Cosmic Warfare

RUSSIA’S MICROWAVE WARHEAD DISABLING WEAPON UNVIELED

As the USA celebrates the Fourth of July today and tomorrow, it is perhaps worth noting that Russia is pulling the curtain back on some technologies it has had for a while:

Russian military reveal 'microwave gun' capable of disabling drones and warheads

Now, I hope you caught the one thing in this article that probably has the strategic planners in the West a little resistant and hesitant:

"The new system is equipped with a high-power relativistic generator and reflector antenna, management and control system, and a transmission system, which is fixed on the chassis of BUK surface-to-air missile systems.

"When mounted on a special platform, the 'microwave gun' is capable of ensuring perimeter defense at 360 degrees," said a spokesman for the Kremlin-owned United Instrument Manufacturing Corp, according to Sputnik News.

As well as its reported capabilities for taking out drones and warhead, the 'microwave gun' is said to disrupt radio frequencies and "deactivate the equipment" of low-flying planes, the report said.

The system has a range of 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) and can be fired in any direction.

"This mobile microwave irradiation complex performs off-frequency rejection of electronics aboard low-altitude aerial targets and warheads of high precision weapons," a source in Rostech Corporation told TASS.

The implication here is that the weapon - which I have drawn attention to before - could literally scramble the targeting computers in guided weapons, including smart bombs, making them miss their targets... wildly. the implication then becomes rather obvious: with the Western militaries so reliant upon such weapons, such a counter-measure makes that arsenal inherently problematical if they cannot hit their targets.

But there's an even bigger potential problem here, one that we have not previously mentioned, for imagine that one scaled this counter-measure weapon up considerably. One would now have something interfering not just with smart bombs or tactical systems, but something perhaps capable of producing similar effects in theater or strategic guided missiles. In that case, what good are your hydrogen bombs, if you cannot hit the broad side of a barn? or, to put it more directly, cannot even hit the city or military base you've targeted?  It's probably the latter possibility that has western oligarchs concerned, and it's probably the latter possibility that inspired International Business Times to draw everyone's attention to it. Such is the ultimate missile defense system, and of a type typically Russian rather then Western. The Western approach is always that of technological overkill: to hit a bullet with a bullet, to take out a missile with another missile, while the Russian method appears to be to simply scramble the electronics and targeting data of missiles remotely and electromagnetically, a far more practical and perhaps reliable approach.

And where have we heard that before? We heard about it during those 1960s and 1970s (and, for the Soviets, 1980s) UFO incidents where UFOs were reported over ICBM silos. In some circumstances, whole flights of missiles were taken offline, or, in some cases, their targeting data was remotely altered, and in the Soviets' case, it is alleged the flight actually began the launch countdown sequence... all remotely. And as researcher Robert Hastings, in his excellent study UFOs and Nukes recounts, the US Air Force brought in the Boeing company to study the incident, and it was able to reproduce some of these effects remotely...

... in the 1970s.

See you on the flip side...

 

34 thoughts on “RUSSIA’S MICROWAVE WARHEAD DISABLING WEAPON UNVIELED”

  1. This weapon may already be space based and high powered. How about using it on the command operating the weapons systems. The next step in this technology? perhaps that too is space based already. Go to Russia and see for yourself if they have the psychotronic capabilities of the west,one picture is worth a thousand words.

  2. rich overholt

    Could this really neat weapon be used to scramble the delivery system of the geoengineering planes? That way, no passengers or pilots would be killed (theoretically) and only the delivery electronics would be fried. Ten k. is a little short of range, but mounting on some geosynchronous platform somewhere will solve the problem. Happy Indie Day everyone!

  3. My ray gun is bigger than your ray gun, and on and on it goes. In reality there is no need for all this exotic technology, just close down Boeing, Ratheon, Lockheed and all the other MIC companies and voila, problem solved.
    But alas our leaders have no brains and forget what wars actually do, and that’s kill people. I’m sure if you asked Mr. Putin what he would like to spend all those military ruble’s on he would say, the Russian people, and what a great idea. Seems the west have forgotten the absolute destruction WW2 did.

  4. Bloomberg and secret funds:
    “These are all part of Vladimir Putin’s plans to modernise Russia’s army. The president is allocating unprecedented amounts of secret funds to enhance Russia’s largest military buildup since the Cold War, according to data from Bloomberg.”

  5. Roger on the Russian’s practical approach.

    In order to get an ink pen which would write in zero gravity for our space missions, NASA spent a million dollars to develop a special pressurized space pen.

    The Russians simply used pencils, and saved at least a million dollars to accomplish the same thing.

