Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications The Military

Russian Arms Manufacturer Developing Tech To Hunt Starlink Dishes (pcmag.com) 129

Posted by BeauHD from the search-and-destroy dept.
schwit1 shares a report from PC Magazine with the caption, "More Russian vaporware?" From the report: A Russian arms manufacturer claims it can help the country's military detect and bombard Starlink satellite dishes, which have been crucial to the defense effort in Ukraine. Earlier this month, a mysterious company called Sestroretsk Arms Factory published a website that debuted the "Borshchevik" or "hogweed" system, which is designed to locate Starlink dishes at a distance of up to 10 kilometers (6.2 miles). The technology can supposedly pinpoint a Starlink dish within 5 to 60 meters (16 to 196 feet) of its actual location. In addition, it can be fitted on top of a moving vehicle, allowing it to detect Starlink activity across the front lines on a battlefield.

However, it's unclear how the Borshchevik system actually works or if it's even effective. News of the technology was posted on a Telegram channel called "Reverse Side of the Medal," which seems to be closely associated with the Russian military, including the paramilitary Wagner Group. The user behind the Reverse Side of the Medal channel said they plan on testing the Borshchevik system on the frontlines in Russia's ongoing war with Ukraine.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russian Arms Manufacturer Developing Tech To Hunt Starlink Dishes More

Russian Arms Manufacturer Developing Tech To Hunt Starlink Dishes

Comments Filter:

  • At least they aren't shooting down the satellites.

    • Re:At least.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by jonathantn ( 6373084 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @05:21AM (#63147186)
      Ground stations are a huge vulnerability right now until the laser links are available on all satellites. The ground stations are not located in Ukraine, but they are also well know locations at this point. I hope there is serious 24/7 security on all the ground stations providing connectivity to Ukraine. With missiles now targeting deeper into Russia though, it's probably only a matter of time before a hypersonic missile is used to target the Starlink ground stations as this war escalates further.

      • Re:At least.. (Score:4, Informative)

        by sxpert ( 139117 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @05:25AM (#63147188)

        they don't care about the ground stations, they want to shoot at the command centers of the UA army

        • Re:At least.. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Brandano ( 1192819 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @05:37AM (#63147194)

          I am pretty sure it would be trivial to create starlink antenna decoys, so it soon becomes a matter of how much a strike costs vs how many targets you have, and how to ensure you are not bombing your own troops.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Hard to imagine that a decoy that put out suitable signals would be cheaper than an actual terminal.

            • Decoys don't have to be nearly as robust in building quality.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                Have you seen a Starlink terminal? They aren't exactly military grade.

                • Re: At least.. (Score:5, Interesting)

                  by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @07:08AM (#63147290) Homepage

                  The more compelling argument is economy of scale. Starlink buys millions of antennas, and somebody buying only a few thousand units won't get the same economies -- or amortization of non-recurring effort -- that Starlink can.

                  On the other hand, if it is cheaper to use an actual Starlink terminal, the Russians shouldn't be able to distinguish a decoy from the real thing without some kind of traffic analysis. I bet that's the kind of thing that Musk would find fun to (have his coders) implement countermeasures for. If the Russians are looking for certain traffic levels, make the decoys send similar amounts of power to imaginary satellites, or whatever.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by gweihir ( 88907 )

              They do not have to be. But all the other stuff (computers, people, etc.) will not be there with a decoy and also no need for an actually working Internet connection. As long as they are not much more expensive than the real things, decoys for communication stations do work pretty well.

              • Put out RF signals on the same frequencies at a low power, making the detector think it is close to an antenna. I seriously doubt it is distinguishing a carrier wave from the real thing by decoding the signals. Probably just driving around with a signal analyzer waiting for a familiar pattern to appear.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                Why would you bother if they are more expensive?

                Is there a shortage of terminals?

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by gweihir ( 88907 )

                  Several factors. One is endurance and power. Another one is simulating activity. It really depends on how realistic it has to be. Of course, the overall set-up will always be massively cheaper, but the decoy could realistically be more expensive than the blank dish is and still be very worthwhile.

          • Just make more terminals. Think of the costs of most military hardware, then compare to the costs of the terminals. To say if someone want to but an extra 10,000 terminals it would be a one line entry on any military list and probably the cheapest one too.

        • they want to shoot at the command centers of the UA army

          They would be foolish to co-locate their command post with an uplink. Even radios are routinely remotely sited and connected to the CP with a wire link.

