Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Saudi Arabia's Ballistic Missile Force
A revised version of this article will be published in Jane's Intelligence Review during the summer of 2013.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Defeating Censorship in Google Earth
INTRODUCTION
Many facilities and locations around the world appear pixellated in Google Earth for various reasons, usually because of security concerns due to the sensitive or military nature of the majority of these sites. Using the historical imagery feature in Google Earth, it is possible in some cases to defeat this censorship and view imagery of these areas. The imagery will not necessarily be the most current available, but it is still useful nonetheless.
CENSORSHIP IN GOOGLE EARTH
Censored imagery can be viewed in numerous locations inside of Google Earth. Google has often claimed that it will listen to the security concerns of national agencies and governments, but in the case of the "revealing" of the Australian nuclear reactor a few years ago claimed that it did not see a reason to censor imagery in that specific case as the same area could be viewed in other imagery sources. This begs the question as to who is actually censoring the images, and it is likely that, at least in the case of Europe, the local providers (many of whom use aerial collection platforms for national geospatial functions) are doing the censoring to comply with local restrictions. Google then acquires and uploads this imagery, which is often censored. Military facilities in France and the Netherlands are two key examples of censorship making its way into Google Earth. This is not a fault of Google in any way; Google is merely acquiring as much imagery as possible and making it available at no cost using their program. Google has not shown any major inclination to censor imagery of its own volition, even with the objections of Australia and later India being on record. Now, with the incorporation of Google Earth 5's historical imagery feature, it is possible to view imagery from potentially different providers and circumvent the censorship that exists in many areas.
DIJON
To illustrate the advantage that the historical imagery feature can provide when trying to view imagery of censored areas, consider the example of Dijon AB in France. It is commonplace in Google Earth for French military installations to be censored from view. In the case of France, the decision of what to censor appears limited to airbases, as their nuclear submarine base is clearly visible. This does raise questions as to whether the censorship has been applied only due to the wishes of the AdA, or if it was not applied correctly. In any case, Dijon AB and many others are censored in the default Google Earth view, and appear pixellated, as can be seen in the image below which was captured in 2006:
Employing the historical imagery feature allows imagery to be accessed which has not been censored, due perhaps to its inclusion into the database prior to the censorship being effected, or perhaps because it was sourced from a provider which does not believe it is responsible for censoring its products. The image below depicts Dijon AB as it appeared in 2004. There have likely not been any major alterations to the basic infrastructure in the two years that elapsed between the two images, so the historical imagery should be effective for use in analyzing the facility.
CONCLUSION
Whatever the reasoning behind the decision, Google has allowed censored imagery to be incorporated into Google Earth. Thanks to the inclusion of the historical imagery feature in Google Earth 5, many of these locations can now be viewed, albeit from earlier and less current dates. Whether or not this continues to be the case will depend on Google's realization of this potential error, or their decision to no longer allow altered imagery to be included into the data set.
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION
Feel free to discuss the content of this article at the IMINT & Analysis Forum in the discussion thread found here.
SOURCES
-Imagery provided courtesy of Google Earth
Many facilities and locations around the world appear pixellated in Google Earth for various reasons, usually because of security concerns due to the sensitive or military nature of the majority of these sites. Using the historical imagery feature in Google Earth, it is possible in some cases to defeat this censorship and view imagery of these areas. The imagery will not necessarily be the most current available, but it is still useful nonetheless.
CENSORSHIP IN GOOGLE EARTH
Censored imagery can be viewed in numerous locations inside of Google Earth. Google has often claimed that it will listen to the security concerns of national agencies and governments, but in the case of the "revealing" of the Australian nuclear reactor a few years ago claimed that it did not see a reason to censor imagery in that specific case as the same area could be viewed in other imagery sources. This begs the question as to who is actually censoring the images, and it is likely that, at least in the case of Europe, the local providers (many of whom use aerial collection platforms for national geospatial functions) are doing the censoring to comply with local restrictions. Google then acquires and uploads this imagery, which is often censored. Military facilities in France and the Netherlands are two key examples of censorship making its way into Google Earth. This is not a fault of Google in any way; Google is merely acquiring as much imagery as possible and making it available at no cost using their program. Google has not shown any major inclination to censor imagery of its own volition, even with the objections of Australia and later India being on record. Now, with the incorporation of Google Earth 5's historical imagery feature, it is possible to view imagery from potentially different providers and circumvent the censorship that exists in many areas.
