Dog Fight

**Jimmy** · 13 Mar 10, 19:53

I don't say anything on here that unless I know for a fact it's from an unclassified source. In reality I've probably learned more on this site than I've contributed.

**Tin Man** · 13 Mar 10, 20:27

Open source Intelligence, its the new buzz-phrase and its practiced the world over. The guys in the know usually don`t say a word or even reply to certain topics although I guess they, or at least some of them would be itching to put a smart ass in his place, but they know better.

When stuff is declassified, its usually because we don`t use it any more, or, its one thing being told how something works, but if you don`t have the mil industrial complex to actually produce the gizmo`s that will counter ones technology, is it such a big deal?

Easy for me to say all of this because I am not at the sharp end. It is also interesting to see the differences between the US and UK where millitary subjects on open source are concerned, the MoD and the UK millitary are far more tight lipped than our US mates.

The secrets that matter, usually stay that way. freedom of information does seem to have blurred edges on some occasions though.

**Jimmy** · 13 Mar 10, 23:02

Originally Posted by Tin Man

When stuff is declassified, its usually because we don`t use it any more, or, its one thing being told how something works, but if you don`t have the mil industrial complex to actually produce the gizmo`s that will counter ones technology, is it such a big deal?

Just because they can't build it NOW doesn't mean they're not a year away from it. Getting the information or technology, even if you can't reproduce it, could give you insight into how to reproduce or counter it, much sooner than you'd be able to on your own.

Or it could just be sold to someone else who can use it.

**Tin Man** · 14 Mar 10, 14:16

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Just because they can't build it NOW doesn't mean they're not a year away from it. Getting the information or technology, even if you can't reproduce it, could give you insight into how to reproduce or counter it, much sooner than you'd be able to on your own.

Or it could just be sold to someone else who can use it.

Fair point. Somebody, somewhere decides if system "X" is to become public knowledge and "when". I guess a hearty dose of disinformation comes into play from time to time as well

**Gun Grape** · 14 Mar 10, 22:56

Originally Posted by GGTharos

Actually a lot of stuff is available in scientific journals.
I have access to NCTR algorithms, methods for reducing/eliminating the effectiveness of the notch, studies on missile guidance and how to make it work better against certain maneuvers, etc.
I have a very precise ballistic profile for AIM-9J for a number of altitudes, as well as details on the rocket motor capability etc (I could have guessed that accurately from the speed-time profile though).

Today I can simulate the range of an AIM-120 with minimal information and get reasonably good figures (funny thing, got some really good figures on AIM-120A/B range from a russian manual. Having that, 'guessing' AIM-120C performance is much easier, as are basic comparisons to other missiles.)

There's really little to no point in not discussing stuff among enthusiasts when material is available. There's really not much info out there concerning how a particular seeker deals with ECM for example ... and that's probably the real secret. Most people will tell you the AIM-120 does ECCM better than an R-27 - this should be no surprise. Most people will tell you the R-77 is better, longer ranged and more maneuverable than an AIM-120, too, and they don't know that they're wrong (and until recently it was hard to prove them wrong).

You can take a good guess from open source material. And it may or may not be spot on.

Its when someone like Chogy or Jimmy (working knowledge)agrees,or says your smoking dope, it verifies that information. Then it takes on a whole new meaning to those that are mining for actual data.

I've looked at open source material on something as low tech as max ranges
for various howitzers that I've worked on, and played with the TFTs.

Open source is a little off. I would assume that if they will do it with things like that then even your material from open source scientific journals may have a few transposed numbers

**Maxor** · 15 Mar 10, 07:31

I think alot also has to do with semi related stuff coming out and going from there for example if a company has a IR scope that they sell to the DoD that the parameters of are classified cool. That company probably sells open market or restricted open market a scope that has the same case and eye pads, that uses the same principal. The odds that every subcontractor has good security is about nil. From there you have say 20% of the parts and the basic operating principal, now take a guy with some know how and look at the mounting brackets inside the shared case and you've got a pretty good idea of what the parts are. Post that somewhere on the internet in public view and you'll probably get a decent idea of weather or not its right simply by weather or not people in the know comment on it, or weather or not you get a cease and desist letter.

