Slashdot Mirror
North Korea Forced US Reconnaissance Plane To Land
First time accepted submitter ToBeDecided writes "A U.S. military reconnaissance plane was reportedly forced to perform an emergency landing during a major military exercise near the North Korean border in March. As revealed by the South Korean defense ministry, a strong signal transmitted from the north disrupted GPS in the area surrounding the position of the RC-7B aircraft. Without information about their position, the pilots were forced to abort their mission and return to South Korea. This raises the question whether the U.S. military would be able to perform operations in North Korea given how fragile their equipment seems to be."
This raises the question whether the U.S. military would be able to perform operations in North Korea given how fragile their equipment seems to be."
This says nothing about fragile equipment, this is about a jammer putting out a signal stronger than what is coming from the satellites above. The signal from the satellites is well known, and thus figuring out how to jam it is just a matter of signal strength and what type of jamming they want to do. Do they want to just bury the signal in noise, or are they trying to send false data to lure US and ROK units into NK air and sea space?
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
It's believable that the GPS system got disrupted, but it's hard to believe that this somehow forced them to land. If they were doing recon, then GPS is pretty critical so that they can exactly pinpoint what they're surveying. However, even the lowliest pilots can navigate without GPS (this is required to pass any level of flight school, let alone military-level). I can understand the mission being scrapped due to this type of disruption, but I can't believe that they were in any sort of danger.
The U.S. Army is the most powerful fighting force in the history of the world. An M1A2 tank is not fragile. The U.S.S. Enterprise in not fragile. The U.S. Marine Corps is anything but fragile.
Every time U.S. forces have come up against Soviet-doctrine troops and equipment in a regular battle (as opposed to a counterinsurgency campaign) after the Korean War ( a draw), the U.S. has soundly kicked their asses. The more technologically advanced the equipment, the less likely it has been to break down. "Smart" weapons of the 1970s were finicky and prone to failure; today's smart weapons are remarkably robust in comparison.
When U.S. forces went up up against the largest and best-equipped Arab army in the first Gulf War, they wiped them out. Read up on The Battle of 73 Easting, where U.S. 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment went up against the Iraqi Republican Guards (and their "robust" Soviet equipment) and absolutely destroyed them.
Lake of GPS would be a serious disadvantage...right up until the AGM-88 HARM took out the jamming stations. Which would probably be less than a hour after the strike packets were launched. If the U.S. can't rely on GPS, there are fallbacks (terrain mapping and getting coordinates from JSTARS come to mind).
With GPS, the U.S. military is the most formidable fighting force in the world. Without GPSstill the most formidable fighting force in the world.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
That eventuality is presumed within the question of "whether the US military would be able to perform operations in North Korea". The question being asked is whether or not, should the need arise, the US military would be able to function in or near North Korea given the situation described above. The "need arising" means war. So, yes, presumably in peactime North Korea is able to disrupt the navigation systems of US recon planes in the area, and removing that capability would be an act of war.
Should hostilities start, presumably those capabilities would be disabled (or at least such disabling would be attempted) and whether or not that would be an act of war would be a moot question-- else why is there a need for the US to "conduct operations" in North Korea?
I'm inclined to believe there's more to it than what's in the story. Military aircraft do not rely solely on GPS for guidance. Perhaps drones and missiles do, but piloted military aircraft have redundant systems for guidance, including a sextant. Why do you think all aircraft other than a few fighters have a pilot and copilot? The copilot can act as navigator, and most tactical aircraft also have a navigator in addition to the two pilots.
Of course, this being just a drill, they may have said "screw it" and just landed. Any real reconnaissance mission would have be continued using redundant systems.
Or, they may have wanted to give that dike looking Kim Jong-il a big head and make him think he made a state of the art US military aircraft run for the boarder.
Any way you look at it, unless he zapped the plane with an EMF pulse strong enough to knock out the avionics systems, there is no way he could have done anything electronically to make them have to perform an emergency landing.
Ditto for the military naval vessels. The civilian naval vessels, yeah, it's possible they don't have anything other than GPS.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
South Korea (and its allies, like the US and Japan) and North Korea are technically still at war with each other and people do occasionally get killed. So a lot of "acts of war" happen rather frequently. A more nuanced view IMHO is that this would be an unnecessary and risky escalation of a minor hostility.
Indeed. I would go so far as to say that this was actually a success.
The U.S. military now have better knowledge of the North Korea's capability and tactics. They now know that in the even of war, before the drop any GPS guided munitions, they now have the exact location of a target to take out.
This is no different to the old Soviet days, when US planes would test Soviet defenses, provoking a reaction to gain intelligence.
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
First because of all the claims "I've got a friend who..." has to be the least reliable form of evidence ever. Sorry, but the amount of made up shit out there is legendary, and gets worse in each retelling. It isn't just a story, it is hearsay of a story.
Then there's the fact that military radars don't work at 2.4GHz. If the S band was in heavy use for that, there would be problems with interference with other 2.4GHz devices. Military radar is mostly X band (8-12GHz). If you think that these things can't be designed to sniff for different ranges, you are kidding yourself.
Then there's signal strength. A microwave's magnetron is 1000 watts or so, and is not designed for directional transmission. Military radar is an order of magnitude above that or more. It is also steered directionally towards what you want (either mechanically or by phased arrays) to keep power dispersion down. A microwave would not show up at all the same as a military radar.
Finally there's the fact that, well, it clearly didn't do much even if it happened. Yugoslavia lost, rather badly, to nothing but an air war. They left Kosovo. It wasn't as though the NATO planes were befuddled and they had to send in ground troops. It was the first war where airpower alone did the trick.
