Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Feb 27 10:03:53 PST 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / jergul continued
Sun Nov 20 13:18:45
I'd rather leave the thread to die, but you decided to end on a point of rank dishonesty.

"You made a claim. Swedish maritime data is stored and accessible. You failed to prove that claim or significantly substantiate that claim."

I made an assumption, and assumption that is well founded - nothing you have cited (and indeed everything you have cited) supports that this is a reasonable assumption.

You have shown nothing that demonstrably proves it is NOT the case that this data is not kept.

And indeed the fact that SaaB wound up commissioning a university to view archieved data because it did not at that point have the capability to do so demonstrates that the archived data actually exists.

The only question is "how much" you maintain local caches with a small amount removed ad-hoc as needed.

The existence of European infrastructure and a dedicated protocol for messaging suggests otherwise.

Further you suggest that it would be so big and complicated as to need a separate programme.

Your own inflated (and demonstrably incorrect) citings of the article Nim provided show that it would have negligible bandwidth and storage requirements.

Binary files in asterix protocol are neither particular sophisticated or unsophisticated - but each message contains a bunch of information to allow anyone receiving the message to understand more about the sensor. Operational systems would not need that, and extra data consuming bandwidth in combat systems is not desirable - so proprietary formats are likely used for integrations in a fixed system.

All the paper shows is that SaaB did not have a good application for plotting, playing and rewinding data in asterix format as a visual medium. That does not mean they could not read it.

So, again, is it "extraordinary" to believe data is held?

1. We know it is held - "nims's" paper explicitly mentions it *is* held, and the issue is it cannot be rendered by Saab.

2. Even your maximal estimations for bandwidth and storage volumes show it adds negligable costs and requirements.

3. The use case we are discussing demonstrates why it would be useful to hold a buffer.

4. There are dedicated EU facilities for managing the integration and exchange of this data between MS security agencies.

All you have done is argue that it is best to assume it does not exist unless we can prove such an archive (which is classified) definitively exists.

So, to bring us back full circle: it is a safe assumption that it does exist. I cannot definitively prove it does - but it would be improbable that it does not - and you have provided no rationale to say it is "extraordinary" to think so.
large member
Sun Nov 20 15:02:54
Thread was done Seb. You argument smacks of intelligent design btw. Except there at least they say "look at all this cool stuff. There must be a God"

You are saying "There must be a god and there must be an intelligent design".

Find the battle management system Sweden is using, or assume the propretary one Saab is using has the sophistication of asking operators to save screen shots to put on thumb drives for transfer out of the hard wired, closed system whenever Saab is paid to do some analytics. As we have documented that is the level of sophistication of its propretary system.
large member
Sun Nov 20 15:04:28
As for storage within the closed system. Sure. Until caches are purged.
Sun Nov 20 15:13:48

It was done, but you decided to cheekily move the goalposts by being dishonest about claim vs assumption.

"There must be a God"

You are trying to infer the non existence of a dataset from a paper that explicitly references the existence of said dataset and is about building a viewer for said dataset.

Even creationists don't go that far.
Sun Nov 20 15:17:38
"Find the battle management system Sweden is using"

Not relevant. Archive data wouldn't remain in a battle management system anyway.

We know there are Asterix (an exchange protocol) data files.

Why would a battlemanagement system keep a local cache of data in a format optimised for exchange with a network error the receiving applications aren't tightly coupled to and configured for the sensors it's connected to and thus bed to be told about them in each target report, and not the native data structures of the system?
Sun Nov 20 15:22:01
You keep coming back to the picture.

The paper explicitly states the reason they were using a picture *rather* than the binary data *that exists* is the lack of a viewer.

The only things that are useful in that paper is that binary data files exist already; and that size of those target reports.

Your argument appears to be that these binary files are local caches deleted soon after.

But why would SaaB store a local cache in a format their system in a format optimised for exchanging with a larger network and which it can't plot?

If you can explain this, then maybe we would have something to talk about.

