seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,069
Reaction score
280
Of particular concern is information related to the Sea Dragon anti-ship missile program, a project of the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office that was being developed by submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat.

https://news.usni.org/2018/06/08/china-stolen-vast-amounts-navy-submarine-missile-data-multiple-breaches-contractors-servers

:eek:
 

Blitzo

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
404
Reaction score
84
The signals information would probably be the most useful part in this haul.


I also can't help but wonder how many more instances of successful cyber espionage we don't hear about... from both sides.
 

seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,069
Reaction score
280
Chinese hackers 'steal US navy data on undersea warfare and supersonic missiles'

https://news.sky.com/story/chinese-hackers-steal-us-navy-data-on-undersea-warfare-and-supersonic-missiles-11398998
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
220
Reaction score
165
Do these defense companies not understand how to air-gap their computers? Fucking SpaceX has better infosecurity than them. MUCH better info security.
 

antigravite

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
768
Reaction score
125
The Washington Post also ran a story on this mega security breach. Sea Dragon is part of a broader initiative:

"The Sea Dragon project is an initiative of a special Pentagon office stood up in 2012 to adapt existing U.S. military technologies to new applications. The Defense Department, citing classification levels, has released little information about Sea Dragon other than to say that it will introduce a “disruptive offensive capability” by “integrating an existing weapon system with an existing Navy platform.” The Pentagon has requested or used more than $300 million for the project since late 2015 and has said it plans to start underwater testing by September."

Source: Ellen Nakashima & Paul Sonne , "China hacked a Navy contractor and secured a trove of highly sensitive data on submarine warfare", Washongton Post, June 8 at 3:04 PM. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/china-hacked-a-navy-contractor-and-secured-a-trove-of-highly-sensitive-data-on-submarine-warfare/2018/06/08/6cc396fa-68e6-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html

A.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,186
Reaction score
2,722
MihoshiK said:
Do these defense companies not understand how to air-gap their computers? Fucking SpaceX has better infosecurity than them. MUCH better info security.

This is getting super annoying. Heads should roll.

On the other hand:

"Like the SCO-led anti-surface modification to the Standard Missile-6, the program sought to give an unspecified sub-launched weapon an anti-ship capability."

So Tomahawk might be getting antiship missile capability? *YAWN* China probably laughed and deleted the information. (Because there's no way in hell they'd give D-5 antiship missile capability.)
 

seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,069
Reaction score
280
sferrin said:
MihoshiK said:
Do these defense companies not understand how to air-gap their computers? Fucking SpaceX has better infosecurity than them. MUCH better info security.

This is getting super annoying. Heads should roll.

On the other hand:

"Like the SCO-led anti-surface modification to the Standard Missile-6, the program sought to give an unspecified sub-launched weapon an anti-ship capability."

So Tomahawk might be getting antiship missile capability? *YAWN* China probably laughed and deleted the information. (Because there's no way in hell they'd give D-5 antiship missile capability.)

supersonic missiles
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,186
Reaction score
2,722
seruriermarshal said:
sferrin said:
MihoshiK said:
Do these defense companies not understand how to air-gap their computers? Fucking SpaceX has better infosecurity than them. MUCH better info security.

This is getting super annoying. Heads should roll.

On the other hand:

"Like the SCO-led anti-surface modification to the Standard Missile-6, the program sought to give an unspecified sub-launched weapon an anti-ship capability."

So Tomahawk might be getting antiship missile capability? *YAWN* China probably laughed and deleted the information. (Because there's no way in hell they'd give D-5 antiship missile capability.)

supersonic missiles

According to the USNI article Sea Dragon was about giving an existing sub-launched missile antiship capability. In the US there are now only three types of sub-launched missiles. They're not about to give D-5 ASM capability and Sub-Harpoon (if they haven't managed to retire that as well) already has it. That leaves Tomahawk.
 

seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,069
Reaction score
280
sferrin said:
seruriermarshal said:
sferrin said:
MihoshiK said:
Do these defense companies not understand how to air-gap their computers? Fucking SpaceX has better infosecurity than them. MUCH better info security.

This is getting super annoying. Heads should roll.

On the other hand:

"Like the SCO-led anti-surface modification to the Standard Missile-6, the program sought to give an unspecified sub-launched weapon an anti-ship capability."

So Tomahawk might be getting antiship missile capability? *YAWN* China probably laughed and deleted the information. (Because there's no way in hell they'd give D-5 antiship missile capability.)

supersonic missiles

According to the USNI article Sea Dragon was about giving an existing sub-launched missile antiship capability. In the US there are now only three types of sub-launched missiles. They're not about to give D-5 ASM capability and Sub-Harpoon (if they haven't managed to retire that as well) already has it. That leaves Tomahawk.

GQM-163 Coyote ? maybe NAVY has tested it from submarine .
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,186
Reaction score
2,722
seruriermarshal said:
sferrin said:
seruriermarshal said:
sferrin said:
MihoshiK said:
Do these defense companies not understand how to air-gap their computers? Fucking SpaceX has better infosecurity than them. MUCH better info security.

This is getting super annoying. Heads should roll.

On the other hand:

"Like the SCO-led anti-surface modification to the Standard Missile-6, the program sought to give an unspecified sub-launched weapon an anti-ship capability."

So Tomahawk might be getting antiship missile capability? *YAWN* China probably laughed and deleted the information. (Because there's no way in hell they'd give D-5 antiship missile capability.)

supersonic missiles

According to the USNI article Sea Dragon was about giving an existing sub-launched missile antiship capability. In the US there are now only three types of sub-launched missiles. They're not about to give D-5 ASM capability and Sub-Harpoon (if they haven't managed to retire that as well) already has it. That leaves Tomahawk.

GQM-163 Coyote ? maybe NAVY has tested it from submarine .

Completely unsuitable. It's also not an existing weapon, or deployed on submarines.
 

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
555
Reaction score
37
The Drive suggested that RATTLRS got resurrected for the supersonic naval strike mission - but I find that to be improbable. On the other hand, why make the program secretive unless the missile being repurposed is already a secret?

The story doesn't make sense, there isn't a reason to make Sea Dragon secretive, as that only adds costs, etc.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,186
Reaction score
2,722
DrRansom said:
The Drive suggested that RATTLRS got resurrected for the supersonic naval strike mission - but I find that to be improbable.

It's Tyler Rogoway. I'd sooner believe the aliens guy.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,798
Reaction score
2,186
sferrin said:
According to the USNI article Sea Dragon was about giving an existing sub-launched missile antiship capability. In the US there are now only three types of sub-launched missiles. They're not about to give D-5 ASM capability and Sub-Harpoon (if they haven't managed to retire that as well) already has it. That leaves Tomahawk.

The Washington Post original story says Sea Dragon is supersonic but the Navy says the program was about adapting "an existing weapon system to an existing Navy platform," not necessarily an existing submarine weapon. Encapsulated SM-6 could fit the bill.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,186
Reaction score
2,722
TomS said:
sferrin said:
According to the USNI article Sea Dragon was about giving an existing sub-launched missile antiship capability. In the US there are now only three types of sub-launched missiles. They're not about to give D-5 ASM capability and Sub-Harpoon (if they haven't managed to retire that as well) already has it. That leaves Tomahawk.

The Washington Post original story says Sea Dragon is supersonic but the Navy says the program was about adapting "an existing weapon system to an existing Navy platform," not necessarily an existing submarine weapon. Encapsulated SM-6 could fit the bill.

"the program sought to give an unspecified sub-launched weapon an anti-ship capability."

SM-6 is not a sub-launched weapon.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
510
How far did SLATACMS get?

Wouldn't surprise me if they revisited it in light of the anti-ship capability being incorporated into the latest variant.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,798
Reaction score
2,186
sferrin said:
TomS said:
sferrin said:
According to the USNI article Sea Dragon was about giving an existing sub-launched missile antiship capability. In the US there are now only three types of sub-launched missiles. They're not about to give D-5 ASM capability and Sub-Harpoon (if they haven't managed to retire that as well) already has it. That leaves Tomahawk.

The Washington Post original story says Sea Dragon is supersonic but the Navy says the program was about adapting "an existing weapon system to an existing Navy platform," not necessarily an existing submarine weapon. Encapsulated SM-6 could fit the bill.

"the program sought to give an unspecified sub-launched weapon an anti-ship capability."

SM-6 is not a sub-launched weapon.

You're relying on the USNI article which appears to be second-hand from the Post. Consider that errors may have been introduced in translation.
 

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
555
Reaction score
37
Here is my question, if the Sea Dragon repurposes an existing weapon in the US inventory for submarine use, why is it sufficiently classified that the Washington Post agreed not to publish any details?

All of the realistic options: SM-6, LRASM-A, Tomahawk are, to be blunt, pretty standard weapons and modifications for submarine use shouldn't be that special.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,798
Reaction score
2,186
From the defender's position, not knowing if you have to deal with a ballistic or cruise threat profile would be significant. That alone might justify withholding more specifics.
 

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,205
Reaction score
284
TomS said:
You're relying on the USNI article which appears to be second-hand from the Post. Consider that errors may have been introduced in translation.