    Also, when we first “acquired” a stolen MIG-25, our military were quick to denigrate and make fun of the Russian’s continued use of vacuum tubes instead of more modern solid state devices.

    Their tone changed dramatically when they discovered that the Russian tube technology was far more impervious to nuclear EMPs than our “modern” solid state devices. It might also be the case that they are more impervious to this jamming technology as well.

    Sovtek still makes some of the best tubes for audio (particularly guitar) amplifiers.

    1. All well and good, but those dollars spent on the space pen also developed other things, like the capacity to manufacture it. So the pen is not the only result.

      It’s been understood for a while that vacuum tubes resist electromagnetic pulses better than transistors.

      This point wouldn’t have been news in the 1970s, but vacuum tubes are awful with vibration and add huge amounts of weight because of power supplies.

      One can bet that even in the 1960s the US was figuring out ways to harden transistor systems.

    2. Psvane Treasure tubes are quite good for audio. I’m currently running their 12AX7’s in my phono, and 12AX7’s and 2A3’s in my power amp.

  6. Although the second version of “Battlestar Galactica” was *ahem* less-than-stellar, it did ram-home one important point: All electronic apparatus is vulnerable (to someone more ‘clever’). Hence, all of Galactica’s ship and fighter controls were physical (man-in-the-loop), analog, or if-digital assumed vulnerable and rarely-used. Back to basics. An important ‘hint’ for humanity’s future – especially-if an AI is already here and hidden. (Think “SkyNet”, in this regard.)

    In a similar scenario, the AESA radars of our fighters were promoted as being able to ‘inject’ false signals into an enemy’s systems through their radars. In the last few years, it has been discovered that this is also a vulnerability: An advanced enemy also has the ability to ‘inject’ signals through this AESA radar into the electronics of our fighters. (I still remember the BG-scene of the newest-and-best Colonial fighters hanging in space with their state-of-the-art electronic control systems ‘corrupted’…)

    On a related subject, the Russians have long been known for their ‘different’ mindset. I remember first reading about their ‘supersonic torpedo’ with my jaw dropping. Take a torpedo body, put a large rocket engine on the back end for thrust, and a smaller rocket engine on the front end (reversed) to produce a cavity in the water. ‘Bumper’ fins on the sides to keep the torpedo in the water cavity. Then, stick in a nuclear warhead to compensate for the limited accuracy. Absolutely unstoppable. The perfect carrier-killer. Who thought of that? Magnificent, in a kind-of dark-side way…

    1. The Battle Star Galactica point is different than a microwave weapon.

      In the show the computers could be hacked, and if networked the Cylons could turn the ships off.

      This is entirely different than scrambling electronics. Hacked computers can be quickly repaired with backup storage of the files and systems, scrambled computers not so much.

      Also many consider the second version of that show to be some of the best TV ever done. Maybe not you, and not me, but…

      1. Lost, you seem to miss the overall point of my posting. Electronic apparatus is inherently-vulnerable, whether by hacking or by ‘blacking’. Given this, efforts should be made to keep a man in the loop for any important decision-making.

        The StuxNet virus is a wake-up call in this regard. It was planted in the Siemens controllers in Iran and Japan. These are examples of where human-controllers were not physically in the loop to notice something was wrong and pull a physical circuit breaker. Unfortunate.

        (The analogous “Battlestar Galactica” example would be to have the newest-and-best Colonial fighters have their state-of-the-art electronic control systems backed-up with a manual-reversion system. Cylon hacking or ‘blacking’? “Click.”)

        1. gosh,

          No, you missed my point, a man in the loop can avoid the hacked computer, but can’t avoid trashed electronics.

          The the hack of Iranian centrifuges isn’t a case of a man not benign the loop, once the machines run to fast, they are trashed, and it would be impossible to have a man checking every minute of every run of thousands of machines.

          1. Lost, I didn’t miss your point. From my last post:
            hacking = “hacked computer”
            ‘blacking’ = “trashed electronics”
            Again, “Electronic apparatus is inherently-vulnerable, whether by hacking or by ‘blacking’. Given this, efforts should be made to keep a man in the loop for any important decision-making.”

