Freelance writer/photographer. Primarily my work is for IHS Jane's publications such as Fighting Ships, Intelligence Review, Defence Weekly, Navy International and International Defence Review - but there's also Warship International Fleet Review and radio magazines such as The Spectrum Monitor
Following on from my previous blog on the deployment of Russian K-300P “Bastion-P” mobile coastal defence missile unit to Matua Island, further satellite imagery from Sentinel and Maxar has been found showing the deployment taking place.
Moreover, the Maxar imagey has captured the actual moment the equipment exits the Pacific Fleet Project 775M Ropucha class Large landing ship – and in such detail you can clearly see the personnel filming the event.
The first thing ascertained is that the deployment took place on November 16th 2021, so the Russian MoD took two weeks to release the news. It is also now confirmed that all the support vehicles and personnel deployed at the same time rather than at an earlier date – which I suggested may have been the case in the previous blog.
If you watched the video from the Russian MoD in my last blog, at the beginning of it a Monolit-B mobile coastal surveillance radar vehicle exits the Ropucha class landing ship. The Maxar image clearly shows the Monolit-B on the beach having passed the “film crew”, and a K-300P just exited the ship and still in the breakwater.
The Ropucha can also be clearly identified as Admiral Nevelsky .
Imagery of the base for November 16th – the same as that from the ROLES article mentioned in my previous blog – shows little going on so it is likely that a small group of personnel were already there to set up the base, but very little else. However, it is good to get a high resolution of the image now.
Of interest is just how lucky a capture this was. Going through Sentinel-2 imagery, the weather before the 16th, up to today (December 9th), has been cloudy for the vast majority of the time. This is the drawback to normal EO imagery, and is why the SAR imagery capabilities of Capella is important to modern intelligence gathering using satellite imagery.
The Capella image from the 3rd December was collected during a period of 100% cloud cover over the island.
There is absolutely no doubt that both capabilities work in tandem with each other and will make it exceptionally difficult to hide deployments such as these in the future. Capella can provide continuous coverage of a target of interest, and should full EO imagery be required for confirmation of activity and/or actual identities of ships etc. then this can be tasked by the likes of Maxar when weather permits.
The Sentinel-2 imagery, though of low resolution, also revealed the other ships used in the deployment. These consisted of:
Project 141 Kashtan class tender KIL-168
Project 23470 salvage tug Andrey Stepanov
Project 19910 AGS Viktor Faleev
S-AIS data from FleetMon for Andrey Stepanov shows that she arrived at the island on the 14th November, staying for the deployment. She then left the region back to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky on the 17th, before returning at the end of the month and arriving on the 27th via Severo-Kurilsk at the island of Paramushir.
A quick hop back to and from Severo-Kurilsk took place over a couple of days, and she is now enroute back to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky as we speak.
With this activity from Andrey Stepanov and the timing of the Russian MoD news, can one presume that the deployment is now over and just lasted two weeks?
With the Capella imagery showing very little activity at the base on 3rd December, it may well be.
But, it could also be that Andrey Stepanov has been shuttling supplies back and forth to the island – though as a tug is more likely to be there in support of a further ship such as KIL-168. With no S-AIS data available for both KIL-168 and iktor Faleev it could be they were there also. The runway is operational and also capable of taking flights for supply purposes.
For the time being, some further monitoring of the island is required.
Russian Mod News outlet shows K-300P deployment to Matua Island
Capella Space imagery collection request submitted for next available pass
Imagery from just over 26 hours later collected and analysed
The Russian Ministry of Defence produced a small video on 2nd December 2021 of a K-300P “Bastion-P” mobile coastal defence missile unit deploying to Matau Island – part of the disputed Kuril Island chain in the Pacific.
Though only just over 1 minute and 10 seconds long, a few things can be taken from it and analysed.
The video commences with a Monolit-B mobile coastal surveillance radar vehicle (mounted on a MZKT-7930 chassis) exiting a Pacific Fleet Project 775M Ropucha class Large landing ship onto one of the beaches of the island.
This is easily identifiable in Google Earth, located at 48° 2’49.30″N 153°13’13.19″E
The complete K-300P battery – consisting of 4 launcher vehicles (TELs) and two Monolit-B radar vehicles – are seen transiting south along the beach, probably to an access track at the far end that allows vehicles to proceed up onto the mainland.
From here the battery heads east to the airfield, along the northern edge of the runway, before heading north to what was an old scientific research base located at 48° 3’59.89″N 153°15’37.12″E
Google Earth imagery from September 2019 shows that the base had been modified from the previous 2016 imagery. This was the same as the runway and was carried out during research expeditions in 2016 and 2017.
Interestingly, the battery convoy doesn’t show any support vehicles, and it is highly likely these had already arrived prior to this part of the filming. Moreover, the video shows that the research area has been fully converted into a small military base made up of trailer buildings for accommodation and operations along with a separately fenced off communications area containing at least Satcom.
On the 22nd November 2021, the Japanese Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology (ROLES) produced a report saying the research base had been recently upgraded. Imagery in the report, from Maxar, showed that the base was still in the 2019 Google Earth configuration in September 2021, but by October it was well underway to becoming the new base.
By November 16th it appeared to be complete, including two hangers that ROLES had measured at 30 metres in length. This is sufficient to take two K-300P TEL vehicles each – though it would be a tight squeeze.
A short sequence shows inside what is probably one of the command vehicles though nothing of note is discernible. A keypad to the right of the screen states “INTERNAL COMMUNICATION” (ВНУТРЕННЯЯ СВЯЗЬ) used for secure coms between all the vehicles of the battery.
The remainder of the video shows two of the K-300P TELs (TEL 211 and TEL 214) taking a small tour of the South-eastern part of the island before deploying into two revetments back at the airfield.
Capella Space Imagery
Whilst the news from the Russian MoD was interesting, it didn’t actually state any dates for when this deployment took place and whether it is still in operation. It had to be after October 23rd as the Maxar imagery in the ROLES report showed the base still under construction.
The Zvezda article had quotes from the Pacific Fleet: “On this remote island in the central part of the Kuril ridge, the Pacific Fleet’s missilemen will be on a 24-hour watch to monitor the adjacent water area and straits,” and “For the operation and maintenance of equipment, the equipment of technical posts has been installed, storage facilities for equipment and materiel have been deployed, entrances to the launch sites have been equipped,”
It also stated that work has been completed on the improvement of premises intended for year-round service and residence of personnel.
I wanted to check whether this was the case and so I put in an image collection request with Capella Space on the 2nd December 2021 at 1000 GMT.
From this request they were able to create a collection task for the 3rd December at 1236 GMT when the next pass took place – just 26 and a half hours later.
From comparing the video to revetment locations, it was a simple task to find where TEL 211 and 214 positioned themselves. This can also be easily done using Google Earth despite the age of the imagery available at this time. Very little has changed here except for the base.
However, the ability to task specific collection areas for future satellite passes meant an up-to-date 50cm resolution image was available for closer inspection.
Firstly, looking at the positions taken up by the TELs in the video these are now empty, though as a mobile system this is to be expected.
TEL 211 position
TEL 214 position
The main base does still show some sort of presence, though it is impossible to ascertain whether it is actually manned or not.
Whilst vehicles are present to the northeast of the hangers this doesn’t necessarily mean that they are being used. The Russian military store vehicles at locations for ease of a quick deployment should they decide to man them.
Though not shown here, the image available to me was for the complete southeastern area of the island and therefore all the areas commonly used when a deployment takes place. Again, there is little evidence to show any activity. There are no vehicles located at any of the revetments – likewise at the various locations to the north and south that could be used for not only the K-300Ps TELs but also any of the support vehicles carrying out any other tasks.
The concrete pad area is likely for supply storage, and this does appear to be empty.
However, with an +11 hour time difference between GMT and the region, this would mean that the local time when the collection took place was 2336 and therefore everything would probably be closed down for the night and little activity would be taking place anyway.
