KRET system able to jam, spoof or otherwise confuse Aegis?

[Triton]

"Jammed Up"
Nov 25, 2014 by Michael Fabey in Ares

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/blog/navweek-jammed

As the U.S. Navy’s vaunted Aegis combat system continues to shine during missile tests – especially for ballistic missile defense (BMD) – the system itself has become a target. For some, the best way to earn sea credit these days is to tarnish the gold-plated standard of shipboard electronic defense.

The latest contender is the Russian company Kret, which says its gear made it possible for an aircraft to foil an Aegis-equipped destroyer during an at-sea confrontation a few months ago.

Kret’s system aboard a Russian Su-24 was able to jam, spoof or otherwise confuse a Lockheed Martin Aegis combat system aboard the destroyer USS Donald Cook during an April encounter in the Black Sea, says Igor Nasenkov, Kret first deputy general director.

“We got one up on Lockheed,” Nasenkov tells NavWeek.

Kret’s success, he says, has made its equipment and systems quite the desired commodity, especially in places like the Asia-Pacific region, where the U.S. is making a concerted effort to re-establish its military presence.

Lockheed has deferred questions about the situation to the U.S. Navy, whose very short and strong response was: “No. That did not happen.”

Some might conclude that such a response would be exactly what might be expected, whether the Russian claim is true or not. But it’s been my experience that such a quick and to-the-point reply to such a query is very rare. Usually, the response is more along the lines of something like: “The U.S. Navy does not discuss the operations of its deployed vessels, but we have complete faith in the ships and their capabilities.”

That’s a far cry from: “No. That did not happen.”

Quietly, others somewhat familiar with the situation and the systems have called the Russian claims “propaganda.”

Consider some of the reporting in the Russian press soon after the incident, which said the Cook’s crew was “demoralized” and 27 U.S. sailors “resigned” because they were “terrified.”

First of all, the U.S. Navy is not WalMart – sailors simply cannot quit because they have to go to work in an unsafe neighborhood.

And anyone who has ever spent ANY time with U.S. sailors at sea on a destroyer – or any other ship for that matter – cannot imagine those men and women being “demoralized” by anything of this sort. Ticked off? You bet. Resolved to never let it happen again? Indeed. And that’s IF the scenario played out as it was reported.

To be honest, the only folks who REALLY know what happened are those who were aboard the Cook or in the Russian aircraft. Perhaps the Cook’s crew was simply playing possum, to collect their own intel at the time.

For, as Nasenkov explains, it’s always a cat-and-mouse game on the open seas in these electronic warfare battles, with both sides taking turns playing the different roles.

 

[RyanC]

You're not going to seriously spoof a radar that can output up to 5 MW peak power. At best, you'll be able to increase the uncertainty regarding the target track resolution; but that uncertainty is going to be not that large.

 

[bobbymike]

We can defeat stealth
Our tanks are indestructible
Our fighters can out dog fight any US jet
Our subs cannot be detected
Our ICBMs can defeat any BMD.............

 

[flateric]

KRET is slightly more than 'a company'

http://kret.com/en/about/info/

 

[stealthflanker]

Can't believe that "story" made it through aviationweek... I think it's been debunked long time ago.

 

[Ronny]

Consider how resistant to jamming SPY-1 is, this su-24 incident is extremely impossible.
SPY-1 has shown that it is capable of burn through jammer with power equal 32 EA-6B

 

[Scott Kenny]

You're not going to seriously spoof a radar that can output up to 5 MW peak power. At best, you'll be able to increase the uncertainty regarding the target track resolution; but that uncertainty is going to be not that large.

Not without an equally powerful jammer signal, at least. (well, okay, jammer at least 1/4 the output of the radar, because inverse square rule sucks)

 

[stealthflanker]

If jamming were to be applied to Phased array, one wont rely on brute force but deception or mass amount of decoys. The deception jammer would be smarter and wont rely on raw power.

Like the scenario above indicates barrage noise jamming in standoff scenario where the jammer are far from the target, this will put some disadvantage in the jammer that it more likely illuminate the sidelobe of the radar, where the effectivenss of the noise diminish.

If it can get inside the mainlobe however, things will depend on target RCS. the smaller the lower the "burn through" range

 

[Ronny]

If it can get inside the mainlobe however, things will depend on target RCS. the smaller the lower the "burn through" range

Even If the jammer in the main lobe, wouldn’t the PESA/AESA radar just steer the null toward the jammer location?.
I also feel like the ratio between ( the Jamming signal of 32 standoff EA-6B)/ (radar return of BQM-74) would still be many time greater than ( the jamming signal of ALE-70)/ (radar return of F-35). In other words, I feel like it is harder to pick up normal target protected by the standoff KC-135 than it is to pick up stealth target protected by small self protection jammer

 

[JohnCitizen]

Consider how resistant to jamming SPY-1 is, this su-24 incident is extremely impossible.
SPY-1 has shown that it is capable of burn through jammer with power equal 32 EA-6B
View attachment 712962View attachment 712961
View attachment 712963

I know that test facility well--the AEGIS bridge in a field in New Jersey. Driven by it quite a few times, I believe while TDY to MacGuire AFB when I was in the AF. Pretty sure if memory serves me that the facility is in the general vicinity of MacGuire (southern NJ).

 

[Scott Kenny]

Even If the jammer in the main lobe, wouldn’t the PESA/AESA radar just steer the null toward the jammer location?.
I also feel like the ratio between ( the Jamming signal of 32 standoff EA-6B)/ (radar return of BQM-74) would still be many time greater than ( the jamming signal of ALE-70)/ (radar return of F-35). In other words, I feel like it is harder to pick up normal target protected by the standoff KC-135 than it is to pick up stealth target protected by small self protection jammer

On another thread here talking about jamming, a poster showed the math.

You really do get better protection from a tiny towed jammer/decoy than you do from a huge RC-135 standoff jammer. Order of magnitude better protection, burn-through at 230km from standoff versus 20ish km towed.

 

[Ronny]

On another thread here talking about jamming, a posted showed the math.

You really do get better protection from a tiny towed jammer/decoy than you do from a huge RC-135 standoff jammer. Order of magnitude better protection, burn-through at 230km from standoff versus 20ish km towed.

That poster is me, this thread make me tried to do the math

 

[Scott Kenny]

That poster is me, this thread make me tried to do the math

That math blew my mind, it was NOT what I was expecting!