
Russia plans to install Pole-21 anti-missile jamming device on cell towers - Parbeyjr
https://edgylabs.com/2016/11/15/pole-21-missile-defense-system/
======
woodman
This has to be propaganda designed for domestic consumption, because there is
no way this would be effective. You know how cell towers are on the ground,
and missiles are in the air? Yeah, sky facing directional antennas in the
hundreds of cruise missiles would defeat a 250,000 tower project. I'd be
surprised if the functionality wasn't already built into the weapon systems -
the handheld GPS unit I was issued in 2006 had the ability to detect jamming
and selectively ignore the direction of the source.

~~~
Someone1234
Older cruise missiles with less sophisticated guidance systems flew at higher
altitudes, but that made them susceptible to anti-missile defences (from
lasers to David's Sling).

Modern ones "skim" along the terrain, this massively reduces their radar
detection range (due to the horizon) and allows them to navigate around known
defensive measures.

This is also why both the US and Russia has spent millions of dollars on
extremely sensitive microphones to literally "hear" an incoming cruise
missile.

A system like this, combined with a system to combat high altitude cruise
missile attacks, could theoretically work. Or certainly limit/disrupt the
ability for very low altitude weapons to enter your territory uncontested.

Plus low altitude drones definitely have a future, particularly against a
technologically advanced nation.

~~~
woodman
> A system like this ... could theoretically work.

Sorry, but no. You know how modern ones skim along terrain? Terrain maps. If
you are using terrain maps to navigate, then you don't need GPS - so this
system has no hopes of working against low altitude cruise missiles. Also, the
cruise missiles would need to be flying lower than the cell towers - which
would only be a problem if the directional antenna was sensitive to 180
degrees. Beamforming tech is so common now that it has found its way into wifi
routers.

~~~
Someone1234
> You know how modern ones skim along terrain? Terrain maps.

Terrain maps require active radar. Active radar increases your detectability.

> If you are using terrain maps to navigate, then you don't need GPS - so this
> system has no hopes of working against low altitude cruise missiles.

Some currently deployed US Navy Cruise Missiles already utilise GPS. Including
the Block III TLAM[0].

They support INS (inaccurate), TERCOM (which has a radar signature), and DSMAC
(which relies on TERCOM or GPS, and only increases final target accuracy).

You'd definitely use GPS if you could use GPS, it is the most reliable and
quietest system. This system proposes to neuter your ability to use GPS in
Russian territory.

> Also, the cruise missiles would need to be flying lower than the cell towers

That isn't how radio signals work.

[0]
[http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1...](http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2)

~~~
justin66
You're underestimating the mind-blowing awesomeness of high-end inertial
navigation in general, and the awesomeness of inertial navigation inputs mixed
in with other sensor systems in particular. It should be possible to build a
system that can handle some sophisticated jamming and still keep flying with a
high degree of precision...

...but the spectacle of Iran downing one of our drones a few years back using
GPS spoofing makes me wonder if maybe defense contractors are hiring engineers
who couldn't get jobs working at the phone company, or something. So yeah.
Bleh.

(the maker of the laser ring gyros used in the F-15 used to brag that the
plane could go up, patrol, and land and the indicated coordinates were in the
same hangar. I'm sure the tech has only gotten better.)

~~~
lallysingh
I think it's just that they weren't designed with spoofing in the threat
model.

~~~
justin66
That's the point of filtering inputs from multiple navigation sources, though.
One of them should be able to go wrong, it should be apparent, and the rest of
the system should just be able to continue to function. There's ample
experience integrating GPS, inertial, stellar (!), and so on.

Mostly I was responding the parent's comment about inertial, which is way off
base. Inertial navigation is amazing.

------
codesnik
"missile defence", ha. As a russian, I now have to buy more foil for the cases
of uncontrollable urge to march, sing hymns and praise Putin.

jokes aside, near kremlin now there's a zone where most gps devices are really
off. Jamming is already used, though most think it's primarily designed to
counter drones, not rockets.

~~~
kw71
How is GLONASS affected near Kremlin?

~~~
codesnik
"civil" glonass is probably affected in the same way, I think, but I don't
really know. They use some 3rd party (chinise?) gps/glonass jammer which shows
that signal is coming from one of international airports (VKO in case of
kremlin jamming), which are already a no fly zone for most civil drones

------
Jtsummers
So, practically speaking this can't be constantly on (in many areas) because
it jams even their own navigation systems. Does this mean it will only be
activated when there's a threat (perceived threat such as observed escalation,
or detected such as a detected launch)? And then, this doesn't necessarily
protect the area, it just means the weapons navigating by these jammed
mechanisms will be more likely to hit a random target than the desired target.
Effective for protecting strategic assets, but ineffective at actually
protecting your territory in general.

------
jandrewrogers
Jamming GPS won't do much against US cruise missiles because the primary
guidance is optically-corrected inertial i.e. there is a camera that matches
terrain features for fine-grained localization. IIRC, some variants also have
a terminal guidance package that knows what the target looks like and can make
corrections toward the target as it comes within range.

The only thing jamming GPS might impact is the inflight re-targeting features,
but military GPS is not easily jammed and the inertial system should still be
able to do the job until the optical localization can get a fix.

Should work great against cheap drones and such though.

------
wmil
This wouldn't be effective against actual military missiles. It might be
effective against terrorists using weaponized drones.

------
lallysingh
Cell towers as defense aren't new. In 2008 Egypt was showing off a passive
radar system that detected objects by how they reflected cell tower emissions.

------
EugeneOZ
Bullshit, there is no such article by the link behind word "reported" and
googling by word "полюс 21" (pole 21 in russian) doesn't give nothing.

~~~
ak217
Here is the original source:
[http://izvestia.ru/news/628766](http://izvestia.ru/news/628766)

And here is the manufacturer's spec sheet: [http://www.ntc-
reb.ru/pole.html](http://www.ntc-reb.ru/pole.html)

~~~
EugeneOZ
Thank you. So it's just GPS jammer, not "missile defense system".

------
bduhan
The jamming cell towers are stationary and could be used as navigation aides
for incoming missiles.

------
TeMPOraL
Based on the title, I expected to read that the Russians are installing
missile _launchers_ on cellphone towers...

The article doesn't make it explicit, but the Pole-21 system seems to be (at
least in part) a satellite navigation jammer[0].

[0] - [https://www.sott.net/article/327171-New-Russian-hi-tech-
jamm...](https://www.sott.net/article/327171-New-Russian-hi-tech-jammer-
operational-blocks-all-GPS-navigation-systems)

~~~
24gttghh
From the OP's article-First stanza: "...the Pole-21 anti-missile jamming
device..." Further down: "...Russia will be virtually impenetrable to missiles
using satellite navigation."

~~~
dtparr
Shouldn't that really be using _only_ satellite navigation? Anything with a
backup (e.g. inertial, celestial, terrestrial) should still be viable, though
perhaps degraded in accuracy. But hardly impenetrable.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I wonder about it too. From what I read, military-grade inertial navigation is
_pretty damn accurate_.

~~~
24gttghh
Onboard precise clock, very accurate ground/airspeed gauges, heading tracking
would get you pretty close. Maybe not laser-guided close, but hey what are
cluster-bombs for?

~~~
arpa
or nuclear warheads.

