Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!rutgers!att!cbnews!tek@CS.UCLA.EDU
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW))
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: radar decoys
Message-ID: <6324@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 6 May 89 03:37:20 GMT
References: <6264@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 28
Approved: military@att.att.com



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