The fact that it was 2336, and therefore night time, highlights how useful the Capella SAR capability is. I was able to put in a request, and they were able to set up an image collection at the next available pass – despite it being dark. It could have been days before the next EO pass could be available from other providers.
This region is one of those that I regularly check so it will be interesting to keep an eye on it through imagery from Capella from time to time.
K-300P “Bastion-P” basic information
Anti-surface mobile coastal defence system
Consists of four TELs, each with two P-800 Oniks missiles, two Monolit-B mobile coastal surveillance radar vehicles, up to four loader vehicles, command and support vehicles.
Monolit-B has an approx range of 250 km in active mode, 240 km in passive mode
Can track up to 50 targets in passive mode, 30 in active
P-800: 6.9m in length; can cruise up to 2700 km/h at altitude; range between 120 km and 300 km depending on flight profile used; High cruise 46,000 ft, Low cruise 22 ft; 200 kg warhead
Command vehicle crew: 5
TEL crew: 3
Further information on Matua Island
The island itself is steeped in history, particularly for World War 2. All the trenches shown in the imagery are from that era. There’s a whole network of Japanese tunnels and bunkers located throughout the island; and reports that it was a potential test area for their nuclear weapons program that was being carried out at the end of the war.
A Zvezda video from 2017 on YouTube is well worth a watch – although it is obviously in Russian.
There’s also plenty of blogs and articles online that describe some of the research trips that have taken place there. To list a few:
After my last blog – Weather Fax from Honolulu – I decided I’d drop the Weather HF Operations in Honolulu an email to see if they could confirm whether it was them that I received or not.
After a few hours I got back the following response from one of their Ops staff:
Aloha Tony! In reviewing the schedules looking for that particular chart (Honolulu’s 24 hr Wind/Wave), I believe that is only transmitted from Hawaii. While there are Wind/Wave charts sent on all of the stations, the 24 hour Wind/Wave that is produced by WFO Honolulu is only broadcast on the Hawaii frequency.
From this, I’m happy to say it was Honolulu that I received and have noted it as such.
At the time they replied I was actually listening out on one of the NOAA Boston frequencies to see if I could get anything from them.
It was static on 9108.1 kHz (9110 kHz) when I started and was about to give up, when all of a sudden a transmission started part-way through a chart – just like they’d flicked a switch on that frequency transmitter. As you can see below, the chart just started.
I received a further two charts before the end of that days charts and the service stopped.
Quality not too bad, 4880 km away from here.
Again, all received on my Icom IC-R8500 and Wellbrook Loop, using JWX 3.0 software.
I’ve been tinkering with Marine weather radiofacsimiles recently. I do this from time to time, especially when the weather is good here and I want to know when it is likely to end – more often than not, very soon, though I’ll have to admit the weather has been amazing in recent weeks.
I’ve used a number of decoders over the years and they have all produced some pretty good results, and each have their different features. Some work with SDRs whilst some don’t – or rather my set up doesn’t let them work with SDRs as I run everything through a M-Track 8 mixer.
Some of the decoders i’ve tried include – Sorcerer, MultiPSK and fldigi. fldigi has been my favourite for some time until recently.
The only receiver I don’t run through the mixer is my trusty Icom R-8500 receiver connected to the PC via the microphone-in input using a mono cable from the record-out on the Icom. I have to say this gives the best results with all the software tried. This is probably because it is less susceptible to PC jitter – when the processor skips due to lag – and the image is put out of alignment. I find, probably because my PC is getting past it, that the processor requirements to run the SDR software is enough to make this happen.
Any misalignment requires some Photoshop manipulation, often quite a few just to rebuild the image. Sometimes this is required anyway to recreate a split image – if the phasing was not automatically detected, the modem could not deduce the beginning of an image causing an an image which is horizontally shifted. This is very easy to fix with Photoshop if this happens.
Some of the software available does the rebuilding for you, but some don’t. Each can control slant error and suchlike, but each is different in doing this. And each Fax sender – Northwood (GYA), DWD and NOAA for example – generally works with a different slant requirement.
The latest software I’ve used – and I think the best to date – is JWX 3.0. I still haven’t managed to get this to work with an SDR but I have tried. But I do know it does work with the AirSpy HF+ Discovery as one of my contacts on Twitter – Gerhard Schweizer – has managed it after I pointed him to JWX.
Anyway. This is all leading to a search I was making for GYA’s fax’s on the 9th May. I wanted to get the 24, 48, 72 and 120 hour surface prognosis charts and had set everything up on 4608.1 kHz USB – the true frequency is 4610 kHz but you have to step down 1.9 kHz in USB mode for a proper decode.
Unusually I didn’t get anything, so after a while I decided to try the other frequencies used by GYA. This included 11084.4 kHz (11086.5 kHz) which I’ve never found anything on before, and even has a question mark next to it in the Wordwide Marine Radiofacsimile Broadcast Schedule produced by NOAA.
On going to 11084.4 kHz, to my surprise, I could hear a very faint signal though I realised quickly that the frequency was off a little. I wondered then if the GYA frequency noted in the NOAA document was incorrect. Turning the dial on 8500 it settled on 11088.1 kHz where a clear-ish image was coming through on JWX.
But the chart didn’t quite look right for a GYA one, it looked more NOAA like, and as it was at the end of the chart, the senders information and chart title box was starting to come through – along with a NOAA badge.
As well as the badge, the ID started to become visible and I was amazed to see NOAA/National Weather services Honolulu – 24 HR Wind/Wave Forecast – pictured below.
The transmitter site for Honolulu (KVM70) is located at 21°25’34.82″N 158° 9’12.36″W – next to an impressive weapons storage bunker area – on O’ahu. From my shack this equates to a range of 11,132 km! The schedule states that KVM70 uses a 4 kW transmitter.
In the NOAA schedule it does say many of these charts also broadcast from Pt. Reyes, CA and Kodiak, AK but even so this would be 8118 km from Point Reyes; or 7133 km from Kodiak. However, the Honolulu frequency isn’t listed under their entries in the schedule so I’m not certain whether they are sent in parallel from these transmitter sites at the same time or not. Certainly, the charts aren’t listed under either Point Reyes or Kodiak.
In all honesty, I expect that it is one of these stations that I received, but I’d like to say it was KVM70 🙂
Below are the charts received. As you can see, from the 0856z chart, the signal starts to disappear and they become barely readable – eventually just noise.
I did set up the R8500 and JWX the next night to see if I received anything and it drew a blank, but another try today, on the 11th, did produce some weak results. The chart below is the best out of the bunch, received at 0715z. It also shows a good example of phasing error and cpu jitter – the vertical black line should be on an edge so the far left of chart should be on the right; the lower portion has jumped a little due to cpu usage.
The frequency is now stored in CSVUserlist so I’ll revisit it every now and again to see whether I’m able to get some more charts.
Now, I still have my doubts about it being deployed here, and my first impressions were that it was just propaganda, but it still needs analysing to see what it could produce.
The article, sourcing a “Military-industrial complex”, mentions that the system is to cover the whole of Europe, including Great Britain.
This is, in itself, interesting as most of Europe is actually already covered by the system at Kovylkino. The mention of Great Britain specifically also is interesting as another Konteyner OTHR to cover this country would really only give an extra few seconds of warning that anything was coming from this direction. Moreover, I suspect that the Kovylkino system does actually cover Great Britain anyway, especially with the pulse rates of the system that I’ve analysed myself.
Looking at the image below you can see that if a system was placed at the rough centre of the Oblast, then only France, Spain and Iceland – along with GB – would be the extra countries that would be covered. The east of France is already covered as it is.
Personally, I wonder if – whilst GB might get extra coverage – the true targeting of the system would be to the North.
The Russian military have long been saying that they want to cover the Barents Sea and up to the North Pole with an early warning radar – specifically Konteyner – so this could be it.
If we adjust the predicted coverage to the North in an image then you get the following.