Sun Nov 20 15:36:13
The fact that I have put in more effort (19 minutes of googling) to illuminate this topic, while you two have used the most words... this isn't really about radar recordings. Hihihi, silly me :)
Sun Nov 20 15:38:06
10 minutes*
Sun Nov 20 16:56:03

There's literally no point googling this to persuade jergul as he already made clear what he wants is proof of the specs of a classified system.

It was a nice find, your paper.

My initial estimate for a target report was c. 38 bits. Pretty much bang on.

large member
Sun Nov 20 17:48:44
Completely irrelevant trivia. The point was always that a data collection and storage system for secure maritime radars requires a battle management system of some sort. Since you have failed to find one, then we know maritime radars are using propretary Saab programs that require the operator to take screenshots when Saab is paid to do analytics.

The 125 bit per contact per second are the format used internally in the closed system. Like for the operator to get visual output on his monitor.

My estimate of 25Mb/s was what was actually spot on for screen shot data saves used externally as nimi's document show is the Saab practice.

You are pretending a student paper represents som kind of reality. It does you say? Correct. The reality of screen shot saves.

Data transfer into (firmware updates etc) and out of the closed, hardwired system is done by thumbdrive on a secure machine permanently part of the closed system.

The closed system never has a wireless connection of any type.

You are just wrong and are latching on to trivia because that is what you do.

Like I said, justification is meaningless. Teknocratic elitist prick behavior to justify close to a decade of post secondary educations.

We cant have the masses thinking their opinions based on their simplistic views of reality are as valid as our pompous shit now, can we?
Mon Nov 21 01:54:00

"Since you have failed to find one, then we know maritime radars are using propretary Saab programs that require the operator to take screenshots when Saab is paid to do analytics."

1. I haven't looked because it is irrelevant.

2. The article clearly states that the reason they are using screenshots is not because archive data does not exist, indeed it explicitly states binary data files exist, but because they don't have a plotter.

3. Do we seriously believe then that Saab keeps a local cache of radar data in a format optimised for information exchange with a broader loosely coupled network, which the local BMS system evidently can't read (or no need for a separate viewer) unless it was being sent onwards to some further data centre?

The existence of the Asterix data files that the local BMS can't read proves the reverse of what you claim.
Mon Nov 21 06:09:52

"The New Maritime Surveillance system of the Swedish navy is installed in the five regional command centres in Sweden. The new Swedish Coastal radar system provides data from any part of the Swedish coast. Data is exchanged with e.g. the Finish counterpart and the Swedish Coast Guard."

So, no, not local cache. Exchange data - the issue simply is that SaaB's systems were not built to ingest ASTERIX.

Mon Nov 21 06:12:18
So where are we back to:

1. We know that the data storage and bandwidth requirements for keeping historic data are low and cheap and would not merit another progrmame.

2. We know that the coastal radars are networked to regional command centres, other organisations, and indeed part of exchange networks maintained by EDA and NATO.

3. Remind me again why anyone thinks that a security agency would not keep an archive of historic traces to be able to investigate incidents that only come to light months later - when the bandwidth and storage requirements are so minor and cheap?
large member
Fri Nov 25 19:26:05
Establish that is actually being used.


Seems Kongsberg will be delivering a battle management program.

Saab does have contracts with Pakistan, India and Croatia though. I am sure those are surveilling the crap out of respective maritime waters.

Just find Saab's contract with the Swedish government.
Sat Nov 26 09:40:37
SaaB was the integrator and ITT the radar system provider for the REMO 870 program to renovate and modernise the Swedish Coastal surveillance radar network.


"The Swedish Defence Material Administration and Saab have already completed verification and validation testing of the interfaces between the radar system and the command and control System. The radar system is performing flawlessly, according to the Swedish Defense Material Administration. The next phase involves extensive performance testing at the first permanent installation site on the coast of Sweden."

I already posted this or another source saying the same thing in the last thread.

The quote establishes that it is being used.

The system you reference here is a different system for monitoring of and presumably performance management of live firing ranges.

