Fading Signal: The Neglect of Electronic Warfare.

BlackBeard wrote:

You are replying (arguing with) to a failed turing-test net-bot. Your
replies to it will only instigate further senseless posts. Ignoring
it completely (and not mentioning its name) is the only way to get it
to go away.


Sure - but occasionally it _does_ come up with some real gems... My
favorite happened in one of these interminable USAF v. USN threads:

"There was never born a sailor not willing to fight to the death of
the last USAF pilot." (Or something to that effect.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Apr 10, 2:25 am, "William Black"
wrote:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in . ..



In message , William Black
writes
"BlackBeard" wrote in message
...
Not according to the article.

"Thomas said the technology works by "basically providing a protective
bubble around a vehicle," jamming incoming signals and blocking the
remote detonation of bombs."

-----------------------

If that's the case then expect the lull to last for only a couple of
months,
until the bad guys get hold of a technology that works.

Whereupon the ECM gear will be modified to suit. The kit being used in
2005 is pretty much obsolete now... the WIS guys don't sit on their
laurels either.

True.

But the countermeasures people have to react. It's not something you can be

I really doubt any new equipment will be needed. There might be some
reprogramming required but an aircraft like the EA-6B
could be configured, in flight, to listen to hundreds of frequencies,
analyze dozens of modulation schemes or just plain triangulate an
emitter on the basis of energy as it flies around.

There is going to be no problem jamming a cellphone in a tight radius
around the troops its protecting and no problem jamming a broad range
of frequencies commonly used. If there is an emitter within a radius
around the troops its going to be recorded for later analysis and that
particular remote detonation system is likely to be neutralized.

It's not perfect, but it will cut down casualties.

"Eunometic" wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 2:25 am, "William Black"

But the countermeasures people have to react. It's not something you can
be

I really doubt any new equipment will be needed. There might be some
reprogramming required but an aircraft like the EA-6B
could be configured, in flight, to listen to hundreds of frequencies,
analyze dozens of modulation schemes or just plain triangulate an
emitter on the basis of energy as it flies around.

There is going to be no problem jamming a cellphone in a tight radius
around the troops its protecting and no problem jamming a broad range
of frequencies commonly used. If there is an emitter within a radius
around the troops its going to be recorded for later analysis and that
particular remote detonation system is likely to be neutralized.

You assume they'll stick to radio.

Infra red lasers, as an example, are freely available and simple to use.

So, come to think of it, is the Internet...

These people are not stupid.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Apr 10, 2:24 pm, "William Black"
wrote:
"Eunometic" wrote in message

...

On Apr 10, 2:25 am, "William Black"
But the countermeasures people have to react. It's not something you can
be

I really doubt any new equipment will be needed. There might be some
reprogramming required but an aircraft like the EA-6B
could be configured, in flight, to listen to hundreds of frequencies,
analyze dozens of modulation schemes or just plain triangulate an
emitter on the basis of energy as it flies around.

There is going to be no problem jamming a cellphone in a tight radius
around the troops its protecting and no problem jamming a broad range
of frequencies commonly used. If there is an emitter within a radius
around the troops its going to be recorded for later analysis and that
particular remote detonation system is likely to be neutralized.

You assume they'll stick to radio.

Infra red lasers, as an example, are freely available and simple to use.

So, come to think of it, is the Internet...

These people are not stupid.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Motion detectors?

In message
,
Jack Linthicum writes
On Apr 10, 2:24 pm, "William Black"
wrote:
You assume they'll stick to radio.

Infra red lasers, as an example, are freely available and simple to use.

So, come to think of it, is the Internet...

These people are not stupid.

Motion detectors?

In use for a decade or two. Started out with Lebanese Hezbollah,
proliferated to Iraq in 2005 or so.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

Raytheon Wins Contract For Radar-Jamming Variant Of It's Miniature Air
Launched Decoy

See:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Rayt...Decoy_999.html

What advantages (if any) do expendables like this have
over regular jamming aircraft like the EA-6B?

wrote:
Raytheon Wins Contract For Radar-Jamming Variant Of It's Miniature Air
Launched Decoy

See:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Rayt...Decoy_999.html

What advantages (if any) do expendables like this have
over regular jamming aircraft like the EA-6B?
Standoff ability for one.

Dean

On Apr 11, 4:24 am, "William Black"
wrote:
"Eunometic" wrote in message

...

On Apr 10, 2:25 am, "William Black"
But the countermeasures people have to react. It's not something you can
be

I really doubt any new equipment will be needed. There might be some
reprogramming required but an aircraft like the EA-6B
could be configured, in flight, to listen to hundreds of frequencies,
analyze dozens of modulation schemes or just plain triangulate an
emitter on the basis of energy as it flies around.

There is going to be no problem jamming a cellphone in a tight radius
around the troops its protecting and no problem jamming a broad range
of frequencies commonly used. If there is an emitter within a radius
around the troops its going to be recorded for later analysis and that
particular remote detonation system is likely to be neutralized.

You assume they'll stick to radio.

Infra red lasers, as an example, are freely available and simple to use.

Even with an optical or acoustic link (diode laser etc) is used it
should be relatively easy to jam or predetonate
electronics itself rather than the link. I've seen airport radar
false trigger photo prox switches.

Vietnam era B-52's had a microwave system to jam infrared homing
missiles by beaming into their seeker.



So, come to think of it, is the Internet...

These people are not stupid.

T



--

On Apr 12, 7:01 am, Mike Williamson
wrote:
wrote:
Raytheon Wins Contract For Radar-Jamming Variant Of It's Miniature Air
Launched Decoy

See:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Rayt...For_Radar_Jamm...

What advantages (if any) do expendables like this have
over regular jamming aircraft like the EA-6B?

They are cheaper and more can be built. You can also send
it into situations that are more dangerous (you already
expect to lose it, after all) than you would accept for
a manned mission.

Presumably it will not be as versatile as a specialized, manned EW
platform, given that they spend more dollars and weight on the
electronic package, but it will be employed in those missions for
which it provides the best result.

Mike

But the jammer carried can't be very sophisticated, since:

A. It must be small and light enough to fit into the small Air-
Launched-
Decoy-derrived airframe.

B. It must be cheap enough to be expendable.

C. Once it runs out of fuel and crashes, the enemy intel types will
doubtless get their hands on it (or will it have a self-destruct
system?).

Can a simple jammer like this, even if it's operating as an "In Your
Face!" (IYF!)
jammer (up close and personal to the enemy radar site), overcome the
ECCM
capability of an advanced SAM system?

"Eunometic" wrote in message
...

Even with an optical or acoustic link (diode laser etc) is used it
should be relatively easy to jam or predetonate
electronics itself rather than the link. I've seen airport radar
false trigger photo prox switches.

It depends...

If you have a random digital sequence used as a trigger code they'll have to
cycle through the possibilities at the correct frequency and data rate.

A 'long cycle LRS' takes the time it takes...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.