The website The Maritime Executive has a story up about an apparently successful bid by Russia to scramble GPS signals in the Black Sea–for reasons unknown:
An apparent mass and blatant, GPS spoofing attack involving over 20 vessels in the Black Sea last month has navigation experts and maritime executives scratching their heads.
The event first came to public notice via a relatively innocuous safety alert from the U.S. Maritime Administration:
“A maritime incident has been reported in the Black Sea in the vicinity of position 44-15.7N, 037-32.9E on June 22, 2017 at 0710 GMT. This incident has not been confirmed. The nature of the incident is reported as GPS interference. Exercise caution when transiting this area.”
But the backstory is way more interesting and disturbing. On June 22 a vessel reported to the U.S. Coast Guard Navigation Center:
“GPS equipment unable to obtain GPS signal intermittently since nearing coast of Novorossiysk, Russia. Now displays HDOP 0.8 accuracy within 100m, but given location is actually 25 nautical miles off; GPS display…”
After confirming that there were no anomalies with GPS signals, space weather or tests on-going, the Coast Guard advised the master that GPS accuracy in his area should be three meters and advised him to check his software updates.
The master replied:
“Thank you for your below answer, nevertheless I confirm my GPS equipment is fine.
“We run self test few times and all is working good.
“I confirm all ships in the area (more than 20 ships) have the same problem.”
The article goes on to describe further details of the incident, and to note that hundreds of thousands of cell phone towers in Russia are equipped with GPS jamming devices as a defense against US missiles–and also that Russia has previously jammed GPS signals in Russia and in Ukraine.
Point being, we should not underestimate Russia’s capabilities when it comes to spoofing satellite signals.
@Jeff
That is so bogus. Like Russia has 250,00 cell towers (more than the US). Please, that is pure drivel. Journalism has sunk to another new low.
Jamming GPS is one thing. Spoofing it is entirely different and much more complex.
@DennisW,
Not trying to say you’re wrong, but could you elaborate on why you thing it’s pure drivel? The area of Russia is larger than that of the US, and given that I would expect the range of a cell tower to be roughly the same, it would make sense (to me, at least) that there would be more towers to cover a wider area.
Also, Russia has more sim cards per head than the US, so it at least seems that mobile usage is higher in Russia and I don’t see an instantly obvious reason why the numbers quoted above shouldn’t be true? 250k isn’t a huge number more than 215k…
These stats are from 2014, so a little out of date now…
https://mobiforge.com/research-analysis/global-mobile-statistics-2014-part-a-mobile-subscribers-handset-market-share-mobile-operators
@Will
US Tower count:
http://wirelessestimator.com/top-100-us-tower-companies-list/
The 250,000 number includes all sorts of resources including stores. It is widely recognized as a marketing fabrication.
http://wirelessestimator.com/articles/2015/u-s-tower-counts-and-site-information-are-often-inaccurate-and-purposely-misleading/
With respect to GPS spoofing as claimed in the “Marketing Executive”, it is virtually impossible to spoof the GPS military p-code. The civilian CA code can be spoofed, but I have never encountered a single example of it. So why would Russia bother spoofing CA code when they know full well that p-code would be used by the US military? It makes no sense whatever.
Jamming is another matter entirely, and that can be done quite easily. No one would seriously consider spoofing GPS signals.
@DennisW
With regard to GPS Civilian CA (ignore Military P) you said:
(1) The civilian CA code can be spoofed
(2) I have never encountered a single example of it
(3) Jamming is another matter entirely, and that can be done quite easily.
(4) No one would seriously consider spoofing GPS signals.
Point (1)
If it CAN be done – it will be done – by someone – eventually.
It would be foolish to think that no one ever would.
So many civilian applications today are dependent on GPS, both in the air (GNAV approaches) and on the ground / water.
If a “state” in a “conflict or dispute” situation, could see a benefit in disrupting the opposition(s) activities, particulary in a localised area, they just “might” do so.
To that end:
(a) a “state” may “develop” sytems to do so.
(b) a “state” may “test” that system.
Point (2)
We may have just seen such a test in the reported incident.
Note, all ships in the area (20 were reportedly effected the same way.
Point (3)
Jamming is obvious – utterly “unsubtle”.
Point (4)
What if “subtlety” is “required” ?
What if the “intent” is to “initially” hide or disquise the fact, that you were “interfering”, ie, you wanted to lead someone into a trap of some kind ?
Example: In the marine sense.
since most civilian ships use GPS CA navigation, and “watch crews” are notoriously non-vigilant these days (seduced by the utter reliability of the modern systems) a subtle “course offset” generated by “spoofing” may be used to cause a ship to “run aground”, or to “cross some line – into “prohibited waters” perhaps, thus providing a pretext for some kind of action ?