            In the case of the StuxNet virus in the Siemens controllers of the Iranian centrifuges, you would not “have a man checking every minute of every run of thousands of machines.” You might have one man (not even a scientist) assigned to each hundred centrifuges. His/her sole job would be to become familiar with how centrifuges sounded and vibrated in normal operation. Then, in walking around, a ‘real world’ picture would emerge, rather than what the StuxNet virus told the instrumentation to display. When needed, run to a central ‘circuit breaker’ and throw the switch…

            In the case of the StuxNet virus in the Siemens controllers of the Fukushima reactors, a man in the loop (in the reactor enclosure, not in the control room) would be able to tell whether the reactors had ‘scrammed’ to idle – as the StuxNet virus virtuously displayed – or whether they were being run at full energy-generation with the circulation-pumps cut off. (Hydrogen-gas ‘boom’.) Here, a physical cutoff-switch would have saved Japan several reactors and a world of trouble…

          2. gosh,

            I’m not sure that’s true about the Fukushima reactor and water.

            The water was gone, and there may not have been a clear source for its replenishment–or power for the pumps. And anyhow it was also the storage “ponds” above the reactor that lost water. That “explosion” was mighty thorough, and the building broke apart in a mighty perfect and even manor–very similar to, but quicker than, the WT Towers.

            As for the centrifuges, we really have no idea how the factory floor was set up. And the computer controller system was clearly set up similar to the system on “Galactica” on the TV series. The controller computers had to be hacked from the inside.

          3. (This may be out-of-order, because I did not see a “Reply” button after Lost’s last posting. Go with the time posted.)

            Lost, I respectfully request that you read the following in full, especially the technical details from p.26 onwards:
            http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/fukureport1b.pdf

            p.26:
            “Fukushima was impossible. The swamping of the generators by the tsunami was irrelevant, because the real emergency backup systems are driven by steam from the reactors themselves and require no electricity at all to function. No electricity is needed to operate three separate emergency systems at each reactor, each of which will keep a reactor safe even if only one works. Interesting it is then that all 9 non-electrical backup systems across the three fueled reactors failed. This is technically impossible outside of willful intent, and was likely the result of a Stuxnet virus attack.”

            p.33:
            “And now I will explain in detail why the problems before the explosions had to be sabotage.

            The diesel generators were not out in the open as we were led to believe, they were in fact located in the basements of the turbine buildings which were sealed off and never significantly flooded. One of them stayed running the entire time, but the electrical switch gear attached to it disconnected it for an unexplained reason which made it useless.

            Each of the backup generators at Fukushima were capable of running 14,000 households each, which means they had to be over ten megawatts each. It is obvious then that Fukushima was set up to survive on only ONE of 13 backup generators, and ONE did keep running. One would be many times larger than needed to run last ditch backup systems at all reactors, but would not keep business as usual. But that is not the real story, which is that even others which were high and dry stopped as well.

            I hypothesize that the ONE generator that kept running was kept as a lone reserve, never hooked up to a SCADA controller. Why did the switch gear disconnect a working generator? That is the type of thing Stuxnet was designed to do. On top of these things, emergency generators arrived on scene within 9 hours, before anything bad happened at all, but were not able to provide power because the switch gear would not let them.”

          4. g:

            That’s an interesting, and different, take on Fukushima, but of course all this information about a whole separate cooling system would need confirmation. (And it may exist, but I’m not going to spend days chasing it down.)

            As to the idea that the computer controls for the system were hacked, but something similar to what was used in Iran, good luck finding confirmation, but again could be, but “could be” doesn’t mean is.

          5. gosh,

            So I looked at the PDF, some problems that make it entirely dismissible:

            Many people reported a big earthquake that they all felt that day. So even if somehow the strength of the quake was misrepresented it existed.

            The insistence that a nuclear weapon was use to destroy the reactor make about as much sense as the same claims about the World Trade Center towers. Nuclear weapons have huge blast waves + flashes, which just didn’t occur in either place.

            So the whole thing is a distraction.

            As for Kobe, if in fact the buildings were built well but still crumbled: Well then perhaps the quake was much stronger than reported, or something else was added to the mix.

            The introduction of Iran is a distraction.

          6. Lost: “So I looked at the PDF, some problems that make it entirely dismissible.”

            “Entirely dismissible.” Hmmm. To me, that sounds like ‘gatekeeper’ language. Readers, check for yourselves…

            Lost: “Many people reported a big earthquake that they all felt that day. So even if somehow the strength of the quake was misrepresented it existed.”

            Nowhere in that entire document does the author claim that no earthquake occured. This is misdirection by you on a massive scale. It puts your motivations in question. The author acknowledges the quake existed, but shows in many ways that the STRENGTH of the quake was massively overblown. Tsk…

            Lost: “The insistence that a nuclear weapon was use to destroy the reactor make about as much sense as the same claims about the World Trade Center towers. Nuclear weapons have huge blast waves + flashes, which just didn’t occur in either place.”