DIJON
To illustrate the advantage that the historical imagery feature can provide when trying to view imagery of censored areas, consider the example of Dijon AB in France. It is commonplace in Google Earth for French military installations to be censored from view. In the case of France, the decision of what to censor appears limited to airbases, as their nuclear submarine base is clearly visible. This does raise questions as to whether the censorship has been applied only due to the wishes of the AdA, or if it was not applied correctly. In any case, Dijon AB and many others are censored in the default Google Earth view, and appear pixellated, as can be seen in the image below which was captured in 2006:
Employing the historical imagery feature allows imagery to be accessed which has not been censored, due perhaps to its inclusion into the database prior to the censorship being effected, or perhaps because it was sourced from a provider which does not believe it is responsible for censoring its products. The image below depicts Dijon AB as it appeared in 2004. There have likely not been any major alterations to the basic infrastructure in the two years that elapsed between the two images, so the historical imagery should be effective for use in analyzing the facility.
CONCLUSIONWhatever the reasoning behind the decision, Google has allowed censored imagery to be incorporated into Google Earth. Thanks to the inclusion of the historical imagery feature in Google Earth 5, many of these locations can now be viewed, albeit from earlier and less current dates. Whether or not this continues to be the case will depend on Google's realization of this potential error, or their decision to no longer allow altered imagery to be included into the data set.
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION
Feel free to discuss the content of this article at the IMINT & Analysis Forum in the discussion thread found here.
SOURCES
-Imagery provided courtesy of Google Earth
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Site News
A few quick notes about the site. First off, I've added a few new labels for my articles. The most prominent are Historic Imagery and Book Reviews. The first will be attached to any post incorporating Google Earth's historical imagery, and the second will be attached to...well, ok, that one should be self explanatory! Secondly, I'm considering either incorporating the comment moderation feature, whereby I will have to manually approve comments to my articles, or disabling comments altogether, relying on the forum and e-mail correspondance for feedback and inquiries. This is due to the increasing number of idiot spammers who are starting to creep into the comments, advertising all manner of things which have absolutely nothing to do with the content of the articles published here. The problem with the first method is that only users with Google accounts of some sort (blogger, gmail, etc) will be able to comment. The problem with the second method is that people will have to join the forum or send an e-mail should they wish to comment on something. What do the readers think? I haven't decided to respond in either fashion just yet, but I thought I should let you all know what I'm thinking and why.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Historical Imagery in Google Earth
INTRODUCTION
Google Earth 5 was recently released, and incorporates a wealth of new features for the user to exploit. From an analytical standpoint, the most interesting new feature is the ability to view historical imagery of many areas.
EXPLOITING HISTORICAL IMAGERY
Google Earth's new historical imagery feature allows users to examine past imagery that has been overwritten in the main viewer by either more recent or higher resolution imagery. Take Belgrade, for example. When viewed from an Eye Altitude of 50 miles, it can clearly be seen that the city and the surrounding area has been imaged over time, and that a composite mosaic of these images are currently visible to create a more complete image. For those unfamiliar with the term, the Eye Altitude is the height from which the visual vantage point on screen is being viewed. It is located at the bottom right of the image window in the Status Bar. Returning to the example of Belgrade, the historical imagery feature allows users to view the images used to provide the default view of Belgrade as a series of images, with each series building upon the last and adding the next most recent set of imagery to the screen. An excellent overview of how to fully exploit this new feature can be found here. It should be noted that not every piece of imagery visible in Google Earth's default view is available in the historical imagery feature, nor does using this feature limit the on-screen view to only the imagery captured on the date selected.
AN UNEXPECTED BENEFIT
An interesting and useful application of the historical imagery feature is that it will actually bring images into better focus at certain altitudes. To better illustrate this point, a simple exercise has been derived.
1. Open Google Earth, and click the icon to add a placemark. Copy the following coordinates into the Latitude and Longitude boxes: 56°55'57.57"N 40°32'34.96"E This will create a placemark on a mobile ICBM base near Teykovo in Russia.
2. Travel to the new placemark and zoom in so that the Eye Altitude is approximately 2500 feet.
3. Note that the date that the image was captured is August 12, 2007.
4. Under the View menu at the top left of the screen, select Historical Imagery. The Historical Imagery slider will appear along the upper left portion of the image window. The slider is currently set to coincide with the current date, which at the time of writing is 2009. Three blue lines appear in the slider, indicating images which may be selected for viewing of that particular area.
5. Set the slider to coincide with the date at which the image was captured. In this case, this will be the far right blue line. Simply drag the slider to the left until it locks into position at that date.
6. Once the slider is moved to the left from its default position, note that the image appears to have become clearer to a slight degree, helping to further accentuate many of the details. In this example, pay close attention to the three grey rectangular buildings in the center of the compound. Moving the slider to the left results in the detail on the roof of each building to become far more distinct.