Example: In the aviation sense.
Since most civilian aircraft use GPS CA for GNAV approaches all over the world, the potential implications are obvious.
Why would Russia do that ?
@DennisW:
“…Jamming GPS is one thing. Spoofing it is entirely different and much more complex.”
Correct. My first thought on reading the article was that it was just more fake news. Testing a GPS spoofing system simultaneously on 20 ships is that last thing one would do, as it gives the game away before any operational benefit can be reedalised.
A bit more digging on the author of the article, Mr. Dana Goward is enlightening…
‘Dana Goward is the Founder, President, and Executive Director of the Resilient Navigation & Timing Foundation, a nonprofit, public benefit corporation that helps protect critical infrastructure by promoting resilient navigation and timing worldwide.
He is the proprietor at Maritime Governance, LLC. A licensed helicopter and fixed wing pilot, he has also served as a navigator at sea and is a retired LCDR in the Coast Guard Service.
In August 2013, Mr. Goward retired from the federal Senior Executive Service, having served as the maritime navigation authority for the United States. As Director, Marine Transportation Systems for the US Coast Guard, he led 12 different navigation-related business lines budgeted at over $1.3 billion/year.
During his career, he has represented the US at IMO, IALA, the UN anti-piracy working group, and other international forums.’
Dana Goward is also a member of of the US National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Advisory Board, whose Chair is John Stenbit, who is also an interesting character. He has intel connections and senior positions in TRW and MITRE. I’ve linked to his bio below.
I suspect that both these characters are US intel and that the story is part of the current Russia/N Korea black-washing project. Will be interesting to see if the MSM pick up on this story and if a future maritime disaster in the Black Sea occurs; which will, of course, be blamed on GPS spoofing. This would provide NATO with an excellent excuse to beef up its presence in this sensitive theatre. Perhaps this report is more significant than just another piece of fake news?
http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/stenbit/
@Ventus45
“Point (4)
What if “subtlety” is “required” ?
What if the “intent” is to “initially” hide or disquise the fact, that you were “interfering”, ie, you wanted to lead someone into a trap of some kind ?”
A GPS receiver using CA code can be spoofed for the purpose you state. It would not be difficult for a major player like a nation state to do that.
It is questionable if a valuable asset like a ship/cargo or a commercial aircraft would rely solely on GPS CA code for navigation. Radar, Loran, inertial systems, simple magnetic compasses… all provide backup information that would presumably be monitored as well as GPS.
For those convinced it can’t be done…..
http://www.engr.utexas.edu/features/superyacht-gps-spoofing
@PatM
No one said CA code cannot be spoofed.
@Dennis.
Are you speaking for everyone?
@PatM
For the posters thus far in this thread.
It is also interesting that the University of Texas people who spoofed the ship in your link were passengers on the ship – invited on board along with their equipment. Hardly representative of spoofing a large number of boats over a broad area.
Was Russia Today (RT) coverage of ‘911 Inside Job’ the inspiration for the disappearance of MH370?
In the hacking of the 2016 US election that Russia is accused of orchestrating, the 24 hr news channel RT was also implicated.
According to the unclassified assessment of the Intel Agencies released in Jan 2017, RT and it’s news site were used by Russian intel agencies to plant stories against the US democratic process, and the Democratic Party’s candidate.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
Russia Today (RT) began in 2005 just as word got out about the complicity of Western MSM in supporting the Bush administration’s WMD case against Iraq. Immediately after 911 for those in the West it was considered brave to voice and seek out alternate opinions, and RT provided a platform for just that. Al Jazeera International also started out at the same time (2006). RT covered alternate stories that made the West look bad in the eyes of the world.
However, when Western MSM began asking questions about the 1999 Moscow bombings and Putin’s rise to power, RT in return started asking questions about 911.
The ‘911 Inside Job’ conspiracy theory gained currency in the aftermath of the Iraq WMD fiasco, and RT covered this angle for a Western audience that was fed up with the MSM.
RT also gained valuable experience covering the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict.
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/world-affairs/2013/05/inside-russia-today-counterweight-mainstream-media-or-putins-mou
RT expanded their YouTube channel and targeted different audiences. Through YouTube and website comments and feedback they tailored their coverage. Russia Today’s approach to YouTube video content, …is that “every posted video clip must provoke a response, spark a debate”
https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/how-russia-today-reached-one-billion-views-on-youtube/s2/a553152/
The fact that 911 ‘inside job’ has over 52 videos on RT’s YT playlist and the fact they continue to ask questions suggests this story continues to have some traction with some audiences. If RT is listening to feedback from its audience, it will have narrowed down the specifics of what triggers the audience curiosity about 911, and these in turn may guide their storylines.