So, depending on the azimuths of the arrays used, we can see that GB, Iceland, East Greenland, North Sea, Norwegian Sea, Barents Sea, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Svalbard archipelago and the Noveya Zemlya archipelago (Severny Island and Yuzhny Island) could be covered by a four array system.Norway and Sweden are already partially covered by Kovylkino.
To me, this is the more likely coverage that will be created SHOULD a Konteyner system be placed in the Kaliningrad Oblast. And it is a should!
The TASS article states that multiple sites are being considered. The system at a minimum requires two sites. And the Oblast is not very big.
In all reality, the city of Kaliningrad itself is just 30 km from the Polish border. It would not take very long for a strike from a foreign land based missile site to reach a Konteyner site in the centre of the Oblast. It is because of this fact that I have my doubts about one being sited here, but who knows?
But say they do choose the Oblast for system two, where’s the likely spot?
If anything is to go by, with their previous sites, near an airfield seems to be a good choice, be it one in service, or one that could be quickly reinstated.
There’s a number of abandoned sites, including:
Chernyakhovsk at 54°36’7.12″N 21°47’29.07″E
Nivenskoye at 54°33’48.13″N 20°36’13.02″E
Marienkhof at 54°51’57.25″N 20°11’0.92″E
Chernyakhovsk has a large military presence – as does the whole of the Oblast to be honest! – and some work has been started at 54°39’1.12″N 21°48’24.77″E that I’ve been monitoring since mid 2019. Here there have been a number of small buildings about 3 metres wide since at least 2005 but I think these are something to do with oil or gas extraction – as is the new development. Moreover, the shape isn’t right for Konteyner as can be seen below.
Marienkhof (Dunayevka) is the location of a Voronezh-DM Early Warning radar that is situated to the SE of the old airfield. There is plenty of land around here for extra development. Moreover, out to the west coast is Yantarny which is home to the 841st Independent EW centre, and to the north is a SIGINT site at Pionersky that houses one of the new Sledopyt satellite signal interception systems amongst others.
Nivenskoye certainly has a lot of land available, but it is the nearest site to the Polish border and certainly not top of my list.
My favourite area would have to be near to Marienkhof due to the location of other Russian systems of this “type” – radio/radar/SIGINT based systems. The area is almost as far as you can get from any land based threats, though of course anything from the sea would not be that far.
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what develops. One thing is for sure, the system stands out once you have an area of interest and this area is not that big to continually monitor.
There has also been mention of another Konteyner site already in construction in the far east. At this time nothing has been found of any construction site that looks to be a Konteyner OTHR and I have my doubts about this. It was first muted in 2010, then again in 2018, and I would have expected something to be there by now.
Well, thanks to a contact on Twitter – Krakek – this has been proven not to be the case!
He was able to point me to the location of the receiver site, though it is very clear that the system has either been abandoned, or it has been postponed.
Located at 53°43’16.27″N 127° 4’29.63″E, the site appears to have been started sometime between 23rd August 2015 and 6th September 2017 according to Google Earth imagery. The site has just been cut through a forest and it appears that no antenna arrays have ever been sited there.
The latest GE imagery available, dated 7/7/19, is shown below with the site not changing since September 2017.
The site is located 9 km west of the town of Zeya. There appears to be no other real military presence, with the region being mainly involved in open pit gold mining. The large dam nearby is also a big employer – an ideal source for the large amount of electricity required to power an OTHR.
At this time I have been unable to locate any sign of the Transmitter site, though it is like looking for a needle in a haystack. I went along the same lines of the other site and looked within a nearby radius and discovered nothing of real significance.
Using the GE imagery, I’ve taken a look at the potential coverage the Far East system would provide. As there isn’t a transmitter site available, I’ve based it on a three array system, rather than the four at Kovylkino.
The image below shows the site with added arrows for the direction the antenna arrays would appear to be planned in covering. The rough bearing for each is: 077 (Green), 137 (Red) and 197 (Blue).
The Green and Blue directions are definite as you can also see the areas cut out of the trees into what would be the ground plane that is placed in front of each array. This is not visible with the Red arrow and there isn’t a second ground plane visible for an array pointing to the West. This currently points to a three array system, but should there be a fourth array, my thoughts are that it would be back to back with the Green array. My reasoning for this? The second cut through the trees that extends in front of the Red (197 degrees) proposed array and around to the rear of the Green (077 degree) is the potential extension for the ground plane.
The next image depicts the potential coverage based on the same dimensions from the Kovylino system. The quadrants are colour coded the same as the previous image. The inner ring is at approximately 900 km and shows the skip area, whilst the outer ring is at approximately 3000 km. The lines in each coloured quadrant are extend from the planned arrays to the bearings of 077, 137 and 197 degrees.
As you can see, the OTHR is perfectly placed to cover SE China, North and South Korea, Japan and anything launched from the West coast of the USA. Three of those countries have ICBM capability. Major cities and naval bases such as Vladivostok are covered, as is a lot of the sea areas to the east of Russia.
You can also see that if a fourth transmitter array was to be built and it was put back to back with the 077 (Green) system, that it would point in the direction of India and Pakistan – both countries are ICBM capable.
It will be very interesting to monitor this site, to see if any further development takes place. I wonder whether they are waiting on how well the Kovylkino site copes in a live environment before continuing with any work here.
Krakek was also able to provide me with some further data on the Konteyner system as a whole. The data, shown below with some of the information translated in a separate table, is from the procurement datasheet produced by Радиотехнические и Информационные Системы (Radio Engineering and Information Systems JSC). The paper is further sourced from Oружие Oтечества (Weapons of the Fatherland) – a fantastic site on all things Russian military. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find the direct link to the page.
This data confirms much of that already known, in particular the range (min and max) of Konteyner and the maximum number of aircraft that can be tracked simultaneously. Of note is the pulse length – 6 to 8 ms as I was able to ascertain through my analysis.
Multifunctional Radar Station with increased range of detection of air objects
Main Technical specifications
3 and 4
Wavelength Range : Decametre
5 and 6
Antenna Type : Phased Array
Area of Responsibility
Maximum Range – 2700 km
Minimum Range – 1000 km
Azimuth Width in Degrees – 60
Within Area of Responsibility
Number of continuous monitoring zones – 4
Range size – 450 km
Azimuth Width in Degrees – 15
Standard errors of measurement
Range for single target – 18 km
Range for single target in degrees – 2
Radial speed (pulse rate) – 6 to 8 milliseconds
Number of simultaneously tracked targets – 350
Service life – 15 years
Relocated (note – presumed mobile)
The positional error information highlights the issues with OTHR. The plot for each track could be anything up to 18 km and/or 2 degrees out. This shows why the system can not be used for weapons targeting, and can only be used in an information or rough intercept/search area purpose for aircraft or another air defence system.
The title of the paper also alludes to the fact that Konteyner will only be used for air targets and not maritime surface targeting. This explains why there are no ship targets in the video for the Kovylkino activation.
I’d like to thank Krakek again for all the information as this has helped not only in locating the Far East site for further observations, but also for the datasheet that has proven a lot of the analysis already carried out.
I’ll be working with Jane’s, keeping a close eye on the site to catch any further work that may start here in the future.
Thanks to SDRplay, I was sent both their new RSPdx and older RSPduo SDRs at the end of January.
The main reason was to get them integrated into Procitec’s go2MONITOR and go2DECODE software, to increase the number of SDRs that the company’s products are compatible with.
This I’ve been successful in doing with the RSPdx – I’m still to unbox the RSPduo at this time of writing.
First of all though, I’ve been extremely pleased with the RSPdx in its own right. The SDRuno software works really well, is pretty easy to use – and it looks good too.
The fact that you can have up to 10 MHz of bandwidth is brilliant, and it isn’t too bad on the CPU usage either – running at around 25% with 10 MHz bandwidth on my ancient PC. Used with SDRConsole you can cover a good number of frequencies at once, and can record them if necessary. Of course, you can do this with SDRuno too, but at the moment only IQ – you can’t record individual frequencies.
