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
Note:
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 weapon – a 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
Source:
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.
<snip>
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.
<snip>
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.
<snip>
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.
<snip>
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.
<snip>
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).
<snip>
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.
<snip>
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.
<snip>
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?
<snip>
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)
Leave a Reply