Australia 'cracked US codes'

[dioditto]

Australia 'cracked US codes'
By Don Woolford
September 20, 2007 04:23pm

KIM Beazley has told how Australia cracked top-secret American combat aircraft codes while he was defence minister in the 1980s.

"We spied on them and we extracted the codes," Mr Beazley told Parliament during his valedictory speech today.

Mr Beazley, who was defence minister from 1984 to 1990, said that when he took over the job he soon learned that the radar on Australia's Hornets could not identify most potentially hostile aircraft in the region.

In other words, Australia's frontline fighter could not shoot down enemies in the region.

Mr Beazley said he was greatly tempted to "belt" the Liberals with this and lay to rest their claim to be best at managing defence.

"I shut up, I said nothing," Mr Beazley said.

"I went to the US and for five years, up hill and down dale, with one knock-down, drag-out after another, with Cap Weinberger, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, I tried to get the codes of that blasted radar out of them.

"In the end we spied on them and we extracted the codes ourselves and we got another radar that could identify (enemy planes).

Mr Beazley said the Americans were Australia's most important ally.

"But they are a bunch of people you have to have a fight with every now and then to get what you actually need out of them," he said.

Mr Beazley said that the story of getting the Hornet codes was well known within Defence, but not beyond it.

He said the problem was that the old codes related to Warsaw Pact aircraft, rather than ones in Australia's region.

The Americans kept saying they'd provide the codes, but never did.

"So we tried to crack the codes so we could enhance them," Mr Beazley said.

"And we made a lot of progress."

Mr Beazley said the Americans knew what the Australians were doing and were intrigued by the progress they made.


http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22451478-2,00.html

 

[Waylander]

Hehe, this is great for all the guys here questioning why the US should think that selling the F-22 to Australia could result in a security leak...

Why is it made public now? I tjought such things get burried forever.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hehe, this is great for all the guys here questioning why the US should think that selling the F-22 to Australia could result in a security leak...

Why is it made public now? I tjought such things get burried forever.

The man is an idiot - what a tool to say that in public.

 

[Tasman]

What on earth was Kim Beazley thinking?

For a man who professed to be a friend of the ADF and the Australian/American alliance he has done no favours to either with these comments. I also wonder if his comments would have breached the National Security Act if he had made them outside of parliament. His statement will certainly not be helpful in future discussions between the US and Australia re sensitive defence matters (e.g. the computer codes for the F-35A). I also think his comments place a question mark over the credibility of his party when it comes to defence and foreign affairs.

'Bomber' has gone down in my estimation.

Tas

 

[Aussie Digger]

The Government should have replied, "you mean you cracked the codes for 51 out of 71 Hornets Mr Beazley? Cause the other 20 were sitting on the tarmac being cannibalised for parts because YOU refused to FUND the support of the aircraft adequately"...

 

[Todjaeger]

Do not take this the wrong way, but I have a feeling that the article had more to do with electioneering politics than anything else, and not necessarily due to the author either.

When I went to check the claim vs. US sources, nothing appears. While the story does appear repeatedly on the Internet, it is from multiple venues quoting the same source, a speech made by Mr. Beazley in the (Australian) House of Representatives.

Given the lack of seconday sources to support such a claim, it suggests that either Mr. Beazley violated Australian security classification laws and might be paid a visit by the AFP or ASIO soon. Or, what he revealed was already well known and not something that concerned the US a great deal. A third possibility is that what Mr. Beazley claimed, and what actually occurred, as two different, but somewhat related events.

Something to remember is that the AN/APG-73 radar, now fitted to RAAF F/A-18 A/B Hornets, started development towards the end of the 1980's and entered service ~1992. As a result, the radar that would have equipped the RAAF Hornets when Mr. Beazley was DefMin would have been the AN/APG-65. If the US was concerned about Australian efforts to "crack the code" of the AN/APG-65, I highly doubt the US would have then allowed the sale of the AN/APG-73, particularly if the US was aware of Australian efforts as Mr. Beazley claimed.

What I would be interested to learn more of, is what the issue was supposed to have been with the radar in Australian service? Can anyone (Barra, Magoo, AGRA?) shed any light on the matter?

-Cheers

 

[swerve]

...
What I would be interested to learn more of, is what the issue was supposed to have been with the radar in Australian service? Can anyone (Barra, Magoo, AGRA?) shed any light on the matter?

-Cheers

It reads as if an NCTR threat library didn't include what Australia considered likely opponents. That's not based on any knowledge I have, just on what Beazley said.

 

[Tasman]

What I would be interested to learn more of, is what the issue was supposed to have been with the radar in Australian service? Can anyone (Barra, Magoo, AGRA?) shed any light on the matter?

My understanding from what Kim Beazley said is that the radar was optimised for identifying aircraft in service with Warswaw Pact countries rather than countries in South east Asia. However, a defence professional may be able to provide a more detailed answer.

Given the lack of seconday sources to support such a claim, it suggests that either Mr. Beazley violated Australian security classification laws and might be paid a visit by the AFP or ASIO soon. Or, what he revealed was already well known and not something that concerned the US a great deal. A third possibility is that what Mr. Beazley claimed, and what actually occurred, as two different, but somewhat related events.

My understanding is that by making the statement in Parliament Mr Beazley is immune to prosecution for violating Australian security classification laws. It was, however, a huge breach of parliamentary convention and no doubt an embarrassment to his own party - perhaps a parting shot at those who had rejected his leadership in favour of Rudd.

Tas

 

[dioditto]

What I would be interested to learn more of, is what the issue was supposed to have been with the radar in Australian service? Can anyone (Barra, Magoo, AGRA?) shed any light on the matter?

