Technology

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

Okay so I was overly general with my first statement.

No one is saying passive radar systems don't exist. We've been using them for decades and there have been massive improvements. But the actual radar system we're discussing here isn't. You simply aren't going to get the same capabilities from a purely passive system than you will from an active + passive system where you can tightly control the frequencies and directions you are transmitting on, and have the information about what frequencies you transmitted on, when you transmitted them, and how (what array configuration) you transmitted them. The point is that the transmission itself is structured to reveal certain information. So when you get a response back (also, coming back to a phased system), you can learn far more about your target than you could in a purely passive system because you that prior information about what you transmitted.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] bright@piefed.social 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Your confused about what I'm saying. The ARRAY OF RADAR STATIONS is emitters. I'm saying THE ATTACKERS AGAINST the array of radar stations only need to be passive detectors.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

No, I'm not confused whatsoever. You can not get the same kind of information using radar using the system you are describing. Period. You are confusing broad, beacon like radar systems (like a flashlight or a paint brush) with phased systems, which are fundamentally different.

Phased systems depend on nano-pico second scale precision in timing; you aren't accomplishing that across a distributed system. And the exact structure of the beam that is going to be formed is dependent on what the receiver has detected, whatever scan pattern is being used. They are a coupled system.