Blog

UAV Mounted Radar Tracking – in the USA

predator

Before I launch into this post, let;’s just keep one thing in the forefront of our minds: THIS IS NOT THE ALL -SEEING EYE OF MORDOR.

Comments of the ‘we’re all gonna die, why bother, give up hope all ye who enter here” type will simply be deleted.

Previously I have concentrated on the avoidance of aerial thermal (FLIR) surveillance. It has come to my attention that there is now at least one VADER equipped UAV drone operating on the US southern border with Mexico, tracking the crossing of illegals. Now, remember, below it will be explained that this can fly at 25,000’ and track an area of approx. 35 square miles. Cool. How big is America? Think about it.

After a little explanation on open source technology, we will briefly look at counter measures:

VADER (Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar): (Original Article HERE). Extract:

“VADER is designed to track vehicles and foot traffic over a wide area from UAVs and manned aircraft, and provide Army ground commanders with real-time ground moving target indicator (GMTI) data and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery. VADER’s exploitation suite includes the DARPA NetTrack tool for persistent reconnaissance, surveillance, tracking, and targeting of evasive vehicles and people moving on foot in cluttered environments.

The system operates in two modes: as a synthetic aperture radar for high-resolution still images, and as a real-time ground moving target indicator for detecting and tracking moving targets-particularly moving vehicles and humans on foot. The overall idea of the VADER system is to detect teams planting improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to destroy or damage U.S. military vehicles and personnel. VADER also has been demonstrated to track animals and boats.

The VADER’s ground moving target indicators detect the Doppler shift that moving objects produce in radar return signals, Northrop Grumman officials say. Doppler shift is a change in the frequency of the radar return caused by the motion of the target. Because there is no shift caused by stationary objects, the shift reveals moving objects. VADER transmits processed signals from the aircraft to ground stations, where operators can view still, high-contrast, black-and-white synthetic aperture radar images, or moving targets displayed as dots on a map.”

Article  (H/T Joe): ‘Drone Surveillance of Border Far Greater Than Previously Known‘. Extract:

The newly-released records reveal other surprising facts, including that CBP was using its sophisticated VADER surveillance system much more frequently than previously thought and was using it for other agencies. This sensor, also known as Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar, was initially developed for use in the Afghanistan War and can detect the presence of people from as high as 25,000 feet. CBP has used this sensor in its surveillance operations since 2011 and used it at least 30 times for other agencies in 2012. 

Now, a couple of things about VADER:

1. It is only going to track you when you are moving.

2. A main counter measure to personnel/vehicle tracking is to be in a busy area, to clutter it up.

3. If you are in the boonies, going static will prevent tracking.

4. Measures used to prevent FLIR thermal tracking will work. Terrain and vegetation masking will work. Going static under such with a thermal poncho over you will prevent tracking. VADER, in my understanding, is designed to work in more open areas, which is why it works so well in Afghanistan and the south west deserts. Getting behind terrain and under tree canopy is going to help. So, the usual counter measures for avoiding drone tracking will work.

5. You are not going to know if this thing is over you, unless you have surveillance on where they launch it from (clue). But it can’t be everywhere, even if they get a bunch more. It will likely be used to cover names areas of interest (NAI), so avoid those (clue – don’t operate in the same areas, or near your home area).

6. Final clue – if these are being used against you by enemies foreign or domestic, then hit where they are flown from, maintained, supplied, and the trailers where the ‘pilots’ sit, and the accommodation where they live.

For those operating in the boonies and under tree canopy, this is more worrying: FORESTER:

FORESTER is an airborne radar system that provides stand-off, persistent, wide-area FOPEN surveillance, detection and tracking of people and vehicles.

Objective:
U.S. Forces want to deny enemies the ability to conceal their location and movements under foliage or during darkness and adverse weather conditions. A stand-off capability is needed to persistently scan large wooded areas for potential threats to provide actionable user ntelligence
for military operations.
Solution:
The Foliage Penetration (FOPEN) Reconnaissance, Surveillance, Tracking and Engagement Radar, or FORESTER, is an airborne radar system that provides stand-off, persistent, wide-area surveillance for situational awareness of foliage covered areas. With real-time onboard processing, the ground moving target indicator (GMTI) radar uses ultra-high frequency (UHF) to penetrate double canopy foliage to detect people and vehicles. It then sends the surveillance data to a ground station via a data link for tracking, target exploitation, and report generation. From 15,000 ft (~5 km), FORESTER has an area coverage of 90 mi2 (145 km2 ) and a maximum range of ~9 mi (15 km) to detect people under foliage. It provides continuous coverage over a 90-degree sector and has mechanical and electronic antenna steering to cover all 360 degrees.