Back on topic, that kind of thing would do jack and shit for the North Koreans with regards to GPS jamming. Not only does the signal need to be much more powerful, but it is the wrong band. GPS works in the L band. Building high power, L band decoys might work... But then those are probably effective jammers so no real difference.
They landed normally. It wasn't like the thing dropped out of the sky, they broke off and landed back at their base. They had to navigate to do that.
As I said in my other post, I'm sure it was for safety reasons and not crossing the border reasons that they called it off. Why take risks you don't have to in training?
I do wonder if the reason they aborted was simply because it was the easier thing to do. If North Korea are being dicks, it's far easier and less risky to just let them get on with it - so long as they're not doing anything more than just being a PITA.
I'm sure the crew of an RC-7B is actually more than capable of navigating without GPS, if they needed to. Pilots managed it for decades before GPS was invented. Sailors managed it for millennia.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
Because a minor navigational error during an exercise could cause an international incident. If we were at war, that would be irrelevant.
We've always been at war with North Korea.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Inertial guidance is nothing new, it was developed in the 1930s, German V1 and V2 missiles used it.
Two problems: it's less accurate and much more expensive than GPS. If you want military superiority you need both, Inertial guidance is for situations where GPS is jammed.
There are several other types of guidance systems, the US military has them all. One wonders about the wisdom of so much research on weapon systems, but it's a fact that it provides useful side-effects on civilian systems.
The Battle of Britain was in the summer of 1940. The first V-1s were launched shortly after D-Day in June 1944. The first V-2s were fired operationally several months later.
But then they'd probably be out of the area designated for the exercise. And, as another poster pointed out, it's common to abort exercises because of equipment failure, rather than keep using the failed equipment and make it harder to diagnose the fault. Part of the point of exercises is to check that everything is reliable. When you find something that isn't, you stop and fix it. In a war situation, you'd just switch to the backup system (INS in this case).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Suppose this is true as stated. When not in a state of war, if you are not certain about your position, you avoid if possible violating the other side's airspace - especially in a trigger-happy zone such as the Korean DMZ. So, I think that they probably did the right thing.
Now, suppose there had been a state of war. In that case, they wouldn't have been concerned about which side of the DMZ they were on, and having GPS jammed doesn't mean you can perform your missions (one of the first of which would presumably be to take out the GPS jammer radiating away down on the surface).
If you put that in hospitals et cetra then you will have no hospitals left.
The second you put military equipment there, then it is no longer "off limits".
May look bad for the attacking country, but it would be your hands on which that blood is spilled. If the enemy isn't bombing your hospitals and churches, then why give them a reason too. Unless you want your own civilians to die. That just makes you fucked up, to ensure the deaths of your own citizens, to make the other country look bad.
That makes YOU the war criminal.
Without information about their position, the pilots were forced to abort their mission and return to South Korea
My, what did pilots do before GPS?
Instead of being "forced to perform an emergency landing" it was probably more like they had the intel they needed and were done for the day.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Don't be stupid.
There is nothing random about targeting military equipment, jammers or otherwise.
There is nothing random about placing military equipment in a school, hospital, or other traditionally civilian structure.
If you don't want something blown up, don't put military equipment in it. Tying your civilian infrastructure to your military infrastructure is just plane stupid.
*sigh* back to work...
Almost all of the time. The US has by far the world's most powerful military, and has for over a half century. For over a century before that the US military was among the top 5, though probably actually still the most powerful since about the 1860s, but confined to North America. During that time the US has invaded only its neighbors to the west (native nations) and south (Spanish Mexico, and then Mexican Mexico), and not for a century now, and very occasionally small distant countries with either no substantial military (Grenada), or similarly sized military (Iraq, Nazi Germany), or substantial counter-insurgency communities (Vietnam, Afghanistan).
Yes, the US is at war (overt or covert) almost all of the time. But there have always been far more opportunities for the US to make war with its huge military and bloodthirsty population than it has exploited. During most of its history other nations with big militaries have made more war.
So while most of US history has featured acts of war by the US, that's just a small percentage of the time the US could have committed acts of war. Most of the time something's stopping us, because we aren't doing nearly as much as we could.
--
make install -not war
I agree. ALL aircraft have on-board inertial navigation systems as well. And when all else fails, a map and a compass works just fine too. I smell BS.
Agreed, plus this seems like a pretty dumb thing to do if they were ever planning a war, to show us all their new toys since now we know what they're capable of and can figure out a strategy. It's like they're showing us their cards, wouldn't a powerful GPS jammer be something they'd want to keep hidden? Pull out the GPS jammer when the GPS-guided tomahawk missiles are on their way, not when a reconnaissance plane is doing a annual drill.
I think it went like this:
Pilot: Command we're experiencing problems with GPS, some sort of interference
Command: Can you identify the source?
Pilot: Seems to be originating from NK
Command: Is it effecting your ability to fly?
Pilot: Negative
Command: Continue operations as scheduled and chart locations of interference so we can pinpoint jammer locations.
Pilot: Roger
Command: (We were only doing a yearly drill but NK gave us the exact location of their GPS jammers! NK you are very stupid)
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
We dictated what we kind of governance they can have, as is our right as conquerers in an unconditional surrender. Japan should be grateful we didnt just straight up annex them
Good-bye
And then after your country is bombed into the stone age anyway you will be prosecuted for war crimes.
Not necessarily. Haven't the fighters in the Gaza Strip successfully shot rockets from schools and other such places, and caused Israel to get all kinds of worldwide criticism when they fired upon those locations? I haven't heard of anyone in Hamas being prosecuted for war crimes.