            More classic misdirection. Linking this document to WTC nuclear claims is an attempt to paint it with the giggle-factor. On the other hand, there is a simularity. Building 7 at the WTC ‘fell’ after not being hit by any debris, soon after Silverstein saud, “Pull it.” Smoking gun. Similarly, Reactor 4 at Fukushima was blown all to hell with massive damage in spite of photos showing the reactor had been dismantled for refurbishment and had the core removed. Reactor 4 is the “Building 7” of Fuklushima. (And no, the spent-fuel pond, even if it finally-drained enough to melt, would never have caused that degree of destruction.)

            On the “huge blast waves + flashes”, two things: First, you should look (in theory, again) at the photo of Reactor 3 showing the actual detonation. That towering mushroom-cloud is the result of a huge blast wave, which is carrying the rubble upwards. Duh. Second, the ‘nuke-capable cameras’ were UNDER multiple concrete & rebar walls/floors & domes. The ‘flash’ would have been gone long before the explosion broke-through that material. Duh.

            Lost: “So the whole thing is a distraction.”

            I agree, but your ‘presentation’ is the distraction.

            Lost: “As for Kobe, if in fact the buildings were built well but still crumbled: Well then perhaps the quake was much stronger than reported, or something else was added to the mix.”

            More misdirection. The author’s documentation of the massive destruction of Kobe (in a well-researched 7-scale earthquake) compared with the author’s documentation of the lack of destruction in northeastern Japan (in a ‘claimed’ 9-scale earthquake) tells it all. Look at the photos again. A 9-scale earthquake is 100 TIMES the power of a 7-scale earthquake. Your ice is very thin, here…

            Lost: “The introduction of Iran is a distraction.

            To the contrary: A valid step for all criminal investigations is to assess motivations. The author SPECULATES that a major motivation for the sabotage was Japan’s agreement to reprocess Iran’s spent nuclear fuel. Valid speculation.

          7. gosh,

            No, but the author claims the earthquake that occurred was too small to cause a tsunami.

            It’s not a mushroom cloud, and I’ve already watched the video of the building disappearing years ago. And blastwaves also move out, not simply up.

            The entire PDF looks to be a big distraction with photos. It took work, but it’s a pack of lies.

            It reads like those who claims that nuclear weapons destroyed the towers in NYC.

            All sorts of parties have offered to re-process nuclear fuel from Iran.

            You missed my point entirely about Kobe, and I really have no idea how big the quake there is claimed to have been officially.

            So big distraction, just like the PDF.

          8. Lost: “No, but the author claims the earthquake that occurred was too small to cause a tsunami.”

            The author actually tries to separate-out the earthquake-caused damage from the tsunami-caused damage. The media intentionally tries to conflate the two entirely-different damages. (They occurred hours apart.) If you look at the photos of the buildings, bridges, cars, etc., BEFORE the tsunami hits, you will see an almost-pristine landscape. Again, a 9-scale earthquake is 100 times the power of a 7-scale earthquake like that which devastated Kobe. Damages of that scale are nowhere-seen in the photos. The author then uses THAT ‘discrepancy’ as a “hmmm” to further-interest the even-minded reader…

            Lost: “And blastwaves also move out, not simply up.”

            First, I noticed your not-dealing with the utter-devastation of Reactor 4 with the reactor decommissioned and the fuel rods out. Second, blastwaves ‘move out’ in a sphere when they are uncontained. When they are within the lower-levels of a highly-reinforced structure, they are contained. In Reactor 3’s case, the domed-roof is much weaker than the serious sidewalls, so the blastwaves first overpressure the roof. Conceptually, they behave almost like the supersonic wavefronts in a gun barrel. In this case, UP…

            Lost: “It reads like those who claims that nuclear weapons destroyed the towers in NYC.”

            Again, linking this document to WTC nuclear claims is an attempt to paint it with the giggle-factor. Unwarranted, and it hurts your case.

            Lost: “All sorts of parties have offered to re-process nuclear fuel from Iran.”

            Actually, no. The anti-Iranian sanctions kept most major Western nations corralled from offering this ‘service’, even France. Russia stayed within the sanction regime. Minor nations, maybe. Japan was the only first-world nation to say “sure.”

            Lost: “You missed my point entirely about Kobe, and I really have no idea how big the quake there is claimed to have been officially.”

