Talk:Electronic warfare

Untitled

I suggest to move it into Electronics Project --Davy Jones 11:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Nonpropagating EM modes?

Is there a particular reason that nonpropagating EM modes and other non-radiative EM fields could not be used as part of electronic warfare? I can't find any good references for this, but as someone with a degree in Applied Physics, I'm certain that technically, at least, it is possible. - JustinWick 03:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... a DJ?

"1. Electronic Warfare is an experimental electronic DJ experiment featuring fellow artists Jay Hines and Adam Barr. The group was founded in 2007." - Why is this here? If this guy wants to be on wikipedia then he should submit his own article not modify this combat related article about this nonsense.

Citizendium Electronic warfare

Citizendium has good article on Electronic warfare that could inform this one Electronic warfare

"Citizendium original articles are available under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (cc-by-sa)" see Citizendium#Content. --LittleHow (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Russian systems?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/12/avtobaza-irans-weapon-in-rq-17.html

The Iranians are reported to have just used a Russian system called Avtobaza, which we don't seem to cover at all. Hcobb (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Shocking that we might not cover something that was only just reported online today. As a matter of fact, adding this would smack terribly of recentism, to say nothing of the fact that, as your article points out, this is all speculation and there is no confirmation that the Iranians actually managed to do anything. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/air_def/air_def_78-81.pdf

Just because you didn't know about doesn't mean it hasn't been around for years. In this case 2007. Hcobb (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't mention each and every electronic warfare suit in this article. The fact that it has been around since 2007 is irrelevant since your reason for adding it is something from 5 December 2011. In otherwords, your claim for notability is recentism for an unconfirmed claim. I will kindly ask you not to speculate as to my prior knowledge as I only commented as to the recent news story claim and its lack of mention in this article, not any prior personal knowledge. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that EWSP be merged into Electronic warfare. I think that the content in the EWSP article can easily be explained in the context of Electronic warfare, and the Electronic warfarearticle is of a reasonable size that the merging of EWSP will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are the same things repeated over and over again in the article?

The article can be shortened five times if the repeated information is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.239.231.68 (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have specific examples? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

spoofing

The categorization of electronic warfare methods leaves out at least one: Spoofing. That means sending informational signals to mislead the enemy. It only partly overlaps with jamming. Spoofing can be sending a false message that you hope the enemy will intercept and act on, or setting up dummy transmitters to generate fake radio traffic, or injecting signals into enemy systems to cause them to misbehave. Radar spoofing methods can be considered a method of radar jamming, but inserting false commands into an enemy control system is not any form of jamming. Many methods of cyber warfare, which surely ought to be counted as a field of electronic warfare, can be seen as spoofing methods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.94.167 (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment - The difference between electronic warfare and cyber warfare occurs somewhere towards the bottom layers of the OSI model. But I agree, if a jammer is transmitting fake packets/frames with the hopes of causing radios to detect them and subsequently drop them, then it is a jamming attack that uses spoofing. If it's goal is to have the radios detect the fake packets/frames and somehow act on them, then that gets into the area of cyber warfare because it is less about spectrum and more about the protocol. Perhaps we need a subsection in this article about EW vs Cyber Warfare? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.146.156 (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Electronic warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110812190924/http://www.dtic.mil:80/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/afd2_5_1.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/afd2_5_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electronic warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160208190823/http://www.tmd.co.uk/markets/electronic_warfare.asp to http://www.tmd.co.uk/markets/electronic_warfare.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electronic warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113200915/http://www.hot.ee/aasa/LPL_1211.pdf to http://www.hot.ee/aasa/LPL_1211.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Severe editing required

This article is horribly written in its current form and is hardly encylopedic. As mentioned by someone else years ago on this talk page, many statements repeat many times. The engineering section doesn’t mention anything about engineering. The history section covers only the last few years and onky 2 events, when we know that the history of EW easily reaches back beyond WWII. Over the next few days, if I don’t see other comments here, I’ll take in upon myself to do some major rewriting. But this should be a collaborative effort. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 07:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I took a stab at making some pretty hefty edits throughout the document. I paid a lot of attention to the History section, found a few dead links, and fixed a few improper citations. I'd appreciate it if someone would come behind me and make more edits. The article still reads poorly to me even after I made several grammatical changes... Anyone? TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 02:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The main criticism still applies. The article is almost unreadably pedantic, spends far too much time on terminological nuance, and is repetitious to boot. I couldn't even get through it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:7040:DBA0:5DE2:4A2D:5D78:23F1 (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Funny, I find it is the most comprehensive article compared to the same article in other languages. I find it great, and very precise, despite that I don't know how where to add my edits ... Dark Flow (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Irrelevant Photos

The E-4B picture relates to protection against a nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP), which I would not consider a form of Electronic Attack. There's nothing here that explains how ECHELON relates to Electronic Attack, either. It would make more sense to have photos of a radar display with and without jamming, or a radar antenna with ECCM related components called out, or an actual jammer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanzandtj (talk • contribs) 12:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I do agree 100% ! Dark Flow (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I found out the https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerre_%C3%A9lectronique

has better pictures. Might you add those, and delete this nonsensical EMP testing the E-4B picture ? Dark Flow (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No mention of counter-intelligence, encryption, hacking or espionage.

