Re: a "force field" for tanks?

In article <e2aesp$qe2$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 21 Apr 2006 02:59:03 +0000 (UTC)) it happened
glhansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in
<e29hpn$hc0$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:


The tank, if its radars keep triggering on that foil, it will
keep firing..... until it runs out [of ammo].

If you were designing an armor defense system, can you think of any way
to distinguish an actual threat from the clutter, and do you think it
would be a good idea to try?

Of course. If it fires at any strip of foil that drifts past, it would be
firing on any friendly soldier that walks by, too! Distinguishing signal
from noise is the hard part of automating just about anything having to do
with ground vehicle operations. They've had robot planes that can take
off and land for years, but a robot truck that can drive through the woods
is still an active area of research.

I am well aware of that, of course they have (probably Doppler based) system
and signal processing, but consider this problem:

{ {
| {
* [ [
{


The asterix is the radar (tank), the other symbols the alu foil.
When one piece of alu foil falls faster, and passes in front of
one that is further away, the radar may well see that as a fast approach.

Think it would track each individual peice of foil? Could it?

If they'd asked me, I would have suggested using symmetric measurement
equations which eliminate the need for keeping track of which one is
Target A and which one is Target B.


I know filters (very well actually).
Have played with doppler radar.
You can put it on audio too, anything causes a signal.
Chances of an error increase dramatically with all that foil.
But indeed maybe they have very advanced signal processing.



I know very little about the system, but I can tell you with confidence
that it is a system that distinguishes threat from clutter. It must be
so, or it would be inoperable. I call it my "They're not as dumb as you
think they are" theory.

Well :-) the US anti missile missile system still has not figured out after
all those billions how to tell apart a fake and real warhead.
[or even hit any type 10 out of 10]
Do not put too much faith in electronics.

What makes that situation different is that the fake warheads are designed
to look like real warheads.



I really do not know that.
It seems to me the radar domes makes a good target for a sniper too.
he can shoot these to pieces from sat 100 meters or more.

Well, flat panel radars at "strategic locations", I believe the article
said. Phased array radars, I would suppose. Couldn't tell you what a
sniper's bullet would do to it, but I'd imagine that taking out an
emitter would leave an impaired but still operational system.

Yes, some of the plastic microwave lenses could be very vulnerable.
There also exist mesh grids to focus microwaves, also vulnerable.

Wel you buy them here:
http://www.amazing1.com/emp.htm

Um... no. Against a Ford Escort, maybe. Against a vehicle designed to
operate in a nuclear theater, no.

The tanks will be (mil requires that) EMP proof, but communication will
likely be no
longer possible (because of the noise).
That will hit them hard.

That's not a vulnerability of an ADS, it's something they try to do
anyway. But jamming signals is, I think, harder than you think it is.



I was thinking of jamming rather than frying.

Agreed. Frying would be a lucky shot.



--
"I often think how wasteful it is that those with real capabilities should
doubt their abilities, while bunglers seem so damn sure of themselves." --
Gil Amelio, "On the Firing Line"
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mass and Point
    ... statistical assumptions behind radar transmitter/receiver theory. ... phase of this complex-valued reflectivity comes from, ... Both signals are real. ... You are mistaking clutter for reflections. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Mass and Point
    ... I will condescending suggest you study more and suggest the well know text "Spotlight-Mode Synthetic Aperture Radar: A Signal Processing Approach" by C. Jakowatz et. al. ... *You* tell me where the phase of this complex-valued reflectivity comes from, ... You do realize, don't you, there is an entire branch of stochastic process theory called "time series analysis in the frequency domain" that is the *exact* statistical modeling of SAR? ... I was and have always been referring to modern sophisticated receiver circuitry that performs a downconversion to baseband with the I and Q signals then digitized and downloaded to the ground. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Mass and Point
    ... I will condescending suggest you study more and suggest the well know text "Spotlight-Mode Synthetic Aperture Radar: A Signal Processing Approach" by C. Jakowatz et. al. ... I was and have always been referring to modern sophisticated receiver circuitry that performs a downconversion to baseband with the I and Q signals then digitized and downloaded to the ground. ... Then you should not have misunderstood the reflectivity issues. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Mass and Point
    ... statistical assumptions behind radar transmitter/receiver theory. ... then each point scatterer gets the phase of its reflection changed from what it's suppose to be to something completely uniform ... I and Q signals then digitized and downloaded to the ground. ... You are mistaking clutter for reflections. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: a "force field" for tanks?
    ... If you were designing an armor defense system, can you think of any way ... The asterix is the radar, the other symbols the alu foil. ... But indeed maybe they have very advanced signal processing. ...
    (sci.physics)