Russian Army Upgrades Its Inflatable Weapons

jamax writes "According to the BBC: 'The Russian military has come up with an inventive way to deceive the enemy and save money at the same time: inflatable weapons. They look just like real ones: they are easy to transport and quick to deploy. You name it, the Russian army is blowing it up: from pretend tanks to entire radar stations.' But the interesting thing is these decoys are not dumb - actually they appear to be highly advanced for what I thought was a WWII-grade aerial photography countermeasures. Apparently they have heat signatures comparable with the military tech they represent, as well as the same radar signature."

Comments

So...

[the_one_wesp]

This is kinda like when I used to create decals of myself and spray them all around the Counter Strike maps.

Thanksgiving

[Anonymous Coward]

I want something like this I can send in my stead to my mother-in law's for Thanksgiving.

Re:Thanksgiving

[Chris Burke]

"Is that really Johnny? He isn't moving or talking or eating."

"Well, you know the old saying. If it looks like a duck, and it has the same heat and radar signature as a duck, then it's probably a duck."

"You're right. I'm sorry Johnny!"

Re:Special Points

[the_one_wesp]

Normally, yes, but YOU don't.

Better still

[pablo_max]

Inflate them with poison gas. Then, it really is a weapon. Without, isnt really just an inflatable replica and not a weapon?

Re:Better still

[qoncept]

Yeah, except they, you know, agreed not to.

Re:Better still

[JWSmythe]

The proper word is "decoy".

    It's a very valid strategy too. If there are 2 or 3 real targets, they may be easy to neutralize. What if those targets became 3000? You'll have an awful lot of your resources spread out to blow up non-targets. After a while, morale can stop dropping when the troops are sent out on yet another mission to blow up a balloon. And that can be dangerous. Thinking that they're "neutralizing" another balloon, and running into a real armed battalion would be a disaster.

    The same applies to all kinds of other scenarios.

    Decoys are useful for lots more than just defensive purposes. If intelligence says an area is occupied, and you're trying to pull a group out quietly, they may be diverted around such decoys, and right into a bigger trap.

    But, if the decoys can be identified, that may not prove anything. 2000 decoy units and 3 real units, you could assume that the real units are protecting the places of value, right? Not necessarily. They only need to be close enough to react. So you have a real unit in front of Bunker A, and decoys in front of Bunkers B and C, you wouldn't necessarily want to attach Bunker A.

Re:Better still

[Scrameustache]

Inflate them with poison gas. Then, it really is a weapon. Without, isnt really just an inflatable replica and not a weapon?

And why would it need to be a weapon when its purpose is to make it hard for the enemy to know real information about your asset's numbers and positions?
Put down the comic books and pick up the Art of War.

Re:Better still

[Wyatt Earp]

Except Minuteman were never railroad deployed.

They were always road delivered to silos.

And since railhubs were always 2nd and 3rd tier targets right after C3, nuclear bases and air fields, having them hidden in the rolling stock of the US wasn't that much of a decoy.

Russia on the other hand was better suited to hiding things out in the boondocks on rail sidings.

Re:Better still

[JWSmythe]

    That's only one up to the better hiding spots, the highways.

    There was an article not long ago about the DoD was transporting something secret. They opted to use plain white trailers on regular tractor trailer rigs. They'd load one up, and send a dozen or so trucks out at the same time from what was already a busy location.

    The problem with doing something like SAMs (or worse, the Minuteman's) would be that they would be a huge problem if there were an accident. But as far as targets go, how many tractor trailers are on or off the road?

    But, isn't masquerading military forces as civilians against some pesky rule of war?

Re:Better still

[sumdumass]

Your statement is generally true with an exception. I used to drive truck and got one of these loads (probably a decoy load). I wnet through a scale house and got poped for a random inspection and they wanted to open the cargo doors. I called the 800 number to declare the seal was being broken and before I got off the phone about 4 black SUVs entered the parking lot and stopped the inspection. Of course they claimed they were looking from something in another truck and required all the resorces of the DOT officers, but I suspected it was something different as the weight on the Bill of lading didn't seem to match the weight that was in the trailer.