FORESTER installs on a helicopter, which is able to maintain near-zero ground speed, enabling the radar to detect very slow-moving low radar
cross-section targets such as troops on the ground. It has been successfully tested on the A160 Hummingbird unmanned aircraft system
and Black Hawk helicopter. FORESTER has also been considered for installation on the U.S Army’s Long Endurance Multi-intelligence
Vehicle (LEMV).

The FORESTER system was designed and developed by SRC through the sponsorship of the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, the U.S. Army, and the U.S. Special Operations Command.

Enhanced Detection and Discrimination:

Enhanced data-processing tools are being developed by SRC under DARPA’s FOPEN GMTI Radar Exploitation and Planning program, also
known as FOPEN-GXP. These tools will exploit FORESTER data to discriminate and characterize human activity under foliage in order to assist in the development of actionable intelligence.

Applications
• Denying enemy sanctuary under foliage, during darkness, or in adverse weather
• Identification of ambush sites
Features
• Stand-off, persistent, wide-area FOPEN surveillance
• All-weather, day/night detection
• UHF GMTI / AMTI / SAR capability
• Real-time, onboard processing
• 360 degree surveillance coverage with electronic beam steering to search 90-degree sector
Benefits
• Excellent small and slow target sensitivity
• Real-time situational awareness in dense foliage areas
• Actionable user intelligence

And the latest version of FORESTER: TRACER:

Tactical reconnaissance and counter-concealment-enabled radar:

From Wikipedia:

The United States Army tactical reconnaissance and counter-concealment-enabled radar – TRACER is a mid-range, long wavelength synthetic aperture radar (SAR) system that provides all-weather persistent surveillance developed by the United States Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center’s Intelligence and Information Warfare Directorate. The TRACERprogram began in April 2007 and has been integrated onto a C-12 Huron. In the fall of 2010, it is planned to test TRACER on NASA’s unmanned Predator-B IKHANA, and later on Air Warrior.

Due to its decreased size, weight and power consumption compared to the predecessor foliage-penetrating radar program, or FOPEN which has been in the field since the late-90s, TRACER operates on manned and unmanned platforms and produces images on board in less than five minutes. As a follow-on to FOPEN, the TRACER system can be tailored to specific missions by providing a variety of SAR images including strip maps and spotlight and circle images.

Combining systems for the future:

The ability to detect and track dismounted personnel is in great demand, Kuderna says. His division is working with the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) on the Foliage Penetration Reconnaissance, Surveillance, Tracking and Engagement Radar (FORESTER) program, which aims to develop a low-frequency radar to track dismounted personnel under foliage and other complex environments in which adversaries normally would be concealed.

Another joint program with DARPA and JIEDDO is the Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar program, or VADER. It aims to accomplish the same goal as FORESTER but in an open environment. Both programs face similar challenges such as target discrimination, data identification and false-alarm rejection, Kuderna allows.

The Artemis program seeks to combine the SAR and GMTI foliage penetrating capabilities of FORESTER in a single sensor. Engineers are eying the Fire Scout as the objective platform, so the challenge is to combine two 500-pound sensors into a single sensor that weighs 250 pounds.

In higher frequencies, the STARLite radar already is in production for placement on the Army’s extended range multipurpose MQ-1C Sky Warrior unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Another radar under development for that UAV is Tracer, a low-frequency SAR foliage penetration radar that currently is undergoing engineering flight tests. Its next phase will involve flight on an unmanned platform, and NASA’s Ikhana Predator-B type UAV will serve that role.

06/27/13: DHS: Persistent Wide Area Surveillance System Could Augment Mix Of Border Security Tech

So, the bottom line is that technology is changing and advancing. How long before TRACER/VADER combined capability UAV drones are flying in the US? How long before more are purchased to increase the potential coverage area?

As this surveillance technology advances (for your safety and security) the nails of tyranny are being hammered into the coffin of Liberty. A wary eye should be kept on development in this technology. At this time, if free Americans suddenly had to face a threat from enemies foreign or domestic owning such capabilities, it would be manageable. My advice: keep an eye on where these devices are being operated from.

Tempus fugit.

Live Hard.

Die Free.

Max

27 responses to “UAV Mounted Radar Tracking – in the USA”

  1. You do realise that your blog and posts of potential counter measures will almost guarantee you being on Uncle Sam’s shit list?

    • A man can’t call himself free if he lets fear of the government dictate his actions. “Live hard. Die free” isn’t just a gimmick for Max and true patriots.

  2. There was a guy in Baltimore Maryland that evaded police for 10 days or so. His name was Joseph Palzinski (Spelling). He was able to outsmart FLIR multiple times with Police and choppers coming within feet of him. There were a few reports and studies about how he beat FLIR and how he knew pine trees had some sort of blinding qualities and blinded FLIR or something or the other..