Someone then reviews that items classification and they decide that it was all up on the internet anyways the items no longer classified. A lot is also readable between the lines in various scientific publications. Also cross over Its also really handy to have an encryption code tested widely, or a civilian receiver starts seeing lots of signals at an unknown frequency and range they start asking questions.

Also paranoid semi crazies can use the internet as well, and a number of them have a small amount of knowledge, they tend to share it with each other because no one else will listen put it through a couple of rounds of the BS filter and you can get a decent picture of whats going on?

**Jimmy** · 15 Mar 10, 07:38

And this is how we end up with Carlo Kopp. :(

**Chogy** · 15 Mar 10, 15:45

I'm like a dog with a bone here that cannot give it up. I am not saying we clamp down on academic treatises, but here is an absolutely beautiful example of unintended concequences, and is also a dynamite trivia question.

"What were the tangible (if indirect) results of an obscure Soviet academic paper by Pyotr Ufimtsev entitled Method of Edge Waves In The Physical Theory of Diffraction"

It shows how seemingly innocent information can be transformed into something not so innocent.

**Tin Man** · 15 Mar 10, 21:33

Originally Posted by Chogy

I'm like a dog with a bone here that cannot give it up. I am not saying we clamp down on academic treatises, but here is an absolutely beautiful example of unintended concequences, and is also a dynamite trivia question.

"What were the tangible (if indirect) results of an obscure Soviet academic paper by Pyotr Ufimtsev entitled Method of Edge Waves In The Physical Theory of Diffraction"

It shows how seemingly innocent information can be transformed into something not so innocent.

STEALTH.

A lot of projects have been born in the same way. The Harrier jet from a French designers work is another example. It seems to swing both ways. From east to west. Didn`t the F-117 designer study under Ufimtsev in a US college?

If Ufimtsev`s work had been a mere short academic footnote with just the "idea" without the math, somebody might have eventually tripped over the idea and developed a concept. I agree on detail, which can be dangerous, but do we ban ideas?

**highsea** · 15 Mar 10, 21:45

And Ufimtsev's work was an extrapolation of Sommerfield's, which was an extrapolation of Maxwell's...

And so on.

**GGTharos** · 15 Mar 10, 23:17

Not a good example. It's just physics, and the ideas behind it did not go unheeded by others. So, someone on one side of the globe came up with an idea first - meh. In this case, it resulted in having a several year if not decade lead in a particular military application, but it really did not have to.

Realize that in fact it is the free sharing of information within the USA and NATO, as well as a capable production base that led to this lead. Russians had great scientists, but their ability to put forth ideas and indeed, share information even with each other was severely clamped down on. This cost them; not just in this case, but in others as well - and their production capability cost them being able to keep up altogether.

I would be more concerned about particular tactics leaking out centered on known or projected weaknesses and defense against one's own defenses. To this end, things like the leaked F-15E TEWS maintenance manual is a bad leak (although one might claim if I could get it, the 'other side' already has it as well). I've seen many other restricted TO's available for those who wish to have them.

I think people who post here know what they can and cannot say, though - I don't disagree with you when it comes to OPSEC. Coming back to the AMRAAM example ... I find a reliable source of information, I ask someone I know, he says 'we don't talk about that'. Good enough for me, I'm not going to ask further.

Being interested in simulating these things (in terms of combat flight sims) I try to get my hands on whatever I can, and I can tell you I know a small number of things that aren't talked about it but that show me how little I know ... so I think your secrets are pretty safe in general

Going back to research - let me give you an idea why research only helps so much. An NCTR technique on paper isn't very useful without implementing it. Implementing it might pose special challenges - a radar may have to be appropriately constructed to be capable of said technique, and the solutions therein might be yet another secret.

On the sidewinder ranges: I got a ballistic range, along with a modified sidewinder that showed how different nosecones and fins affect ballistic range, but it doesn't really tell me the missile's capability. It's actually range will be less than the ballistic: Missiles induce drag all the time by performing adjustments to their flight path all the time, and there's also seeker limitations for range, aspect, functional time etc etc.

It's really complex stuff which is why, once more, I think your secrets are pretty safe.