        • Ground stations are a huge vulnerability right now until the laser links are available on all satellites. The ground stations are not located in Ukraine, but they are also well know locations at this point. I hope there is serious 24/7 security on all the ground stations providing connectivity to Ukraine. With missiles now targeting deeper into Russia though, it's probably only a matter of time before a hypersonic missile is used to target the Starlink ground stations as this war escalates further.

          they don't care about the ground stations, they want to shoot at the command centers of the UA army

          I'd be seriously surprised if StarLink ground stations and UA Army commanders are co-located within the same 60 meter circle That's a mistake the Russian army has already made numerous times and everybody else has learned from. The Ukrainians would be better off using some kind of physical cable link to connect the StarLink stations to whoever needs them, locate them off site and then constantly move the StarLink stations around. And yeah, the Russians do care about the ground stations since they are widely

          • Re:At least.. (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Luckyo ( 1726890 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @07:24AM (#63147322)

            Considering the usage, the issue isn't so much the command post as extreme reliance on real time communications lines for force multiplier by Ukrainians. Force those away from the front lines, and much of the force multiplier is gone.

            We've already seen this in action where their own troops advance past geofencing requested by Ukrainians to ensure that Starlink terminals that fall to Russian hands don't get used against them without bureaucracy updating the maps to Starlink. And they just get hanged out to dry because without the communications they grew so reliant on, they get quickly isolated and either pushed back or destroyed.

            Also range of this thing isn't great as advertised already, and you need to mount it on a vehicle to boot. One of the special features of this conflict so far is that on much of frontlines, vehicles are not very survivable even when heavily armored. It's mainly a war of infantry and artillery.

      • It's not a huge hurdle to turn on Starlink lasers. Even if it requires deploying new satellites. Elon would do it just to middle finger Russians. (Just imagine the publicity!)

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by sxpert ( 139117 )

          doesn't matter, they're not looking for the satellites, but for the CPE antenna emissions. lasers between sats won't help

        • It's not a huge hurdle to turn on Starlink lasers.

          ZOMG, Starlink is run by the Jews??!?!?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Unless the Russian government does something to hurt his ego, its not very likely to happen.

          Remember that in more recent developments Musk has suggested Ukraine surrender annexed regions. Appeasement. That has always worked out great throughout history.

          There were also statements that StarLink is bleeding money by keeping Ukraine connected. Even more incentive for cutting the losses by having Ukraine lose instead of supporting a lengthy war until Russia either has exhausted their resources or the nukes r

          • Starlink as a supplier of pure internet will always be tenuous. It's far too expensive and has inherent delays compared to any physical wire based internet and backed with high capacity wifi. That means it's always going to be edge cases like RVs for people who like to go into the deep countryside much of the time (not even normal RVs which can use cellular). The Military "edge case" transforms this because people who need strategic communications are people with serious money. They will pay for the availa

          • Re: At least.. (Score:4, Interesting)

            by gtall ( 79522 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @08:45AM (#63147450)

            Elmo is not the only one advertising appeasement. So is Henry Kissinger. At least he was this week, last week he claimed there was no negotiations possible because Putin doesn't want them. Before that, he was advocating appeasement. It isn't clear he remembers what he says any longer. His greatest gift to the world was China and selling Taiwan down the river, so I don't think his opinion is based on much other than he likes to be the center of attention.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gmack ( 197796 )

            Keep in mind that Elon benefits greatly from the destruction of Roscosmos. The Starlink system costs the same whether Ukraine is connected or not. What Elon wanted was an income source, not the removal of Ukraine from Starlink.

            As for his appeasment vs nuclear war I consider that a reaction to Putin's threats of nuclear Armageddon. I strongly disagree, but he is entitled to his opinion.

            • Elon's plan was to re-run the fake referrendums with a new poll and have the two sides agree to abide by the poll results. We see how that worked out on Twitter ("only Donbass residents with verified blue check marks allowed to vote!").

        • Re: At least.. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot&worf,net> on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @07:51AM (#63147366)

          Elon would do it just to middle finger Russians. (Just imagine the publicity!)

          Why would Elon do this? He's already buddy-buddy with Putin, speaking to Putin before coming up with his oh-so-appreciated Ukraine-Russia Peace Plan [twitter.com] that basically gives Russia everything they wanted.

          I'm sure the only reason Starlink is heading to Ukraine is less Elon Musk and more SpaceX having the ability to do humanitarian aid despite Musk. After all, Musk tried to scuttle it by demanding the DoD fund all of the Starlink going to Ukraine - the hardware, the service and everything. And likely a few billion dollars he can then pass to Putin as a "sorry for the inconvenience".

