Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: CNN & battelfield communications Message-ID: <1991Jan23.040205.5029@cbnews.att.com> Date: 23 Jan 91 04:02:05 GMT References: <1991Jan19.040859.4587@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: The Boeing Co., MMST, Seattle, Wa. Lines: 39 Approved: military@att.att.com From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) > >Question on battelfield communications. > As for why they how they found a channel that was not being jammed, I > am uncertain? However, I doubt if we have the technology to jam all > frequencies over an area the size of Iraq. More realisticallly, we > were probably jamming frequencies in small tactical areas, during > bombing runs, etc. However, Baghdad is certainly one of the areas I > would expect we would be jamming in and around... Remember, there is only one (1) frequency spectrum in the world and everybody - military, civilian, U.S., Iraqi - uses it. And modern technology *could* allow the jamming of the entire spectrum. But then, you'd be jamming all the friendly frequencies, too - and interfering with your own operations. So, obviously, you protect the frequencies that you have to use. Also, we're not going to jam any key frequencies that are providing us with critical information. There's a tradeoff - do we destroy it - or monitor it? Also, it is the receiver of the signal that is the target for jamming - not the transmitter. And then there are anti-jam methods - like increasing power to 'burn' through the jamming - frequency-hopping transmitters etc. It's all very complex - I probably oversimplified it - but I'd rather not get into *details* of radio electronic combat. mike schmitt "Jam it 'till it Hertz" Whats the best anti-jammer? A 155mm artillery round!