US Aegis Combat System useless against Russian military

The much-vaunted Aegis Combat System can track hundreds of targets and coordinate the defensive and offensive weapons systems of an entire fleet. It is a cornerstone of NATO's naval capabilities.

And it useless against the Russian military.

On April 10 this year, a single Russian Sukhoi 24 flew over the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea, instantly rendered the sophisticated vessel "deaf" and "blind" with an electronic warfare device and then---to add insult to injury---proceeded to simulate twelve missile attacks against the defenseless destroyer.

Allegedly, the incident so demoralized the crew of the USS Donald Cook that 27 sailors have since asked to be relieved from active duty.

STORY

what? fighter bombers can walk all over ships?

shocking!

lol.. cold war all over again.

next rumor: the russians have developed fully invisible planes! OMG teh panic!

Every ship has airspace. In war an enemy plane entering said airspace is detected and countered. The aircraft in question was well within the destroyer's airspace to have flown overhead. Getting essentially point blank opens a lot of doors. Getting point blank is another story however.

Having a hard time finding anything reliable to go on for the whole disabling of systems. Really am.

CSMonitor Article from April 2014

U.S. Dept of Defense statement

i looked at multiple sources and did not see anything about the electronic warfare angle either so that part was pretty sketchy.

of course if true you probably wouldn't see anything about it.

after reading what i read from different articles on this just now it looks to me like either some drunk guy jumped into a plane and had some fun or it was a deliberate politically motivated provocation with a 20 year old expendable airplane that they didn't care if they lost.

i would be curious to see what kind of passenger jets were in the area at the time and if this was an attempt to get one shot down like the guided missle cruiser uss vincennes did in the 80's.

That's what happens when our military spending becomes corrupted, our military contracting is less about what we get for our money and more about who we give it to, mainly people with long established ties who are easily able to lobby government for more money and giving us stuff we don't need. There comes a point when it's not about getting the best equipment for our troops to defend the country with and more about lining certain peoples pockets. The kind of competition by contractors to provide the best equipment at the best price just doesn't exist.

I mean, look at all the money wasted on the F22, or that the military isn't giving our troops better performing rifles and keeping less reliable ones, or the military's preference over giving our troops Interceptor body armor over higher performing Dragon Skin, or our refusal to have bought Israeli anti-missile armored vehicle defenses because we want to have an American contractor develop the version they'd use instead. Or, how about a tens-of-billions of dollars wasted on a missile defense shield that arguably doesn't work, has over the last decade and more increased tensions with Russia, and doesn't have the range and altitude capabilities to stop an ICBM. Just waste, waste, and more waste all around.

Hell, we pander to contractors so much we give billions to other countries just so they can buy our weapons, and it isn't about giving that money to other countries to support sound policy, it's so they'll give the money back to contractors. It's a military industrial form of welfare, and some Americans throw shit fits if poor people ever need a helping hand.

LOL informationclearinghouse = autofail

Well it appears that there were two aircraft but only one "buzzed".

And to be honest I see it being about the same as with the two incidents with the Chinese fighter jets in the relative recent years.

Doubtful.

and people want to cut the military's budget.

Stesilaus is a top tier troll. Great poster.

People need to be pretty stupid to think the Russians would come up with counter measures to systems aimed at muting them.

Russkie planes routinely buzz US ships. Nothing new here. Playing dead is one of the oldest tricks in the book and the Russkies fell for it.

If true, ouch. Unfortunately my government has an insurmountable amount of hubris and it's highly unlikely they'd ever admit if it's true.

Yep, why do an actual reaction so the 'enemy' can gauge your response time and course of action?

Actually, if this story was true it would have less to do with hubris and more to do with tactical necessity. You wouldn't want to let the enemy know that they found your weak point because they are just going to keep concentrating on it rather than moving on somewhere else.

You just can't handle all the truth at informationclearinghouse.info, can you?

:-P

I would like a few more sources to confirm this.

Not that I'm doubting informationclearinghouse.info.....

I think if this actually happened then denying it is more about preserving the morale of your troops and the nation all around and saving face rather than tactical necessity. If the Russians have actually developed such a electronic warfare system and if that incident happened to the letter, then I doubt they would be waiting for American confirmation. They already know that it worked and they wouldn't have developed it if they hadn't had an idea about the enemy's weakness at the very least. This kind of information is gathered and utilized at the most clandestine and high profile levels of intelligence gathering and synthesis not through press releases and disgruntled spokesmen.

An actual reaction would be to shoot it down before it got in the ship's airspace.

Preserving morale is part of tactical necessity. Troops with low morale are less effective and two ways to drop morale are to show a weakness they can't overcome and to lose the support of the civilian population.

I'll just put it to you this way: this story is questionable at best and propaganda at worst. If Russia had the ability to overcome some of our defense systems (a possibility when you consider spies as well as what Snowden may have briefed them on from his time in the NSA and CIA after he got asylum) they aren't going to brag about it more than necessary because if we know that they can defeat a certain system then we're going to change that system so they can't defeat it anymore.

At the same time, on the U.S. side of things we aren't going to admit that a weakness was found because we can't confirm that the Russians know that their so-called scrambling device worked (assuming there was even one involved like the story claimed) or if they are just waiting to find out from our own sources (to include overzealous media sources who are more concerned about breaking the story for ratings than protecting national security) if their device actually worked.