In the asymmetric Hybrid War model practiced by Russia, information is ‘weaponized’, and RT’s global audience research would be valuable in case a covert action that generates media interest is planned.
Some of the themes featured in ‘911-inside job’:
• Technology to remotely control airlines
• Controlled demolition of buildings
• FBI knowingly ignored some of the perps
• No aircraft scrambled to intercept
• Hurried removal of debris
The overall message is that US Govt and elites conspired to stage a new ‘Pearl Harbor’ on US soil to justify regime change in the Middle East.
Some of the very same themes have reappeared in the conspiracy theories of MH370’s disappearance.
– Diego Garcia US military base is secret location of MH370
– Pilot Shah is atheistic West-supporting opposition activist intent on installing Liberal Democracy in autocratic Muslim Malaysia
– Operation Cobra Gold with US & Thai militaries completely stood down/ignored missing aircraft
– 2 passengers with passports already reported stolen allowed to board aircraft
– Malaysia didn’t scramble jets to intercept unknown aircraft
– Freescale employees with secret technology (controlled by the Rosthchilds blah blah)
– Hurried decision taken by Malaysia, Australia and China to abandon search for aircraft
If the intention of the perps who made MH370 disappear was to disrupt news coverage of Russia’s invasion of Crimea and float conspiracy theories to implicate the West in the plane’s disappearance, they may very well have succeeded.
Did Ukraine greenlight their 2 passport holders because of a pending EU-Ukraine treaty?
Very little is known of the 2 Ukrainians on board MH370, and the 2 Ukrainian passport holders were being investigated by Malaysian police and FBI in relation to the disappearance of MH370
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysia-airlines-security-idUSBREA280BD20140309
However, the Ukrainian authorities finally cleared the 2 passport holders, albeit as the very last government to do so.
This may have something to do with the Ukraine-EU Bilateral relations.
In May 2017, EU finally gave approval to the EU Visa free travel agreement with Ukraine. This agreement would have been held up if the 2 Ukrainian passport holders were flagged by Malaysia as the prime suspects in MH370’s disappearance.
A 2016 referendum in Netherlands rejected the EU-Ukraine pact, and if the Ukraine passport holders role in MH370’s disappearance came to light, the EU-Ukraine treaty would have been delayed further.
http://www.dw.com/en/ukrainians-can-now-enter-the-european-union-visa-free/a-39199085
@CliffG
Thanks. Even now I can find incredibly little on the two Ukrainian passengers on 9M-MRO. Their innocence in my mind is assumed of course.
The question is what is the Russian intelligence on them. You said all Governments had cleared them. Adverse Russian intelligence may result in concern within the Kremlin that 9M-MRO could be used as a weapon against Russia. This assumes of course that 9M-MRO landed and did not crash (a big assumption).
Do we know which seats the two Ukrainians were sitting in ? Would they have had access to the electronics bay? I always found it peculiar two Ukrainians would be traveling from Malaysia to China in the first place.
@Sekar
I am thinking JeffW has studied those passengers in great detail.
@all
Read this a few days ago. Thought I’d link it here. Quite an interesting article about the “Do Not Pair” system which prevents 2 pilots who’ve fallen out from having to share a cockpit…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/do-not-pair-list-pilots-who-take-like-each-other/
Most will probably be familiar with all this but interesting nonetheless for those who aren’t. Possibly having some relavance for MH370 – who knows… Anyway, main points:
* Each captain, first, and second officer, has an electronic list which feeds into their carrier’s scheduling system, to which they can add the names of anyone they don’t wish to fly with
* Rota prevents two people who don’t wanna fly together ending up in the same cockpit
* Every 30 days (middle of each month), pilots state their preferences for the following month. Interestingly, senior pilots get the choicest pickings: where they’d like to fly, which days they’d like off, and which colleagues they hope to avoid…
* “Sterile Cockpit Rule” forbids pilots from talking about anything other than essential flight-related issues when the plane is below 10,000 feet.
I’m assuming these rules apply to all carriers irrespective of geographic region.
@ABN397
Hey thanks – the “Star Dust” case you mentioned a few days back is interesting!
@All
For you’re info:
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/shipwreck-hunter-david-mearns-leads-push-for-new-mh370-search/news-story/07e61d78b51b8c08c92a5918a2827373
@DennisW
You said (July 21, 2017 at 9:02 AM)
“It is questionable if a valuable asset like a ship/cargo or a commercial aircraft would rely solely on GPS CA code for navigation.
