Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/29/2006 5:04:41 PM EDT
If the Chinese really have the ablity to track stealth aircraft though PCL detection, it seems that this system would be easy to defeat in the opening stages of a war with the PLA simply by destoying all known TV and celluar stations with cruise missiles.



Any thoughts?
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 5:15:57 PM EDT
I don't know what you are talking about...

but taking out all celluar and TV stations would not be easy, that would be a lot of cruise missiles. If you could find even half of them. Besides, if it has military applicable capabilities, why would they not make hidden and hardened sites?
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 5:20:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 5:22:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 5:26:19 PM EDT
It relays off of existing celuar and tv signal towers not special towers just for the PCL radar.




Increases in computing power and the proliferation
of commercial radio waves as a by-product
of the information revolution have given rise to
another challenge to stealthy aircraft. In the days
before cable, many television viewers could vouch
for the fact that an aircraft flying nearby could
momentarily disrupt the antenna-generated
image on their TV screen. That phenomenon is
the basis for a recent series of articles and interviews
alleging that “passive coherent location”
(PCL) or “passive bistatic” radar systems using
TV, radio, or mobile phone transmitters, coupled
with sensitive receivers, could track stealthy aircraft.
The theory behind this concept is that a
radar system could be designed to exploit radio
signals already plentiful in the atmosphere rather
than generating its own targeted beams. Systems
based on cell phone signals as well as radio and
television waves have recently been touted as
breakthroughs capable of defeating airborne
stealth.30
However, analysis and testing have determined
that the performance and capability of such systems
are considerably less than that of common
commercial and early warning radars. The U.S.
Air Force does not regard PCL/passive bistatic
systems as possessing a “counter-stealth,” capability,
notes the large number of false tracks these
systems generate, and has concluded that jamming
or other techniques could degrade the performance
of passive detection systems even further.
31





regardless, any type of attack would require clearing the way for the hurt, so you would only have to target stations that are near the targets you need to destroy, not the entire country.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 5:27:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Paul:
Even if PCL develops to the point of discovering stealth aircraft launching a missile and then homing it onto such a target is going to be another leap of technology.




you dont target it, you target Alltel of china in a sense.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 5:35:24 PM EDT
The EMP from our first wave of attacks would destroy all of their electronic equiptment anyways.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 5:36:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
The EMP from our first wave of attacks would destroy all of their electronic equiptment anyways.




LOL, forgot about that one.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 12:09:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 12:51:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:
I don't know what you are talking about...

but taking out all celluar and TV stations would not be easy, that would be a lot of cruise missiles. If you could find even half of them. Besides, if it has military applicable capabilities, why would they not make hidden and hardened sites?





What................................ No bunny ?
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 1:08:53 AM EDT
Three letters, E...M...P. We have many ways of emitting EMP without nukes now. Only our fleet of aircraft are EMP hardened, civvie garbage on the ground is not.
Top Top