GPS and old-fashioned thinking?

Roy Smith wrote On 12/03/05 08:27,:
wrote:

The bean counters want to do away with primary radars, too. But, so
far, the security-minded have stopped that planning.


What does it mean to "do away with primary radar"? The antennae are
co-located and the systems are already built. What money would be saved by
turning the primary part of the system off? It's not even like they rotate
on different shafts so you can save a little on lubricating the bearings or
powering down the motor that makes it go round and round.


That disregards maintenence and replacement costs.

Anyway, if we turn off the primary radar, we'll only be able to see things
that want to be seen. The libertarian in me likes that idea, but I'm
enough of a realist to understand that the people intent on blowing things
up are probably smart enough to turn their transponders off.

In the long run, it means turning off the primary radar (or failing to replace
it when it dies), on interior US radar stations, especially that cover
uninteresting, open country radar areas. The ones that would stay are the
ADIZ radars (which are military anyways), and city radar. That leaves a lot
of radar that can be removed.

Don't expect anyone to fight for the idea that Montana needs radar to keep
terrorists from attacking their cow sheds.