Radar, Loran, inertial systems, simple magnetic compasses… all provide backup information that would presumably be monitored as well as GPS.”
The answer to the “question” is:-
“it is not questionable at all, the answer is known, conclusivly”.
The real problem, is in your last jibe (“would presumably be monitored”), which is the worst form of “error of judgement” in terms of thinking that “a layered
defence” (reason’s swiss cheese ?) will always (well – nearly always) work.
The sad facts are threefold in my view.
Firstly, obviously, that it doesn’t “always work” (well we know that), but more importantly,
Secondly, the frequency and severity of “automation enabled disasters” seems to be increasing, at a rate proportional to the general perception among
so many people today, that “modern systems are now supposedly so damn good, fault tollerant, etc, that “it just can’t happen” – that is – until it
does – oh well – what a bummer.
Thirdly, Parallel defences are not Serial defences, and it is troubling to the mind, that it seems that way too many “system designers” (and “certifiers”)
have a distorted view of what constitutes “defence in depth”.
Here is perhaps the best documented marine “classic case”.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MAR9701.pdf
https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/adegani/Grounding%20of%20the%20Royal%20Majesty.pdf
On a wider canvas:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/automated-to-death/0
And (google) has way too many more to list.
Bottom line is this:
Increasing FAITH in Automation:
= leads to automation “complacency”
= leads to “deskilling” of the human “monitors”
= leads to automation “dependency”
= leads to a situation where the human “monitors” may not even “notice” system degradation, even though they are (actively ? – they think) “monitoring” !!!.
In other words, what we are seeing, is an increasing number of cases, that could best be characterised as equivqlent to the guard on guard duty being asleep
on duty, thus the enemy can sneak up on all of the rest of you, and silently slit all your throats.
There used to be an add on TV in Autralia (many – may years ago) where the jingo punch line was:-
“who guards the guard, while the guard, guards you”.
–
In essence, it is a reference to “single layer of defence = single point of failure = “no defence in depth” – at all.
Please note, specifically, that multiple single layer parallel defences are NOT defence “in depth” – which by definition, REQUIRES SERIAL LAYERS (Reason).
.
In the marine example above, the “system degradation” was not noticed for THIRTY FOUR HOURS !!
THIRTY FOUR ( a whole slew of expletives redacted – in the intersts of civility and political correctness ) HOURS !!!
The “single point of failure” was the SINGLE LAYER – “the watch officer” – note signifacantly, that there were “multiple watch officers, all of whom did more
than one shift (watch), during those 34 hours.
ALL FAILED to notice. MULTIPLE TIMES !!
The question is WHY !!
The reason, they ALL failed to notice, multiple times, is that they ALL, had the same, “single point of failure” = “complacency bias”.
Such biases, are sytemic weaknesses, that can be exploited, either randomly, by Mr Murphy Esquire, or deliberately, by an astute enemy.
@Ventus
Yes, good points. I still question the tactical logic of spoofing GPS over a wide area. It is not at all easy to do, and not applicable to the military p-code. I would wonder why someone would bother to do it.
@ventus45
I have long wondered exactly how the coaxial cables for the lower and upper
GPS antennae are run.
_____________________
You may find this NASA ASRS Report interesting;
http://www.37000feet.com/report/569469/B777-crew-continues-on-a-pacific-route-when-their-EICAS-reports
(Note; a little homily as to NASA ASRS Reports is in order. Briefly, such reports
are useful to those making the report as ‘ass-covering’ exercises, should they later
be taken to task for any possible mistake in performance of their duties. Therefore,
the reports are useful as indicators of problems experienced, but usually only
contain a disappointingly brief outline of the experienced problem and may omit
relevant factors that e.g. a properly detailed report would explore. Consequently…;)
It is open for consideration when reading the above ASRS Report to speculate that
when the report states that;
“The left GPS system slowly corrected to the identical position on the right GPS.”…
“At no time during the flight did the actual aircraft position appear to be ‘off course’.
(ZZZ center found us on course at first radar contact.)”
that the reason the left GPS system corrected was, (as noted at the end of the ASRS
report) that the aircraft flew near to (radio navigation) DME/DME or VOR/DME inputs
and as a result the bad (left GPS) information was biased out resulting in an accurate
navigational position thereafter being calculated/shown for the left FMCF.
Note; Also, the ASRS report is a bit unclear as to whether the phrase “left GPS system”
refers to either;
the ‘left GPS position’ (I presume it is derived only from the left GPS antenna?),
OR
the ‘left FMCF position’ that is, the left navigational position held in the left FMCF
(left AIMS) derived from the mix of all available (at the time) navigational inputs.