As can clearly be seen, employing the historical imagery feature can be seen to provide clearer imagery. The imagery is likely loaded by Google Earth in a slightly less refined format at higher Eye Altitudes in order to facilitate quicker loading times. It should be noted that zooming in closer will result in the fully detailed image being visible, but exploiting this aspect of the historical imagery function does permit clearer images of a broader scale to be examined and saved for further use or analysis. This is exceptionally valuable when examining images containing many small objects such as vehicles or aircraft, or large facilities.
INTERESTING HISTORICAL IMAGES
The following images are examples of historical images captured in Google Earth, dealing with subjects which will be of interest to readers of this site. Examine these images, and then compare them to the default locations in Google Earth to fully comprehend the value of the historical imagery feature.
The first image depicts Bangalore, India, in February of 2007. Note that three LCA prototypes are visible on the tarmac.
The next image illustrates a useful application of the historical imagery feature. An S-300PS battery in Kaliningrad is shown, sited at a location which is mostly obscured by cloud cover in the current default imagery set. As can be seen, the historical imagery feature can be used to depict locations which may not be visible in Google Earth's default data set.
The following image depicts the parking apron at the Kazan aircraft manufacturing plant. Three Tu-160 strategic bombers can be seen. Scanning through the past imagery of this location indicates that various Tu-160s were in and out of Kazan for maintenance.
Next up is another SAM battery, this time an S-300PT battery on the Kola Peninsula. This highlights yet another advantage of having access to historical imagery in Google Earth: the default image of this location is newer, but is of a lesser resolution.
The following image depicts the Russian Navy's Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier moored at sea near Murmansk.
A series of FLANKER fighter jets can be seen on the tarmac of Luliang AB in China in the next image. Currently available imagery shows this location to have been refurbished as a new J-10 operating base; the addition of the historical imagery allows an analyst to track the history of the aircraft types operated here.
The next image depicts a deployed 64N6 battle management radar near Novosibirsk. This image allows analysts to identify the empty position currently visible in the default data set as an unoccupied 64N6 radar position.
The following image depicts the World's Ugliest Aircraft (who else was suprised that the satellite didn't break capturing the image), Boeing's X-32 demonstrator, on the ramp at Palmdale in August of 2003. This highlights one of the past disadvantages of Google Earth: sometimes new imagery removes interesting and unique sights from view. The addition of the historical imagery feature rectifies this problem to a large degree.
A third S-300P series SAM battery is seen in the image below. This is an S-300PMU battery deployed near Beijing. Current imagery shows this site to have been abandoned in the past, but its past operational status allows analysts to investigate Chinese SAM deployment patterns.
The next image is truly fascinating, showing three submarines undergoing various stages of dismantlement at Severodvinsk in Russia. The missile tubes can clearly be seen to have been removed from both the Typhoon SSBN and the Oscar SSGN.
The final example is a truly historical image, from July of 2005. It depicts the Yankee Notch SSGN conversion pierside at Nerpa. This submarine has since been scrapped, and Google Earth's historical imagery feature allows users to view it when it was still in existance, illustrating the characteristic layout of the converted SSBN.
CONCLUSION
The historical imagery feature in Google Earth 5 provides the analyst with a wealth or new data to exploit. It is now possible to conduct a degree of analysis previously available to only those users with access to other sources of imagery. Both trend and temporal analysis can be conducted, allowing the analyst to note changes occuring over time in certain areas. This new feature will certainly bring about a new appreciation for open source imagery and the analytical products which can be derived from its exploitation.
SOURCES
-Satellite imagery provided courtesy of Google Earth
The Google Earth Blog
Google Earth 5 was recently released, and incorporates a wealth of new features for the user to exploit. From an analytical standpoint, the most interesting new feature is the ability to view historical imagery of many areas.
EXPLOITING HISTORICAL IMAGERY
Google Earth's new historical imagery feature allows users to examine past imagery that has been overwritten in the main viewer by either more recent or higher resolution imagery. Take Belgrade, for example. When viewed from an Eye Altitude of 50 miles, it can clearly be seen that the city and the surrounding area has been imaged over time, and that a composite mosaic of these images are currently visible to create a more complete image. For those unfamiliar with the term, the Eye Altitude is the height from which the visual vantage point on screen is being viewed. It is located at the bottom right of the image window in the Status Bar. Returning to the example of Belgrade, the historical imagery feature allows users to view the images used to provide the default view of Belgrade as a series of images, with each series building upon the last and adding the next most recent set of imagery to the screen. An excellent overview of how to fully exploit this new feature can be found here. It should be noted that not every piece of imagery visible in Google Earth's default view is available in the historical imagery feature, nor does using this feature limit the on-screen view to only the imagery captured on the date selected.
