Microwave ovens as radar decoys???
Mekon
I'm from Yugoslavia and I supposed that you know very well what was
happening here a year ago. Well I have some friends from the army and they
learned me the new application for microwave ovens. It is not widely known
that the regular microwave ovens use the same wavelength as most of the
air-defense radar. So what we did was (it is no longer classified :-) only
adjusting the regular microwave to work with it's door opened somewhere
under the open sky. I'm not sure, but we were probably using just long
cables connected with standard 220V~ output as a power supplies. And what
was happening: if that bastard pilot (no offense to you since I can see that
you are from The Netherlands :-) doesn't have a visual contact he can only
say that radar is tracking him. So he launches the anti-radar missile and -
he wastes a several hundred thousand $ missile for a price of one microwave
oven. We literaly used hundreds of such decoys - often planting tens of
decoys with one REAL radar. And if the pilot is lucky enough to hit the
actual radar, then everything is O.K. for him. But there are much bigger
chances that he will hit a decoy instead, and after that he gets what he
deserves from the actual radar. That's the story. What do you say? A total
new application for an MW oven! :-)
And wondered if it could possibly be true. Seems a bit far fetched to me.
Here is a long version of the story
http://margo.student.utwente.nl/el/microwave/mladen_story.html
Mekon
Tarver Engineering
frequency spectrum. It is OK though, if it made your troops feel safer.
John
"Mekon" <blankotank...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ZCc7.104922$Xr6.5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Bill Shatzer
On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Mekon wrote:
> Hi all I read this:
-snips-
> And wondered if it could possibly be true. Seems a bit far fetched to me.
Seems far-fetched to me as well. Ignoring the power differences
between a microwave and a targeting radar, microwaves operate
at a frequency of apprx. 2450 mHz which is -far- below most radar
frequencies. Confusion between a microwave frequency and the
frequencies of targeting radars seems improbable - even ignoring
the differences in power output.
There are apparently a few low-frequency radars which operate in
the UHF band and might approach the frequencies of microwave ovens. But
these are search radars, not targeting radars, and lack the precision
required for targeting. A pilot is unlikely to panic and punch off
a AGM against a -search- radar. Search radar transmissions are
common in all environments - from their own AWACs radars to the
civilian air control radars. Search radar transmissions are
ubiquitous and not a matter of particular concern.
Targeting radars are the ones which cause the concern and they
operate at -much- higher frequencies than microwave ovens.
The two should be easily distinguishable - even assuming microwave
transmissions were even powerful enough to be detectable.
Cheers and all,
Santos Ramos
>
> It is not widely known that the regular microwave ovens use the same
> wavelength as most of the air-defense radar.
Microwave Ovens would be an E Band emitters, as most Soviet designed
SAM radars, but that is not how ESM systems work.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/radar-rus.htm
The system is designed to not only identify the frequency, but also the
pulse width, the PRF, the scan time, etc, etc. A complete signature
analysis.
> So what we did was adjust the regular microwave to work with it's door
> open somewhere under the open sky.
What exactly did you do to adjust them? How did you get the impedance
matched, and a low SWR?
> what was happening: if the doesn't have a visual contact he can only
> say that radar is tracking him. So he launches the anti-radar missile and -
> he wastes a several hundred thousand $ missile for a price of one microwave
> oven.
I'd work on this part of your novella. It sounds good to a pre-teen, but
adults won't appreciate the technical leaps of faith.
> And wondered if it could possibly be true. Seems a bit far fetched to me.
I would advise laying off the crank for awhile.
cali...@dds.nl
<blankotank...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hi all I read this:
>Here is a long version of the story
>http://margo.student.utwente.nl/el/microwave/mladen_story.html
>
>Mekon
>>
Hmm...time for this lurker to say some wise words.
Well... the last two lines of the original article are.
" Best regards from Belgrade"
" Mladen Mijatovic "
And then my friend...you're coming to the "other" world. The parallel
world most of us have never seen. Let me tell you about it and spread
the word.
There was a world where allied planes we're dropping like flies during
the recent unpleasantness in Yugoslavia. Whole museums in belgrade
were full of it. But there were some obscure rumours ,that the same
aircraft we're seen in the sky many moons later. We'll never know.
The world where B2's did their magic move(TM). They replicated, and
the B2-part 1 went down,and there was evidence for it. The people
danced and sung around the wreckage and noted the serial number.
And although deeple grieved about the lost of her twin-sister,B2-part
2 went further. She kept flying in the moonlight. Her serial number
showed up everywhere in the world. Since then the event of replication
is known as "the B2 that went down..and didn't."
And that's enough fairy tailes for today.