The ‘left GPS (only) position’ and the ‘left FMCF position’ are each able to be viewed
by pilots selecting the particular pages via the CDU keypad as explained in this webpage;
http://www.plane.cc/html/ziliao/jiwu/2011/0429/23505_46.html
@Ventus45
An interesting reference about the ‘Royal Majesty’. It was a bit like reading
Brian Callison’s novel ‘A Ship Is Dying’ – (although in that fictional novel, no
happy ending – the ship ended up on the bottom of the sea..)
@DennisW
The tactical logic of spoofing GPS in that area is that the U.S. is very unlikely
to have provided the Ukrainian armed forces with military grade GPS receivers.
Imagine you are a Ukrainian military formation and wish to reply to a mortar
attack (in contravention of the ceasefire) by the so-called United Armed Forces
of Novorossiya, with your own mortar fire (in contravention of the ceasefire).
You may have been told by a higher or nearby echelon that (sympathizer derived
mobile phone GPS) intelligence, or perhaps one of the few Ukrainian airbourne
drones, or other GPS means, have given the GPS coordinates from which their attack
was launched.
If civilian GPS is being spoofed or caused to give inaccurate readings, you would
be unsure if the GPS coordinates are actually correct. Even if you think they might
be correct, by even intermittantly interfering with the civilian GPS signal, the
Russ- er, I mean the Novorossiyans, are able to raise doubt as to whether the
GPS information is accurate. Any action which contributes to ‘the fog of war’ for
your opponents, is desireable, and I don’t doubt any variety of Russian would have the
same opinion.
An attack by a Ukrainian military sea asset has the same problem – if the assets
GPS derived position may be inaccurate, it could be sending shoreward fire not
at the enemy, but rather towards enemy-close friendly forces.
@buyer90
Good point.
Hacking of autopilot on merchant ship ACX Crystal may have caused collision with USS Fitzgerald
On June 17 at 1.30am a Philippines registered merchant ship ACX Crystal collided with a US Navy destroyer off the coast of Japan near a busy seaport.
The merchant ship was on autopilot and noone was on the bridge of the ship.
Some are raising the possibility that the autopilot of the merchant ship was hacked and the collision was intentional.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/freighter-autopilot-hit-us-destroyer/
Perhaps the GPS disruption off the coast of the port city of Novorossiysk, Russia which happened Jun 22 may have been one way of throwing off the AIS systems of vessels which are GPS dependant for position info according to the 2nd image in the Maritime Executive article.
QUESTION: how reliable is the AIS information that is uploaded by each vessel?
QUESTION: if MH370 loitered near Andaman Islands after leaving radar coverage, what do we know of the sea going vessels in the vicinity and can we trust their AIS tracks?
Interesting post over on Victor’s site:
http://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2017/08/02/seabed-explorer-ocean-infinity-offers-to-search-for-mh370/
I don’t want to C&P his post and rob him of traffic, but the gist is that a very advanced underwater survey company has offered to continue the search on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis…
@ Jeff Wise (@ManvBrain)
You wrote on Twitter July 27 the day the US Senate passed the sanctions bill:
However, the original bi-partisan agreement in Senate was reached June 13th.
The New York Times:New Bipartisan Sanctions Would Punish Russia for Election Meddling
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/us/politics/senate-sanctions-russia.html
June 17 the US Navy ship USS Fitzgerald got hit by the ACX Crystal killing 7 sailors.
The ACX Crystal was on autopilot and some suggest it could have been hacked.
@CliffG
This crash appears to be fault of USS Fitzgerald somehow mismanaging the ACX Crystal approach. As far I know it is not a mystery and nobody in authority is suggesting a hack.
What TBill said.
Track of the ACX Crystal;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1b58yelh_c
Collision seems to have occured slightly before or about 16:30;32 , (you can see the
ACX Crystals track change minûtely to starboard, probably due to having a Destroyer
impaled ‘T’ on its’ Bulbous Bow) then, (in contrast to the facebook comments of
‘naval analyst’ Steffan Watkins), the ACX Crystal Officer On Watch seems to have
ordered the ship steered offtrack hard a-starboard.
Thereafter occuring several additional course changes to place the ship back roughly on
its intended course (probably so as to remain within the shipping channel boundaries.)