Are you going to keep moving the goal posts and demand that I arrange a face to face interview with the Swedish defence secretary and the CEO of Saab to confirm these facts because you don't trust clearly published open sources confirming all this?
Sat Nov 26 09:46:07
Of course the radar sites are networked. Of course information goes to regional and national command centres. Of course it is exchanged with allies. Of course archives exist (why would you get a university to build a viewer for data archives that didn't exist?).

It's not the 1950s. Bandwidth and storage are cheap, and contrary to initial claims, the track data is not onerous; and being able to look at historic data when conducting an investigation after the fact is a clear requirement for the fundamental purpose of having this system in the first place.
large member
Sat Nov 26 09:53:47
Networked you say. Ok, what Battle Management System has the Swedish State bought to Network the Radars?

You are doing the same thing your great-great-great grandfather did in his post as a minor country clergyman. There must be an intelligent design. All creatures great and small. All things wild and wonderful the good lord made them all.
large member
Sat Nov 26 09:58:49
Remember if you will that I am arguing against myself. Using your logic, if such a system existed and since Sweden had time to analyse the data, then the only conclusion we could draw from lack of findings is that a vessel tied to Western nations is the culprit behind the explosion.
Sat Nov 26 10:20:35

I literally posted you to a pr pamphlet where SaaB boasts about the surveillance system they've sold to network coastal radar data for sweden on Nov 21.

They refer to it as "Martine surveillance system" and say it's built on their Safir platform.

Wanking on about battlemanagement systems (which may be a different module in the overall architecture) is beside the point.

It's there documented in multiple sources: the coastal radar networks exchange data with regional and national command centres and indeed NATO allies and other Swedish state functions. There is archived data to boot. The source of that data is unlikely to be a local cache (why would you store data in a format optimised for exchange and which your system supposedly can't ingest).

Anything else is superfluous and just amounts to deflection.

Now, regarding the absence of public confirmation of Russia as the culprit.

You yourself have argued that the West needs to control pace of escalation. Publicly acknowledging Russian involvement would of course force NATO to either escalate to direct reprisals (which it does not want to do) or normalise attacks on cables and pipelines (which it does not want to do).

And of course, if the Russians used submarines to lay the explosive or, indeed, the simplest method (explosive packed pig) then coastal radar wouldn't detect either.

So you could equally argue (if you believe the absence of public confirmation of the culprit tells us anything, and there's no reason to hold back from public confirmation of Russias role if that were confirmed) is that radar data and subsequent investigations ruled out a ship and thus rules out Ukraine (and possibly Poland, I think they have only one clapped out sub not suitable for this kind of op? I forget).

Another possibility exists, the radar data and subsequent investigations were inconclusive.

However my point was always that using a ship exposes the perpetrators to a fairly high risk of detection and even if not then if not sufficient to confirm then sufficient to raise strong suspicions.

This makes it a very risk move for Ukraine or Poland.

large member
Sat Nov 26 10:40:40
BMS is just a cach all term. The sum of evidence suggests that the system did not come into place until november-21.

We also know that data would be stored for 30 days using civic aviation standards. Which would explain why the data might be inconclusive.

A zero risk move for Poland or Ukraine because if information exists, it will be supressed. They would have to pray there was no wikileak moment.

Then the issue would be about government secrecy, not actually about what was being kept secret.

The only really dangerous thing in Western politics these days is to drag heels about helping Ukraine.
Sat Nov 26 11:43:20

"The sum of evidence suggests that the system did not come into place until november-21."

No, it really doesn't. You have a project to upgrade it as early as 2008, press releases of integration in 2012 and PR track record pamphlets from 2018.

"We also know that data would be stored for 30 days using civic aviation standards."

Why would a military or security network limit itself to civil standards? Civil standards are a trade off between the needs of a regulator Vs the costs of an (often private) operator; and civil incidents requiring investigation after immediately obvious, whereas by definition security incidents are often intended to not be observed at the time.

"A zero risk move for Poland or Ukraine because if information exists, it will be supressed."

