
MALD-X Advanced Air Launched Decoy Test Is a Bigger Deal Than It Sounds - cascom
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23126/recent-mald-x-advanced-air-launched-decoy-test-is-a-much-bigger-deal-than-it-sounds-like
======
madeuptempacct
This is aimed purely at Russia (not implying there is anything wrong with
that). The question is whether or not Russia is able to differentiate between
decoys and real jets. At the very least, this will slow down the decision
making process or force a trade of missile for decoy. At $350,000 a pop,
that's a fairly expensive trade, though if it makes a hole in an air defense
net, it makes sense.

Russia has proven unable to back up claims of its S-300/S-400 systems being
able to intercept even the slowest of US cruise missiles (Tomawhawks are
embarrassingly slow and high), so in practice, this probably WILL really
confuse Russian systems.

~~~
dfsegoat
I think it is aimed at anywhere in the world where we would need to put a
strike package into a non-permissive environment.

People are catching on quickly to the fact that if they can keep our air
assets out - they can keep America from projecting power. This has led to the
proliferation of layered air-defense systems, etc. and the concept of "Anti
Access/Area Denial".

------
mr_overalls
> Considering this new MALD is networked, swarming and cooperative tactics
> among a group of MALD-Xs/MALD-Ns could work to achieve their full potential
> as a team. This includes classifying, prioritizing, and delegating jamming
> and decoy duties on the fly during their relatively short lifespan. By
> working together autonomously they can act at speeds that can break the
> enemy's decision cycle and cripple their ability to respond fast enough to
> impact what's going on in the battle-space.

It's often lamented that the best minds of our generation are spending their
careers optimizing clicks on cat pictures.

However, I'm not sure that using advanced AI to kill people is much better.
And given that this particular project is actually being publicized, it gives
me the chills to speculate on what kinds of advanced AI is being developed in
black projects.

I mean, imagine a pack of Boston Dynamics' agile robots running through the
streets - equipped with a facial recognition database and a weapons platform.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OKZ_n8QW4w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OKZ_n8QW4w)

~~~
bassman9000
_I 'm not sure that using advanced AI to kill people is much better_

bright minds worked in the US and other nuclear programs, included soviet
ones, to keep geopolitical balance with minimum deaths. And with AI you want
the brightest minds working on it: it doesn't matter how compassionate and
good willed you are, there's always going to be another state actor willing to
use it against you. And you can bet they'll employ their brightest. Assuming
anything else is naive and suicidal.

------
spitfire
The article says they have a range of 500Miles and a flight time of 1hr -
that's 500M/hr.

Do current radar systems track a plane with enough frequency/detail to observe
an aircrafts performance (turn rate, climb, speed, etc)?

I ask, because they claim to be matching an aircrafts electronic signature,
which is fine. But if they're not also matching their performance envelope
that seems like an easy way to identify the decoys. Though it still might take
enough time to be a useful tool.

~~~
lainga
It's said that the US AESA radar on the F-22 can perform aircraft
identification by counting the spin rate and number of blades on the opposing
aircraft's compressor.

------
chx
> So basically, when you talk about 'day one' air combat operations against a
> peer-state adversary

Is that a realistic threat? A peer-state adversary? Is it a legit concern the
USA will need to enter into air combat against a country?

~~~
bassman9000
you want to make sure anyone thinks it would be suicidal to challenge you in
order to call it deterrance

e.g. if the US Navy wasn't vastly superior, shipping routes would be
constantly threatened

if you get to the point of being at actual peer level, you're past done. Look
at China: they're still not there, and yet they're aggressively taking
positions in the South China sea

~~~
close04
This isn't to challenge Russia or China, that war will be fought at least
initially from behind a computer screen and if they do their job right the
other side will take some huge blows where it hurts before the first bullet is
fired - civilian life: utilities companies, internet infrastructure,
communications & satellites, etc. A soldier is trained to have a harder life.
How about your average Joes?

This is aimed squarely at selling to allies and at projecting power in some
random corner of the world that couldn't respond in kind even if they wanted
to.

All the fancy tech all sides are parading is mostly for propaganda reasons.
How useful is a drone that relies on GPS signals that to this day are easily
spoofed or jammed? How useful is an ultra-expensive stealth fighter that's not
invisible to enemy radar?

A war between peer-countries is not good for the wallet. Unlike small wars
against enemies that are more likely to fling rocks at you [0]. Then you get
the chance to equip your (also rock flinging) local allies with your tech,
assist them in fighting, etc. For a price of course.

[0] relative power compared to big game military.

~~~
mr_overalls
> How useful is a drone that relies on GPS signals that to this day are easily
> spoofed or jammed?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system)

~~~
close04
And here I was talking about precision warfare... :) Guess an accumulated
error in the Kilometers range shouldn't be an issue.

Military drones have already been hijacked using GPS spoofing so I'll be
skeptic regarding the guidance system being bullet proof thanks to INS.

~~~
mr_overalls
Good point. And I thought I was being clever! ;-)

------
ohitsdom
If the US is developing this as an offensive weapon, they have to be thinking
of how they would defend against such tactics. Anyone know? Or does the US
just trust their radar to be more advanced to correctly identify any decoy?

~~~
madeuptempacct
First of all, this doesn't apply to the US in the way that it applies to other
countries. The US has over-whelming air superiority. It's biggest concern are
Brahmos II missiles taking out one of its 9 carrier battle groups.

The way the US handles this threat is having an AWACS plane on each carrier
providing over-the-horizon radar coverage and being able to guide its
hypersonic anti-missile missiles to the approaching missiles in time. That, or
getting its F/A-18Es in the air off of the carrier to intercept any incoming
aircraft (not really a thing anymore).

------
kevin_thibedeau
Seems like this would be defeatable by radar that sends out pings with an
unpredictable characteristic that the decoy won't be able to mimic with a
stronger return signal.

~~~
moftz
The decoy has its own radar signature, its really small. It can mimic a larger
object by receiving, amplifying, and then transmitting the signal the enemy
radar signal. Smaller objects can get closer to radar before they are detected
so the decoy projects an image of a larger aircraft to hide within. The radar
sees the plane and starts tracking it. The decoy can likely use some fancy
signal processing to move the image of the object around and even project
multiple objects. Add more decoys and you can overload the object tracking of
the radar station. The radar might be in range to see the actual decoy at some
point but ideally the radar is seeing a bunch of phantom planes and missiles
at this point so the decoy just blends in with the swarm.

Radar already does something similar to what you are suggesting, there are
spread spectrum techniques that are much more jam/spoof-proof than just a
constant ping or even a linear frequency sweep. You pseudo-randomly hop
frequencies to avoid having someone broadcast a really strong signal at one
frequency and to have someone be able to track your pattern of hopping. The
pattern is generated similar to crypto, you start with a seed (the plaintext)
and encrypt it with a key to get the pattern that you hop with.

------
sorokod
Is there an equivalent of "Signature Augmentation System" that targets LIDAR
sensors?