Saying that, I’ve seen the SDRuno Roadmap for future releases and not only will recording of individual frequencies be possible, a more advanced scheduler is to be included. This is something I feel SDRConsole – amazing though it is – is lacking when it comes to single frequency recording. There is also the issue with SDRConsole that you are limited to recording only 6 hours worth of wav file per frequency.
Anyway, I digress. Back to the RSPdx and go2MONITOR.
To get the SDRs to work correctly with any of the go2 products means creating a configuration file and adding a ExtIO DLL file to the software. This is reasonably easy to do once you get use to it and it enables a GUI to become active so that you can control the SDR through go2MONITOR.
One interesting aspect with the RSPdx GUI is that regardless of what you enter as some of the parameters in the configuration file, the ExtIO file overrides these. Effectively, I just left some of the data as found in a basic configuration template and let the GUI do all the work for me.
So, below are some of the results with today’s first test.
First of all I went into the VHF/UHF side of things and targeted the local TETRA networks. These were found easily and after messing around with the GUI, I was able to get go2MONITOR set up to nicely find all the emissions within the 1.6 MHz bandwidth I’d chosen to use
From there, all I had to do was to select one of the found emissions and let the software do its thing.
Next I moved on to HF where there’s a plethora of data to choose from to test out the SDR. There was quite a large storm going through at the time and my Wellbrook loop and coax feed were getting a bit of a bashing with some considerable interference being produced with the really strong gusts, as can be seen below – the interference between the two HFDL bursts is one such gust.
I’ve frequently mentioned the Results Viewer that’s part of go2MONITOR and with things such as HFDL and TETRA, that process data quickly from lots of signals, this part of the software comes into its own.
The image below is two minutes of HFDL monitoring. All the red blocks is received data that scrolled through the Channel window too quickly to read live. In the viewer you can select any of the signals and you’ll be shown the message as sent. In this case, it is one sent by an Open Skies Treaty observation flight OSY11F.
By looking at the Lat/Long and comparing it to the flight history from FlightAware and its location at 1313z it ties in nicely. This flight was carried out by the German Air Force A319 1503 specially kitted out to make these flights.
go2MONITOR has a basic map function within the Result Viewer function so if there’s any Lat/Long position within any message it will plot it – as shown below for OSY11F at 1313z.
Within the General tab of Result Viewer you can get all the parameters of the signal.
One final test that I carried out was how well everything coped with a bigger bandwidth. In HF I can use up to 3 MHz of bandwidth with the licence I have – going up to 10 MHz once into VHF/UHF. In HF then, I selected 3 MHz in the GUI and then ran an emissions search.
My PC is nearing the end of its life but it coped easily with the amount of data found despite only having 4 GB of RAM with a 3.6 GHz AMD processor – a new PC is in the pipeline that is going to give me much better processing power.
Despite having 3 MHz available, not everything was identified. Most of this was at the fringes of the bandwidth, but some of the weaker signals also failed. That doesn’t mean you can’t then process them further, you can, it’s just the Emissions scan hasn’t quite been able to ID them. Saying that, the software managed to ID things within 2.2 MHz of the 3 MHz bandwidth.
I picked one of the weaker signals to see how both the RSPdx and software coped and they did very well, pretty much decoding all of the CIS-50-50 messages that were coming through on 8678 kHz.
So, overall, pretty pleased with how the RSPdx works with go2MONITOR.
Once I get a better PC I’ll be able to test at bigger bandwidths but even with 3 MHz here I was able to achieve the same, if not better, results than I have with the considerably more expensive WinRadio G31 Excalibur I have been using previously (running with the G33 hack software).
Not that I’m likely to really use go2MONITOR at big bandwidths – 1.6 MHz is probably fine for me – but for Pro’s there’s no doubt that having these “cheaper” SDRs would make absolutely no difference over using an expensive one such as those in the WinRadio range. In all honesty, I don’t think I’ll be holding on to the WinRadio for much longer – I’m more likely to get another RSPdx to cover this area of my monitoring.
On its own, as an SDR, the RSPdx is worth the money I’d say. I like it just as much as I do the AirSpy HF+ Discovery – the only real difference I can see between these two SDRs is the max bandwidth available.
I recently completed an article for Jane’s Intelligence Review magazine on the activation in December 2019 of the Russian Over-the-Horizon Radar system (OTHR) 29B6 Konteyner near Kovylkino in Mordovia.
Like all of the articles I write for them, many parts and imagery are removed due to space constraints in the magazine – for example, see my previous blog on the Murmansk-BN EW system where I have been able to add a substantial amount of extras that couldn’t be published. So, whilst I can’t publish here the actual article on Konteyner, I can show some of the extras that were removed.
How OTHR works
I could go into how OTHR works, but it’s been covered elsewhere in extreme detail. One of the best places for a basic overview is Wikipedia, where the image below is taken from.
Officially designated Object 5452, construction work of the original transmitter and receiver sites commenced in 2000, taking two years to complete.
The Konteyner receiver site, with one array, was situated 6 km to the South West of Kovylkino, whilst the transmitter site – also with one array – was located 5 km north of Gorodets in Nizhny Novgorod Oblast. The system covered airspace to the west of Russia with a central bearing of 275 degrees, arcing out in a fan, with an approximate range of 3000 km (depending on radar pulse rates – covered later). Due to Ionospheric bounce a null area is created that is approximately 900 km in depth from the transmitter site. Here, nothing would be picked up by the Konteyner systems, and other OTHRs such as Resonans-N and standard Air Defence radar systems are used to fill in these gaps.
However, the Gorodets site is no longer in use, despite many blogs and expert publications saying otherwise – Jane’s included (until my article). Located at 56°41’34.1″N 43°29’11.3″E, this site has been dismantled since at least 6/2/18 according to Google earth imagery. All the concrete footings remain, but the antenna array is no longer there.
The receiver site at Kovylkino is still there, and from June 2016 construction had begun on two other receiver arrays, creating a triangle. Array one continued to cover a 275-degree bearing whilst the new arrays covered 155 degrees and 215 degrees.
Each receiving array contains 144 masts, all approximately 34 metres in height. They are split into three sections where the two outer ones – consisting of one group of 23 masts and the other of 24 – is between 300 and 310 metres wide. Each antenna here has 14 metres of spacing between them. The inner section contains the remaining 97 masts with 7 metres between each. The total length of the array is over 1.3 km.
Matching these receiver arrays was a new transmitter site just 15km to the South East. Imagery on Google Earth from 29/6/16 shows that there are three arrays being constructed in a Y pattern, each with the same three bearings as the receiver site. By 18/8/17 it is clear that the southern array originally thought to be covering 275 degrees instead covers 095 degrees. A second array is visible being built back to back with the 095 array to cover 275 degrees. Moreover, this meant that the original 275 degree receiver array was also being used by both transmitters.
The closeness of the transmitter site to the receiver site for long range OTHR systems is a strange one. In general they are a good 100 kilometers apart – the Australian JORN system is good example of this. Moreover, putting all the arrays so close to each other – at both sites – opens the whole system up to being destroyed, or put out of action, by just one air strike!
Each transmitter array has up to 11 generator buildings located to the rear of the antennas. Four of these buildings are also located at the original 095/275 degree receiver array. Google Earth imagery from 24/2/18 shows both sites still under construction. From 1st December 2018, combat testing of Konteyner had started and satellite imagery shows all four arrays to have generators in place by November 2018.
The transmitter site consists of 44 masts in a line, 500 metres in length. The masts themselves are of differing height with the 22 tallest ones approximately 34 metres tall. The remaining 22 are approximately 25 metres in height. The masts are split up into groups of 11 of each kind.
With ranges of over 3000 km for each transmitter – effectively there are four OTHRs in use – the number of radar tracks that are captured will be in their thousands, many of which are civilian. Moreover, static features such as large buildings are also captured, showing as background noise or unknown tracks.