This all above is just a long and poetic way tot say that Mladen is a
well known person to the regulars and lurkers in this newsgroup. And
that he lives a bit in " the other world". He claimed B2 shootdowns
and a lots of other things that didn't happen.
And now this lurker is going back to his cave.
Greetz Mu
(p.s Don't tap to hard on you're keyboard if you're replying to this
post. This llittle troll is still sleeping,and I want to keep it this
way)
Mekon
Just to make things a little clearer....
I said I *read* this I didn't *write* it . So questions about what I did to
make the little ovens do this remarkable feat and the like are not going to
be read by the author. Just the curious cut and paste guy.
Mekon
Steven James Forsberg
More than a "bit" farfetched! Forget about the frequency for
a second. First off, virtually all target military radars will put out
vastly more power than a microwave fed off of an extension cord. A
microwave oven will not even register on most ELINT oriented ESM systems,
for all sorts of reasons beyond the lack of power. The "signal" you
would get from leaving open a microwave oven door is so far away from
a typical radar that the gear most likely wouldn't even be able to
*detect* it let alone mistake it for a radar.
Secondly, anti-radiation missiles aren't just fired off willy
nilly. Think about it -- even *IF* the oven was detected, it would not
resemble any known radar (which is darned near every radar), and would
therefore merit very fast and intense scrutiny. Secondly, if "hundreds"
of these things were being detected it would not take a triple digit IQ
to figure out that something funny was going on. If your missile isn't
able to discriminate between hundreds of targets (be they decoys or false
targets from ESM, whatever) than you typically don't fire your missile.
If a microwave oven is going to try and emulate anything, I'd
suggest a low power microwave communications link -- but then I'd just say
that because I know more about ELINT. At any rate, the US has not bragged
about using anti-radiation missiles against comms emitters. And once again,
it would take a purty slow tech (let alone analyst) to mistake the defrost
setting for a communications network!
regards,
----------------------------------
sjfo...@bayou.uh.ed
Boyan Brezinsky
> : And wondered if it could possibly be true. Seems a bit far fetched to me.
>
> More than a "bit" farfetched! Forget about the frequency for
> a second. First off, virtually all target military radars will put out
> vastly more power than a microwave fed off of an extension cord. A
>
> regards,
> ----------------------------------
> sjfo...@bayou.uh.ed
>
>
I am sure most of you remember the story about the Harrier that
supposedly locked its radar to a traffic policemen's speed radar (or
whatever it is called in English) somewhere in the UK.
So since we started the thread, I was wondering if this story was true.
--
Boyan Brezinsky
boyan_b...@mail.com
Santos Ramos
Actually, it was a hoax.
=====
Here's one version:
South Carolina State Police were jolted from their routine of traffic radar
when they apparently began clocking a speeder at 300 mph just before
the radar blew its circuit board. It proved to be no malfunction as a
low-flying USMC Harrier Jet screamed overhead a few seconds later.
When Police officials registered a complaint with the Marine Corps
about their damaged equipment, officials only replied that the damage
could have been worse. Much worse.
It seems the Harrier's defense systems had locked onto the radar,
begun electronic countermeasures and had gone into an automatic
preemptive strike mode before the pilot decided enemy aircraft
activity was unlikely along the motorways of South Carolina....
=====
Here's another:
Two members of the Lothian and Borders traffic police were out on
the Berwickshire moors with a radar gun, happily engaged in
apprehending speeding motorists, when their equipment suddenly
locked-up completely with an unexpected reading of well over
300 mph.
The mystery was explained seconds later as a low flying Harrier
hurtled over their heads. The 'boys in blue,' upset at the damage
to their radar gun, submitted a complaint to the RAF, but were
somewhat chastened when the RAF pointed out that the damage
might well have been more severe. The Harrier's target acquisition
computer had locked on to the 'enemy' radar and triggered an
automatic retaliatory air-to-surface missile attack. Fortunately, the
Harrier was operating unarmed!
======
When this didn't get the required number of believers, the story
was expanded a bit:
The Scottish highlands have some roads so perfect for sports-car
enthusiasm that certain drivers are regularly tempted into exhibitions
of speed. Complaints by the citizenry have brought the presence of
radar police, who often lurk in hidden valleys to detect their prey.
One such unit was on-station when a Harrier jump-jet suddenly
appeared at the far end of the valley and flew toward it. The officer,
curious as to whether his equipment could record the aircraft's speed,
pointed and activated his radar gun. The Harrier, test-cruising in full
battle configuration, detected the radar pulse and instantly 1) armed a
Sidewinder missile, 2) electronically focused it on the radar gun's
signal, and 3) began its own automatic firing countdown. Fortunately,
the pilot caught and aborted the firing sequence with 1.5 seconds to go,
saving all of the following: the police officer, the squad car, the radar
equipment, international headlines, the pilot's career, and one
Sidewinder AIM-9M missile worth $500,000.