Turn back ~30 minutes after collision is reasonable (and in no way indicative of an
unmanned bridge) – figure time to summon the Captain to the bridge (7 stories above the
deck), from where-ever he was on that +200 metre ship, carry out his responsibilities
to check his ship isn’t taking on water ‘ah là Titanic‘ + check all his crew are
uninjured and accounted for – sure, 30 minutes goes by, then go back to see what
happened to the ship that thought it could play duck and weave with a heavy container
vessel.
Last comment in this article is applicable; “If you’re on bicycle don’t argue with
a truck”:
http://splash247.com/boxship-master-lays-blame-deadly-collision-uss-fitzgerald-officers/#comments
@CliffG, The incidents took place not the day after the imposition of the sanctions, but the day after Russia’s “boomerang effect” responses. Here’s an excerpt from my Kindle Single “The Plane That Wasn’t There”:
@ Jeff Wise & Tbill
Perhaps you are right, they back up their threats with actions.
But one cannot underestimate the seriousness of the problem of the vulnerability of maritime assets to hacking. Check out this article.
The issue is so serious that insurance companies are now offering policies to cover just such an eventuality.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/01/shipping-industry-vulnerable-to-cyber-attacks-and-gps-jamming.html
@CliffG, Wow! Extremely interesting.
The Russians Spoofed GPS around sensitive buildings.
There are reports that the GPS near the Kremlin has been spoofed in a way to suggest people are 25 miles away. This -likely a Russian security measure -is potentially understandable, but if you are a Pokemon Go player; Uber driver or delivery driver that uses GPS to track movements it will leave you confused or shortchanged. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/is-kremlin-cyber-warfare-behind-moscow-gps-quirk-sending-uber-ca/
Jeff Wise said:
“… responded by saying that sanctions “would inevitably hit the United States like a boomerang.” The next day MH370 went missing.”
But how did MH370 going missing ‘hit the United States’?
The aircraft was Malaysian, not American.
Were there lots of (or some very important) US passengers on board? No, most were Chinese or some other nationality, very few US citizens, and no one seemingly important like a General, a head of a large company or a politician. The Freescale employees? Although an American company headquartered in Texas, the employees’ knowledge would have been written down and known to their colleagues, so nothing lost there.
Or was it some very important cargo? But why would the USA send very important cargo to China and want to keep it quiet? And how would losing it hit the USA? Losing a load of gold might be a problem, but anything else could be replaced.
You wouldn’t want to locate the plane (publicly) if there was a load of (unannounced) gold in the hold, although you might want to find it privately. But would the cost of the (private) search equal or exceed the cost of the gold – say around 4 tonnes? (c. $240M) – and so make it not worthwhile? Or would you quietly use the navy and defence contractors to recover it while publicly searching somewhere else?
Similar situation with MH17. Most passengers were not American, and no expensive USA cargo was reported. So how did that crash hit the USA?
Apart from the passengers, crew and NOK, the people to suffer from MH370 were the MYG, especially Hishy and Najib – the truth of what they were doing might have surfaced (although MAS suffered financially as well, that affected the MYG not the US).
Again with MH17, apart from the passengers, crew and NOK, the external people who suffered were Hishy and Najib not the USA – their step-grandmother (or somesuch) was on that flight, going to a once-yearly, well known religious festival in Sumatra, what a coincidence – it had the hallmark of a very personal warning of the sort you might expect from a criminal gang. In this scenario, it could seem that whatever the MYG was doing that warranted MH370, it was still doing at the time of MH17.
Is it likely the same (state?) actor was responsible for both?
Possibly, but that would pose the question: ‘What was Malaysia up to/facilitating that the (state actor) didn’t like and didn’t want them to do?’
And if you see one or both aircraft as being a ‘boomerang’ due to US sanctions, add the ending: ‘… that the USA was involved in/had an important interest in too?’
Then you have the timing: March 6th to March 8th. Not much time for planning a one-off operation for a one-off cargo. If cargo, whatever was on MH370 would need to have been a regular shipment, or known about well in advance. Much easier with MH17 – Hishy and Najib’s step-grandmother would have booked well in advance to ensure a seat, just need to hack into the airline’s booking system and get the BUK in place.
Apart from who suffered, also look at it the other way round: Qui Bono?
Russia benefited in a big way from the diversionary world media focus on MH370 just as it was invading Crimea, otherwise the media headlines would have been very different.
But how did Russia benefit from MH17? Was MH17 a response to sanctions again? If so, how did that affect the USA? Or was it simply a warning to Hishy and Najib not to play with the Americans, and so it affected the Americans in a roundabout way?
And why pick on a Malaysian aircraft anyway – why not a European (or even better, an American) one? An American disaster would divert the US and world press equally well and could be seen more as payback.
Because of the proximity to the long grass of the SIO? But American airlines fly over the Pacific, just as deep there.