            Your previous post said, “Well then perhaps the quake was much stronger than reported, or something else was added to the mix.” Pretty plain. The Wikipedia entry on Kobe states, “It measured 6.8 on the moment magnitude scale (USGS), and 7 on the JMA Shindo intensity scale.” At the USGS site quoted in Wikipedia, it states, “Five thousand five hundred two people confirmed killed, 36,896 injured and extensive damage in the Kobe area and on Awaji-shima. … Over 200,000 buildings were damaged or destroyed. Numerous fires, gas and water main breaks and power outages occurred in the epicentral area. Felt along a coastal strip extending from Suma Ward, Kobe to Nishinomiya and in the Ichinomiya area on Awaji-shima; at Hikone, Kyoto and Toyooka; at Nara, Okayama, Osaka and Wakayama; at Iwakuni. Also felt at Takamatsu, Shikoku. Right-lateral surface faulting was observed for 9 kilometers with horizontal displacement of 1.2 to 1.5 meters in the northern part of Awaji-shima. Liquefaction also occurred in the epicentral area.” Pretty definitive, and with no sense of “something else was added to the mix.” Again, a 9-scale earthquake is 100 TIMES the power of a 7-scale earthquake like Kobe. It is nowhere-seen in pre-tsunami photos…

            Lost: “So big distraction, just like the PDF.”

            To me, your brief, dismissive comments sound like the distraction. Again, it sounds like ‘gatekeeper’ language. Readers, check for yourselves:

            http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/fukureport1b.pdf

          9. gosh,

            You keep missing it:

            I clearly wrote “perhaps something else was added to the mix”.

            Almost everything you’ve posted is a big distraction, and in fact a gate by another method. Meaning set up to hide the problems with Fukushima and Kobe under an avalanche of oddities.

            You seem to think the only weapons powerful enough to do anything like this are nuclear bombs. You be incorrect here, and the concept of weapon needs to be extended into things like the preparation of matter.

            You missed the fact that the reactor building disappeared. And effectively the same thing happened in New York, but there was no nuclear reactor at the World Trade Center to help with the delusion of nuclear weapons.

          10. Lost, if you are speaking to the *possibility* that other, more advanced, forms of technology were used at Fukushima, I apologize for missing that point. I was sticking to the known ‘forms’, which are StuxNet and early-generation nukes. If the origins of the tsunami were not ‘natural’, that would also be a good place to look for advanced technology…

          11. go:

            Exactly.

            And in New York and in Kobe, and in Armenia in 1989. Xmas 2004 in the Indian Ocean. TWA 800. Qum, Iran.

            Far from a complete list.

  7. The worst problem of all seems to be: when the missle’s electronics are scrambled and it does go off course, what does it target??? Certainly The Ruskies have nothing to gain by letting it crash in another part of their country. This tells me they are releasing this information because they have now found a way to reprogram the missle to return back to its source. Ouch! Food for thought for the Nazi-Neo-Con bastards controlling our country…

    1. Just figure that a microwave weapon would likely also scramble the detonation computers too.

  8. Reverend_Pops

    Recent failed re-supply missions from the U.S. and a Soyuz launches successfully today; maybe a connection?

  9. ~Thirty years ago, I met a former Aegis class USN Electronics Tech. He relayed a story about how his captain, took every available watt from the ship’s power plants and funneled all of it thru the forward SONAR dome. This massive SONAR “ping” was aimed at a Russian sub that was shadowing them. It caused fires on the sub and forced the sub to surface. According to the story, warships were / are suppose to hail each other to avoid such incidents. So, the us skipper feigned ignorance of the sub’s presence and rendered assistance. That ver. of Russian sub was tube based electronics. Which is supposed to have great resilience against energy weapon attacks. Interesting story if true.

    How close to Atlantean based weapons systems we are is anyone’s guess. I do believe that after 100 years of experimenting with Tesla’s legacy. We have the capability to destroy ourselves with energy based weaponry. That does not include any acquired off world tech.

  10. I would think that if they were dealing with this in the 1970s then they must have countermeasures in place by now.

  11. I remember a declassified report from a polish engineer in the world war 2 about german guards on the road that stopped him and the enginnes of the cars / trucks all stopped and he listened to kinda buz and saw a saucer hovering till dissapear in the tree line. And the feurballs had that capabillities too in minor lenght. That could be the origins of the nowadays system of weapon interference.

  12. marcos toledo

    Given the USA latest white elephant the X35 this at least works. And you say Boeing was working on something like this in the 1970s who knows what both militaries have up their sleeves and are keeping mum about.

  13. As you say this kind of weapon, but with greater range already exists, for example every Aegis class ship in the US Navy has a much more powerful version of this system. And I’m sure the Russians, amongst others, have similar powerful systems–ones with a much greater range than 6 miles.

Comments are closed.