5 ms·

Why not just separate the emitters and receivers a bit more, then? Wouldn't it work to put some cheap drones or other hardware that "light up" and send nice pu

by Natsu 4y ago

Why not just separate the emitters and receivers a bit more, then? Wouldn't it work to put some cheap drones or other hardware that "light up" and send nice pulses out for you to get info from that are far enough away from your real position, or am I missing something? If they're cheap enough, it wouldn't be very worthwhile to destroy them I'd think. I mean it'd probably be in your interest to let them waste million dollar missiles on hundred dollar drones if you could get them to do so. Or does something like this exist that I'm just unaware of?

nraynaud 4y ago
My understanding is that GSM towers are very predictable and well located emitters.
guhidalg 4y ago
Isn’t this what AWACS and datalinks are for?
toss1 4y ago
It isn't my area, but I think you're on the right track. Most radar systems have already (for decades, AFAIK) separated the emitter from the control panel with at least a long cable, so when the emitter gets smoked, at least the operators are more likely to survive. The USAF & DARPA are already publicly working on aerially deployed drone swarms, and it would not surprise me in the slightest if a swarm of theater emitters was among the goals (but I've got no inside info to share).
bradknowles 4y ago
You're getting dangerously close to an idea I had back in 1991, when I was working at the Defense Information Systems Agency, in the basement of the Pentagon. I talked to our security officer, and he put me in touch with a guy from the intelligence side of the house. I explained my idea, he said they already had something in that space, and that I shouldn't say anything more about it to anyone. I never heard anything further on that subject. To this day, it is one of two things I don't talk about.
- literalAardvark 4y ago
  You're failing very hard at not talking about it, but thank you for the interesting story.
  - rkagerer 4y ago
    It's a pretty logical step, I would think lots of people have come up with a similar idea.
- duckmysick 4y ago
  > To this day, it is one of two things I don't talk about. What's the other thing?
Evidlo 4y ago
It's called bistatic radar.

by Natsu 4y ago

nraynaud 4y ago

My understanding is that GSM towers are very predictable and well located emitters.

guhidalg 4y ago

Isn’t this what AWACS and datalinks are for?

toss1 4y ago

It isn't my area, but I think you're on the right track. Most radar systems have already (for decades, AFAIK) separated the emitter from the control panel with at least a long cable, so when the emitter gets smoked, at least the operators are more likely to survive. The USAF & DARPA are already publicly working on aerially deployed drone swarms, and it would not surprise me in the slightest if a swarm of theater emitters was among the goals (but I've got no inside info to share).

bradknowles 4y ago

You're getting dangerously close to an idea I had back in 1991, when I was working at the Defense Information Systems Agency, in the basement of the Pentagon. I talked to our security officer, and he put me in touch with a guy from the intelligence side of the house. I explained my idea, he said they already had something in that space, and that I shouldn't say anything more about it to anyone. I never heard anything further on that subject. To this day, it is one of two things I don't talk about.

literalAardvark 4y ago
You're failing very hard at not talking about it, but thank you for the interesting story.
- rkagerer 4y ago
  It's a pretty logical step, I would think lots of people have come up with a similar idea.
duckmysick 4y ago
> To this day, it is one of two things I don't talk about. What's the other thing?

Evidlo 4y ago

It's called bistatic radar.