AN UNEXPECTED BENEFIT
An interesting and useful application of the historical imagery feature is that it will actually bring images into better focus at certain altitudes. To better illustrate this point, a simple exercise has been derived.
1. Open Google Earth, and click the icon to add a placemark. Copy the following coordinates into the Latitude and Longitude boxes: 56°55'57.57"N 40°32'34.96"E This will create a placemark on a mobile ICBM base near Teykovo in Russia.
2. Travel to the new placemark and zoom in so that the Eye Altitude is approximately 2500 feet.
3. Note that the date that the image was captured is August 12, 2007.
4. Under the View menu at the top left of the screen, select Historical Imagery. The Historical Imagery slider will appear along the upper left portion of the image window. The slider is currently set to coincide with the current date, which at the time of writing is 2009. Three blue lines appear in the slider, indicating images which may be selected for viewing of that particular area.
5. Set the slider to coincide with the date at which the image was captured. In this case, this will be the far right blue line. Simply drag the slider to the left until it locks into position at that date.
6. Once the slider is moved to the left from its default position, note that the image appears to have become clearer to a slight degree, helping to further accentuate many of the details. In this example, pay close attention to the three grey rectangular buildings in the center of the compound. Moving the slider to the left results in the detail on the roof of each building to become far more distinct.
As can clearly be seen, employing the historical imagery feature can be seen to provide clearer imagery. The imagery is likely loaded by Google Earth in a slightly less refined format at higher Eye Altitudes in order to facilitate quicker loading times. It should be noted that zooming in closer will result in the fully detailed image being visible, but exploiting this aspect of the historical imagery function does permit clearer images of a broader scale to be examined and saved for further use or analysis. This is exceptionally valuable when examining images containing many small objects such as vehicles or aircraft, or large facilities.
INTERESTING HISTORICAL IMAGES
The following images are examples of historical images captured in Google Earth, dealing with subjects which will be of interest to readers of this site. Examine these images, and then compare them to the default locations in Google Earth to fully comprehend the value of the historical imagery feature.
The first image depicts Bangalore, India, in February of 2007. Note that three LCA prototypes are visible on the tarmac.
The next image illustrates a useful application of the historical imagery feature. An S-300PS battery in Kaliningrad is shown, sited at a location which is mostly obscured by cloud cover in the current default imagery set. As can be seen, the historical imagery feature can be used to depict locations which may not be visible in Google Earth's default data set.
The following image depicts the parking apron at the Kazan aircraft manufacturing plant. Three Tu-160 strategic bombers can be seen. Scanning through the past imagery of this location indicates that various Tu-160s were in and out of Kazan for maintenance.
Next up is another SAM battery, this time an S-300PT battery on the Kola Peninsula. This highlights yet another advantage of having access to historical imagery in Google Earth: the default image of this location is newer, but is of a lesser resolution.
The following image depicts the Russian Navy's Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier moored at sea near Murmansk.
A series of FLANKER fighter jets can be seen on the tarmac of Luliang AB in China in the next image. Currently available imagery shows this location to have been refurbished as a new J-10 operating base; the addition of the historical imagery allows an analyst to track the history of the aircraft types operated here.
The next image depicts a deployed 64N6 battle management radar near Novosibirsk. This image allows analysts to identify the empty position currently visible in the default data set as an unoccupied 64N6 radar position.
The following image depicts the World's Ugliest Aircraft (who else was suprised that the satellite didn't break capturing the image), Boeing's X-32 demonstrator, on the ramp at Palmdale in August of 2003. This highlights one of the past disadvantages of Google Earth: sometimes new imagery removes interesting and unique sights from view. The addition of the historical imagery feature rectifies this problem to a large degree.
A third S-300P series SAM battery is seen in the image below. This is an S-300PMU battery deployed near Beijing. Current imagery shows this site to have been abandoned in the past, but its past operational status allows analysts to investigate Chinese SAM deployment patterns.
The next image is truly fascinating, showing three submarines undergoing various stages of dismantlement at Severodvinsk in Russia. The missile tubes can clearly be seen to have been removed from both the Typhoon SSBN and the Oscar SSGN.
The final example is a truly historical image, from July of 2005. It depicts the Yankee Notch SSGN conversion pierside at Nerpa. This submarine has since been scrapped, and Google Earth's historical imagery feature allows users to view it when it was still in existance, illustrating the characteristic layout of the converted SSBN.
