Re: [GZG] [DSII] Precision Strike

>>Nope. Nowadays emitting *doesn't* necessarily reveal your position, at
>> least not if your ECM capabilities are better than the enemy's.
Modern
>> radars can also be *very* low-powered and still get astonishingly
good
>> returns; cf. eg. the claimed detection ranges for the F-22's radar
system
>> compared to the ranges where said radar's emissions can be detected
by
>> older aircraft.
>
> Aren't modern systems effectively proof against some of the older tech
> barring an operator that's asleep? ie mostly automated and fast? Its
kind
> of like DF gear that can DF a signal as soon as the radio transmits a
> burst. Also, if your tech level is capable of making heads and tails
of a
> low power emission, then the equivalent tech level is capable of
making
> heads or tails of your emissions which will have similar strength.
Unless
> your emitter has a really huge receiver array in which case you've got
a
> honking big target die.

Not necessarily true. When radar energy gets spread in both time and
frequency, this makes it very hard for an opponent to detect these
seemingly random low power emissions. The transmitting side knows
exactly
what his transmitted signal looked like, and can integrqate over the
time
and frequency spectrum to regain the overall power transmitted, and thus
get a much higher effective power. Err. Does this make sense to anyone?
Much easier to explain with a whiteboard available....

>>In the future it can get even more interesting: the next generation of
AA
>> tracking systems will most likely be passive ones which don't need to
>> emit *anything* towards the enemy aircraft. (No, I'm not kidding:
similar
>> passive tracking systems are already entering service on combat
>> aircraft.) Their launch units will still need to emit guidance
signals to
>> the missiles, but those signals can be very tight-beam and only need
to
>> intersect with the target aircraft just before the missile hits...
>> leaving very for ARMs to lock on to even if they aren't spoofed by
>> anything.
>
> Then they're not emitting anything and it's high resolution passive
> sensors in other words. Kind of a different animal. Hard to have an
ARm if
> you don't emit. But, once you get a fixed target point, a floating PGM
can
> then be tasked with hitting that fixed point that revealed itself.
This
> level of fencing seems beyond the ARM/Anti-ARM game.

How do you mean enxt generation? Fully passive (IR) detection and
tracking
systems are already in use? And frighteningly effective, too.

Cheers,

     Derk

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l