    There use to be a lot of info about it on the net, but lately i haven’t been able to find anything like I use to find. He was one of those guy with a crazy high IQ and just knew shit and used it criminally..

    Bergmann

  3. As I keep saying, The shovel is the most valuable weapon we have. Dug in with overhead cover you can eat sleep and fight. Having a series of covert and hidden RON positions dug into your AO will offer much more safety and flexibility that all the body armor and tacticool crap you can carry on an F-350. Pre-stock them as “supply dumps” and hide them well. Space them one days march apart in concentric rings. Your enemy will have to turn every rock by hand to find you, or bomb the countryside to craters and dust with B-52 “arc light” strikes, Making every “local” your instant ally.

    • What, you mean I can’t wage war from my BFT (Big Fucking Truck)!? You mean I have to do PT and dig holes? I don’t want to play anymore. I just want to look all tacticool on the ranges!
      *cries*
      ;-)

      • LOLOLOL. Too bad so many DO “think” exactly that Max. They don’t seem to understand that WORK is need in order to see results, and that P.P.P.P.P.P.

  4. Might be able to be detected by a receiver since they are active. Then all this stuff is liable to be gamed by deception.

    A few months ago I was watching a NatGeo show about a Marine outfit using two tactical drones and they lost a guy underneath trees. But what I noticed is how they fuzzed the picture up of the toughbooks so as to not show effective cone size of the camera. If it were omnipotent they would have shown you, that is the MO. After the gulf war they made a big deal of this kind of system that was mounted on one of those AWACs planes. If that were true then two of these planes could fly across AfPak spot people out after curfew and send them a nasty gram “we see you.”

    Next thing you know practical jokers will be flying model airplanes at night so they can be chased by million dollar drones. Which reminds me of a story about some Marines in AfPak that occupied a compound next to an up and coming village. One night they get RPGed at 5AM so they mount up and go do a sweep and what do they find but a launcher that had been rigged to a watch, IMO that is not fair.

  5. When SKYNET becomes self-aware, all the toys will be ready for its use. Swell.

    However, as long as there is a man-in-the-loop and if it’s used here at home, there really isn’t anyplace for the operators to hide.

  6. One thing that cannot be emphasized enough, “THIS IS NOT THE ALL -SEEING EYE OF MORDOR!”

    Thank you Max, for your work at educating the Doomsayers.

    Remember RADAR is an active sensor, which means development of ESM (Electronic Support Measures) capability is not only possible, but probable. Think RADAR Detector. With “software defined radios” it would be possible to develop “Homebrew” ESM equipment to identify when such equipment is a threat and take appropriate counter measures.

    Not sure if it is just how I read it, so to clarify, these systems don’t just give the typical “dot” RADAR return, but create a digital image. These require a skilled operator to interpret if target is stationary. “1. It is only going to track you when you are moving.” This is probably true, but they may be able to ID you as a person.

    I don’t know specifics of these sytems, but many SAR (synthetic aperture radar) type systems can introduce Doppler by phase shifting frequencies to create 3D imagery (think digital picture). The counter is to not look like a person to the operator, by changing silhouette (RADAR Scattering Tank Camouflage netting could be one solution).

    Above would be considered Passive Countermeasures, there may be Active Countermeasures available, but they tend to give user unwanted attention.

  7. Nothing has changed.
    It just means we are going to have to fight harder and smarter.

    Drawbacks to such things it requires a lot of money and support to operate these technologies.
    This is one big ass country with a lot of very smart and ingenious people who don’t care much for this police state regime crap. There are always countermeasures and weaknesses in any technology that can be used to advantage.
    I can think of a few Achilles heals in these systems and especially those who operate them.
    If the enemy brings the fight to you, bring the fight to him in his backyard and make em pay in blood.

  9. History offers some examples of countermeasures to radar that may be adaptable to the present. The first that comes to mind is chaff; pieces of reflective aluminum foil dropped at high altitude played hob with radar systems in WW2, and chaff in various forms is still in use today. I wonder what would happen to the various radars if Christmas tinsel were strewn about the trees and brush of a wooded AO…. might make it hard to see, at least in any detail. In an open area, a few cheap skyrockets with payloads of strips of aluminum foil might blind the radar for a few critical minutes, long enough to break contact and get out of sight.

    The use of radar detectors against police traffic radar has been pretty effective, too; I wonder how difficult it could be to make something like that for the frequencies involved. BTW, some technical detail of the frequencies involved would be most useful.

    Active emitters reveal their presence to a sensitive receiver long before they are able to return useful information, so if you start to hear a radar source, then you have time to take countermeasures, unless, like a traffic cop, the operators wait until you are in their basket to activate the radar.

    the military also uses homing anti-radar missiles to discourage active emitters on the battlefield, and the Russians have a well-developed suite of anti-radar weapons, including the ZSU-23. Doubt such things will be floating around, but you never know what some disaffected unit might contribute to the cause.

