pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) (05/05/89)
From: Philip Verdieck <pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Is the number on anti-ship radar-homing missiles high enough to make
towing small boats with radar generators feasibe? Say cut off all you
emmisions after the "Vampire" (incoming missile ;-} ) is within
20 miles, and commence powerful emmisions from the decoy...
ARPA : Philip.Verdieck@andrew.cmu.edu | Carnegie-Mellon University
PV04+@andrew.cmu.edu | Do not attend this college
BITNET: r746pv04@CMCCVB - KALKIN@DRYCAS |-----------------------------
UUCP : ...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!pv04tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) (05/06/89)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) In article <6264@cbnews.ATT.COM> pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) writes: >Is the number on anti-ship radar-homing missiles high enough to make >towing small boats with radar generators feasibe? Say cut off all you >emmisions after the "Vampire" (incoming missile ;-} ) is within >20 miles, and commence powerful emmisions from the decoy... As stated in my previous posting, most anti-ship missiles are actually active radar homing, not passive radar homing. Thus, at least two sorts of decoying is possible. Passive decoys such as corner reflectors and chaff, provide a radar target. The other is jamming, both deceptive (false echos) and active (overwhelm with a strong signal). Emitting decoys usually are a variant of deceptive jamming. Since these decoys are usually smaller than what they are trying to simulate, the emitting decoy's deceptive jammer must make the return echo stronger to give the impression of a larger target. The US Navy tries to use both active and passive approaches. This includes chaff rockets on ships and ECM equipment on ships ("Slick-32") and helicopters. The choppers are emitting decoys. Ted Kim ARPAnet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!ucbvax!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall PHONE: (213) 206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 ESPnet: tek@ouija.board
budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) (05/06/89)
From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) Decoys are a good idea. Consider a convoy under air attack -- the missiles are launched and on their own (the bombers are headed home). So it's the convoy vessels against the missile targeting systems. (Scenario assumes convoy has been found and aircraft arrived at a launch point; radar range yes, visual no.) Now, consider if you take tankers (which have been in handy surplus for the past decade or so), fill them with something -- water is fine. And park lots of noise on deck -- chaff launchers, radar emitters, IR flares, ... Remotely controlling the vessel would be a nice touch. These decoys are inherently large radar targets, even without all the added stuff. Ditto for acoustic noise. When under attack, the tankers, sitting at the windy corners of the convoy become sacrificial. Now if the ballast isn't flammable, it takes a lot of attack to sink a 500k ton tanker -- look how many were actually lost in the Persian Gulf -- and usually because the fire burned out of control. Rex Buddenberg
pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) (05/08/89)
From: Philip Verdieck <pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Regarding the tanker scenario...
The only part I don't like is that these tankers would have nowhere
the needed speed to stay with the fleet. Or are they Bats out of HEll
when empty????
ARPA : Philip.Verdieck@andrew.cmu.edu | Carnegie-Mellon University
PV04+@andrew.cmu.edu | Do not attend this college
BITNET: r746pv04@CMCCVB - KALKIN@DRYCAS |-----------------------------
UUCP : ...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!pv04