h a l f b a k e r yThis would work fine, except in terms of success.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
This is a suite of delivery and sensor systems to provide
more-detailed, high resolution information on the
ground.
Firstly, deployed from a relatively high altitude are
surveillance and communications posts. These are
parachute delivered, self-erecting devices, perhaps 2m
tall, with 360
optical/IR/thermal vision, radar, audio.
Large enough to include a satellite uplink, adequate
power
(battery, fuel-cell, solar...etc). Deployed in large-enough
numbers and spread that the enemy might find and
destroy
many of them, but that they won’t get them all.
Secondly, a large number of small (ping-pong-ball-sized)
units comprising camera, audio, vibration sensor, GPS
and
wi-if/short range radio. Dropped as a canister of a few
hundred, parachute to a few thousand feet and deploy
freely from that height- hardened electronics to
withstand
impact, landing randomly, swarm-redundancy.
Thirdly, a system to deliver these and/or a number of
autonomous drones (quadcopters) from a submarine-
launched cruise missile.
Mesh network radio to connect short-range, routed back
via satellite to centre of operations.
A large, multiply redundant sensor array right in the
back-
yard.
[link]
|
| |
That could seriously mess up any ping-pong
tournaments in the conflict area. |
|
| |
Why not just have the war in a densely populated area with
plenty of observers? Seems to be working OK in Syria. |
|
| |
There's a problem with this if your opponent is as sophisticated as you are (and it is politic to credit your opponent with intelligence and ability at least equal to your own). |
|
| |
You are giving away a huge amount of information about yourself by deploying this system into enemy territory. It tells them about your radio frequencies, your choice of encryption technology, your communications capabilities. Even if your devices are set to self destruct at the end of their battery life, or if tampered with, there's still a non-zero chance that one will be damaged in the drop, or simply malfunction. That's just jam for your opponents ... |
|
| |
You could always wrap them in bacon. |
|
| |
//giving away a huge amount of information//
I was thinking of pretty crude devices using COTS
technology - nothing particularly sensitive. The
value is in correlating and extracting useful data
from a large array of low-integrity sources. |
|
| |
//damaged in the drop...malfunction//- totally
expected - that’s why lots of low-value sensors. |
|
| |
//radio frequencies// - again, just use standard
commercial products |
|
| |
//encryption// maybe not even bother, or at most
use standard “commercial grade” |
|
| |
// extracting useful data from a large array of low-integrity sources. // |
|
| |
So, like buying the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and the Sun ? |
|
| |
If you just use commercial kit, you're wide-open to spoofing. |
|
| |
Deploying a system like this also militates against tactical surprise, unless used in multiple areas, some as deception. |
|
| |
Yes, just like trying to extract sensible information
from the mainstream “news”papers. |
|
| |
Spoofing: yes, but that’s going to take time and
effort - it would progressively erode redundancy,
but spoofing a large number of devices would be
infrastructure intensive. |
|
| |
Tactical surprise: hadn’t thought of that. I’m
assuming there’s a continuum of deployment that
progressively values information density against
time. I wasn’t proposing something deployed
weeks in advance, more like a few hours to a day
or so- limited by battery power of course. I like
the idea of deploying multiple decoys though. |
|
| |
In WW1, the Allies quickly learned how to determine the boche intentions by how they deployed persistent and nonpersistent chemical agents. |
|
| |
Patrolling and reconnaisance overflights can disclose your interest in an area, unless they're an integrated part of maskirovka. |
|
| |
Fine, but don't call us shortly. You don't know us tbat well, and we're taller than we look. |
|
| |
"Maskirovska" is military deception. It's basically "mask" with
"irovska" added on the end of it. That's how Russian works -
all the Russian words are just English words with "irovska" or
"ichunya" on the end (or, rarely, "oi" or "iota"). They try to
cover it up by using a weird-looking alphabet, but basically
that's how Russian works. |
|
| |
I can also confirm that [8th] is tall enough to reach the
ground, although not from a particularly high starting point. |
|
| |
Can Trump be included in the category of spoofing, I mean
the Americans couldn't really have voted such a git as him,
unless it's all deep state wotsits? |
|
| |
They voted for Clinton, which just proves the adage that while there's an upper limit to intelligence, there's no upper limit to stupidity. |
|
| |
//Maskirovska// yes. So Trump might not count as
spoofing, but might count as Maskirovska |
|
| |
What, a carefully crafted deception operation run by Russian military intelligence ... ? Perish the thought ... |
|
| |