CONCLUSIONThe historical imagery feature in Google Earth 5 provides the analyst with a wealth or new data to exploit. It is now possible to conduct a degree of analysis previously available to only those users with access to other sources of imagery. Both trend and temporal analysis can be conducted, allowing the analyst to note changes occuring over time in certain areas. This new feature will certainly bring about a new appreciation for open source imagery and the analytical products which can be derived from its exploitation.
SOURCES
-Satellite imagery provided courtesy of Google Earth
The Google Earth Blog
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
New Blackbird Reading
INTRODUCTION
One of the most interesting and researched topics in aviation history is the Lockheed Blackbird family of aircraft. Recently, three new books have been released, taking advantage of newly declassified information to shed new light on some of the more sinister aspects of these aircraft. A fourth book, a technical history of the program, has also been released, but has not yet arrived and will not be included in this review.
NEW BOOKS
Archangel: CIA's Supersonic A-12 Reconnaissance Aircraft - David Robarge
Written by the CIA's chief historian in 2007 and published for public release in 2008, this is an interesting reference on CIA OXCART operations. Available online here, Robarge does a credible job providing a concise look at the aircraft, the technology involved, and the operational history of the BLACK SHIELD program. The only thing lost in transferring Robarge's work to print is, amusingly, photographic resolution: the full color images found on the CIA website are reproduced in black and white in the printed work. Given that none of the images are previously unreleased, this is not a significant drawback. Where the printed work scores is in its inclusion of a number of declassified documents in its appendices. Kelly Johnson's OXCART history of 1968 is included, as well as a declassified OXCART Fact Sheet shedding light on numerous ECM systems carried by the aircraft. A reference list of every OXCART-related document held in the CIA's FOIO archives is also provided to make any researcher's job that much easier. While the two aforementioned documents are available at the CIA's FOIA archives, and the bulk of the text at the link provided above, Robarge's work is still an interesting reference work on one of the CIA's most advanced projects. Plus, how funny is it that he had to write the history without using the words "Groom Lake" or "Area 51"? Whether in print or online, this is a great read for Blackbird enthusiasts.
The Archangel and the OXCART - Jeanette Remak and Joseph Ventolo
Remak and Ventolo have teamed up in the past with 2002's A-12 Blackbird Declassified, at the time the most complete reference source for the CIA's OXCART program. Their current OXCART book is basically a thoroughly updated rehash of the older work, which given the amount of newly declassified reference material available in the intervening six years between publications is definitely a good thing. There is a wealth of interesting data to be mined from the book's 284 pages, more than double the pagecount of the previous "edition", including data on subjects such as anti-radar systems, ECM gear, and various support efforts aiding the OXCART test program. The problem here is in the execution. The book has been very poorly edited, and is full of typographical errors, particularly in the later chapters. Any serious Blackbird enthusiast would do well to still give this work a chance, however, as the value of the new material included outweighs the negative aspects of the book's formatting errors.
Lockheed SR-71 Operations in the Far East - Paul F. Crickmore
Paul F. Crickmore has made a name for himself among Blackbird enthusiasts for being one of the busiest authors, publishing numerous works on the aircraft since the 1980s. Every time a new wealth of information is uncovered or declassified, you can bet that Crickmore will have something new on the shelves in short order. In this case, he has written a volume in the Osprey Publishing Combat Aircraft series, this being number 76. This book basically details half of the Blackbird's operational career, covering OXCART and SR-71 operations out of Kadena AB in Japan, with a forthcoming volume slated to detail SR-71 operations out of RAF Mildenhall and the United States. It is important to note that this book is not an aircraft history, but rather focuses on the actual operational sorties themselves: the targets, the routes flown, and the interesting occurrences that took place on operational reconnaissance missions. While not as expansive as his last major Blackbird work, Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond the Secret Missions (2004), this is a must-read for anyone interested in Cold War era reconnaissance and intelligence gathering. As an added bonus, the obligatory color photographs, line drawings, and color profiles that are typical of Combat Aircraft series volumes are also included.
CONCLUSION
The Lockheed Blackbird family has fascinated aviation buffs for more than forty years, ever since LBJ revealed the USAF's YF-12A to the public under the "A-11" moniker. These three reference works indicate that the complete story of this remarkable family of aircraft may not be written for some time, as more and more information is declassified with the passage of time. Until the complete story is written, we can only rely on authors such as those listed above to piece together one of the most interesting stories of aviation history.
One of the most interesting and researched topics in aviation history is the Lockheed Blackbird family of aircraft. Recently, three new books have been released, taking advantage of newly declassified information to shed new light on some of the more sinister aspects of these aircraft. A fourth book, a technical history of the program, has also been released, but has not yet arrived and will not be included in this review.