Because of the poorer security at KL airport that allows you to smuggle weapons aboard? Send your operatives from KL to the US and then via a US connecting flight to China then. Or straight from Ukraine or Russia where they can go through the VIP gate without being searched.
Because you need to recover your operatives afterwards near to land in case they talk/because they wouldn’t do it otherwise? Use a bomb. The US would still search for the aircraft to recover the recorders.
And with MH370, what would the cover story be if things went wrong and your operatives found themselves in handcuffs in KLIA? ‘Ukranian’ terrorists, or ‘separatists’ who just happened to come from the Russian part of Ukraine? Maybe that could be why they were ‘Ukranian’.
Where could two Ukranians be going on that flight? There’s shorter/cheaper flights back to Europe in the other direction.
Then add into the mix that Obama made the first US presidential visit to Malaysia since 1966 very shortly after MH370 went missing (on April 27th) ostensibly discussing human rights; and Najib played golf with Obama in Hawaii on Dec 24th after just happening to be there that week doing some Christmas shopping.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/obama-says-theres-more-work-to-be-done-on-human-rights-in-malaysia/2014/04/27/6ecb63b0-cde0-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.61eb976838c7
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/12/24/in-hawaii-obama-golfs-with-malaysian-prime-minister-najib-razak/?utm_term=.210df97b1dc2
@PS9, Speculating on motive quickly leads us to tangled thickets. However, I would point out that the mathematics of the Inmarsat signal are such that if MH370 did not go to the southern Indian Ocean, it went to Kazakhstan.
Also, note that if the Inmarsat data was spoofed, it was done so via a hack that is only possible for a flight that exhibits a suite of very particular characteristics, and all of which MH370 exhibited. I suspect that target was selected primarily for its vulnerability.
@Jeff Wise
The question remains: how did the US suffer from the events of either MH370 or MH17 as a ‘boomerang’ to sanctions they imposed?
That was your original assertion.
“I suspect that target [MH370] was selected primarily for its vulnerability.”
But how did targeting a Malaysian aircraft get back at the US?
And MH17? What was that all about if the US was the target of the ‘boomerang’?
There’s a difference in making an aircraft disappear in retaliation to a sanction (a simple crash into the ocean of a US aircraft as a result of a bomb might do) and flying a difficult spoofed route to Kazakhstan where you’d need to avoid radars enroute.
To go to the trouble of the latter would seem more of a hijacking of people or goods; that would need advance planning.
@PS9
You said:
“You wouldn’t want to locate the plane (publicly) if there was a load of (unannounced) gold in the hold, although you might want to find it privately. But would the cost of the (private) search equal or exceed the cost of the gold – say around 4 tonnes? (c. $240M) – and so make it not worthwhile? Or would you quietly use the navy and defence contractors to recover it while publicly searching somewhere else?”
Are you seriously suggesting that perhaps MH370 did not go west at all – that it went somewhere else – and that the whole SIO search may be a deception – a red herring – whilst “you quietly use the Navy and Defence Contractors to recover it while publicly searching somewhere else ?”
@Ventus45
No, I’m not suggesting (and haven’t said) that – it would seem it went west if the radar data as far as Penang is anywhere near accurate.
It has been previously discussed here that there were reports of Ukranian gold going missing around this time – the outgoing government is reported to have helped itself prior to leaving, and then the new one sending what remained of the Ukraine gold reserves to the US for ‘safe-keeping’:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-18/ukraine-admits-its-gold-gone
Not saying it’s connected, just interesting.
@ PS9
I see that Jeff has sidestepped the question of motive.
Let me take a stab at it.
I believe (tentatively) that the Russia ‘disappeared’ MH370 for several reasons.
1. RUSSIA IS SIGNALLING IT’S RESOLVE TO THE WEST
To understand USSR during the Cold War, specialists in the West developed theoretical frameworks in Political Science, Economics, War Studies etc.
Many people acquired knowledge and insight into the Soviets using these theories. One of these theories is Game Theory.
CAVEAT: I have no education in ANY of these.
With the collapse of the USSR, many of those in the West who studied the Soviets had to re-orient themselves towards the new Uni-polar world with US as the unrivalled superpower. But with the rise of China, EU enlargement, and emerging market countries it soon became a multipolar world,
The post-Soviet Russia was dismissed as a country past it’s prime.
But the election of former KGB officer Vladimir Putin as president changed Russia’s fortunes.
The West used to understand USSR through the Cold War theoretical frameworks. To bring back the prestige that it engenders, Putin appears to be using those same theoretical frameworks such as Game Theory to send a message to the West about Russia’s RESOLVE in it’s annexation of Crimea.
