existed in the form of oligarch's yachts and villas. These incompetent/corrupt people have been purged, but not while fighting a war and certainly not by dying in the 2014 war. The purge happened, when western nations took Ukraine under their wings afterwards and helped them get their act together. Ukraine was willing to accept this, since they just witnessed, what their current mess got them into. Putin with his unchecked aggressive stance unintenti
Re:The first rule of EW warfare (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I didn't state it clearly enough at the start that what we see in the West is carbon copy of etc Ukrainian propaganda channels. I.e. talking about successes of Ukrainian military and complete silence on successes of Russians. And then I talked about some examples of successes of both, because I also follow a lot of Russian propaganda channels.
My filters are that I follow everyone and there's nothing but propaganda left. Times of early war when Ukrainian Territorial Defense grunts and civilians as w
Re: (Score:2)
All sides are heavy on the propaganda in this war. Russia, Ukraine, US, EU - all of them. I'd take anything anyone says with an unhealthily heavy dose of salt.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, It's anther "both sides are the same"
In the aspect that they're both trying to control the narrative and their battlefield reports are not reliable, yes.
Or do you honestly want to claim that every Ukraine report on the war is 100% accurate and reliable? Of course not.
Saying that both sides in a war engage in propaganda is essentially claiming that water is wet. Of course they do. That's SOP.
Re: (Score:2)
You're answering to bullshit you're making up. Nowhere did I claim that they are "the same". I merely said that they're both not telling the whole truth. Anything else you try to argue with is entirely in your own head, so go argue there, with yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
"On Ukraine's battlefields, the simple act of powering up a cellphone can beckon a rain of deathly skyfall," reports the Associated Press. "Artillery radar and remote controls for unmanned aerial vehicles may also invite fiery shrapnel showers."
If true: Isn't this a simple way to get the Russians to use up all their munitions and/or get Russian drones to return to base for re-arming?
Re: (Score:2)
Two assumptions in this question: Russians are short on artillery units and/or their munitions and drones to the point where they don't rotate them for 24/7 coverage of relevant areas.
Well, closer to about 16/7, since neither party is good at night fighting, and there's currently about 16 hours of daylight available in Severodonetsk.
Re: (Score:2)
Now newspapers are starting to actually report that Ukraine isn't doing so well.
Which newspaper?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
During the first phase, western media heavily concentrated on events around Kyiv and to some extent Charkiv, so most people here missed the Russian advances in the Donbass. These did happen during the "first phase", but nobody really looked. That "first phase" did not only leave some parts of Ukraine in ruins, the Russians also wasted some of their most capable airborne units, e.g. the Kostroma regiment.
The Russian army now makes less progress in the Donbass than they made during the first two months of the
Re:The first rule of EW warfare (Score:5, Informative)
NATO didn't push for expansion. The former Eastern Bloc, once free, decided that they couldn't trust Russia further they could spit than a two-headed rat. And NATO agreed Russia couldn't be trusted to leave the newly freed countries as free because their success showed up the dumpster fire that is Russia. So NATO agreed to accept them rather than turn them over what is happening to Ukraine now.
Re: (Score:2)
Things like "origins of war" matter only when war is not being conducted.
During the war, those things are largely irrelevant. What matters is reaching a satisfactory outcome to said war. Then you can figure out "whys" and "whos" of said war.
Re: (Score:3)
Peace through war is not something reached through mutual understanding. It's reached through sufficient removal of opponent's ability to fight through military actions.
Peace during peacetime is indeed in part reached through mutual understanding. This is why I specifically delineated "during the war" as the fundamental supposition behind my claim. Peacetime and wartime have fundamentally different rules.
Re:The first rule of EW warfare (Score:5, Informative)
I'm foregoing mod points so hopefully others can mod you down into oblivion for your continued stupidity.
and while West is mostly Ukrainian propaganda
Um yeah, of course. Seeing the outstanding performance of the Ukrainian military and its people against the anemic, pathetic, inept Russian military, the failures and incompetence of Russia will be put on full display.
A good example of just how dominant Russians are in some aspects of information warfare is their ridiculous efficiency at killing foreign mercs flooding in early on with cruise missiles.
No. Just, no. Russia was never "dominant" in information warfare. That so called "efficiency" has a 60% failure rate and only hit a literal handful of such targets early on. There is only one known instance of a staging area being hit where foreign fighters were stationed. Since then, not only have the number of cruise missiles launched significantly declined to almost nothing, more of them are either being shot down, missing their intended target, or are being deliberately targeted on civilians. In fact, by all accounts, Russia has burned through the vast majority of its stocks of cruise missiles and thanks to sanctions, is unable to replenish that supply in any meaningful way.
Had Russia been "dominant" in the early stages of their invasion they wouldn't have left intact so much Ukrainian AA equipment, supply depots and such. Also, had Russia not been deliberately targeting hospitals, schools, and churches, they could have used those cruise missiles on military targets.