As for the rules of war, Well they only apply once you are in an actual war. We wouldn't technically be in a war until invaded or congress declared war and the battlefield came to the homeland. Once war broke out in the area, then the rules of war would apply.

It's one of those depends on what the meaning of "is" is things.

Re:Better still

[sumdumass]

A few things to note about the class 7 Radio Active placards. If you are in a large city, often the law requires the truck to take a bypass route unless they are delivering inside the city, then you must take the most direct route to the destination. This is true for all Placarded Trucks and in most cases, even non-placarded Hazmat loads. (yes, there are some loads (or there were 10-15 years ago) that contain hazardous materials but not in a quantity to require being placarded but you had to otherwise follow the hazardous material routes.

The other thing is that certain types of X-ray films will require a 7.1 radioactive placard. I'm pretty sure they got rid of subclass placards for radioactive so it would just be a "7 radio active" placard now. I also had an old bomber sight from an some WWII bomber that was actually radioactive. I found it in a garage where I moved to and found out it was radioactive when attempting to see what it might be worth. I was able to FedEX it to a museum that handled it from there. Strangely, it was going to cost around $2500 to dispose of it, I couldn't legally sell it, and the museum took it for free but I had to pay an additional $10 to ship it to them.

Anyways, I figured I would mention that so you would know that simply staying off the outer belts of most large cities would be enough to avoid the class 7 placarded trucks and even if you get close to one, it's quite possible- actually more likely, that it is because of any number of relatively harmless materials in comparison. But yea, I agree, I wouldn't be following one either just because of what it might actually be.

In Soviet Russia,

[fridaynightsmoke]

In Soviet Russia, tank.. erm .. you blow up .. er... never mind.

beware

[Lord Ender]

Spies beware: the facilities which house the inflatable weapons will be guarded around-the-clock by vicious balloon dogs.

"Quaker guns"

[tibbetts]

The Confederates did something like this in the early days of the US Civil War--they painted logs to look like cannons, and they often succeeded in fooling Union surveillance. Why "Quaker" guns? Because the Quakers were (and are) avowed pacifists (except for the one who was elected President of the US). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker_Gun

Re:"Quaker guns"

[Nidi62]

Inflatable and cardboard tanks were used along with fake radio broadcasts and intentional disinformation by double agents to help trick the Germans to believing that the Allies, led by Patton, were going to invade France via Calais(where the Channel is most narrow) instead of at Normandy. This actually caused the Germans to locate a significant number of men and tanks in the Calais region. I believe some units were actually pulled from Normandy to bolster the defenses at Calais.

Hmmmm

[arcite]

So one bullet to one of these 'death balloons' and all those scary Russians would die from their own Super EVIL WEAPON. Sounds brilliant!

Re:decoys have been arond for awhile

[LetterRip]

Looks like reasonable radar decoys have been around for 24 years

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/H000308.html

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5786786.html

Kinda like Quaker Guns from the US Civil War

[stevegee58]

Run out of ammo, paint logs black, prop them on a wall pointed at the enemy, retreat, profit!

Re:still might not be cost effective

[qoncept]

When do they roll out the inflatable MIRV?

Pffft. Where's the inflatable Death's Head? Go big or go home.

No Tracks

[Nidi62]

Tanks, S-300s, and other large military equipment tend to leave tire and, well, track tracks. Especially when in large numbers, these tracks can easily be identified through daylight reconnaissance photos. If a whole company or division of tanks pops up out of nowhere, with no evidence of them being moved to that position, it's going to raise some big flags. Hawkeyes and other aerial radar systems can easily track ground vehicles. They will have no record of these formations being moved into position.

I see this more like something China, North Korea, or Iran would use to inflate(no pun intended for once) force estimations. Park them alongside a couple real tanks or launchers, and all of a sudden a tank company turns into a battalion.