NEW BOOKS
Archangel: CIA's Supersonic A-12 Reconnaissance Aircraft - David Robarge
Written by the CIA's chief historian in 2007 and published for public release in 2008, this is an interesting reference on CIA OXCART operations. Available online here, Robarge does a credible job providing a concise look at the aircraft, the technology involved, and the operational history of the BLACK SHIELD program. The only thing lost in transferring Robarge's work to print is, amusingly, photographic resolution: the full color images found on the CIA website are reproduced in black and white in the printed work. Given that none of the images are previously unreleased, this is not a significant drawback. Where the printed work scores is in its inclusion of a number of declassified documents in its appendices. Kelly Johnson's OXCART history of 1968 is included, as well as a declassified OXCART Fact Sheet shedding light on numerous ECM systems carried by the aircraft. A reference list of every OXCART-related document held in the CIA's FOIO archives is also provided to make any researcher's job that much easier. While the two aforementioned documents are available at the CIA's FOIA archives, and the bulk of the text at the link provided above, Robarge's work is still an interesting reference work on one of the CIA's most advanced projects. Plus, how funny is it that he had to write the history without using the words "Groom Lake" or "Area 51"? Whether in print or online, this is a great read for Blackbird enthusiasts.
The Archangel and the OXCART - Jeanette Remak and Joseph Ventolo
Remak and Ventolo have teamed up in the past with 2002's A-12 Blackbird Declassified, at the time the most complete reference source for the CIA's OXCART program. Their current OXCART book is basically a thoroughly updated rehash of the older work, which given the amount of newly declassified reference material available in the intervening six years between publications is definitely a good thing. There is a wealth of interesting data to be mined from the book's 284 pages, more than double the pagecount of the previous "edition", including data on subjects such as anti-radar systems, ECM gear, and various support efforts aiding the OXCART test program. The problem here is in the execution. The book has been very poorly edited, and is full of typographical errors, particularly in the later chapters. Any serious Blackbird enthusiast would do well to still give this work a chance, however, as the value of the new material included outweighs the negative aspects of the book's formatting errors.
Lockheed SR-71 Operations in the Far East - Paul F. Crickmore
Paul F. Crickmore has made a name for himself among Blackbird enthusiasts for being one of the busiest authors, publishing numerous works on the aircraft since the 1980s. Every time a new wealth of information is uncovered or declassified, you can bet that Crickmore will have something new on the shelves in short order. In this case, he has written a volume in the Osprey Publishing Combat Aircraft series, this being number 76. This book basically details half of the Blackbird's operational career, covering OXCART and SR-71 operations out of Kadena AB in Japan, with a forthcoming volume slated to detail SR-71 operations out of RAF Mildenhall and the United States. It is important to note that this book is not an aircraft history, but rather focuses on the actual operational sorties themselves: the targets, the routes flown, and the interesting occurrences that took place on operational reconnaissance missions. While not as expansive as his last major Blackbird work, Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond the Secret Missions (2004), this is a must-read for anyone interested in Cold War era reconnaissance and intelligence gathering. As an added bonus, the obligatory color photographs, line drawings, and color profiles that are typical of Combat Aircraft series volumes are also included.
CONCLUSION
The Lockheed Blackbird family has fascinated aviation buffs for more than forty years, ever since LBJ revealed the USAF's YF-12A to the public under the "A-11" moniker. These three reference works indicate that the complete story of this remarkable family of aircraft may not be written for some time, as more and more information is declassified with the passage of time. Until the complete story is written, we can only rely on authors such as those listed above to piece together one of the most interesting stories of aviation history.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Israel vs. SAM: Iran's S-300
INTRODUCTION
On Sunday it was reported that Russia has begun delivering advanced S-300 SAM systems to Iran. Iran has been after some of the advanced variants of the S-300P series for some time, and delivery of these systems would represent a significant upgrade to the Iranian air defense network.
IRANIAN SAMS, YES OR NO?
Iran has been rumored to be a customer or recipient of S-300P variants for some time. Last year it was reported by Jane's that Iran had received S-300PT (SA-10A GRUMBLE) SAM systems from Belarus and was preparing them for service. These reports have yet to be confirmed or conclusively debunked, but Iranian persistance in attempting to order more advanced S-300PM (SA-20 GARGOYLE) variants from Russia does cast a degree of doubt on their accuracy.
Russia was quick to respond to Iran's allegation that the S-300's were being delivered. In October Israeli Prime Minister Olmert had met with Russian leaders in Moscow and was assured that Russia would not deliver advanced S-300P series SAM systems to Iran. Shortly after Iran made its announcement on Sunday, Russian officials denied the reports and stated that they were abiding by the agreement made with PM Olmert regarding the transfer of advanced air defense weapons to Iran.