    Drone on drone comes to mind, too, or for that matter, a fast twin engine aircraft could take care of business pretty well.

    Lastly, the use of chemically or electrically-pumped directed EMP weapons which have been used historically might be worth a look, as well as the use of pulsed high-energy radars themselves, which might temporarily blind or even permanently disable the drone itself. HEL might also be of use, and some of those might be man-portable; these would not affect the radar, but could disable the associated camera systems and degrade drone capability.

    • Seems a radar beam is just another word for a homing signal. In other words, the radar emitter “paints” itself. Shouldn’t be so hard to fit a seeker to homeboy drones/RC model planes, etc…

  10. So the government thugs have some nice toys with a 9 mile imaging range. The problem (bad for them; good for patriots) is that wide range thermal imaging is only useful for electronic tripwires (e.g. people or vehicles crossing a border) and for identification of large movements of people or vehicles. Individual targets very quickly become noise – especially in wooded or mountainous areas where the heat target might not even be human (e.g. cattle; deer; elk; bear). Plus, a 9 mile radius is 255 square miles. Even in lower population areas, there are a lot of heat signatures in 255 square miles.

  11. When I was in the Suck in the 80s we switched out our burlap type cammo nets for our trucks, guns, jeeps for a new synthetic type of cammo netting. We were told it was radar diffusing or something like that.

  12. Here in Des Moines, our ANG unit lost their F16’s and are now a drone unit. Supposedly for “training”. Knowing where they are is half the fight. Time to buy that 50 I’ve been wanting.

  13. If it radiates, you can detect it. You need to know the operating frequency, but simple detectors can be made.

    Wide-band jammers can overpower the echo from real targets and blind the system. However, they also provide a target for a radar-homing missile.

    The system can be spoofed. Radar corner reflectors (look it up) can be made with crossed sticks and aluminum foil. Set a bunch of them loose on a windy day. They’ll roll over the terrain and provide some nice doppler echoes.

  15. This may be a stupid question but I don’t have expertise in these matters. IR squares on hats, or IR strobes on helmets, or IR flags on shoulders. Could these hurt or help? Might you be mistaken as a friendly by a drone or a patrol using ir nvd, or are you going to get the surprise of your very short life. I see people wearing them with little idea of what they are about. Thoughts?

  16. I heard from a FLIR employee here in Oregon that his systems were COMPLETELY unable to see through glass. Was wearing his company ID so he was the real deal. Kinda looked sheepish after he said it…like maybe he shouldn’t have…
    Not sure if that’s helpful be there it is.

  18. UHF (300-3000 MHz.) RADAR goes back to World War II. It was one of the original radar bands. Check FCC allocations for “Radiolocation”.

    Very easy to detect. Emitters are dirt common. ESM gear readily available. That’s all I’m gonna say…

  19. You guys are thinking way too complicated about “countermeasures”. This thing is a machine-you have to have someplace to land it. You have to have someplace for People who have to arm-fuel and fly them. They are the weak link in the chain. Kill the men who service and operate the machines and they are USELESS. No matter how good base security is “bubba” and “J.R.” are sill gonna want to go to the “vill” and get drunk/laid after a hard days drone strike. The machine its self must have a runway and at least a position for a controller. Those are the attack points. Everything else is just playin’ to the other guy strength; and as they say in football “that’s a really bad way to win a ballgame”.

  20. Remember folks all these “capabilities briefs” are written by the contractor building it or by the PM Shop responsible for writing the requirements and giuding the contractor.

    So EVERYTHING is an advertised best case scenario performance.

    On top of that a lot of these systems are EXPENSIVE… As the budget comes under more and more pressure dont expect them to be built in large numbers anytime soon, if ever.

    And a system needs a minimum number to have any effect at all on the course of a conflict.

    Example: Jagdtiger in WW2 , the most impressive system of almost impenetrable armor, great optics, great suspension, 128mm main gun.. but only half a hundred (or so) built so it had 0 effect on the course of the war.
    (though individual allied battalions had some nasty surprises.. even so the wide conflict was unaffected)

    Just like these sensor systems UNLESS there are scores of them in operation everywhere in this huge country , AND they are operating in a environment with little constraint on their operations/fuel/piloting budget, history shows they will have little effect on a wide conflict. if they are limited to onsies and twosies.

    I can think of a couple other promising sensor that were heli mountable were one or two examples where built and then nothing more came of it.

  21. Too bad I didn’t have a drone up this weekend over the WV AO. I wouldn’t have to wait so long for an update or an AAR. Come on people I’m dying here!