Not new

[KDN]

This is not new. Back when I was in ROTC (the 1980's), I recall an article where photorecon people found out that they were duped. They assumed that a set of nuclear subs were berthed for a long period of time for repairs. A storm came through and bent one of the "submarines". So the presumption was that the Soviets knew when our sats went overhead and between the times they set sail on one sub and inflated another in its place. So the Soviets had a sub patroling somewhere unknown because we thought it was in for repairs.

Explosive gases

[British]

Better yet, inflate them with explosive gases. Something shoots at them, they blow 'up real good.

Probably the response to that would be to drop flachettes everywhere. Anything that doesn't pop when is real.

New????

[grandpa-geek]

In World War II there was an entire army of inflatable weapons in England right across from Calais, France. Its purpose was to convince the Germans that the invasion would come at that point. It really came at Normandy.

During the invasion they even dropped chaff over the Channel near the fake army to make the Germans think the invasion was happening there. Both sides had radar, but the secret was that the Allies had microwave radar and not just VHF radar. The chaff looked like an invasion fleet to the radar.

As part of the ruse, they had General Patton running around inspecting the "troops" and getting them ready for the invasion.

huge market

[greywire]

I bet there'd be a huge market for these! What boy wouldn't want an inflatable rocket launcher? I know I do!

Already thought of

[SmallFurryCreature]

Gosh, the Russian army better give up. Some slashdot geek has thought of the ultimate hole in their camouflage. Tracks! Who would have thought!

Except that they already knows this, and use weedwhackers and torches to create the various effects of a tank on the landscape. Very clever those military people. Almost like they know what they are doing.

That is why they also forbid the local kids from using them as bouncy castles. Would ruin the effect.

Re:Already thought of

[Nidi62]

Look at the other part of my post. The radar signatures of the vehicles making the tracks won't be the same as the number of tanks they are trying to simulate. Aerial radar platforms keep records of what they track and can easily tell that the tracks have been fabricated.

Re:Already thought of

[cptdondo]

But... A lot psy-ops goes into these decoys. They're meant to confuse, delay, etc.

OK, you know that 10 planes on the airstrip are real, and 30 are fake. But the pilot who's trying to take them out will have flak, AAA, all sorts of things getting thrown at him. The decoys will be positioned to look like the more promising targets of opportunity. With the same infrared and radar signature, it's hard to pick out the ones you want.

Better yet, move 10 real units into place. Camouflage them. Now blow up 10 decoys next to them. What will the pilot/gunner hit?

The decoys are just one small part of the overall picture. Google for CCD - Camouflage, Concealement, and Deception.

Aha!

[gklinger]

I thought the current estimates of Russian military spending were inflated.

Re:still might not be cost effective

[couchslug]

"if they cost 1% of the price of the real thing, they are in the same price range as the weapons aimed at them, plus they still need soldiers and support."
They are much less expensive than an (accurate) enemy airstrike. A sortie that hits a tanker, perhaps two or three times, delivers ordnance on the dummy target, then returns to base eats up fuel, resources and MANY man-hours that could be used elsewhere.

Re:Yes they are.

[ColdWetDog]

Correction: They are dumb.

Let's be PC here. I believe the proper term will be 'militarily challenged'.

What?

[argStyopa]

No post about the "ballooning" military budget?

Re:I volunteer

[oldspewey]

When the writhing mass of snakes reflects light from certain angles, yes, you could call her a redhead.

Re:Gen Turgidson

[brusk]

After the Cold War, the CIA's estimates of Soviet balloon superiority turned out to be inflated.

Re:Sounds Fishy...

[totally bogus dude]

Probably because they export them to other nations that buy Russian military hardware. Harder to sell things when nobody knows about them.

Plus, for their purpose, having everyone know you have very realistic decoys is actually a good thing. Making people assume the real hardware you're looking at is probably just another fake is just as good as having them think the fake you're looking at is real.