There are two methods used to eliminate the background noise. Firstly, during testing many of these will show through time and are deemed static and can be filtered out. Secondly, this type of OTHR – known as OTH-B or Over-the-Horizon Radar (Backscatter) – employ a Doppler effect to distinguish between static and moving targets requiring fast computers with high processing power. Doppler uses frequency shift created by moving objects to measure their velocity and so can track targets travelling at any speed, even down to 1 or 2 knots for ship traffic. Whilst older Russian OTHRs – and likely Konteyner in its early days – would have struggled in this area, modern computers can cope with the Doppler methodologies used. Anything deemed not moving by the Doppler effect can be eliminated as a potential threat or track, and are also filtered out.
To further eliminate any overloading caused by unwanted tracks, areas of interest are set up within the radar coverage which are then further split into smaller areas or “search boxes” where radar returns outside of these are ignored. These search boxes can be moved by operators as required.
The radar system is unable to determine any height parameters therefore each track is just a target at an approximate GPS position, and could be on the ground or anywhere up to 100 km in altitude! In other words, it is the equivalent to a primary track in the standard radar world. Moreover, each track could be displayed at an operators console with a radar return that depicts the target to be kilometres in size! This further complicates determining the actual location of the track.
Finally, OTHR technology does have another drawback that is much harder to filter out. Just by looking at the images below you can see that a substantial number of aircraft tracks are still captured within the search boxes, particularly in busy airspace such as around airports and heavily used civil ATC airway systems.
One thing that OTHR doesn’t have is an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) capability. Without IFF, this then makes it even harder to determine who is friendly, who is just an airliner or who is a potential threat.
Each of these tracks needs to individually interrogated and the routes plotted to eliminate the potential threat. For instance, all traffic into Istanbul pictured above tends to fly the same routes in and out of the airport there, so whilst the track can’t be fully removed from the display (or filtered out) it can be “ignored”. If IFF was an OTHR capability – and this is the same for other OTHR systems, not just Konteyner – then known transponder codes allocated to airports/airway systems etc. could then be filtered out. This happens in everyday ATC operations where certain transponder codes can be filtered out to remove clutter at the press of a button.
This then can make OTHR monitoring reasonably labour intensive for operators covering areas of high aviation activity despite modern computer technology being there to help.
OTHR range capabilities are controlled by the pulse rate of the signal sent by the transmitter site. In general, Konteyner operates at 50 pulses per second (pps) giving a range of approximately 3000 km. This pulse rate is also used by many other OTHRs such as the Australian JORN system (Jindalee Operational Radar Network).
OTHR has a potential advantage over standard radar systems in that it can track stealth aircraft such as USAF B-2s and F-35s. JORN reportedly tracked a USAF F-117 Stealth in the 1990’s that was on a round the world flight proving it couldn’t be picked up by radar! The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) were so confident they’d tracked it, they gave the details of positions the F-117 took to the USAF. I couldn’t find any confirmation on this from USAF documentation but it is possible.
By using the Ionospheric HF bounce, the radar is effectively looking down on top of the aircraft rather than at a very low angled Microwave radar signal head on to the target. This creates a larger return and using Doppler frequency shift is able to establish whether the track is moving, and at what speed. An early heads-up of a potential stealth bomber attack on Russia gives them the advantage of knowing where to send intercept aircraft and set up other defence methods. In the case of an ICBM strike, extra vital minutes warning can be provided. But, as previously mentioned, the position isn’t 100% accurate and can only provide an approximate location of the target – the system can not be used for any weapons fire control.
As previously mentioned, in general Konteyner uses a 50 pps radar signal sent as frequency modulation on pulse (FMOP) using an approximate 12 to 14 kHz of bandwidth. However, through analysis of the Konteyner signals other pps rates of 25 and 100 have been recorded giving ranges up to 6000 km and 1000 km respectively. The manufacturer of Konteyner, NPK NIIDAR (Scientific and Research Institute for Long-Distance Radio Communications), has confirmed the 3000 km range, along with an altitude coverage of 100 km.
One find in my analysis of Konteyner signals was quite interesting.
Quite often when analysing OTHR signals closely, you can see weak Back-scatter return signals between the main pulses. These weak signals travel in the same radar sweep direction as the transmitted ones in either a down-sweep mode from a high frequency to a low one, or in an up-sweep mode from to low to high.
In the image below though you can see another, weaker, radar pulse emanating from the point the first down-sweep pulse ends, travelling up in frequency range and creating a V. If you look closely you can also see a very weak back-scatter signal from both.
My conclusion from this is that the up-sweep pulse is from the 095 degree Konteyner transmitter array, whilst the stronger down-sweep one is from the 275 degree array – the stronger signal is in theory pointing at my antenna in the UK and hence would be emanating from the 275 degree array.
The fact that this signal comes from the 095/275 arrays is a guess of course but I think I’m right. I am also going to guess that the complete radar pulse for the 095/275 transmitters starts at one end of one array, travelling along the 44 masts. When this pulse ends the other array starts in the opposite direction. Moreover, with this method there should be zero interference between the two arrays as they wont be transmitting at the same time.
In the image above, taken from from a screen grab of Procitec’s go2DECODE, you can see that each pulse is every 25 ms, therefore confirming a rate of 40 pps – the software also determines this automatically as shown in the table to the right. Also of note is the analysed signal in the frequency window (Hz) at the bottom. Here you can clearly see the V created by the two pulses.
When we look at the Time display window in go2DECODE (shown below) we can see that I’ve measured the total length of both pulses to be around 6.5 ms. But on closer inspection I think I’ve cut that short a little and it should be 8 ms. This would mean each pulse lasts 4 ms and ties in nicely with the 25 ms per pulse gap as there’s a 21 ms spacing between the end and start of each individual pulse.
I also wonder, that with a gap of 17 ms between the end of the second pulse and the beginning of the first one again, in theory there’s enough of a gap to fit two more 4 ms pulses between these from the the two remaining Konteyner arrays transmitting at 40 pps. Even at a higher 50 pps rate, the 12 ms gap is enough to allow the two remaining pulses to take place with a 4 ms buffer.
This then means that all four Konteyner transmitter arrays can be operational at the same time without causing any potential interference to each other, whether they use the same frequency or different ones. In this case, I’ve been lucky to capture two of the arrays using the same frequency – well, I think I have 🙂
Nevertheless, monitoring the Konteyner signals should bring some further interesting finds, especially if they are using the same frequency occasionally for different surveillance areas. Moreover, it would also be interesting to find all the various pps rates so that system ranges can be established.
Whilst for many, OTHR signals are a pain, wiping out other signals, they still have a lot to give when it comes to SIGINT gathering.
And it may not end at just the one Konteyner system. On the 1st December 2019 it was also announced that a further system would be activated to cover the Arctic region. At the moment, any potential sites have not been mentioned or found, but a likely site would be near Severodvinsk in the Arkhangelsk Oblast, or near Severomorsk in the Murmansk Oblast. Both of these are close to the 1st Air Defence Division headquarters located in Murmansk. My only negative thoughts on this would be that these sites are too close to areas of interest because of the ionosphere skip created, and also probably too far north – ionospheric bounce is not so good towards the poles.
As the original Konteyner transmitter site seems to be being maintained still, be it without any antennas, it also has the interesting aspect of being around 900 km south of the White Sea and areas of coverage needed – perfect for the ionospheric skip. Could this site be changed in aspect so that a transmitter array points to the north to cover the White Sea, Barents Sea and the northern Island? There’s certainly enough room to do this at the Gorodets site.
There has also been mention of another Konteyner site already in construction in the far east. At this time nothing has been found of any construction site that looks to be a Konteyner OTHR and I have my doubts about this. It was first muted in 2010, then again in 2018, and I would have expected something to be there by now.
I highly suspect that this plan has been abandoned, and the 095 degree OTHR of the Kovylkino Konteyner site has taken over the far east coverage.