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by gtall ( 79522 )

            While in many cases nationalization is a bad idea, in Elmo's case I'd support nationalizing him and sending him as the next Mars rover. We'll send along a scooter so he can move freely. Call home whenever you feel like it, Elmo.

          • The tweet content for reference. Elon Musk, October 3, 2022

            Ukraine-Russia Peace:
            - Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.
            - Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).
            - Water supply to Crimea assured.
            - Ukraine remains neutral.

            pool results attached to that tweet, 2,748,378 votes:
            'Yes' 40.9%
            'No' 59.1%

            • Tath he thinks Crimea belongs to Russia because of an annexation by Russia in 1783 as spoils of war with the Ottoman empire, he's a bit confused. By that logic, he'd want to return Serbia to Austrian control. Musk is not a stable genius, and yet so many people seem to think he is. He screwed up with PayPal, he joined Tesla and did nto create their technology, SpaceX mostly gets by because they reject Musk's attempts at micro-management, and you can see how utterly clueless he is with Twitter and his atte

      • The ground stations are all in NATO countries ... not a good idea to target them ...

  • Whoever dishes up an anti-starlink system will themselves be a target for HARM.

    • Whoever dishes up an anti-starlink system will themselves be a target for HARM.

      The difference in radiation output between an active radar and a Starlink dish are orders of magnitude. It's like the difference between a penlight and a light from a lighthouse.

      Further, it would be utterly foolish to waste something like a HARM on a satellite dish when the AA radar or tracking station is a much more ominous threat. Mortars or artillery are much more appropriate.

    • Re:In HARMs way (Score:5, Informative)

      by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @07:14AM (#63147302) Homepage

      HARMs go after radio transmitters. This system is almost certainly a passive receiver that is listening for transmissions from the Starlink terminals, so it isn't likely to be detectable by HARM.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        HARMs go after radio transmitters. This system is almost certainly a passive receiver that is listening for transmissions from the Starlink terminals, so it isn't likely to be detectable by HARM.

        Starlink devices are almost certainly going to be transmitters as well.

        However the problem with using HARMs is that they track specific frequencies (I.E. those used by RADAR), I'm pretty sure that Starlink will be using a common radio or laser frequency as required by every regulatory agency in the world (I.E. the FCC). So basically everything is using that freq, pick which one is your target.

        However I think this has a more mundane explanation. Russian arms manufacturer promises magic weapon with a i

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Entrope ( 68843 )

          Yes, Starlink terminals must transmit, but the earlier comment claimed that anti-Starlink systems would be susceptible to anti-radiation missiles, which is not necessarily true.

          Starlink user terminals transmit in the frequency ranges 14-14.5GHz (Ki band), 47.2-50.2GHz (V band), and 50.4-51.4GHz (also V band). These ranges are all reserved for Earth-to-satellite links, so they're a good sign that somebody is using a satellite comms system -- they won't be confused with WiFi or similar unlicensed devices.

  • So they will indiscriminately target Starlink dishes, including civilians using them I assume. Barbarians to the east yet againâ¦

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      First of all Starlink is not available to civilians in Ukraine. Especially on the frontline.

      Second, Russians already clearly put their strategy to reality, and that is to remove civilians from frontlines wholesale. Either you get out, or you get tortured, killed or vanished.

      • And you find Russia's tactics to be above board and in line with international norms? Cause it sounds like you're saying it's not barbaric to target these satellites because they already went with ethnic cleansing.

      • It's not true that starlink isn't available to civilians. They are using starlink to patch broken internet access in some areas, setup hotspots for people etc. also government is using it for some civilian purposes in areas where internet was knocked out. Maybe I misunderstand your second point here, like Ukrainians are to blame for getting hit by artillery because the Russians said 'we told you so' ?
  • Start making EM emitters faking Star Link traffic. A couple of thousands of those in the woods will make it very expensive to try to get the real one.

  • Using their numbers (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

    Hard to see this as very useful. You need to be less than 10km away, and stated accuracy is only about 50 meters. So you need to be well within accurate artillery fire range with a vehicle carrying this hardware.

    As Bakhmut story showed, vehicles actually have a really low survivability rate close to the frontline. Even armoured ones struggle. And I don't really see Starlink right at the front, it's probably going to be at least some distance away at the command posts.

    There may be some niche use, but unless

    • Not sure if it is even viable. Detecting an active sat terminal at 10km distance from a ground vehicle? The terminal radiates almost all of its energy up, all you’ll pick up is some scatter. And after detecting it you have to pinpoint it. You’re not doing that with a single vehicle, even pinpointing a broadcasting radio at that distance is hard enough.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        Russians have some of the best truck mounted electronic warfare units in the world. This is pretty much up their alley and quite believable considering already existing capacity.

