Russian Army Upgrades Its Inflatable Weapons

jamax writes "According to the BBC: 'The Russian military has come up with an inventive way to deceive the enemy and save money at the same time: inflatable weapons. They look just like real ones: they are easy to transport and quick to deploy. You name it, the Russian army is blowing it up: from pretend tanks to entire radar stations.' But the interesting thing is these decoys are not dumb - actually they appear to be highly advanced for what I thought was a WWII-grade aerial photography countermeasures. Apparently they have heat signatures comparable with the military tech they represent, as well as the same radar signature."

Hmmmm

[arcite]

So one bullet to one of these 'death balloons' and all those scary Russians would die from their own Super EVIL WEAPON. Sounds brilliant!

Re:Better still

[qoncept]

Yeah, except they, you know, agreed not to.

Re:Better still

[JWSmythe]

The proper word is "decoy".

    It's a very valid strategy too. If there are 2 or 3 real targets, they may be easy to neutralize. What if those targets became 3000? You'll have an awful lot of your resources spread out to blow up non-targets. After a while, morale can stop dropping when the troops are sent out on yet another mission to blow up a balloon. And that can be dangerous. Thinking that they're "neutralizing" another balloon, and running into a real armed battalion would be a disaster.

    The same applies to all kinds of other scenarios.

    Decoys are useful for lots more than just defensive purposes. If intelligence says an area is occupied, and you're trying to pull a group out quietly, they may be diverted around such decoys, and right into a bigger trap.

    But, if the decoys can be identified, that may not prove anything. 2000 decoy units and 3 real units, you could assume that the real units are protecting the places of value, right? Not necessarily. They only need to be close enough to react. So you have a real unit in front of Bunker A, and decoys in front of Bunkers B and C, you wouldn't necessarily want to attach Bunker A.

No Tracks

[Nidi62]

Tanks, S-300s, and other large military equipment tend to leave tire and, well, track tracks. Especially when in large numbers, these tracks can easily be identified through daylight reconnaissance photos. If a whole company or division of tanks pops up out of nowhere, with no evidence of them being moved to that position, it's going to raise some big flags. Hawkeyes and other aerial radar systems can easily track ground vehicles. They will have no record of these formations being moved into position.

I see this more like something China, North Korea, or Iran would use to inflate(no pun intended for once) force estimations. Park them alongside a couple real tanks or launchers, and all of a sudden a tank company turns into a battalion.

Already thought of

[SmallFurryCreature]

Gosh, the Russian army better give up. Some slashdot geek has thought of the ultimate hole in their camouflage. Tracks! Who would have thought!

Except that they already knows this, and use weedwhackers and torches to create the various effects of a tank on the landscape. Very clever those military people. Almost like they know what they are doing.

That is why they also forbid the local kids from using them as bouncy castles. Would ruin the effect.

Re:Already thought of

[Nidi62]

Look at the other part of my post. The radar signatures of the vehicles making the tracks won't be the same as the number of tanks they are trying to simulate. Aerial radar platforms keep records of what they track and can easily tell that the tracks have been fabricated.

Re:still might not be cost effective

[couchslug]

"if they cost 1% of the price of the real thing, they are in the same price range as the weapons aimed at them, plus they still need soldiers and support."
They are much less expensive than an (accurate) enemy airstrike. A sortie that hits a tanker, perhaps two or three times, delivers ordnance on the dummy target, then returns to base eats up fuel, resources and MANY man-hours that could be used elsewhere.

Re:Already thought of

[cptdondo]

But... A lot psy-ops goes into these decoys. They're meant to confuse, delay, etc.

OK, you know that 10 planes on the airstrip are real, and 30 are fake. But the pilot who's trying to take them out will have flak, AAA, all sorts of things getting thrown at him. The decoys will be positioned to look like the more promising targets of opportunity. With the same infrared and radar signature, it's hard to pick out the ones you want.

Better yet, move 10 real units into place. Camouflage them. Now blow up 10 decoys next to them. What will the pilot/gunner hit?

The decoys are just one small part of the overall picture. Google for CCD - Camouflage, Concealement, and Deception.

Re:Sounds Fishy...

[totally bogus dude]

Probably because they export them to other nations that buy Russian military hardware. Harder to sell things when nobody knows about them.

Plus, for their purpose, having everyone know you have very realistic decoys is actually a good thing. Making people assume the real hardware you're looking at is probably just another fake is just as good as having them think the fake you're looking at is real.