This "new" technology uses the 3 dimensional electro-magnetic mesh
created by fixed commercial transmitters and their signals are
transmitted in the kilowatt and megawatt range - very, very  strong
signals at very stable frequencies so there is no mistaking what or
where they are at any time.  The 3-D mesh created by the signals is
therefore very stable.   No technical difficulties there.  Short of
wiping out every civillian RF source, friend or foe, that mesh exists.

When an intruder aircraft flies through this mesh it distorts the
transmisssion paths and the distortion can be detected.  Commercial
aircraft fly only inside authorised corridors.  You better know where
your own military aircraft are.  EM distortion detected elsewhere,
filtered out for any birdlike objects flying under 200 knots, is the
enemy.

I compared distortion detectors to cellphones because cellphone signal
processing capability is remarkable considering that the cellphone/
communications satellite signal link is a teeny fraction of a
microwatt .  It is conceivable that the distortion detectors should be
of similar dimensions and capabilities whether they are processing
ground based or satellite based transmitters.

The "new" technology promises to be both cheap, ubiquitous and
retaliation proof.  This should even up the odds somewhat.

Stealth aircraft are glamourous.  But to be able to detect the more
numerous and heavier bombed up conventional aircraft is more
important.

Now how you use that information is another argument but at least the
defence is no longer blind as the Iraqis were during the Gulf War.
And this blindness was what was giving a lot of defence planners
nightmares.

---
Kelvin Mok
kl...@home.com

Although I agree with most of the points in the post, I'd like to
point out that many civilian transmitters use dipole antennas and
are not truly omnidirectional.  Thus, you gain some additional
information by evaluating the changes in return strength as
the target moves.  If the transmitter is in the HF band, you can
also get some information using skips vs. ground wave returns.

Inpulse radar is also extraordinarily accurate.  No chance of defeating it with
chaff.

Multistatic impulse radar can overcome stealth but it is expensive and less
effective.
Tests after WWII by the RAF on german radar showed the german anti jamming
techniques worked but because they didn't have microwave radar till late so their
short wave systems were cumbersom and expensive.  So expensive they were never
really effective.

Bernhard

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...            

--
*********************************************************************
*  Mike Althouse                               altho...@vrinet.com  *
*                                                                   *
*  "If I could be reincarnated as a fabric, I would like to come    *
*  back as a 38DD bra." -- Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura             *
*********************************************************************

Pat

EXCERPT: " VIEQUES, Puerto Rico (AP) -- Politicians and religious
figures on Tuesday joined scores of protesters illegally camped at a
U.S. Navy base in Puerto Rico, as islanders nervously awaited a U.S.
decision on whether bombing exercises at the site would resume.

Activists in this U.S. territory of 4 million people fear President
Clinton may order new exercises at the range in the coming days and
are preparing for a possible clash with federal authorities.

``If we are arrested, there w..."

        U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully reproducing
        copyrighted material. In abidance with our laws this report
        cannot be provided in its entirety. However, you can read
        it in full today, 30 Nov 1999, at the following URL.
        (COMBINE the following lines into your web browser.)
        The subject/content of this report is not necessarily the
        viewpoint of the distributing Library. This report is provided
        for your information.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Puerto-Rico-US-Bombing.html

EXCERPT: "Even as the first ships of a carrier battle group steamed
toward controversial training exercises, President Clinton yesterday
hammered out the broad terms of an agreement to allow the Navy to
resume use of its Puerto Rican firing range on a temporary and limited
basis, senior officials said.

Although talks are still underway and the consensus is fragile,
Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno also discussed the possibility
of sending FBI agents to remove protesters who are occupying the
firing range on the small island of Vieques..."

        U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully reproducing
        copyrighted material. In abidance with our laws this report
        cannot be provided in its entirety. However, you can read
        it in full today, 01 Dec 1999, at the following URL.
        (COMBINE the following lines into your web browser.)
        The subject/content of this report is not necessarily the
        viewpoint of the distributing Library. This report is provided
        for your information.

http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-12/01/099l-120199...

Everything I've seen so far just says "First Class Petty Officer" -
anybody know if he was a CT or RM (IT) or ??

Greg