loading assets

Apr 19, 2017

Iran deploys jamming device to counter drones / A Multi-level Analysis of the US attack on Syria - If military confrontation between the U.S. and Russia happens, it could lead to struggle for air supremacy in space between the two countries –

image: Source
Iran deploys jamming device to counter drones / A Multi-level Analysis of the US attack on Syria - If military confrontation between the U.S. and Russia happens, it could lead to struggle for air supremacy in space between the two countries –
I remember about a past event during the Obama administration. When Iran captured a surveillance drone, Obama asked Iran to get it back. When deciding to return a plastic model drone to the U.S., Iran asked Obama what color he liked. This event made us know the fact that Iran had technology which electronically enabled to take over weapons. Reading the article, Iran seems to have upgraded the technology and developed a rifle-shaped jamming device. The device “can reprogram a remote-controlled drone to turn on its owner.”

If Iran has such technology, it is likely that Russia will enable to electronically take over missiles launched by an enemy and reprogram them to turn on the spot from which the missiles are fired.

As a matter of fact, Dr. Nakamatsu proposed to build a defense system which can turn enemy missiles on the spot from which they are fired, in a Tokyo gubernatorial election manifesto. Hearing his manifesto, I thought that such technology had bee available.

When my son came back home, I talked about this kind of subject with him. When I asked about the possibility that electronical reprogramming can be made by satellite, he answered that it is highly likely. He knows quite a lot about military-related issues. We talked about the possibility that the U.S. and Russia would struggle for air supremacy in space.

This is just our imagination as layman but it is not without foundation. The second article shows that Russia undoubtedly has such technology. According to the article, if military confrontation happens between the U.S. and Russia, the U.S. would never be able to defeat Russia in conventional weaponry. Therefore, the U.S. has to launch a pre-emptive attack against Russia at a dash to defeat the country. If Russia had such electronic jamming device, the U.S. would have no chance of winning.

April 14, 2017
Masatoshi Takeshita

Shanti-phula has indicated some parts of the following text in black boldface type or in red letters.

Partial English translation of a reprint of the Japanese version of Sputnik – March 13, 2017 –

Iran deploys jamming device to counter drones

Photo: Official website of the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

State-of-the-art device can not only jam signals to a drone sent by a command pilot but can even take over drone operation.

Sputnik Japan

*Iran has deployed a new counter-drone weapona rifle-shaped jamming device that the regime says can electronically separate a remotely piloted aircraft from its command pilot and even reprogram it to turn on it owner. The U.S. Washington Times reports.

Note: * This paragraph is reprinted from the Washington Times.

Iran claims that this weapon has got through all experiments and proved its effect. The weapon can be effectively used to counter U.S. drones which are used in great quantities in Mosul.

Excerpt from a Japanese article: Design of Creation Society – April 13, 2017 –

A Multi-level Analysis of the US attack on Syria


The Sake April 11, 2017, Information Clearing House

The latest US cruise missile attack on the Syrian airbase is an extremely important event in so many ways  <snip>  let’s begin by looking at what actually happened.

The pretext:

I don’t think that anybody seriously believes that Assad or anybody else in the Syrian government really ordered a chemical weapons attack on anybody. 


First, Assad pretty much wins the war against Daesh which is in full retreat.  Then,   the US declares that overthrowing Assad is not a priority anymore (up to here this is all factual and true).  Then, Assad decides to use weapons he does not have.  He decides to bomb a location with no military value, but with lots of kids and cameras.  Then, when the Russians demand a full investigation, the Americans strike as fast as they can before this idea gets any support.  And now the Americans are probing a possible Russian role in this so-called attack.  Frankly, if you believe any of that, you should immediately stop reading and go back to watching TV. 


What is evident is that the Syrians did not drop chemical weapons from their aircraft and that no chemical gas was ever stored at the al-Shayrat airbase.


This is most likely a false flag attack.

The attack:

American and Russian sources both agree on the following facts: 2 USN ships launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Al Shayrat airfield in Syria.  The US did not consult with the Russians on a political level, but through military channels the US gave Russia 2 hours advance warning.  At this point the accounts begin to differ.

The Americans say that all missiles hit their targets.  The Russians say that only 23 cruise missiles hit the airfield.  The others are “unaccounted for”.  Here I think that it is indisputable that the Americans are lying and the Russians are saying the truth: the main runway is intact (the Russian reporters provided footage proving this) and only one taxiway was hit.  Furthermore, the Syrian Air Force resumed its operations within 24 hours.


It is also indisputable that there were no chemical munitions at this base as nobody, neither the Syrians nor the Russian reporters, had to wear any protective gear.


In fact, the Russians had signed a memorandum with the USA which specifically comitting Russia NOT to interfere with any US overflights, manned or not, over Syria (and vice versa). 


There is absolutely no basis to suspect that over half of the missiles fired simply spontaneously malfunctioned.  I therefore see only two possible explanations for what happened to the 36 missing cruise missiles:

Explanation A: Trump never intended to really hit the Syrians hard and this entire attack was just “for show” and the USN deliberately destroyed these missiles over the Mediterranean.


Explanation B: The Russians could not legally shoot down the US missiles.  <snip> However, since the Russians were warned about the attack they had plenty of time to prepare their electronic warfare stations to “fry” and otherwise disable at least part of the cruise missiles.  I do believe that this is the correct explanation.


Can the Russian really do this?

Take a look at this image, taken from a Russian website, which appears to have been made by the company Kret which produces some of the key Russian electronic warfare systems.  Do you notice that on the left hand side, right under the AWACs aircraft you can clearly see a Tomahawk type missile turning around and eventually exploding at sea?


What matters is that the Russians have basically leaked the information that they are capable of turning cruise missiles around.  There are other possibilities such as an directed energy beams which basically fries or, at least, confuses the terrain following and or inertial navigation systems.  Some have suggested a “kill switch” which would shut down the entire missile.  <snip>  What matters is that the Russian have the means to spoof, redirect or destroy US cruise missiles.

(The rest is omitted)

No comments:

Post a Comment