Re: EW and ESM (Was RE: Platoon Leaders in SG2)

To the World,

You may be interested to know that the SADSF was fielding frequency
agile
communications systems in the mid 1980's, so it is nothing new or
spectuacular. The SPY-1 radar of the Aegis combat system does as well,
and
that is late '60's technology.

DM

----------
> From: Glover, Owen <oglover@mov.vic.gov.au>
> To: 'FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk'
> Subject: EW and ESM (Was RE: Platoon Leaders in SG2)
> Date: 27 April 1998 01:19
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Funny talking about the frequency range and power consumption for
> jamming. You may or may not be aware that some of the secure comms
> systems employed now are using a variable frequency as part of the
> security measures. So? Well, traditional wide band scanning won't
work.
> Combine this with a medium level encryption and it makes the effort
> required to intercept or interfere with tactiacal level comms very
> costly. You might find EW software developing at the same rate down
the
> track but I agree that we in SGII we already ahve the EW component
> present.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Barclay [mailto:Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca]
> Subject: Re: Platoon Leaders in SG2
> 
> BIC CLIP
> 
> >Jamming is a hazard, but I think it is represented by the EW rules. I

> >think if they are not being used, it is not present, and therefore 
> >shouldn't be a factor. Right now, platoons tend to have a radio. 
> >Maybe in 2300, each guy has a radio capable of punching through to 
> >orbit (compact power sources for gauss rifles, plasma guns, and grave

> >tech exists, so assuming they harness the same for comms...) and 
> >operating across the frequency band from about 10 KHz up to 10 GHz. 
> >They might not, but they might. This might be yet another place where

> >the mainline powers (NAC, NSL, FSE) have advantages because of their 
> >high budget equipment............................................. 
> >..........
> >Having said that, I realize it is hard to predict the future. But we 
> >should be cognizant of our assumptions. If we assume jamming tech has

> >superceded commo tech (hence rendering comms risky or problematic), 
> >doctrine must reflect this. If comms is as good as I think it will 
> >get, doctrine should reflect this instead. Each 'version' of a 
> >setting might have different baseline assumptions. But we should just

> >be aware of them, and be aware of their impact on how one would 
> >fight.