On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:34:07 -0700, matt weber wrote:

That makes sense. How easy would it be for the UAV to listen to thre
incoming signal, and match its response to it?

The Self Projection jammer pods often represent more than the
available lift capacity of the UAV unless you are talking about
something the size of a Predator or a Global Hawk...

Why would it need to be so big? Is it the receiving equipment, the
transmitting equipment, or the electronics in between that takes up
the space?

(Of course, an adversary could build lots of cheap boxes that give
off signals that appear the same as a real radar, to soak up lots of
anti-radiation missiles).

While it could be done, it isn't all that cost effective, to build an
emitter that would look enough like a real radar to be attacked would
probably cost 15-20% of the price of the real thing.

How much do real radars cost?

Certainly there are some radio transmitting equipments that are
cheap -- for example mobile phones and wi-fi stations -- and I'd
imagine that scaling up the transmitting powrer on such a device
would be too expensive either.

How good are passive sensors compared to radar? I would imagine that
visual light and infra-red would be quite good ways of detecting
aircraft (and if you have 2 detectors some distance away you can use
triangulation to get the exact position), at least when there are no
clouds.

Depends upon what you are looking for.
[...]
If you are looking for an F4 or a B52, it won't be very hard,

That's exactly the sort of thing I had in mind (or an F-16 or
Tornado or F-22, etc, bascially any modern supersonic aircraft)

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?