        Their problem is that everyone else on their own side is so poorly equipped and trained, that when in early stages of the war those units jammed Ukrainians nearly totally, it also completely jammed all the friendly communications since appropriate radios that should've been equipped to everyone that would be allowed to function... w

        • It's true that the Russian army reportedly has a strong focus on EW. Jamming is a different game than pinpointing, though... If you're trying to detect or triangulate something, you're not going to get very far trying to pick up a signal that's under the noise floor. Picking up an active satcom terminal at 10km from a truck? That's hard enough with a geostationary system, even if your detection unit is to the south of the terminal (the direction it'll be pointed). LEO systems like Starlink will mostly

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            I already note why, and there are several reports on the topic. Russian military is highly disorganised and decentralized while very authoritarian in terms of command culture. Friendly jamming hits them hard, and breaks chain of command nearly totally, rendering many units utterly incapable of fighting.

            They were supposed to have been issued radios that would survive the jamming. But between low budgets and corruption on every level, almost no one has such radios.

  • If the Starlink satellites were causing problems for the Russians, then announcing a way to detect and target them through this service might make Ukrainians more reluctant to use them.

    If they had a functional way to attack the enemy without them knowing why they got targeted, what would be the benefit of announcing it? Typically, you want to keep your secret weapons, well, secret.

    Also, the source is someone with a Telegram channel which seems aligned with the Russian military. This is considered a legitima

  • ...the Russian army would be using it now, without the need to advertise on Telegram.
  • Vlad can find out which comrades are using un-firewalled Internet.
  • How hard is it to find and narrow the location of a Wifi hotspot with military surveillance tech. Yeah, that easy.

  • Young Boris Borislav with only a farming background hobbles together a Starlink detector using only washing machine parts and saves mother russia from the nazi invaders, or something like that.

  • Russian Cope (Score:3)

    by nealric ( 3647765 ) on Wednesday December 21, 2022 @10:20AM (#63147682)

    The Russian army is full of stories of theoretically high-tech weapons and countermeasures that are almost never seen on the actual battlefield (think T-14 Armata tank and the SU-75 stealth fighter). Their drones mostly consist of off the shelf DJI drones, rudimentary stuff leftover from the Soviet Union, or the Iranian suicide drones that are powered by weed whacker engines. They produce the high tech stuff in small numbers and don't have the ability to train their larger forces in its use and have limited spare parts/maintenance for them. So they tend to only show up in military parades as part of a propaganda and arms sales marketing campaign. The backbone of the Russian army remains built on equipment that wouldn't have been considered high tech during the cold war.

    I think any anti-Starlink countermeasures will be similar. They may make a few, but actually producing them in quantity, training troops in their use, and deploying them to the battlefield is a very different story.

  • Viasat with geostationary satellites will make the transceiver much harder to detect. Even just the parabolic dish throws much less signal around than a phased array, put the dish in an oil drum lined with microwave absorbing foam and it's better still.

  • Russia is not allowed to purchase starlink. They are also not allowed in locations that legitimately have starlink. So how do they test it? They don't!
  • Beam forming anyone?

    I may not be a radio expert, but
    1) the dishes are flat not curved
    2) they are a massive array of low power emitters.
    3) each emitter is extremely low power
    4) emitters in the edge are about signal cancellation, not signal boosting (I suspect this one as it is logical)
    5) the dishes emit signals in a pattern which provides maximum power in the specific direction of the receiver which at that latitude would be tilted a bit south.
    6) the shape of t

  • -IF- these things work, it will very likely either be by looking for sidelobes of the primary frequency or the wifi signal generated by the unit. Perhaps theoretically sniffing one or more secondary frequencies of RFI or harmonics generated by the Starlink units if one of those is particularly strong. As has already been mentioned, cheap simulators to fool and confuse could be made almost trivially. But more importantly, the Russian foxhunting units will likely have an RF signature all their own. Same reaso

  • If the Starlink detectors are small and cheap enough, why not just add them to those cheap Iranian style drones and program the drone to sweep / loiter over the area you think the terminals might be operating in. When the detector spots a terminal that's the drone's target, even if the target turns out to be false, well the cheap drone was going to land somewhere in the target / loiter area anyway.

  • We have missle to detect your detector truck.

  • ....Starlink Decoy Drones!

  • How is this system going to determine of the Starlink disk is for civilian or military use? They could just as easily bomb a hospital or school that's using Starlink for connectivity.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Facts are stupid things." -- President Ronald Reagan (a blooper from his speeach at the '88 GOP convention)

Close