In early November, whilst working on an article for Janes, I noticed a Link-11 SLEW signal on 4510 kHz (CF) that was slowly growing in reception strength. I’d been monitoring frequencies used by the Northern Fleet of the Russian navy around this one and had already spotted that Link-11 CLEW was being used on a nearby frequency, though this remained at a constant signal strength at my location. The fact that the Link-11 SLEW was getting stronger made me stop what I was doing and start concentrating on this instead.
Link-11 SLEW (Single-Tone Link-11 waveform) ,or STANAG 5511, is a NATO Standard for tactical data exchange used between multiple platforms, be it on Land, Sea or Air. Its main function is the exchange of radar information, and in HF this is particularly useful for platforms that are beyond line of sight of each other and therefore cannot use the UHF version of Link-11.
With propagation being the way it is, in theory radar data could be exchanged between platforms that are hundreds to thousands of miles apart, therefore providing a wider picture of operations to other mobile platforms and fixed land bases. This data can also be forwarded on using ground stations that receive the data and then re-transmit on another frequency and/or frequency band. However, the approximate range of an individual broadcast on HF is reported to be 300nm.
As well as radar information, electronic warfare (EW) and command data can also be transmitted, but despite the capability to transmit radar data, it is not used for ATC purposes. In the UK, Link-11 is used by both the RAF (in E-3 AWAC’s and Tactical Air Control Centres) and the Royal Navy. Primarily it is used for sharing of Maritime data. Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA’s) such as USN P-8’s and Canadian CP-140’s use Link-11 both as receivers and transmitters of data, so when the RAF start using their P-8’s operationally in 2020 expect this to be added to the UK list. Whilst it is a secure data system, certain parameters can be extracted for network analysis and it can be subjected to Electronic Countermeasures (ECM).
Link-11 data is correlated against any tracks already present on a receivers radar picture. If a track is there it is ignored, whilst any that are missing are added but with a different symbol to show it is not being tracked by their own equipment. As this shared data is normally beyond the range of a ships own radar systems, this can provide an early warning of possible offensive aircraft, missiles or ships that would not normally be available.
I started up go2MONITOR and linked it to my WinRadio G31 Excalibur. Using a centre frequency of 4510 kHz I ran an emission search and selected the Link-11 SLEW modulation that it found at this frequency.
It immediately started decoding as much as it could, and I noticed that three Address ID’s were in the network.
As the signal was strong, and it is normally maritime radar data that is being transmitted, I decided to have a quick look on AIS to see if there was anything showing nearby. Using AISLive I spotted that Norwegian navy Fridtjof Nansen class FFGHM Thor Heyerdahl was 18.5 nm SW of my location, just to the west of the island Ailsa Craig. Whilst it was using an incorrect name for AIS identification, its ITU callsign of LABH gave me the correct ID. This appeared to be the likely candidate for the strong Link-11 signal.
It wasn’t the best day and it was pretty murky out to sea with visibility being around 5nm – I certainly couldn’t see the Isle of Arran 11.5 nm away. I kept an eye on the AIS track for Thor Heyerdahl but it didn’t appear to be moving.
Whilst my own gear doesn’t allow me to carry out any Direction Finding (DF) I elected to utilise SDR.hu and KiwiSDR’s to see if I could get a good TDoA fix on a potential transmitter site – TDoA = Time Difference Of Arrival, also known as multilateration or MLAT. Whilst not 100% accurate, TDoA is surprisingly good and will sometimes get you to within a few kilometres of a transmission site with a strong signal.
One of my thoughts was that the signal was emanating from the UK Defence High Frequency Communications Service (DHFCS) site at either St. Eval in Cornwall or Inskip in Lancashire. With this in mind I picked relevant KiwiSDR’s that surrounded these two sites and my area and ran a TDoA.
As expected, the result showed the probable transmitter site as just over 58 kilometres from St. Eval, though the overall shape and “hot area” of the TDoA map also covered Inskip, running along the West coast of England, Wales and Scotland. It peaked exactly in line to where the Norwegian navy ship and I were located! With the fact that there were signals being received from three different sources it is highly likely this has averaged out to this plot.
Just after 10am the weather cleared allowing me to see a US Navy Arleigh Burke class DDGHM between myself and Arran. This added an extra ship to the equation, and also tied in with the TDoA hot spot. Things were getting even more interesting!
Thor Heyerdahl still hadn’t moved according to AISLive but the Arleigh Burke was clearly heading in to the Royal Navy base at Faslane. With my Bearcat UBC-800T scanning the maritime frequencies it wasn’t long before “Warship 101” called up for Clyde pilot information along with an estimate for Ashton Buoy of 1300z. Warship 101 tied up with Arleigh Burke USS Gridley.
As USS Gridley progressed towards Faslane, the signal started to get weaker. Ashton Buoy is where most ships inbound for Faslane meet the pilot and tugs, taking up to another 30 minutes to get from there to alongside at the base – a journey of about 8.5nm.
At 1328z the Link-11 SLEW signal ended which coincided with the time that USS Gridley approached alongside at Faslane. It would be at about this time that most of the radar systems used on the ship would have been powered down so data was no longer available for transmission, therefore the Link-11 network was not required any further and it was disconnected.
So, was this Link-11 SLEW connected to USS Gridley? And was the ship also the NCS of the network? I think the answer is yes to both, and I’ll explain a couple of things that leads me to this conclusion. But first…………….
Link-11 SLEW Technical details
Using Upper Side Band (USB) in HF, a single waveform is generated in a PSK-8 modulated, 1800 Hz tone. The symbol rate is 2400 Bd and the user data rate is 1800 bps. Link-11 SLEW is an improved version of the older Link-11 CLEW modulation and due to enhanced error detection and correction is a more robust method of sending data. This makes it more likely that transmissions are received correctly the first time. Moreover, an adaptive system is used to counter any multipath signals the receiving unit may experience due to HF propagation.
The waveform transmission consists of an acquisition preamble followed by two or more fields, each of which is followed by a reinsertion probe. The field after the preamble is a header field containing information that is used by the CDS (Combat Data System) and an encryptor. If a network Participating Unit (PU) has any data, for instance track data, this follows the reinsertion probe. Finally, an end-of-message (EOM) is sent followed by a reinsertion probe.
The header is made up of 33 data bits and 12 error detection bits (CRC – Cyclic Redundancy Check). The 45 bit sequence is encoded with a 1/2 rate error correction code therefore giving a 90 bit field. The header contains information on the transmission type used, Picket/Participating Unit (PU) address, KG-40 Message Indicator, the NCS/Picket designation and a spare field.
Broken down, each piece of information is made up as follows:
The transmission type indicates the format of the transmission – 0 for a NCS (Network Control) Interrogation Message (NCS IM); 1 for a NCS Interrogation with Message (NCS IWM) or a Picket reply.
The address contains either the address of the next Picket or that of the Picket that initiated the call.
The KG-40 Message Indicator (MI) contains a number sequence generated by a KG-40AR cryptographic device. Synchronization is achieved when the receiver acquires the correct MI. For a NCS IM this will be made up of zeros as no message or data is actually sent.
The NCS/Picketdesignation identifies whether the current transmission originates from the NCS or PU: 0 = NCS; 1 = PU
Following on from the header, the SLEW data field consists of 48 information data bits along with 12 error detection and correction bits, themselves encoded with 2/3 rate error correction. This creates a 90 bit data field.
The EOM indicates the end of the transmission and is also a 90 bit field. There are no error detection or correction bits. Depending on the unit that is transmitting, a different sequence is sent – NCS = 0’s; PU = 1’s
There is a specific order of transmissions which takes place for data to be exchanged.
Ordinarily the NCS sends data that creates the network, synchronizing things such as platform clocks etc. Each PU is called by the NCS and any data that a PU has is then sent, or the NCS sends data, or both. This is a very simple explanation of how data is exchanged but if you monitor a SLEW network you’ll see the exchanges take place rapidly. Except for the message itself which is encrypted, go2MONITOR will decode all the relevant information for you for analysis. This means that you don’t need to look at each raw data burst as sent to calculate whether it was a PU reply or NCS IWM, the decoder will do this for you.