If Russia is to be believed in this case, then it would seem that the Iranian government is attempting to force Russia's hand into abiding by whatever sale agreement may have been discussed in the past. Alternatively, this could be an effort to raise eyebrows on the international stage over Israel's interference in Iranian affairs. The other side of the coin is that Russia may be acting deceptively, intending on selling the system to Iran, aiding in its setup, and only announcing the sale once the system has been delivered and emplaced. This is not as likely however as the emplacement and activation of these systems would be visible through intelligence sources.
ISRAELI OPPOSITION
The reason for Israeli opposition to a Russian sale of S-300P series SAM systems, particularly late-model S-300PMU-1 or S-300PMU-2 variants, to Iran is clear. Israel is currently preparing for a potential military strike on Iran to thwart Iranian nuclear ambitions. Regardless of whether or not Iran's nuclear intentions are truly peaceful or not, Israel's position regarding the S-300P sale or transfer is understandable. The latest S-300P variants represent some of the most advanced and capable SAM systems in the world, and would represent a significant obstacle to any Israeli air campaign against Iran. One can debate the issue of Israel objecting to a sovereign nation procuring a defensive weapon system, but the fact remains that an S-300P brigade inside of Iran would cause air planners serious problems and potentially prevent them from acting out the wishes of their leadership.
THE EW ELEMENT
The interesting facet of this entire scenario is that Israel has claimed to have developed electronic warfare systems capable of defeating the S-300P series. Israel reportedly obtained the 5N63 (FLAP LID) guidance radar of an S-300PMU (SA-10B GRUMBLE) battery sold to Croatia in 1995. Israeli claims of being able to defeat the S-300P were widely publicised in Jane's Defense Weekly and other media outlets. Israel also exercised with Greece in May and June of this year to gain further expertise against the more modern S-300PMU-1 system and its 30N6 (TOMB STONE) guidance radar.
PATH TO WAR?
It would appear that Iran has not yet received any S-300P series SAM components. Russian officials would likely not make such a strong assertion were the opposite to be true, knowing that the tell-tale emissions from the system's radar systems would belie their presence to the world once activated inside of Iran. This would certainly eventually be true for two reasons: first, Iran would have to activate the systems in order to employ them in defense of key facilities or border regions, and second, the radar systems used by the S-300P series are not employed by any other SAM system, with the exception of the 36D6 (TIN SHIELD) EW radar. The presence of the guidance and battle management radars inside of Iran cannot therefor be attributed to the sale of any other SAM system. Russia also cannot claim that an advanced S-300PM series system has been supplied by an outside user, as systems missing from China and Greece, being the only other users of the advanced versions, would be missed by American intelligence sources and such an allegation could be easily disproven.
The ultimate takeaway from Israel's negotiating with Moscow in October and its August 2008 claim that if such a system was delivered to Iran that Israel would be forced to develop a counter, is that Israel's efforts to defeat the S-300P series of SAM systems may not have been as succesful as once believed. Had Israeli efforts in exploiting Croatian and Greek systems been successful in developing adequate electronic warfare systems and countertactics, Israel would likely have sat by and watched the Iranian regime spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a missile system that they knew represented a limited threat. Given Israel's work in the field of electronic warfare it is possible that reports suggesting that the S-300P could be countered by new systems were a form of deception aimed at convincing Iranian leadership that the purchase of such a ssytem was a wasted effort. In that light, the potential for an eventual S-300P SAM sale to Iran may be the catalyst that finally pushes Israel into striking Iranian nuclear facilities. The Israeli military is rightfully very concerned over the potential of advanced S-300P series SAM systems taking up residence inside of Iran, and if political pressure on Moscow is not enough to prevent a transfer than military action may be the end result.
SOURCES
Iran Says Russia Delivering S-300 Air Defense Systems
Russia denies supplying Iran with missiles capable of repelling Israeli air strike
Israel develops countermeasures to S-300 system
'We'll neutralize S-300 if they're sold to Iran'
Greece assists Israel as war with Iran looms
On Sunday it was reported that Russia has begun delivering advanced S-300 SAM systems to Iran. Iran has been after some of the advanced variants of the S-300P series for some time, and delivery of these systems would represent a significant upgrade to the Iranian air defense network.
IRANIAN SAMS, YES OR NO?
Iran has been rumored to be a customer or recipient of S-300P variants for some time. Last year it was reported by Jane's that Iran had received S-300PT (SA-10A GRUMBLE) SAM systems from Belarus and was preparing them for service. These reports have yet to be confirmed or conclusively debunked, but Iranian persistance in attempting to order more advanced S-300PM (SA-20 GARGOYLE) variants from Russia does cast a degree of doubt on their accuracy.