Originally Posted by Chogy

"What were the tangible (if indirect) results of an obscure Soviet academic paper by Pyotr Ufimtsev entitled Method of Edge Waves In The Physical Theory of Diffraction"

**Chogy** · 16 Mar 10, 15:51

I'm not sure I agree with you on this example. It was this particular treatise, and a single man working for Lockheed who simply was fascinated by what it offered, that lead to Have Blue, and while I'm not 100% certain, my understanding was the book sat unnoticed in the USSR the entire time. The 1960's and 70's was still a time of extremely energetic research by both sides, and I'm guessing if the USSR had "made the connection" so to speak, between a dusty physics book and a world-changing military technology, they would have pursued it.

But that is just one interesting case. Most others don't have such a direct and obvious link. I simply feel that people from the most basic positions of responsibility right on up to highly placed officers and politicians, simply talk too much, declassify too quickly, and make operational mistakes that expose otherwise secret technologies and advantages.

**GGTharos** · 17 Mar 10, 00:14

I would argue that when it comes to the USSR, any idea of stealth may have been a political victim. It was never really a rich country and stealth has not been cheap neither in implementation nor in research.

But, I'm not keen on arguing with you much, you're in a much better position to understand the consequences of damaging secrecy than I.
I can only tell you what I've seen from my end as an amateur.

**avon1944** · 18 Mar 10, 21:19

Originally Posted by highsea

And Ufimtsev's work was an extrapolation of Sommerfield's, which was an extrapolation of Maxwell's...
And so on.

Denys Overholser (head of Skunk Work programming department) said, in interview for AW&ST Video that Pyotr Ufimstev's re-work of James Clark Maxwell's Laws and was the greatest improvement in predicting behavioral aspects of microwaves!

Originally Posted by GGTharos

Not a good example. It's just physics, and the ideas behind it did not go unheeded by others. So, someone on one side of the globe came up with an idea first - meh. In this case, it resulted in having a several year if not decade lead in a particular military application, but it really did not have to.

Actually it did, it was only after Dick Sharer (a retired Skunk Works mathematician) had lunch with Denys and they were talking about the problems that Denys was trying to solve (NOTE), did Sharer remembered that at a math conference in Moscow only a half dozen or so people attended. The paper was so heavily loaded with math, virtually useless. The Soviets filed the paper because back in 1961 it served no purpose at that time! Computers had improved by the early 1980s and, this could now 'possibly' help in this situation integrating it into Echo 1 was possible. No one at the conference had appeared interested in what the physicist had to say.

It took six months to locate a copy of the paper in the Soviet Union then took over a year for Lockeed to get a copy of the paper. (Later Lockeed found the USAF's Foreign Technology Division had a copy of the paper but, felt Lockeed did not have a need to know! In all fairness, the USAF did not know why Lockeed needed the paper.)
NOTE;
Denys department had created Echo 1 but, felt they needed greater resolution to get the results they needed. Ufimstev's paper provided that greater accuracy. Denys referred to the Ufimstev's paper was the Rosetta Stone for Echo 1. (The Rosetta Stone is described at URL;
Rosetta Stone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The real evidence of what Ufimstev's work added to the Echo 1 program, can be seen in the difference between the Northrop Have Blue entry versus Lockeed's. While there are some similarities between the two prototypes, the Lockeed entrant was a magnitude smaller in RCS. The two photos are of the two Have Blue entrants, the Lockeed entrant on top and Northrop's is the bottom picture.

**NUS** · 19 Mar 10, 06:47

Originally Posted by GGTharos

I would argue that when it comes to the USSR, any idea of stealth may have been a political victim. It was never really a rich country and stealth has not been cheap neither in implementation nor in research.

You should understand, that Soviet politics was not something you have at home now. Soviet leadership would rather destroy their economy (and eventually they did), but do not let West to get any significant advantage in military area.

There is a lot of evidence about Soviet experiments with stealth in 80's, but only limited implementation in practice. Probably in their opinion it required too much effort with too little return at the technological level of 70-80's. And looking at F-117 and B-2 operational history i can't say i disagree with them.

Thread: Dog Fight

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Re: Dog Fight

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Post Your jokes here

Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend

Should members of the Church of God go to war?

Man Sues Over Barking Dog

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions