"Signal jamming a factor in future wars, general says"

[Mike]

Signal jamming a factor in future wars, general says
Saddam Hussein's failed attempt to jam U.S. Global Positioning System
navigation signals during the Iraq war is an example of the growing
danger of space warfare, the Air Force's top space commander said
yesterday.
at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040716-120137-1548r.htm

[Ron]

>
>Signal jamming a factor in future wars, general says
>Saddam Hussein's failed attempt to jam U.S. Global Positioning System
>navigation signals during the Iraq war is an example of the growing
>danger of space warfare, the Air Force's top space commander said
>yesterday.
>at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040716-120137-1548r.htm

Yes, wasnt it rather funny how trying to jam signals is just a big homing
beacon too?

They figured quite quickly how to make a weapon to home right on in that
jamming signal.
Those "jammers" were eliminated rather quickly.


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[Denyav]

>Signal jamming a factor in future wars, general says
>Saddam Hussein's failed attempt to jam U.S. Global Positioning System
>navigation signals during the Iraq war is an example of the growing
>danger of space warfare, the Air Force's top space commander said
>yesterday.
>at

The General seems to be very much preoccupied with historical victories aganist
Iraq,Afghanistan,Greneda,Panama,Somali,Zambia etc.
If I were in his shoes I would be much more concerned about some EM
transmissions that could not even be intercepted,much less be jammed.

[Denyav]

>Yes, wasnt it rather funny how trying to jam signals is just a big homing
>beacon too?
>
>They figured quite quickly how to make a weapon to home right on in that
>jamming signal.
>Those "jammers" were eliminated>

>rather quickly.
>

I doubt it,how could thousands of low cost jammers be eliminated quickly?
Even if they could be eliminated eventually cost benefit outcome of a such
operation would not be very favorable.
Such jammers cost less than one Grand and Iraqis had only 6 or 7 of them,thanks
to international embargo.
So its not very hard to imagine what whould happen if they had 6000-7000
instead of 6 or 7.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >Yes, wasnt it rather funny how trying to jam signals is just a big homing
> >beacon too?
> >
> >They figured quite quickly how to make a weapon to home right on in
> >that jamming signal. Those "jammers" were eliminated rather quickly.
>
> I doubt it,how could thousands of low cost jammers be eliminated quickly?

More to the point, how could thousands of such devices be *managed* by
anyone except a high-tech, high dollar military?

If they ran them off wall current, they'd lose them when the power went
out, and if they ran them off batteries, they'd spend a *lot* of money
just keeping them powered.

> Even if they could be eliminated eventually cost benefit outcome of a
> such operation would not be very favorable. Such jammers cost less
> than one Grand and Iraqis had only 6 or 7 of them,thanks to
> international embargo. So its not very hard to imagine what whould
> happen if they had 6000-7000 instead of 6 or 7.

They'd spend several million dollars a month trying to keep them
working, and realize that they didn't have the infrastructure to keep
them going after about month three. You have to keep moving them
around, too, since they'd become nothing more than spotting points if
you don't, and give the incoming munitions something else to refer to.

Unless you spend a lot more money on them, they're also very vulnerable
to the newer EMP weapons.

The "piles of cheap low-power jammers" idea is nice, as long as you
don't have to keep using them.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Ian]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Yes, wasnt it rather funny how trying to jam signals is just a big homing
> >beacon too?
> >
> >They figured quite quickly how to make a weapon to home right on in that
> >jamming signal.
> >Those "jammers" were eliminated>
>
> >rather quickly.
> >
>
> I doubt it,how could thousands of low cost jammers be eliminated quickly?
> Even if they could be eliminated eventually cost benefit outcome of a such
> operation would not be very favorable.
> Such jammers cost less than one Grand and Iraqis had only 6 or 7 of
them,thanks
> to international embargo.
> So its not very hard to imagine what whould happen if they had 6000-7000
> instead of 6 or 7.

Isn't it true that the "jammers" they found in Iraq, were only good for
small area jamming? By the time the weapon got within that area, it was
probably too late to prevent it hitting its target due to ballistics etc?

[jc]

Chad Irby wrote:

<snip>


> Unless you spend a lot more money on them, they're also very vulnerable
> to the newer EMP weapons.

In WWII the real secret weapon (proximity fuses) could only be used over
water until mid 44,in the UK with the V1 and not over enemy territory intil
the start of 45. The reason was fear of of copying a dud shell as the
allies had more to lose.

What is the better target for EMP weapons a GPS jammer or the NY stock
exchange?

> The "piles of cheap low-power jammers" idea is nice, as long as you
> don't have to keep using them.

At a rough guess the cost for a 1W jammer using cellphone components would
be ~$5, just keep sending them up with balloons (add $1).

--

regards

jc

LEGAL - I don't believe what I wrote and neither should you. Sobriety and/or
sanity of the author is not guaranteed

EMAIL - and are not valid email
addresses. news2x at perentie is valid for a while.

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

Gee, now why didn't they think of the possibility of GPS system jamming
twenty years ago when they invented it? Do you really think that was
overlooked? The general sounds like he was just creating a strawman argument
to justify more DOD budget money!

WDA

end

"Mike" > wrote in message
om...
> Signal jamming a factor in future wars, general says
> Saddam Hussein's failed attempt to jam U.S. Global Positioning System
> navigation signals during the Iraq war is an example of the growing
> danger of space warfare, the Air Force's top space commander said
> yesterday.
> at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040716-120137-1548r.htm

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, W. D. Allen Sr.
> writes
>Gee, now why didn't they think of the possibility of GPS system jamming
>twenty years ago when they invented it? Do you really think that was
>overlooked?

Let's split the difference and say it got lost somewhere along the way.
(Otherwise, why would CCM against GPS jammers be a profitable business,
if the system was inherently resistant?)

>The general sounds like he was just creating a strawman argument
>to justify more DOD budget money!

Are you claiming it *isn't* easy to jam many GPS receivers?

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Al Dykes]

In article >,
Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, W. D. Allen Sr.
> writes
>>Gee, now why didn't they think of the possibility of GPS system jamming
>>twenty years ago when they invented it? Do you really think that was
>>overlooked?
>
>Let's split the difference and say it got lost somewhere along the way.
>(Otherwise, why would CCM against GPS jammers be a profitable business,
>if the system was inherently resistant?)

Some creative Russian printed up some ACME GPS Jamming System
brochures and took SH for some of his money ?



--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

[Nele VII]

jc wrote in message ...
>Chad Irby wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>> Unless you spend a lot more money on them, they're also very vulnerable
>> to the newer EMP weapons.
>
>In WWII the real secret weapon (proximity fuses) could only be used over
>water until mid 44,in the UK with the V1 and not over enemy territory intil
>the start of 45. The reason was fear of of copying a dud shell as the
>allies had more to lose.

Actually, proximity fuses did not have the "self-destruct" mechanism,
therefore they would explode when hit the ground. Hence the limitation.

>
>What is the better target for EMP weapons a GPS jammer or the NY stock
>exchange?
>
>> The "piles of cheap low-power jammers" idea is nice, as long as you
>> don't have to keep using them.
>
>At a rough guess the cost for a 1W jammer using cellphone components would
>be ~$5, just keep sending them up with balloons (add $1).

Well, it is a bit under-estimated. I don't know much about how GPS works
(electronically), but I know it has commercial and military channels/
frequencies and commercial and military encoding. For civilian use, optimum
accuracy is receiving three GPS signals from three satellites (somebody
correct me if I am wrong, but I read it somewhere for more expensive GPS
devices for use, let's say in aviation) for elevation and position. As you
travel, the sattelites "switch" (just like GSM) control. Is it a same
frequency/coding? I don't know, but it is sure as hell that if you manage to
jam one channel, there are other two sats. Jam the other two signals, there
is one. In the meantime, your GPS receiver "struggles" to get signals from
the other two. And we are talking about civilian device.

What method are you going to use-noise or deceptive jamming? Read the
history of updates of "AN-ALQ" devices-or just one! Noise? In that case, you
are a flashbulb, and you will be attacked with alternate weapon on jamming
station. The band is narrow AFAIK, so if your opponent knows what to
"listen", you're toast.

Deceptive jamming. Well, it is not analogue signal anymore but digital and
probably encoded signal-actually, it IS encoded even for the civ use in the
matter of digital design-and probably scrambled in mil use. Thus, you have
to "doctor" the signal. Actually, signals -three satellites, remeber? You
can go to make this simmilar to tripled digital FBW system on, let's say,
F-16. Well, if you have failure on one channel then other two will feed the
aircraft with flying info, or in this instance, the weapon itself. Two of
them gone, you have one channel and two duds and you think that the flying
computer thinks that all three are duds? Wrong. Even your modem has
sufficient let-me-check-if-this-is-wright capabilities (CRC, CS) so it is
possible to imagine that FBW computer might have something simmilar. And
your jamming signal has to feed the encoded and encripted digital channel
switchig-multiple sattelite signals with false data, and it is desirable to
feed them with something meaningful to drive the weapon away, not to
owerflow it with garbage. And it's been a long time since F-16 digital FBW
was designed (I actually don't know is it possible to fly it on one channel,
but I would require it that it would! :)))).

Oh, the output power. In the Battle of Britain, there was a German bombing
device called X-Gerat. Basically, you had three signals for guidance, based
on the Lorentz blind-landing system (Morse dots-too left of course,
dashes-too right of course, single tone-on course), and the offset signal to
mark the bomb dropping. Once discovered, it was jammed by the Brits by
sending "dashes". Well, it sometimes worked (and it seems it worked well!)
but there were cases that the crew was able to depict the jamming-slight but
ear-noticeable change of modulation or change of volume and to offset it.

Or back to Your cell phone-it can "sense" the distance from the GSM
station-actually, my Motorola CD920/930 has a hidden option that, when
activated can measure and display the DISTANCE from the GSM broadcast
(albait in very weird units :))). Sattelites have very low output power and
if you send a "heroic" signal which is by magnitude stronger then satellite
signal, the system might think "this is too powerful", or "this is too
close" and simpy switch to something else. Remember, expirienced LW pilots
were able to depict the false signals. And code-breaking is not a trivial
thing; put a password to a MS-Word-file that is, let's say 5 characters long
and try to crack it with some program designed to do it, let's say Advanced
Office Password Recovery. Yeah, it will eventually break it, but count how
long it will take!

Also, You have A GPS and GLONASS (a Soviet GPS); while GLONASS is reportedly
in a bad shape, as far as I can remember India (I am really not sure!) uses
BOTH systems which might suggest that it is not in such bad shape after all.
While I am not aware of Russian GPS bombing/missile systems in use, some of
their (export?) weapon systems use both.

I agree that we are talking about the weapon (figter, bomber, cruise missile
or JDAM) that might not have all the "offset" capabilities that I have
mentioned here; I might not even be correct in numerous things. Actually,
you will need a (really, really) good sample either of the good portion of
the knowledge how -military- part of the system works or the system itself.
And once you develop a system, it will certainly not be of the cell-phone
size but rather of an underwing or wingtip pod size, weight and cost.

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Al Dykes >
writes
>In article >,
>Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>>Let's split the difference and say it got lost somewhere along the way.
>>(Otherwise, why would CCM against GPS jammers be a profitable business,
>>if the system was inherently resistant?)
>
>Some creative Russian printed up some ACME GPS Jamming System
>brochures and took SH for some of his money ?

Elements of that. Basic GPS systems, civilian and some military, are
very easily sent berserk by low jamming powers. Less basic systems are
more resistant, increasing (for rising input cost) to very jam-proof
systems that are extremely difficult to lock out.

GPS jamming is a real problem. It has real solutions and it's not a
surprise. (And it's harder to do than the doomsayers would claim, just
as it's more of a problem than some like to admit)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Eunometic]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, Al Dykes >
> writes
> >In article >,
> >Paul J. Adam > wrote:
> >>Let's split the difference and say it got lost somewhere along the way.
> >>(Otherwise, why would CCM against GPS jammers be a profitable business,
> >>if the system was inherently resistant?)
> >
> >Some creative Russian printed up some ACME GPS Jamming System
> >brochures and took SH for some of his money ?
>
> Elements of that. Basic GPS systems, civilian and some military, are
> very easily sent berserk by low jamming powers. Less basic systems are
> more resistant, increasing (for rising input cost) to very jam-proof
> systems that are extremely difficult to lock out.
>
> GPS jamming is a real problem. It has real solutions and it's not a
> surprise. (And it's harder to do than the doomsayers would claim, just
> as it's more of a problem than some like to admit)

The higher end systems would appear to have highly directional 'phased
array' antena that can exclude the jaming signal by locking onto the
satelite directly based on both satelite signal and known maps of
satelite position. A jammer must thus be as high as possible
(preferably in line with between the satelite ) to get energy into the
sidelobes of the antena.

Low cost solid state acceleromters and inertial guidence systems will
give many munitions a inertial guidence system that will takeover as
soon as effective jamming is detected which is likely to be only near
the target. There are indeed wind corrected bombs that cost perhaps
double that of a GPS bomb but loose only a little in accuracy. On top
of that simple infrared imaging systems based on the same sensors now
used in highend cars add even more accuracy than GPS is capable of.
At best jammer will only be able to degrade the accuracy slightly
while forcing up the price of the munition slighly or even increasing
it by forcing the bomber to add a simple terminal homing system.

[Yuri Tregubov]

GPS jammers (noise generators) are the standard tools nowadays.
Obviously, the weak satellite signal could be shutdown quite easily.
It's not a top notch, cool technology anymore, just usual (and
probably boring) stuff.

See, http://www.noisecom.com/content/Products/Components/GPS7500/GPS7500_5.pdf

Russian regards,
Yuri

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Yuri Tregubov) wrote:

> GPS jammers (noise generators) are the standard tools nowadays.
> Obviously, the weak satellite signal could be shutdown quite easily.

Not so obviously.

The directionality of RF, along with the inverse-square law, make it
*much* harder to jam a source that's effectively "behind" the incoming
munitions than you'd think. The jammers have to be quite high powered,
and are therefore pretty easy to find and disable (along with the
problem of keeping the jammers powered for days or weeks at a time).

> It's not a top notch, cool technology anymore, just usual (and
> probably boring) stuff.
>
> See, http://www.noisecom.com/content/Products/Components/GPS7500/GPS7500_5.pdf

You might note, for example, that the testing device above is used to
determine if *internal* RF noise interferes with GPS function (if a cell
phone or car mounted GPS is degraded by RF in the same vehicle).

It takes a lot of power to do anything to a GPS signal at anything like
a reasonable range.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Laurence Doering]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:20:40 +0200, Nele VII > wrote:
>
>>At a rough guess the cost for a 1W jammer using cellphone components would
>>be ~$5, just keep sending them up with balloons (add $1).
>
> Well, it is a bit under-estimated. I don't know much about how GPS works
> (electronically), but I know it has commercial and military channels/
> frequencies and commercial and military encoding. For civilian use, optimum
> accuracy is receiving three GPS signals from three satellites (somebody
> correct me if I am wrong, but I read it somewhere for more expensive GPS
> devices for use, let's say in aviation) for elevation and position.

You need to receive signals from four satellites to obtain a 3-D
position. Most GPS receivers can make do with three satellites, but
when they do they give only a 2-D position, and assume your elevation
is constant.

Modern consumer GPS receivers can receive and use signals from up
to twelve GPS satellites simultaneously. With the current GPS
constellation, it's not unusual to have ten satellites above the
horizon and useable. Most receivers will use the additional
satellite signals (above the four needed for 3-D position) to
determine your position more accurately.

> As you travel, the sattelites "switch" (just like GSM) control.

Actually, the satellites are most likely traveling faster
than you are. Their orbital period is just under 12 hours, so
you'd have to be moving more than 2000 mph to stay directly
underneath one. The GPS receiver computes which satellites are
above the horizon, and listens for their signals. As satellites
rise and set, the receiver updates the group of satellites it's
listening for.

> [...]

> What method are you going to use-noise or deceptive jamming? Read the
> history of updates of "AN-ALQ" devices-or just one! Noise? In that case, you
> are a flashbulb, and you will be attacked with alternate weapon on jamming
> station. The band is narrow AFAIK, so if your opponent knows what to
> "listen", you're toast.
>
> [...]

Deception jamming might be possible if you have a civilian receiver,
but you'd need to crack the encrypted signal to spoof a military
receiver.

There are a number of introductory descriptions of how the GPS system
works on the web -- for example, check out

<http://www.aero.org/publications/GPSPRIMER/>


ljd

[jc]

Laurence Doering wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:20:40 +0200, Nele VII >
> wrote:
<snip>>
>
>> What method are you going to use-noise or deceptive jamming? Read the
>> history of updates of "AN-ALQ" devices-or just one! Noise? In that case,
>> you are a flashbulb, and you will be attacked with alternate weapon on
>> jamming station. The band is narrow AFAIK, so if your opponent knows what
>> to "listen", you're toast.
>>
>> [...]
>
> Deception jamming might be possible if you have a civilian receiver,
> but you'd need to crack the encrypted signal to spoof a military
> receiver.

Probably the best (cheap) method would be noise with digital transmissions
(as per psuedo random code no need to crack the encryption) on the correct
frequencies. 1W dosn't sound much but with the low recieved power of the
GPS signal it dosn't take much to overwhelm or confuse it.

The cellphone industry has ensured VERY low cost components eg power output
transistors/amplifiers for a few cents. No need for elaborate environmental
enclosures just attach balloon and battery stick a ziplok bag over the
electronics and release. To avoid ECCM attacks change location immeadiately
to another school, hospital etc although a vehicle outside the Chinese
embassy for a release point is a possible.

The cost of hitting the balloons once they are released makes them a rather
assymetric weapon.

--

regards

jc

LEGAL - I don't believe what I wrote and neither should you. Sobriety and/or
sanity of the author is not guaranteed

EMAIL - and are not valid email
addresses. news2x at perentie is valid for a while.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
jc > wrote:

> Probably the best (cheap) method would be noise with digital
> transmissions (as per psuedo random code no need to crack the
> encryption) on the correct frequencies. 1W dosn't sound much but with
> the low recieved power of the GPS signal it dosn't take much to
> overwhelm or confuse it.
>
> The cellphone industry has ensured VERY low cost components eg power
> output transistors/amplifiers for a few cents. No need for elaborate
> environmental enclosures just attach balloon and battery stick a
> ziplok bag over the electronics and release. To avoid ECCM attacks
> change location immeadiately to another school, hospital etc although
> a vehicle outside the Chinese embassy for a release point is a
> possible.
>
> The cost of hitting the balloons once they are released makes them a
> rather assymetric weapon.

You're forgetting something.

Power.

For a 1 watt output, you're going to need a battery or other power
supply that can supply at least twice that for a significant period of
time. If you're going for a balloon launch, to get to significant
altitude, you're going to need a couple of hours of capacity, at
*least*. Increased weight equal increased balloon size, by the way.
With increased tankage for your lifting gas, and massively increased
transportation costs.

Not to mention, of course, that you're transmitting that 1 watt
omnidirectionally, which means that you're only going to cover a couple
of square miles with one jammer, at *best*. If you're going for a pure
white noise "drown them out" system, plan on a *hundred* watts or more
(to beat the directional antennas used on most modern weapons systems).
If you're going for digital spoofing, use lower power levels, but spend
a lot of money on electronically-steerable transmitters and high-end
hardware to make the signal work past the dozen or so GPS sats in view
at any one time.

Suddenly, the "$5 balloon-borne jammer" is a "$500 balloon-borne jammer
that only lasts a few hours."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Yuri Tregubov]

Don't know is it true or not, but have read that hobbyist level
nonsophisticated 1W jammer shuts down GPS devices in an area of
hundred kilometres.

The ECM warfare is very well developed field, so it's not a problem to
jam a weak signal at all. Of course, the GPS could be done more or
less jam proof, but it costs a lot of money and hence not practical
for wide use.

There's no difference in jamming radar/comm/GPS, all of them are the
"RF devices", use the same basic principles and communication media.

Russian regards,
Yuri

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Yuri Tregubov) wrote:

> Don't know is it true or not, but have read that hobbyist level
> nonsophisticated 1W jammer shuts down GPS devices in an area of
> hundred kilometres.

It's not true. The strength of a one watt signal just plain isn't
enough for such a thing to be true.

Whoever told you this knows *nothing* about RF other than the term
"watt."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[jc]

Chad Irby wrote:

<snip>
> You're forgetting something.
>
> Power.

So what is the power of the satellites at what distance. Square dist law.
>
> Not to mention, of course, that you're transmitting that 1 watt
> omnidirectionally,

Last (only) time I have tried for an isotropic ( within ~ 3 dB, which is
what you need for GPS jamming from balloons, not omnidirectional) antenna
with 125 mW input we got ~ 120 dBm at 30 clicks which in flat terrain,
enough to get a reliable signal with an 11 dB omnidirctional recieve
antenna. Now what is the level from the satellites?

> Suddenly, the "$5 balloon-borne jammer" is a "$500 balloon-borne jammer
> that only lasts a few hours."

How long does an RPG blast go for and how much does it cost
>

--

regards

jc

LEGAL - I don't believe what I wrote and neither should you. Sobriety and/or
sanity of the author is not guaranteed

EMAIL - and are not valid email
addresses. news2x at perentie is valid for a while.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
jc > wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > You're forgetting something.
> >
> > Power.
>
> So what is the power of the satellites at what distance. Square dist law.

You're leaving out off-axis rejection and a lot of other factors
(vertically-oriented receive antennas, for one).

Then there's the whole problem that the US military has been working on
anti-jam GPS tech since *before* they launched the first satellite...

> > Not to mention, of course, that you're transmitting that 1 watt
> > omnidirectionally,
>
> Last (only) time I have tried for an isotropic ( within ~ 3 dB, which
> is what you need for GPS jamming from balloons, not omnidirectional)
> antenna with 125 mW input we got ~ 120 dBm at 30 clicks which in flat
> terrain, enough to get a reliable signal with an 11 dB omnidirctional
> recieve antenna. Now what is the level from the satellites?

What was the bandwidth of that signal? Remember that you have to cover
a good swath of frequency (two freqs, actually). A continuous-wave 1/8
watt sine over a narrow band is not useful for jamming a GPS signal,
which is coming in over a much wider bandwidth (you're going to need
white noise over a couple of octaves, at *least*, before getting useful
power). Also remember that you have to cover enough of the sky to swamp
*all* of the angles that a GPS receiver can cover, since it's going to
reject anything except a "GPS-like" signal (part of the coolness of the
GPS system).

The normal "low" receive level is a few dB below your claimed level - no
more than ten or sixteen. And that's worst-case in open ground.

A vertically-hung omni antenna is a good approximation of an isotropic
antenna in this case, since it's most probably going to be somewhat
offset from the balloon to whatever you're trying to protect. You're
also going to need to keep launching jammers all of the time, since
you're going to need a lot of them, high enough up in the air to hit the
upward-pointing receive antennas on GPS-guided weapons (or with *much*
higher transmit power, by a factor of a hundred or so), all of the time.

> > Suddenly, the "$5 balloon-borne jammer" is a "$500 balloon-borne
> > jammer that only lasts a few hours."
>
> How long does an RPG blast go for and how much does it cost

A lot more than one of those $5 jammers, but it does a *bunch* more
damage. One RPG can kill a million dollar tank and all of its crew,
while a couple of dozen GPS jammers will, if you're lucky, make someone
wait until you get tired of using them before they drop those $30,000
bombs (or fall back on more-expensive TV-guided bombs). It's also a lot
easier to sell than those "well, you have to buy a lot of them and keep
launching them all of the time, *forever*" jammers... to give you an
idea, to cover someplace like Iraq, you're going to need to launch a few
*thousand* of those gadgets all at once, and be prepared to launch that
same number every couple of hours (a day at most, since launching them
high enough to cover the wide areas you want will subject them to
high-speed winds that will push them all over the place).

Once again, you're up against battery life, along with a *lot* higher
actual power level than you seem to be allowing for. The Russian-made
jammers we found in Iraq had an output power of four watts, but needed
25 watts of power to run. They also, by the way, didn't work worth a
damn versus US GPS weapons...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Yuri Tregubov]

Is standard EMC equipment (pods/ground) applicable for GPS jamming ?
How unique are the GPS signals in comparison to "normal" radar/comm ?

Yuri

[Alfaest]

Is standard EMC equipment (pods/ground) applicable for GPS jamming ?
How unique are the GPS signals in comparison to "normal" radar/comm ?

Yuri


Yes! yes! future would not be wonderful without a cell phone jammer.
More and more people are using cell phones at the cost of public interests. What can we do to avoid those terrible dins produced by mobile phones?Are you still boring with the noises of phones at midnight? I have suffered it for a long time, for my peaceful family life. i bought a cell phone jammer from http://www.jamerall.com which is introduced by my friend. it is really cool, so share my happiness with you.