At this point I need to say that Link-11 decoding is only available in the Mil version of go2MONITOR so doesn’t come as standard. Should you be interested in Link-11 decoding yourself then you would need to go for the full go2MONITOR package to enable this.
As previously mentioned, the data itself is encrypted but it is possible to try to calculate who is who within the network, and the analysis of the header information in particular will give you a good clue if you already know of potential PU’s that could be on the frequency.
In this case we already have four possible PU’s:
St. Eval transmitter site
Inskip transmitter site
It later transpired that Thor Heyerdahl had gone into Belfast Harbour for repairs so this practically cancelled out this ship as the NCS though it could still be a PU. Moreover, Thor Heyerdahl and USS Gridley were part of the same NATO squadron at that time which meant it was highly likely they were on the same network. This left us with three choices for the NCS, but still four for the network.
Here, I’d cancel out Inskip completely as both the NCS and a PU as the TDoA appeared to give a stronger indication to St. Eval – that left us with three in the network.
The pure fact that the strength of the major signal increased as USS Gridley got closer to my location, then slowly faded as she went further away added to my theory of her being the NCS. This was practically confirmed when the signal stopped on arrival to Faslane. Throughout the monitoring period he other signals on the frequency remained at the same strength.
Based on this, this meant that the strong signal was USS Gridley using ID Address 2_o.
Let’s take a look at one the previous screenshots, but this time with annotations explaining a number of points.
Firstly, we need to look for the NCS. The easiest way to do this is to look at the NCS/Picket Designation and find transmissions that are a zero, combined with a Message Type that indicates it is a NCS IWM. Here, there is just one transmission and that emanates from Address ID 2_o – the long one that includes a data message.
We next need to find NCS/Picket Designation transmissions that still have a zero – therefore coming from the NCS – but that have a Message Type that show it to be a NCS IM. These are calls from the NCS to any PU’s that are on the network looking to see if they have any “traffic” or messages.
Because of this there should be numerous messages of this type, and if you notice none have an ID address of 2_o. However, all of these messages are actually coming from 2_o as the ID address shown in a NCS IM is that of the PU being called rather than who it is from.
Any reply messages from PU’s will show as a NCS IWM/PU Reply transmission, but importantly the NCS/PU designation will be a one – showing it isn’t the NCS. Here there is one data reply from 71_o. You’ll notice that in the “reflection” there isn’t any transmission, unlike the ones from 2_o.
Moreover, though not shown here as the messages were off screen and not captured in the screen grab, you can see that one of the PU’s sent another reply message. As I was able to look at the complete message history I was able to see that this was also from 71_o – and 2_o either replied to this or sent further data.
There are two fainter transmissions which were not captured by go2MONITOR. These were from a PU, and must have been 30_o as there are no transmissions at all in the sequence that are from this ID address.
We now have a quandry. Who was 30_o and who was 71_o?
Data is definitely being sent by 71_o so to me this is more likely to be a ship rather than a transmitter site – but – a strong TDoA signal pointing at St. Eval makes it look like 71_o is this location instead.
Now though, we need to think outside the box a bit and realise that I’m looking at two different sources of radio reception. The TDoA receivers I selected were nowhere near my location as I’d selected KiwiSDR’s that surrounded St. Eval. This meant the signal that was weak with me could have been strong with these, therefore giving the result above.
If I base the fact that I think USS Gridley is 2_o due to strength, then I must presume the same with 71_o and call this as Thor Heyerdahl as this is the second strongest signal. I can also say that having gone through the four and a half hours of Link-11 SLEW transmissions available that 30_o never sent a single data transmission – or rather, not one that was received by me.
Here then is my conclusion:
USS Gridley = 2_o and the NCS
Thor Heyerdahl = 71_o
St. Eval transmitter site = 30_o
Of course, we’ll never really know, but I hope this shows some of the extra things you can do with go2MONITOR and that it isn’t just a decoder. It really can add further interest to your radio monitoring if you’re an amateur; and if you’re a professional with a full plethora of gear, direction finders, receiver networks etc. then you really can start getting some interesting results in SIGINT gathering with this software – and highly likely be able to pinpoint exactly who was who in this scenario.
Now, how do I get some Direction Finders set up near me….Hmmmmmm??
With the Biathlon and Cross-Country ski season now started I thought it time I write about British Airways and its discriminating policy that stops people who partake in these sports from taking their own equipment with the airline.
But, before I explain why BA discriminates against Cross-Country skiers and Biathletes – and for that matter, ski jumpers; a little bit of history.
Wikipedia’s page on Cross-Country skiing (also known as Nordic skiing) goes into the history in greater detail so it is pointless doing the same thing, but effectively people have been travelling across the land by skies for millennia. Around 550 AD seems to be a popular time for the first real evidence of Cross-Country skiing (XCS) taking place in Nordic areas, though there is also evidence that it possibly took place as far back as 6000 BC in Asia.
The equipment really wasn’t much different to what it is today, though it was obviously all made out of wood rather than the composites used today. Skis were known to be over 350 cm in length for some uses which in the majority was for easy travel in winter periods, though they also assisted in winter hunting.
From this spawned Ski warfare, recorded as such in Denmark in the 13th Century, further spawning into Biathlon in more recent times – although it could be argued that it started at the same time as XCS due to tribal hunting in the winter.
Alpine skiing on the other hand is a recent pastime. Whilst downhill is part of XCS – what goes up, must come down – to actually go up a mountain/hill for the specific reason to come straight back down again, at the same spot rather than on a route, seems to have started in the 1850’s. And even this was part of a military competition in Norway where certain ski disciplines were given for regimental competition – shooting at mark while skiing at top speed, downhill race among trees, downhill race on big hills without falling, and a long race on flat ground while carrying rifle and military pack.
It can be seen then that XCS and Biathlon were the first ski disciplines to have been invented, and that alpine skiing is a follow on to these.
XCS and Biathlon also has a much wider viewing audience, and more people take part in XCS than alpine skiing for physical fitness – millions more in fact. When we attend the yearly Biathlon World cup week in Ruhpolding, Bavaria, the crowd attendance starts at around 15,000 people on the first day – a wednesday – peeking at 25,000 on the sunday.
XCS is deemed to be one of the hardest sports on the planet, yet out on the Nordic and Bavarian plains we regularly see people that must be into their 80’s happily skiing round the routes to keep fit and healthy. In the countries where snow is prevalent in the winter, schools teach the skills as part of their physical education lessons from an early age. It is thought near to 100% of the Norwegian population, past and present, have Nordic skied at some stage in their life, with around 80% of the current adult population actively still taking part.
It is because of this that countries such as Norway, Sweden and Germany excel on the professional XCS and Biathlon tracks in World Cups and Olympics. Newer countries are coming to the forefront though, with the USA and Canada getting better with each year.
Britain too has both XCS and Biathlon athletes, though as expected they are not large in numbers. We do have Andrew Musgrave just outside the world’s top 20 in XCS, and for Biathlon Amanda Lightfoot competes in the women’s World Cup – both have participated in Winter Olympics. Going back in time a little, now Eurosport presenter Mike Dixson is one of only seven athletes to have competed in six Winter games; and one of only fifty that has participated in six Olympic games.
The future looks good though for the British teams as more people are getting interested and involved in the sport. Biathlon in particular is taken up by the British military personnel not only for winter warfare requirements, but for team competitions between Britain and other countries militaries. For the first time in a number of years Britain could have a small Biathlon team in the IBU World Cup this year.
There are now many clubs in the UK dedicated to XCS and the advent of social media has made the memberships of these grow in the last few years as information on the sport increases. TV channels such as Eurosport also brings XCS and Biathlon to a wider UK audience, therefore increasing the numbers of people that may become involved. BA in theory are reducing the chances of this happening by not allowing people to buy their own gear and travel.
So, where am I going with all this? Why is British Airways the target of this blog?