Basically they had near total penetration of cellular communications across Ukraine
No, they didn't. Ukrainians were able to make phone calls at will describing locations of Russian troops which the Ukrainian military then targeted. In one instance, a guy called up the Ukrainian military and had an artillery strike rain down on his own home [newsweek.com] because there were Russian troops staged there [mediumpublishers.com]. You'll note in the article the Russians were confiscating cell phones. If they had "near total penetration" of cellular services in Ukraine there wouldn't be a need to confiscate anything. They could simply cut the service.
There's also a lot of more direct warfare things like the fate of the S-300 that came from Slovakia. That one survived for about a week before Russian aerial reconnaissance found it, and there's Russian drone footage of it being bombed.
Post or that's blatant Russian propaganda. Because guess what, whatever Russia thought it hit wasn't that system [republicworld.com]. Of course Russia would claim it hit that specific system because it doesn't like that Ukraine is destroying Russian troops left and right with all the equipment flooding in, especially since its planes keep getting shot down. Which is the reason there was no fly over [businessinsider.com] during the May 9th victory parade. Russia has lost so many jets, it didn't want to spare any for a ceremony.
What you were probably thinking of was the Russian major general in the air force who was killed a week after coming out of retirement [yahoo.com].
But that is the kind of thing that is going to be critical now that initial lessons have been learned
No they haven't. Russia has learned nothing from every single mistake they've made since the start of their invasion. Correction, one thing was learned. Since their military is comple
Re: (Score:2)
And as a follow up to my comment about Russia being unable to suppress Ukrainian artillery, today's report from ISW [understandingwar.org] has a statement from a pro-Russian blogger about this very fact:
Russian milblogger and Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) serviceman Maksim Fomin (Vladelen TatarZkiy) claimed that Russian infantry is still unable to successfully maneuver because Russian forces have not fully suppressed Ukrainian artillery.[25] Fomin added that Russian forces struggle to locate Ukrainian artillery due to a lack of necessary equipment (such as radar and drones) and poor communication between Russian artillery and reconnaissance units.
Re: The first rule of EW warfare (Score:3)
How could cell phones not be jammed? (Score:2)
I would have thought that would be relatively easy? Blast out a lot of noise all over the spectrum. Maybe using a crude spark gap system?
Re: (Score:1)
Several generals were taken out due to conversations on open cell communications.
This was true in the early weeks around Kiev, when the Russian soldiers packed dress uniforms and decade old food rations.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
>Um yeah, of course. Seeing the outstanding performance of the Ukrainian military and its people against the anemic, pathetic, inept Russian military, the failures and incompetence of Russia will be put on full display.
And yet, that's not what I see on pro Russian channels like https://t.me/milinfolive [t.me]. They actually have large amount of videos every day of Russian successes.
But if I want to see Western news, I don't need to go far. They just copy/paste twitter, which in turns mostly copy pastes Ukrainia
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, that's not what I see on pro Russian channels
How stupid do you have to be, to be surprised "Pro Russian channels" Show Russian propaganda and lies...
They actually have large amount of videos every day of Russian successes.
I'm sure they do.
And if you're one of the first 10 callers. You can pick up 2 bridges, for the price of 1.
Call now, operators are standing by.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they finally let you out of lockdown, that you suddenly appear to troll me again, my dear personal troll who named himself after me?
Did news of how badly the Ukraine war is going for Russia reach comrade Xi yet, or is he still unware, just like he was unaware of blackouts across PRC for months because no one dared to take the bad news to him?
Radio signals (Score:1)
The problem with drones is that their radio signal can be jammed (goodbye video feed). Of course, a radio jammer is a good candidate for an anti-jammer missile [wikipedia.org]. But then the drone can be targeted with an anti-radiation missile, too.
Ultimately humans will not be replaced by drones until we solve the radio problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately humans will not be replaced by drones until we solve the radio problem.
A few years ago, a computer beat a 9-dan Go master.
Don't worry about the drones. They'll be fine without us.
Re: (Score:2)
ok, but that's still future theoretical. It's not here today. It likely won't be here for a decade at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, a radio jammer is a good candidate for an anti-jammer missile [wikipedia.org].
Question: How much do jammers cost compared to anti-jammer missiles?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends how much range you want them to have. This is true for both jammers and missiles.
Things are still being developed of course, but I would guess that they will cost about the same at the end of the day.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with drones is that their radio signal can be jammed
The problem with jammers is that they're easily defeated. High gain antennas blind the receiver to the jammer unless the jammer is in the receiver antenna lobe.
Another problem with jammers is that they're easy to detect and thus vulnerable to attack.
Do drones need radio at all? (Score:2)
They fly out, take photos, fly back.
Just dead reckoning would get them over targets.
And the AI is getting much better. Certainly to navigate over terrain. Not sure about identifying targets in the presence of decoys.
Re: Radio signals (Score:3)
War has changed (Score:3)
In the olden days the sergeant said: "Don't light a cigarette, the sniper will get you."
Now he says: "Don't troll on the internet, the missile will get you. And us."
Starlink (Score:2)
keep those terminals powered down when possible
UUCP is back, baby!
This is only the beginning (Score:2)
An expanded NATO with Finland and Sweden will have even more tools.
The sooner Russia surrenders, the better for them.