It is frustrating to see these press articles that are hearsay, uniformed speculation and clickbait. Each quotes the others in a game of "telephone".

It is even more frustrating to want to post on SPF knowing that any post with real information will just result in *more* clickbait articles elsewhere.

Nonetheless, why not look at some source material?

1. Construct a google search:
"sea dragon site:dtic.mil"

This will search DTIC for the specific term "sea dragon". This is much more reliable than DTIC's own search, though it can only search DTIC materials that Google has indexed.

2. Ignore results that are unrelated to what we are looking for. There have been projects in the past named "sea dragon" that are not relevant to this program.

What do we find? Plenty of budget documents with wording like:

Title: Sea Dragon 4.660 - -
Description: A cost-effective disruptive offensive capability will be demonstrated by integrating an existing weapon system with an existing Navy platform. Project includes analysis, prototyping, and experimentation. Due to the nature of these projects, specific applications and detailed plans are available at a higher classification level. The Sea Dragon project is transitioning to the Advanced Innovative Technologies Program Element (PE) 0604250D8Z in FY 2016.

The accomplishments for that year include:

Improved processing speed to reduce time latency from sensor to shooter for off board targeting of maritime targets.

Another document from the prior year lists more testing plans:

• Complete Phase Zero Analysis and Planning.
• Complete Phase One Development and Land Based Testing (LBT).
• Begin Phase Two Underwater Static Testing (UST).
• Analyze off-board targeting options to close operationally relevant kill chains.
• Prepare test facilities and weapon firing ranges for subsequent testing

This also gave us budget PE codes that can be fed into additional searches. This can uncover additional information that does not have the words "sea dragon" but describes the same program.

You could also search through records that mention the Electric Boat contract numbers for Sea Dragon and locate subcontractors, etc. and where work is being performed. A look at job postings related to that may be insightful. Perhaps EB was giving money to Raytheon and LM as subcontractors or hiring people with Mk41 VLS experience in Groton.

You might also find this document:

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2011/system/13079_WilsonWednesday.pdf
 

GeorgeA

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
709
Reaction score
74
Thanks quellish. Also, "integrating an existing weapon system with an existing Navy platform" doesn't mean the weapon system is an acknowledged one, although the chances of that being the case are probably low.
 

seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,069
Reaction score
280
George Allegrezza said:
Thanks quellish. Also, "integrating an existing weapon system with an existing Navy platform" doesn't mean the weapon system is an acknowledged one, although the chances of that being the case are probably low.

Seems like F-117 ?
 

Airplane

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
432
Reaction score
4
Keep in mind that war is all illusion and misdirection. The info the Chinese hacked could have been meant for them to be hacked. . .
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
4,474
Surely enough, Bob Truax Sea Dragon would make one hell of an antiship missile...
 

Flyaway

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
4,618
Speculation wise this article seems more sensible than most.

What Is the Navy’s Secret 'Sea Dragon' Weapon?

What other existing Navy missiles fit the bill? Just one actually: the newish Standard Missile (SM) 6 air defense missile, or SM-6. The latest development of the Standard series of surface-to-air missiles, SM-6 is designed to be launched by U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers to defend the fleet from cruise missiles, manned aircraft, unmanned aircraft, and even short-range ballistic missiles. SM-6 has a range somewhere around 180 miles. The missile's only drawback is, originally designed to shoot down flying targets, it has a fairly small blast fragmentation warhead.

If SM-6 isn’t Sea Dragon, then the real Sea Dragon is likely something very much like it. There really is no other supersonic weapon in the U.S. Navy’s inventory that fits the requirements, and the abilities the missile brings to the table, particularly the ability to take targeting data from other assets, make it a very useful submarine-launched weapon. On the other hand, there might be considerable engineering challenges to make SM-6 fit in a submarine.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21248858/navy-sea-dragon-chinese-hackers/
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
510
Or they just brought this integration forward.
 

Attachments

  • tacms-virginia.png
    tacms-virginia.png
    2.4 MB · Views: 263

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,205
Reaction score
284
George Allegrezza said:
Thanks quellish. Also, "integrating an existing weapon system with an existing Navy platform" doesn't mean the weapon system is an acknowledged one, although the chances of that being the case are probably low.

“Weapon” also does not mean “missile”.
Tomahawk maritime strike is already under way (and not funded under Sea Dragon).
Interestingly enough LM has already done some testing of a sub launched JASSM.

But if sea dragon was a UAV and payload for finding things to shoot at it wouldn’t make an interesting news story.
 

Similar threads

Top