I have the same question as everyone else. What is the issue here?
Todjaeger I think you forgot a very qualified person to ask here.. : BigE

 

[gf0012-aust]

My understanding from what Kim Beazley said is that the radar was optimised for identifying aircraft in service with Warswaw Pact countries rather than countries in South east Asia. However, a defence professional may be able to provide a more detailed answer.

I think you'll find that some of this relates to the Indon ORBAT of the day....

 

[Todjaeger]

I have the same question as everyone else. What is the issue here?
Todjaeger I think you forgot a very qualified person to ask here.. : BigE

I did not include Big-E because I did not think he would be aware of an issue like this, which would have affected RAAF Hornets approximately 20 years ago. If the issue was a general Hornet issue, perhaps, but it seems pecular to those fielded by the RAAF.

-Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

What a [DEL]!!!! Its about all i can say abouy this. parliamentry privalage is there fore a good reason, but still what a DELETED for saying this! GEESH just what we need with the JSF codes coming in soon !


Ozzy,

Please refrain from the emotional language, this is a family show...

Izzy 1

 

[Magoo]

Just to clarify and to put all this into some kind of perspective - and I won't get into the merits of whether he should have declared this or not (although from my understanding it's a fairly common practice even between countries who are best of friends), what Beazley is talking about was gaining radar warning receiver (RWR) and EW threat library information of potential enemy air and ground based threats in our region, as opposed to the traditional Warsaw Pact systems for which the Hornet's systems were configured when delivered.

These were requested from and denied by the US not long after the aircraft were delivered.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[ELP]

The Government should have replied, "you mean you cracked the codes for 51 out of 71 Hornets Mr Beazley? Cause the other 20 were sitting on the tarmac being cannibalised for parts because YOU refused to FUND the support of the aircraft adequately"...

Bingo! Well said.

 

[rossfrb_1]

What a [DEL]!!!! Its about all i can say abouy this. parliamentry privalage is there fore a good reason, but still what a DELETED for saying this! GEESH just what we need with the JSF codes coming in soon !


Ozzy,

Please refrain from the emotional language, this is a family show...

Izzy 1

From the OP
" Mr Beazley said the Americans knew what the Australians were doing and were intrigued by the progress they made. "

So I don't see what the big deal is all about. If this is true then it's only going to be news to the public. Even if the Septics didn't know for sure, they would most likely have assumed that the RAAF would try. Because it would have been stupid for the RAAF not to.

rb

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

You do not air this stuff out in public mate. maybe the US government was aware of our efforts, but does that extend to congress and the executive???? You dont think the notion that the ADF has sucsesfully broken US codes on a prior purchase before might not cause serios greif for the F35 code issue if an republican senator with an axe to grind found this out??? Its a stupid thing to do any way you look at it.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

You do not air this stuff out in public mate. maybe the US government was aware of our efforts, but does that extend to congress and the executive???? You dont think the notion that the ADF has sucsesfully broken US codes on a prior purchase before might not cause serios greif for the F35 code issue if an republican senator with an axe to grind found this out??? Its a stupid thing to do any way you look at it.

Quite right. We couldn't have an informed public questioning what they are getting for their tax dollars, now can we?
I don't think it would hurt for the Australian public to know this, for future reference in other defence purchases, as they now now that they are not necessarily getting they bang they pay for with their buck.

 

[Magoo]

Quite right. We couldn't have an informed public questioning what they are getting for their tax dollars, now can we?
I don't think it would hurt for the Australian public to know this, for future reference in other defence purchases, as they now now that they are not necessarily getting they bang they pay for with their buck.

Not really a relevant comment. The F/A-18s were ordered with standard US Navy avionics, sensors and, in this case, EW systems which included the standard WarPac threat library. We paid for and received this fit.

I was trying to be diplomatic about it before, but I guess I'll have to spell it out. Other countries in the region were, in the late 70s and early 80s, dumping alot of their Soviet era equipment in favour of US made fighters and SAM systems, including Indonesia which was acquiring F-5s, A-4s and most importantly, F-16s.

THIS is where the disagreement came with the US, in that they wouldn't give us the appropriate codes (i.e. operating frequencies and modes) for the F-16's APG-66 radar and other active sensors on these and other US made aircraft, so we had to work it out or find it out for ourselves.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Not really a relevant comment. The F/A-18s were ordered with standard US Navy avionics, sensors and, in this case, EW systems which included the standard WarPac threat library. We paid for and received this fit.

snip
THIS is where the disagreement came with the US, in that they wouldn't give us the appropriate codes (i.e. operating frequencies and modes) for the F-16's APG-66 radar and other active sensors on these and other US made aircraft, so we had to work it out or find it out for ourselves.

Cheers

Magoo

Ahh, so ADF paid for one thing and wanted something else, didnt want to pay for the rest and got the codes anyway, by other methods?
From what you have posted it seems to me that someone in ADF didn't do proper due diligence on the very costly contract. Definitely couldn't have the public find out about that, might prove embarrassing to senior figures!

 

[barra]

The air forces EW adventures have had some positive spin offs. Some pollies have found out the hard way how important EW is to your modern warfighting capabilities and survivability. We all know how risk averse pollies are and wo behold any pollie that sends any of our A/C directly into harms way without decent EW kit. It is a subject that is now taken seriously and has led to some self sufficiency in this area. ALR-2002 is a good example, although it was a dog in fast jets.
This type of dirty linen is definitely best not aired in public. Just another fine example of Beazley at his bumbling best. The man who brought us such fine projects as the Collins Subs, Seasprite Helos and the downsizing of the ADF. For someone who liked to dress up and play soldiers so much, I can't point to a positive legacy of his tinkering. He won't be missed.

Hooroo