There's no guarantee that would be the case - it would require extensive cooperation by a number of countries, with no whistleblowing. Further it would still be known to other Western govts who while not making out public would be angered and impose consequences downstream.

It would be an extraordinarily dumb move.
large member
Sat Nov 26 12:24:46
It really does. Are you tutoring on the side or something to think yours is the voice of authority?

Find when the contract was awarded and completed if you want to prove the system was in place prior to 11/2021.

Why would the military store things longer than civic aviation? If you think it does, then find a source that shows the military stores radar data long term habitually.

Anyways, if the data had been stored long enough, then that is a smoking gun pointing towards the West in the sabotage.

Zero risk supporting Ukraine. Lots of risks exposing Ukraine.

Ukraine is the only one that gains from blowing up the pipeline. What does it gain? Gas security. Russia cannot cut it off without cutting off Europe. Why would that be important? Well, read the news on attacks taking down the Ukrainian electricity supply.

Next question is if security agency would help it. Poland, the UK and any baltic state would. Though my money is on Poland. A nice break from demanding reparations from Germany.
Sat Nov 26 12:44:11

"Are you tutoring on the side or something to think yours is the voice of authority?"

It doesn't rest on my authority. It rests on the copious evidence I've already presented and to which a contract would add precisely nothing, unless you are claiming that all these industry press releases and track record type docs are fraudulent lies.

It is there in black and white and it is utterly baffling to me on what basis you would confidently assert a system that we have multiple documented evidence as existing and being upgraded in 2012 and which there was track record referring to the capability as in operation from 2018 was "not in operation" prior to 2021.

"Why would the military store things longer than civic aviation?"

I have literally answered that question at least four times. The system is there to detect and support security and criminal investigations. Lets say you become aware of a drug smuggling operation through police work and you know it is coming in by sea - being able to look at patterns of ship movements without relying on AIS transponders being turned on would be really important.

"Anyways, if the data had been stored long enough, then that is a smoking gun pointing towards the West in the sabotage."

No, I've pointed out the hole in your logic. One might say it is a smoking gun pointing at Russia (absence of radar shows it was a submarine wot done it). Equally fallacious argument that ignores counterfactuals.

"Ukraine is the only one that gains from blowing up the pipeline."

Incorrect, Russia gains by freeing Gazprom of liabilities for non-performance of contracts; and demonstrates potential to attack cables and pipelines - hoping to intimidate Europe from further support for Ukraine.

Further, Russia had already closed down the pipeline.

"Poland, the UK and any baltic state would."

Too risky and not necessary (see above).

large member
Sat Nov 26 13:03:52
The only thing you have proven is that a system that actually gave off system transfer capacity beyond screenshots used in 2018 was put in place around november 2021.

There is no need and no funding for long term radar data storage. New public management is a thing for the military too. It will follow civilian standards if not specifically required to do otherwise.

Gazprom supplies by way of Ukraine and pays Ukraine for the privilege along with supplying Ukraine with natural gas. The only thing destroying a Russian owned pipeline does is ensure that the spice keeps flowing to Ukraine.

Nobody else gains. The only thing risky is saying no to Ukraine. Of course security agencies would help it out if Ukraine security forces had a scheme that would secure its winter gas supplies.

The other downside is people being pissed of at the Swedish government for keeping things secret from investigators. Not the actual destruction of the pipeline.

Most likely. Data not stored long enough to help investigation. Second most likely. The data was not cleared to be shared with investigators because the evidence pointed to Western involvement.
Sat Nov 26 13:37:02

You appear to have made up the November 2021 date.

All the 2018 paper shows is that at the point in time the work the paper is publishing was commenced, the systems used by some SaaB engineers were not able to ingest binary ASTERIX target reports, plot them, rewind them, and replay them.

That is all.

"It will follow civilian standards if not specifically required to do otherwise."

Nonsense. For example, manufacturing standards for military ships are not set in law, they are set in procurement contracts that the military draft themselves to their own requirements.

