Chad Irby wrote in message ...
In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

Are all of them easy to degrade? Even spread spectrum or frequency
hopping ones?

You should remember that "spread spectrum" is not synonymous with
"unjammable" or "undetectable." As far as that goes, some wideband
jamming techniques can be very effective against normal spread spectrum
communications. There are some major limitations that come with spread
spectrum, mostly having to do with power versus range versus noise.

Frequency hopping is pretty good for keeping people from hearing what
you're saying, but once you know the general band they're working on,
you can either jam them with suitable wideband frequencies, jump on
their frequencies before the receiver can lock on ("fast" jamming) or a
number of other moves.

You can defeat these ECM moves, but the counter-countermeasures cost a
*lot* more money than the countermeasures. And, once again, you're
getting into a technical war with a country that spends a *lot* of money
on that sort of thing.

It doesn't matter what the US spends a lot of money on.
Since what the the idiots don't spend a lot of money is
attenna design.

An except for the paperwork, the FBI's counter-countermeasures
are in the same boat as the CIA's Blackbirds, and the
NSA's typewriter museam:

And as dead as the idiot green grass, and Baltimore Orieole
moron fans they're made out of.


That's simply follows from the fact that the
antenna's they designed for RADAR are like
most US Army Radar antenna's. They were designed
by clerks, for jerks, for the soon to be
repaved California desert.