https://archive.ph/oneNx

  • Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]
    ·
    5 months ago

    Radar emissions are easily detectable

    Missed the fact that it has a radar attached.

    This is an old problem and traditional cold war era SAMs for example have an alternative optical tracking mode to try and counter this for example

    Wouldn't the same solutions work here, though?

    • What_Religion_R_They [none/use name]
      hexagon
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Radar is a type of electromagnetic emission, and this weapon would also emit EM radiation. I think they mean that the SAMs have an illuminator, and the SAM operation principle is that it works in conjunction with another operator stationed away from itself to illuminate the target using EM for the launched missile to lock. The vulnerability here is that the operator with the illuminator is vulnerable to being detected and targeted by anti-radiation missiles. Similar missiles can be reused in this case, since the only difference is that they would need to home in on a different wavelength of light rather than radar. The reason the switch to optical won't work is because the principle of operation of this anti-drone weapon seems to be fundamentally based on high-power EM radiation. I may be misunderstanding their point, though.

      • nohaybanda [he/him]
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think you’ve got it exactly right. Anything putting out kWs into the air is gonna light up the sky in its spectrum. Now, an ideal laser would be fully coherent with a perfectly planar wave and next to no spread. But even that would ionise the air in its beam, and with a very distinct fingerprint at that. I can’t really think of a way to make it truly invisible.

        And you made a really good point that at this point you’re back to using cheap drones to expose and destroy million $ equipment