In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

Until someone spends a few watts spoofing you out of your shoes.

If someone could spoof your radar even a B17 could do the job,but Air Forces
showboats supposed to be a little bit different than them.
Besides,spofing a system that does not use amplitute based binary detection is
not easy all,you need to know all properties of forward scatterer wave
,including polarimetric data,which is much harder to accomplish than analysing
emissionss of back scatterers.

You have a very shallow knowledge of how radar jamming works in the
years after World War II. What you describe is pretty much first
chapter "ECM 101," and has nothing to do with methods in current use.

Only viable form of spoofing is possibly the saturation of processing unit,but
that would make an attacker very visible to other forms of detection.

Nope. You're assuming again.

Lots of things have been "talk of the town" for a week or so, until
someone did the actual work and found out how silly it was. The "we can
use cell phone signals to find B-2s" story died a quick death last year
after someone did the math on it.

Cell Phone story did not die it well and alive,emissions from cell phone base
stations are excellent for multistatic use.

....against large, obvious targets that aren't fighting back. The
"celldar" systems have some extremely big caveats, like "can't handle
targets below a certain size."

There currently three competing systems from three different countries and all
of them utilize cell phone emissions succesfully.
Regarding math,radio-astronomers are working with much weaker signals for
decades.

But they know what they're looking for, and are using *very* directional
antennas to do so.

Exactly the oposite problem with celldar.

There's no real evidence to support this. Just more handwaving.

Thats the key of whole multistatic development.

Yep. Handwaving. Like I said.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.