The same will be true here.

Just ignoring counter arguments without rebuttal and saying "no-one else gains" is pathetic.

You have concocted a circular argument:

It must have been Ukraine because the data hasn't been published. We know the data hasn't been published because it was Ukraine.
large member
Sat Nov 26 14:53:04
Go ahead. Prove your position. When did Sweden get a more advanced system than screen shots. It was after 2018 and probably in november 2021 when the promotional brochure was made.

Military ships keep the data until the caches are purged. Within days. Frankly, assuming 30 days is mighty charitable.

You are pathetic. Wow. That was a fun argument. I should use it more often.

The data does not exist. Alternatively, it does exist but had not been given to investigators. No circular argument.

You are doing the intelligent design fallacy. The only thing that proves is that you have never served in the military.
large member
Sat Nov 26 16:10:47
Islington was fine btw (7 sisters road). Just spent a week there. It may be better than even Swansea. Time shall tell.
Sat Nov 26 16:17:28

Promotional pamphlet is from 2012


Document is from 2012 Jergul.

"22.12.2012 • 3,884 Views"


Which fits with the REMO program that was let in 2008


Underwent design review in 2009


and the press releases around ITT's successful integration of its systems in 2012



Please stop bullshitting. It is tiresome.

As I have said from the beginning, the 2018 paper simply tells us that SaaB did not have a system that let them take target reports stored in ASTRIX protocol binary files and plot them with the required play, pause and rewind functions.

This does not mean their system was incapable of those features generally; it means it was not designed to ingest ASTERIX data files.

So until they finally got fed up, they used erstaz workarounds for whatever work it was they were doing that needed real world data, until they commissioned a university to build them something - something they themselves could easily do but did not want to incur the opportunity costs of spending their own time doing.

It is often easier to build a standalone than integrate that feature into a mature product.

That is all. You made some incorrect inferences from the paper and are going down a dense rabbit warren.

Sat Nov 26 16:22:35
Glad you enjoyed Islington - I would recommend picking up a property next year if you are thinking of it.

The interest rate and tax rises are going to cool the market a fair bit - but I expect irrespective of the Labour rhetoric, in a few years we will have a Labour govt that will take us back into close alignment with the EU and the pound will rise off the back of that.
Sat Nov 26 16:27:49
"Military ships keep the data until the caches are purged."

Yeah, but a military ship is not where you would conduct an investigation into drug smuggling or Russian submarine operations from.

That will be in some kind of ops centre or head quarters on land.

Which, as I said, is probably why the archives are in ASTERIX bin files. Archive the reports as they are aggregated and received from the various sensor networks.

Yes, your posts are a bit pathetic. I am addressing your points. You are not addressing mine, just sticking a telescope to your blind and saying "I see no ships", so to speak, "...and therefore by process of elimination I am correct".

You have to actually make a counter argument as to why other options can be discounted before claiming to be correct.

large member
Sat Nov 26 16:48:10
Yah, Hampstead heath area and the village itself on the small rise is way overpriced, but the 7 sisters rd. Wow. Waiting for gentrification. Better perhaps than Swansea.

I will do another couple trips over the next half-year. Due diligence. No reason not to profit off brexit. 10% for renting management seems fine in a huff, we may be able to do that kind of way.

Shall we let the rest rest with us both being certain of our convictions?
Sat Nov 26 17:24:58
Getting close to my childhood area there, Teddington
large member
Sat Nov 26 18:19:05
I actually considered saying I was coming, but I have huge allergies in countries where thing rot 12 months a year. Vanity forbade I met up like a puffed up squirrel.

I am highly motivated to checking out those shot therapies that exist. Maybe next time?
large member
Sat Nov 26 18:20:14
We all get that the founding principle of this forum is "no harm, no foul", right?

I can disagree with people agreably in real life. It just seems pointless for my internet persona.-
Sun Nov 27 17:19:29
Maybe, though I wonder if meeting face to face would ruin the fun :-)

Let me know next time your in town.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share