A CLANDESTINE operation differs from a COVERT operation in that emphasis is placed on concealment of the operation rather than on concealment of the identity of the sponsor.
A COVERT operation is an operation that is so planned and executed as to conceal the identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor.
The disappearance of MH370 is a COVERT operation in the eyes of the world, but for a select audience such as the US, CHINA, and the West, it is a CLANDESTINE operation.
It serves no military purpose with the exception of it being the ‘Weaponization of Information’ to distract media attention during the invasion of Crimea.
As such, it can only mean that Russia is sending a SIGNAL to a select audience to convey it’s RESOLVE over it’s annexation of Crimea.
President Obama goes to Malaysia a few weeks after the loss of MH370 to re-assure the Malaysians that this was a one-off event which happened due to sanctions on Russia and a few months later after the 2nd set of Russia sanctions, Malaysia airlines gets hit again with the shoot down of MH17. But this time there is no mistaking, it was OVERT signalling of Russia’s RESOLVE.
Now Obama has to invite the Malaysian PM to golf to say ‘sorry about your loss’.
Here’s a nice review article which explains the ideas of COVERT SIGNALLING, INTELLIGIBILITY, and CREDIBILITY.
https://networks.h-net.org/node/28443/discussions/179859/issf-article-review-76-covert-communication-intelligibility-and
2. THE WEAPONIZATION OF INFORMATION
As I explained in my first post on this thread, Russia had experience through Russia Today (RT) with the kinds of information events such as ‘911 inside job’ that can capture the global public’s imagination. This knowledge would have informed the kinds of attention grabbing COVERT operations they might have planned in the event of an invasion of another country’s sovereign territory.
The fact that MH370 was chosen is purely coincidental in the sense that it alone fit all the required criteria for success. Criteria such as long haul flight, lax airport security, few american passengers, Boeing 777, only one Inmarsat coverage in Indian Ocean, etc.
3. THE HACKING OF CHINESE PLANS FOR A COVERT OPERATION (?)
I’ve recently read some of the papers on Victor Ianello’s website and I can’t get my head around some of the weird things the Chinese did in the aftermath of MH370 except to suggest that perhaps they too were planning something similar to justify the Island Building activity in the South China Sea. It’s may be a coincidence or it may be coordinated with Russia, but the Chinese ramped up construction of their Islands in South China seas during summer of 2014.
Reuters:Cyber threats prompt return of radio for ship navigation:
” … U.S. Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats told a Senate committee the global threat of electronic warfare attacks against space systems would rise in coming years.
“Development will very likely focus on jamming capabilities against … Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), such as the U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS),” he said.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shipping-gps-cyber-idUSKBN1AN0HT
@CliffG, Great stuff. That link is brilliant. Thanks for sharing.
@CliffG
@Jeff Wise
How did the events of MH370 and MH17 hurt the USA as a ‘boomerang’ due to the US imposing sanctions on Russia?
That is the assertion that Jeff made and then side-stepped replying to the question of ‘How?’
@DennisW
Perhaps you could enquire for me if BrB was aware of the existence of a dataset of greater
than 10000 Boeing 200ER flights possessed by the University of Dayton Research Institute?
@Buyer90
Sorry to be dense. BrB??
More details on this spoofing attack from The New Scientist (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2143499-ships-fooled-in-gps-spoofing-attack-suggest-russian-cyberweapon/#.WYyh8gkqFCA.twitter)
An excerpt:
@Jeff
quote from your link…
“While the incident is not yet confirmed, experts think this is the first documented use of GPS misdirection – a spoofing attack that has long been warned of but never been seen in the wild.”
I doubt it will be confirmed. Wide area spoofing has several technical hurdles. No point in debating it here, let’s just wait for the “experts”, of which Humpreys is not one, to weigh in.
@Dennis
DrB
@DennisW
Yes, TBill is correct, my bad – I meant to type DrB .
@Buyer90
I would not characterize my relationship with DrB as beyond ordinary. You asking should be the same as me asking.
@DennisW
Unfortunately, I thought I would carry out an experiment relating to partisanship
on Victors forum (a certain poster allowed to attack others there), but Victor, um,
shall we say, was not amused, and my posts there of any kind are barred. (At least,
that seems to be the state of things – I emailed Victor back on the 27/7 about it,
but received no reply.)
The new Polish commission investigating the 2010 Smolensk crash of the aircraft carrying the Polish president claims that traces of explosion have been found.
http://www.thenews.pl/1/9/Artykul/320135,Traces-of-explosion-found-on-Smolensk-plane