Besides, saying that 27 sailors would ask to be relieved from active duty over this is something that just sounds like what a person who knows absolutely nothing about the military would think of. It might drop morale but most troops would just turn it into determination not to lose. Not to mention the fact that you can't just ask to be relieved from duty when you have a contract to finish (officers can resign their commission after a certain amount of years but that is a different situation).

Well if that's your idea of tactical necessity then sure yea that's part of it.

Generally speaking, I share your skepticism. This incident could have or could have not happened and in case it really happened there's a high chance that this story is exaggerating and even making things up. I was just responding to your line of thinking. Although what you said makes sense and is logical enough, there's another explanation that is just as logical which is the idea that the Russians decided to lose the edge of stealth and secrecy for some propaganda value and a victory in morale war. Many suggest that the cold war is back in some degree at least and this seemingly irrational and moot reaction wouldn't be that irrational in light of such a reality. In this scenario the American side is not expected to just contribute to that "victory" by publicly admitting the validity of the story. And as for the 27 sailors who requested to be relieved from duty, it sounds like a stretch but it isn't that far fetched either. Again if the story is right and the jet-fighter simulated missile attacks its possible that these sailors thought they were going to die which can explain the severity of their reaction.

There are a lot of ifs in there but you get the idea.

Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, made some interesting statements during a recent conference on US military readiness ...

Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert told Reuters the Navy would have to cut forces and reduce its ability to position ships around the world if lawmakers did not ease or reverse the [budget] cuts, which are due to resume in fiscal 2016.

"Electronic warfare, electronic attack, anti-submarine warfare - all of these higher end areas - will fall further behind because we’re just not investing in them," he said in an interview at a conference at the Reagan Presidential Library.

Is it just a coincidence that he made specific reference to the US Navy's ability to "position ships around the world" and that he mentioned "electronic warfare" and "electronic attack" at the very top of a list of major concerns?

No! According to the ICH essay, the USS Donald Cook was forced to withdraw from its assigned station in the Black Sea after an electronic warfare attack. Admiral Greenert's speech seems to echo concerns stemming from that incident and effectively confirms the authenticity of the claims in the ICH essay!

Here's a link to the Reuters report on the conference: STORY

Same thing is said in every era. Almost word for word from 30 yrs ago, which isn't surprising since it was at the Reagan library :)

This is how branches of the military lobby for more money.

Also, obligatory LOL at informationclearinghouse.

Their main bombers still use props. Their vaulted planes are not that good. I would be more concerned about the Chinese.

Actually your wrong the most common bomber in the Russian forces is the Tupolev Tu-22M which is a long range Supersonic strategic bomber about 150 of them, the Tu-95 "prop" bomber has been kept in service due to it adaptability and can be used in multiple roles just like the B-52.

The most common US bomber is the B-52 which has been in service since the mid 50's.

if this is even true, from a technical perspective what would be the mechanism to actually disable "all radars, control circuits, systems, information transmission, etc. on board the US destroyer."?

one would assume some sort of electromagnetic measure except that would already be shielded against for sensitive electronic components on-board the ship.

so russia now has access to some previously-unknown way to disable electronic devices ( in a targeted way mind you ) and they choose a silly little stunt like a simulated bombing run to revel to the world that they have this technology?

c'mon russia. you can do better than that.

Forgive me for being skeptical of a report from a completely non-credible internet "News" media source. When the BBC or a U.S. news agency (AP, Reuters, etc) reports it, I'll believe it.

I sincerely doubt that source.

Why would USS Donald Cook show it's classified radar bars (to be profiled by the Russians) during peace time?

USS Donald Cook's key anti-air warfare missiles is it's Standard Missile 2 (RIM-156 SM-2 Extended Range, surface-to-air/anti-air, anti-ship) NOT Tomahawk cruise missile. The article got this wrong.

The Aegis system is not complete without F-35's IRST sensors and it's not dependant on traditional radar.

Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN-A6PWRFno

The above video shows F-35's IRST capabilities with tracking/detection >1300Km range. F-35 has 360 degree IRST distributive sensors with detection range around >1300Km.

From http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/would-you-like-an-f-35-to-go-with-your-aegis/

Linking F-35's 360 degrees IRST to Aegis enabled combat systems.

USS Donald Cook's Electronic Warfare Suite is SLQ-32(V)2 while the latest variant is SLQ-32(V)5.

The (V)1 and (V)2 suites are passive, providing early warning, identification and direction finding capability for simultaneous multiple threats. The (V)3 suite provides an additional active response for simultaneous jamming of multiple threats. The (V)4, an expanded version of the (V)3, is used on aircraft carriers. The (V)5, used on destroyers and frigates, integrates a passive (V)2 with an active jammer called “Sidekick.”

...

Raytheon recently teamed with Lockheed Martin to compete for the U.S. Navy’s Surface Electron Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 3 program. SEWIP Block 3 will upgrade the fleet's capability to electronically attack anti-ship missiles with the AN/SLQ-32(V) electronic warfare system.

....

Air and Missile Defense Radars (AMDR) will use digital beamforming (AESA) will be replacing Arleigh Burke's older Passive Electronically Scanned Array(PESA) radars in 2016.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMDR.

AMDR is AESA radar type.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Perth_(FFH_157)

Australia's HMAS Perth has the new AESA radar system and IRST (IR search and track).

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer

British's Daring-class also has the new AESA radar system.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachsen-class_frigate

Germany's Sachsen class has the new AESA radar system and IRST.

USS Donald Cook has inferior PESA radar tech when compared to AESA and IRST equipped western Missile Guided Frigates e.g. United Kingdom, Australia, Germany.