Russia was quick to respond to Iran's allegation that the S-300's were being delivered. In October Israeli Prime Minister Olmert had met with Russian leaders in Moscow and was assured that Russia would not deliver advanced S-300P series SAM systems to Iran. Shortly after Iran made its announcement on Sunday, Russian officials denied the reports and stated that they were abiding by the agreement made with PM Olmert regarding the transfer of advanced air defense weapons to Iran.
If Russia is to be believed in this case, then it would seem that the Iranian government is attempting to force Russia's hand into abiding by whatever sale agreement may have been discussed in the past. Alternatively, this could be an effort to raise eyebrows on the international stage over Israel's interference in Iranian affairs. The other side of the coin is that Russia may be acting deceptively, intending on selling the system to Iran, aiding in its setup, and only announcing the sale once the system has been delivered and emplaced. This is not as likely however as the emplacement and activation of these systems would be visible through intelligence sources.
ISRAELI OPPOSITION
The reason for Israeli opposition to a Russian sale of S-300P series SAM systems, particularly late-model S-300PMU-1 or S-300PMU-2 variants, to Iran is clear. Israel is currently preparing for a potential military strike on Iran to thwart Iranian nuclear ambitions. Regardless of whether or not Iran's nuclear intentions are truly peaceful or not, Israel's position regarding the S-300P sale or transfer is understandable. The latest S-300P variants represent some of the most advanced and capable SAM systems in the world, and would represent a significant obstacle to any Israeli air campaign against Iran. One can debate the issue of Israel objecting to a sovereign nation procuring a defensive weapon system, but the fact remains that an S-300P brigade inside of Iran would cause air planners serious problems and potentially prevent them from acting out the wishes of their leadership.
THE EW ELEMENT
The interesting facet of this entire scenario is that Israel has claimed to have developed electronic warfare systems capable of defeating the S-300P series. Israel reportedly obtained the 5N63 (FLAP LID) guidance radar of an S-300PMU (SA-10B GRUMBLE) battery sold to Croatia in 1995. Israeli claims of being able to defeat the S-300P were widely publicised in Jane's Defense Weekly and other media outlets. Israel also exercised with Greece in May and June of this year to gain further expertise against the more modern S-300PMU-1 system and its 30N6 (TOMB STONE) guidance radar.
PATH TO WAR?
It would appear that Iran has not yet received any S-300P series SAM components. Russian officials would likely not make such a strong assertion were the opposite to be true, knowing that the tell-tale emissions from the system's radar systems would belie their presence to the world once activated inside of Iran. This would certainly eventually be true for two reasons: first, Iran would have to activate the systems in order to employ them in defense of key facilities or border regions, and second, the radar systems used by the S-300P series are not employed by any other SAM system, with the exception of the 36D6 (TIN SHIELD) EW radar. The presence of the guidance and battle management radars inside of Iran cannot therefor be attributed to the sale of any other SAM system. Russia also cannot claim that an advanced S-300PM series system has been supplied by an outside user, as systems missing from China and Greece, being the only other users of the advanced versions, would be missed by American intelligence sources and such an allegation could be easily disproven.
The ultimate takeaway from Israel's negotiating with Moscow in October and its August 2008 claim that if such a system was delivered to Iran that Israel would be forced to develop a counter, is that Israel's efforts to defeat the S-300P series of SAM systems may not have been as succesful as once believed. Had Israeli efforts in exploiting Croatian and Greek systems been successful in developing adequate electronic warfare systems and countertactics, Israel would likely have sat by and watched the Iranian regime spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a missile system that they knew represented a limited threat. Given Israel's work in the field of electronic warfare it is possible that reports suggesting that the S-300P could be countered by new systems were a form of deception aimed at convincing Iranian leadership that the purchase of such a ssytem was a wasted effort. In that light, the potential for an eventual S-300P SAM sale to Iran may be the catalyst that finally pushes Israel into striking Iranian nuclear facilities. The Israeli military is rightfully very concerned over the potential of advanced S-300P series SAM systems taking up residence inside of Iran, and if political pressure on Moscow is not enough to prevent a transfer than military action may be the end result.
SOURCES
Iran Says Russia Delivering S-300 Air Defense Systems
Russia denies supplying Iran with missiles capable of repelling Israeli air strike
Israel develops countermeasures to S-300 system
'We'll neutralize S-300 if they're sold to Iran'
Greece assists Israel as war with Iran looms
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