The reason is because, despite XCS being the first discipline in skiing, the airline discriminates against those that partake in the sport by not allowing them to carry XC and Biathlon skis on their aircraft due to a ridiculous bag length policy – max length 190cm! This allowance only allows Alpine skiers the chance to take their own equipment.
BA is only one of three in over 40 airlines that I analysed that have such a restrictive allowance – and one of these was the now no more Thomas Cook Airline. But, out of all the mainline, large airlines of the world BA was the worst that flies to XCS destinations. Some airlines with a mixed fleet do have restrictions, but from my analysis aircraft types that do fly to the XCS destinations fall into the ski length allowance – FlyBe for example, though they do also have some strange policies in ski carriage (see table below).
Theoretically only children and very small, lightweight adults would be able to take XC skis on a BA flight – I’ll explain why shortly. But even then there may be issues. Most XC ski bags are generic and designed to take all lengths of skis, therefore pushing the chance to fly with BA out of the window. OK, this isn’t a problem if you happen to live near Heathrow where you have a huge choice of airlines, but up here in Scotland where the choice is basically BA via Heathrow you are limited.
Lufthansa flew direct to Munich last year from Glasgow but ended this schedule due to low passenger numbers; and EasyJet runs services from Edinburgh but the times/days of the week do not fit in well with most holidays as they are not a daily service, and the destinations are limited. Norwegian Air Shuttle also fly out of Edinburgh, but obviously only to Norway and so limited in destinations also.
I mentioned earlier about children and small adults possibly being able to take their own equipment. This is because of the way the required ski lengths is calculated.
There’s mixed methods but it is either done on the weight or height of the skier – sometimes a mixture of both – to come up with the required length. On average then, most male adults need skis of approx 200 cm with women needing 195 cm. Steph fits into this 195 cm category despite being relatively short and lightweight; I’m at 201 cm.
BA’s policy takes none of this into consideration and they have thrown a blanket length on ALL items that go in the hold. So you can have 190 cm golf clubs if you want – perfect if you were over 8ft tall.
But this isn’t the end of it. There is no real reason as to why they have chosen this length. They fly aircraft that other airlines fly, they use the same hold baggage containers – in fact, most airlines just interchange the hold containers with no airline using their own each time. On my first enquiry call to BA, their customer services agent informed me that they were too long for the width of the aircraft they operate!! Errr, the A.380??? Then I happily pointed out that the likes of Lufthansa and Finnair (a code-sharer in OneWorld – I’ll get to that bit in a minute) happily manage in their A.320’s so why not BA?? No answer.
In a later email – a copy of which is below – I was then told that it was in fact Terminal 5 that was the issue and that the conveyors and baggage machinery cannot accept bags of this length – except for the fact that Iberia (another code sharer and a merged airline with BA) also operates out of T5 and guess what? They allow ANY length of bag but with a weight restriction and possible fee depending on short haul/long haul. So the T5 argument is also complete rubbish.
The final, and quite frankly, ridiculous problem is the OneWorld alliance differences in the allowances. BA is the only airline in the group that will not allow most XC ski lengths – the next nearest has a limitation of 203 cm, American allow up to 320 cm!
With these differences you really could find yourself in trouble if you have booked a code-shared flight with BA. For example, if you were to book a flight from the USA with American Airlines via Heathrow connecting onto a BA flight to Oslo, your bags would, in theory, be abandoned at Heathrow.
But it’s not as simple as that.
For travel that involves more than one carrier, the “Most Significant Carrier” concept helps determine whose baggage rules apply for the itinerary. This is based on IATA Resolution 302, effective since 1 April 2011.
These rules are based on a “checked portion” concept, which refers to the point where baggage check-in occurs, until the next stopover where the passenger collects their baggage. The Most Significant Carrier between these two points of travel, chosen according to IATA definitions, will define the baggage policy for the whole itinerary.
So, in the above case, the bags SHOULD go on to Oslo on the BA flight as American were the significant carrier – the longest portion of the flight.
But, what makes the whole thing ridiculous is that if you buy a BA ticket just from Heathrow to Oslo, and happen to be on the same flight as people that have flown from the US to Oslo – you can’t take your XC skis, but the US ones can – on the same aircraft!! This also makes a mockery of the T5 argument mentioned earlier.
BA seriously need to sort this out, and nearly one year ago they stated to me that they were going to change their allowances to be in line with the rest of OneWorld. This appears to have been a complete lie.
Response from BA in January:
I’ll be sending a copy of this blog to Alex Cruz seeing as he seems to want to improve the airline.
Should you still insist on taking your own equipment it can only go as cargo. Their website points you to IAG Cargo to do this. However, it doesn’t travel with you! You have to to package it up – in other words box it all up – deliver it to the nearest IAG Cargo airport days before you travel, and hopefully receive it whilst you are actually on your holiday. Of course, this counts for the return flight too! On requesting a quote for this from IAG for taking our equipment to Canada, our ski bag with fours pairs of skis, four pairs of boots and 4 poles weighing 15 KG in total was nearly £600!
When you consider that we are going to Bavaria in January with Lufthansa who allow a ski bag as an extra bag – either at a small cost or free depending on class of travel – and to Norway in March with Norwegian – for £80 return as an extra bag – you can see just how much BA have lost the plot and what they think of their travelling public.
In the last year I have communicated with BA on numerous occasions. They lied to me nearly each time. They have also sent me around 10 customer survey requests asking them to comment on their airline to help them improve their services. I, of course, mentioned all of this in the surveys, also requesting that they reply to it. On no occasion did they respond, instead just sending me another survey hoping I’d say they are the best at everything.
They are currently celebrating their 100th year and pumping out lots of propaganda about how amazing they are, respraying a number of their aircraft in “retro” markings of the airline. The irony here being that back in the days of these retro schemes they were one of the best airlines in the world. Now they’re just expensive offering a cheap service.
From the tables below you will see that British Airways is by far the worst airline when it comes to Cross-country skiing and Biathlon equipment. Cathay and JAL would be a squeeze but they’d fit, the rest would be easy. You could give BA the benefit of the doubt that they may not have done it intentionally as they didn’t know the differences in equipment but I have made them fully aware of their discrimination over the last year, and yet they’ve done nothing about it.
There is absolutely no doubt that airline baggage allowances – be it for ski, other sport equipment or just normal baggage – is a mess with so many differences between the airlines it makes it near impossible to find any consistency. 300 cm seems to be the most common baggage length though – over a third more than BA.
Come on BA, countries that are basically 100% desert allow more for XCS than you! And if that doesn’t make you think about changing, even Ryanair have a better allowance – that’s how bad an airline you’ve become!
Selection of OneWorld alliance Airlines
190 cm or approx £600 by cargo
Part of baggage allowance
Possible fee depending on class of travel
220 cm, max 23 kg
Fee depending on class. Extra bag outside of allowance
No length, max 23 kg
Short haul £40 Each way Long haul part of allowance
Part of baggage allowance
Part of baggage allowance
Part of baggage allowance or fee depending on class of travel
Selection of other airlines of the world
315 cm, max 32 kg
Fee or free depending on class of travel. Extra bag outside of allowance
No length, max 20 kg
Fee £25 each way. Extra bag outside of allowance
No length, max 32 kg
250 cm, max 32 kg
Fee £35 each way. Extra bag outside of allowance
No specific restrictions
Part of allowance for class
Part of allowance
300 cm, max 23 kg or 32 kg depending on class of travel
Part of allowance
Extra bag regardless of allowance and class
Part of allowance. $50CAD fee
Part of allowance or possible fee
Part of allowance
No length, max 23 kg
Part of allowance
No length, max 23 kg
Part of allowance
Extra bag outside of allowance. Certain aircraft types only. Fee is £30 each way per “kit”. That would mean £120 each way for us as we take four “kits” between us in one bag. Moreover, even though these would be pre-booked, because they would be in one bag and therefore saving space, the airline would put these as stand-by and they may be refused. Because of this, FlyBe are pushing the ridiculous too.