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... :D

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... :D

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:rolleyes: !


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:rolleyes: !


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

[battlensign]

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!

I do not think that Magoo was attempting to suggest, imply or explicitly state ANYTHING like that at all. I can see where you are coming from, but it seems(to me at the moment at least) quite clear that Magoo was trying to convey a sense of security reluctance from the US. This is NOT something that could have been rectified by negotiation earlier. Either we got the codes or we didn't (before or after). Asking before would not necessarily have been any more effective and we needed a new fighter anyway, so it isn't as though that was going to be leverage.

Brett.

[Magoo]

I do not think that Magoo was attempting to suggest, imply or explicitly state ANYTHING like that at all. I can see where you are coming from, but it seems(to me at the moment at least) quite clear that Magoo was trying to convey a sense of security reluctance from the US. This is NOT something that could have been rectified by negotiation earlier. Either we got the codes or we didn't (before or after). Asking before would not necessarily have been any more effective and we needed a new fighter anyway, so it isn't as though that was going to be leverage.

Brett.

Bingo!

Magoo

[battlensign]

Bingo!

Magoo

Glad to be of assistance. I live to serve.......:p: :D

[Magoo]

Glad to be of assistance. I live to serve.......:p: :D

No worries ;)

But seriously, the thought of US aircraft radar 'codes' not being loaded into the Hornets' EW system threat library probably didn't occur to the Mirage replacement program planners in the late 70s, nor would I have expected it to. I don't think the Indons ordered the F-16 until after our first Hornets were delivered.

I don't know how true this is, but I have heard the Kiwis may have assisted with the APG-66 codes after they installed the radar into their A-4Ks in the late 80s/early 90s, although I believe they got a dumbed down and less powerful version of the radar to allow for the A-4's smaller aperture etc.

Cheers

Magoo

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Any chance of a similar prblem with the SH and JSF buy????? If malaysia get SH Block I (I doubt the yanks will do them block II's) we may have a similar problem, again with the APG 63(V3) AESA on ROSAF F15's. Or have our ELint cabailities evolved a bit since since the 70's and these sort of things wont be too much of a problem???

[Magoo]

Any chance of a similar prblem with the SH and JSF buy????? If malaysia get SH Block I (I doubt the yanks will do them block II's) we may have a similar problem, again with the APG 63(V3) AESA on ROSAF F15's. Or have our ELint cabailities evolved a bit since since the 70's and these sort of things wont be too much of a problem???

Who knows, although I think the relationship has matured somewhat since the heady days of the Hawke Govt, especially after the signing of the security pact by the Shrub and Howard in Sydney a couple of weeks ago which should smooth over many of the current ITARs issues the ADF and industry keeps coming up against!

I suspect we have a much greater capability to do our own ELINT work these days, via various assets such as the AP-3Cs and especially once the Wedgetails come on board, so we should be virtually self-sufficient in developing our own very comprehensive threat library going forward.

Just as an interesting side note - the Indian Su-30MKIs which went to Waddington in the UK recently were extremely restricted on how much 'radiating' they could do with their own radars. Seems the Indians didn't want to give away too much of what the Su-30's capabilities were. It'll be interesting to see how much they 'give up' at Red Flag next August!

Cheers

Magoo

[Scorpion82]

Edit:
I missed the second page before posting :rosie

So in the end "cracking" the codes was nothing else than an ELINT/SIGINT excersise. Anybody with the required capabilities does it. It's normal there is nothing special behind and I assume the Australians didn't sell this knowledge to anyone. Therefore I see no reason to worry about the purchase of F-35s. Of course it is a sensitive matter and it would have been better to keep it away from the public, but I don't see any problems which might evolve out of this.

jusr my 2 ct

[Sheqel]

I know nothing about the hardware talked about (I'm still trying to learn!) but, as was suggested earlier in the thread, this speech smacks of being politically motivated.

I'm just speculating, but the key message seems to be that the ADF needs to slap the US around the head ocassionally to get what they need. They probably asked Beazley to make the comments as he was a fairly significant figure in Australian politics, but generally the public won't really take much notice of him now. And most will put it down to him just showing off how big he used to be. His position, not his waist line, that is.

I suspect the ADF is trying to negotiate a deal with the US right at this moment but have hit a wall. This is their way of having a poke at their mates in America.

Interesting story though, cheers for that.

[Sheqel]

Taken from news.com.au:

AUSTRALIA is to join the United States in a partnership to share the latest generation military communications satellites.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said Australia would fund one satellite plus associated ground infrastructure at a cost of $927 million, while the US would fund the remaining five.

Dr Nelson said that would give the Australian Defence Force access to the world-leading communications capability provided by the new Wideband Global Satellite Communications (WGS) constellation.

"Access to the WGS constellation will build on the ADF's ability to conduct multiple and simultaneous military operations independently, or as part of a coalition force," he said in a statement.

"Secure and reliable satellite communications will be available to deployed forces, operational command and Australian headquarters."

"The WGS constellation of six satellites will provide a world-class capability in terms of global coverage, operational flexibility and bandwidth. It will support multiple simultaneous high-tempo operations and provide a high level of redundancy."

Dr Nelson said WGS also would allow the ADF to realise the full potential of Network Centric Warfare within the next decade.

It would enable the next generation of Australian military capabilities, such as air warfare destroyers, amphibious ships, multi-mission unmanned aerial vehicles and land platforms to achieve their full potential, he said.

Dr Nelson said the first WGS satellite was now being prepared for launch, and would be operational by early 2008.

The complete constellation of six satellites will be fully functional by 2013, and will comfortably handle the increase in ADF communications requirements over this time and out to at least 2024.

Each WGS satellite will provide more communications capacity than the entire US satellite communication system constellation currently in orbit, according to the WGS prime contractor, defence company Boeing.

Dr Nelson said achieving full operational WGS capability by 2013 would coincide with the predicted capability drawdown of the ADF's SingTel/Optus C1 satellite.

He said the SingTel/Optus C1 satellite would continue to be an important element of ADF communications capability until its end of life, and it would be maintained in parallel with WGS.

"I expect to finalise the arrangement through the signing of a government-to-government Memorandum of Understanding shortly after the 30 day US Congressional Notification Period," he said.

"This new partnership will further strengthen the Australia-US alliance. It will enhance the close ties and high level of cooperation that already exists between Australian and US defence force personnel."

[Gripenator]

"He said the SingTel/Optus C1 satellite would continue to be an important element of ADF communications capability until its end of life, and it would be maintained in parallel with WGS."

Did somebody say Singtel?

A partially Singaporean owned satellite used by the ADF?

But then again Singapore is "friendly"=)

[gf0012-aust]

"He said the SingTel/Optus C1 satellite would continue to be an important element of ADF communications capability until its end of life, and it would be maintained in parallel with WGS."

Did somebody say Singtel?

A partially Singaporean owned satellite used by the ADF?

But then again Singapore is "friendly"=)

there has been a problem in the past with espionage claims against singapore - that was circa 2000-2001. those days are well gone. the harvesting that goes through the singtel satellite is not that sensitive - and deliberately so. we do have access to other harvesting processes.

the whole reason for dispersing and going with the US option is that we know the calibre of data protection

[barra]

But then again Singapore is "friendly"=)

They may well be "friendly" but they are also very active and well known collectors of intelligence and are treated as such when deployed here. Like the F-16 det that is currently at Willytown.

Hooroo