Signals intelligence is mentioned, but counter-intelligence, information policy, vetting, security clearances, control over physical access to information, internal investigation, and encryption are not, and there is no mention of hacking or traditional espionage in the signals intelligence section. MathewMunro (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't you believe that this is covered in, and belongs to, different articles ? How do you hack EW ? Or generalize different compartments and classifications and security clearances of nations and organizations in and outside of NATO ? Dark Flow (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The discombobulator

I don't see why we wouldn't want to add speculations from experts what "the discombobulator" would be composed of. Off and running (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Because our policies say that's not what Wikipedia is for. In fact, speculation about non-existent future weapon systems is exactly the type of example that our policy says is not OK. Additionally, without identifying who those experts are, or quoting their statements directly, we can't verify what they actually said, nor that it aligns with their field of expertise. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I think there is a major misunderstanding on your part. This is NOT "about non-existent future weapon systems". It's about a weapons system that was allegedly used in Venezuela in January 2026.

The only thing that is in dispute is whether it's a single weapon (as insinuated by Trump) or as a system of weapons (as speculated by experts).

Since the term is now in popular culture, it should be explained what the term is believed to be referring to. Off and running (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

There's no misunderstanding on my part. We do not know what type of weapon system was used in Venezuela. Neither do the experts. The context in the paragraph in question, however, is about what Trump referred to as the "Discombobulator" which is a fictional thing that doesn't exist. We all know what he meant, but it does not change that this is speculation about a fictional product, that is based on a classified real-world product for which no public information exists, and for which no experts actually have any data. But to be perfectly clear: there is no possible way that any expert could state with any degree of certainty that either Trump's fake system, or the DoD's actual one, consists of "Electromagnetic Pulses (EMP), High Power Microwave (HPM), high-intensity acoustic, and Radar jamming and deception." That is, for all intents and purposes, fan-fiction based on absolutely nothing other than speculation. Especially when the source is unwilling or unable to identify who the so-called experts are, let alone the actual language they used, we cannot in any way substantiate that claim as written. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection:

1. The US military has something that was able to knock out the capabilities of the Venezuelan military.
2. Trump decided to name this something "the Decombobulator"
3. While nobody knows what he meant (and it's not totally out of the question that even he didn't know what he meant), the capabilities of the US military is known at a very top level (the actual capabilities are obviously classified)

I therefore don't think there is anything wrong with presenting to the reader speculations about this "discombobulator", and presenting it as such. The reader can decide for themselves whether these speculations are credible.

And just to be clear, it's NOT a "fake system". Trump just invented a name for US military capabilities, which likely include any (or all) of the capabilities mentioned by the experts and reported by The Chosun Daily. Off and running (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The objection is that you are seeking to make a claim in wikivoice that the weapon in question used three specific technologies; despite there being no evidence whatsoever to support that claim, and the claim coming from what is clearly described as speculation from unnamed and unidentified sources, being passed through without comment by Chosen Daily. That fails our standards for reliability, verifiability, and inclusion, and it violates our policies against using Wikipedia as a tool for publishing original research and speculation. On top of that, the statement is being used to conflate two separate claims -- Trump's claim about a system that does not exist, that he made up out of senility and dementia; and a completely classified system that does exist, for which the alleged experts in question do not have any access to data about. That is, by any rational standard, so far below the necessary bar for sourcing and inclusion as to be completely unusable. It is irrelevant that you don't think there is anything wrong with presenting hypothetical speculation to the reader. Wikipedia has policies that say we do not present speculation to readers in this manner, including explicitly covering the exact scenario of future weapon technologies. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

So if the issue is wikivoice, we can rewrite the sentence to start with "Experts believe that the system includes ...." instead of "The system is believed to include ....". Would such a change make the setence acceptable for inclusion? Off and running (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

No. Because we have no evidence that "experts" actually believe that; we have a single source citing no named experts, that states they speculate it could *possibly* include these features, a claim they have zero evidence for. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

1. Why would we need more than one source?
2. Why do we need to name the experts?
3. What's the issue with experts' speculation when presented as such?

Off and running (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Because the source fails our inclusion criteria, as I've repeatedly told you. Asking the same questions over and over will not change the facts of the responses -- the source does not say what you're claiming it does, and even if it did we do not include speculation from unnamed parties where we cannot satisfy our verifiability policies.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)