"Boyan Brezinsky" <nosuch...@hotmail.com> wrote
Ralph Savelsberg
Yes, that was clear (to me anyway after looking at the link). The message you
copied and posted here was a message sent to somebody from Twente university
in the Netherlands, in response to a series of articles on the net about fun
things to do with your microwave (I presume besides cooking).
I don't think the content of the message makes much sense. Microwave ovens
aren't nearly powerful enough to be used as simple noise jammers and I think
that any halfway decent ECM system wouldn't identify the type of transmissions
from a microwave as any type of SAM radar, even though they might operate in
similar bands. The signal modulation, pulse repetition etc. of a microwave
oven very likely won't match that of any SAM radar.
There have been a lot of BS stories from the FRY and from its supporters in
other countries since Allied force. The fact that the person who wrote it
refers to Venik's website as anything other than good for a few laughs doesn't
exactly help his credibility. In case you don't know Venik, he was one of the
most memorable people to spread pro-FRY propaganda in this NG some two years
ago.
Regards,
--
Ralph Savelsberg
Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
Eindhoven University of Technology
http://www.fluid.tue.nl/
Ken Sykes
Snippity-do-dah...
>
> Here is a long version of the story
> http://margo.student.utwente.nl/el/microwave/mladen_story.html
>
> Mekon
As usual, Venikovichavic and Mladenavicovich mangled the
truth again.
Psst, Mekon, here's what really happened...
A B-52 EWO was in the galley getting coffee for the crew
when he saw a bag of popcorn on the counter start popping.
He returned to his scope to find the mw source, but
it didn't show.
Nato quickly responded to this threat by issuing every pilot
a bag of popcorn to monitor. It never fooled anyone and the
fighter jocks liked the fresh popcorn snack during RTB.
Tallyho!
KS
JollyGreenGiant
with it?
--
Many people will walk in and out of your life, but only
true friends will leave footprints in your heart.
ListMum, "Soap Naturally"
<http://www.programmer-software.com/soapnaturally>
http://www.dianesnatural.soap.it
Anzac
Netherlands, which really gets me thinking how credible this story is.
"Mekon" <blankotank...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ZCc7.104922$Xr6.5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Ralph Savelsberg
> Only part which really surprises me is the no offense I see your from the
> Netherlands, which really gets me thinking how credible this story is.
The message Mekon posted was a copy of a message sent to a student of Twente
University in the Netherlands in response to a number of creative things you
can do with your microwave this student put on his website. The writer calls a
generic NATO pilot on a SEAD mission a bastard, which could in theory also
include Dutch NATO pilots actively involved in Allied Force. There's a likely
explanation. That doesn't mean that the rest of the story makes sense. What the
writerproably failed to know is that the Dutch AF didn't fly SEAD missions
during Allied Force, because they haven decided yet on which weapon
(ALARM/HARM) to buy for the mission and because the newly-found capabilities
of their updated F-16s are already keeping them quite busy without adding yet
another role.
If your intent was to jokingly say that there is no reason not to want to
offend people from the Netherlands, then I'm afraid it doesn't strike me as
very funny, probably because I happen to be a DutchmanAnother reason is that
your hotmail adress doesn't tell me which country should be the target of a
possibly witty retort. Neither does 'Anzac', though it puts two countries on
top of the list of possibilities.
regards,
snowman
officer,
> curious as to whether his equipment could record the aircraft's speed,
> pointed and activated his radar gun. The Harrier, test-cruising in full
> battle configuration, detected the radar pulse and instantly 1) armed a
> Sidewinder missile, 2)
since when would anyone in their right mind use a sidewinder (AIM-9, where
the AIM refers to air intercept missile, iirc) for air->mud.
electronically focused it on the radar gun's
> signal, and 3) began its own automatic firing countdown. Fortunately,
> the pilot caught and aborted the firing sequence with 1.5 seconds to go,
hmmm. seems to me from what I've read/heard that the pilot would still have
to pull the trigger. I'm fully willing to be corrected if wrong, but most,
nay all fighters still require the pilot to have _SOME_ interaction with
weapons systems other than saying "no! bad boy!!!! don't blue up the cops!"
> saving all of the following: the police officer, the squad car, the radar
> equipment, international headlines, the pilot's career, and one
> Sidewinder AIM-9M missile worth $500,000.
right. aim-9m. not agm-xx (forget the exact # for the maverick. 85?)
Regards,
Snowman
Bill Shatzer
On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, JollyGreenGiant wrote:
> this harrier automatic launch stuff is bullshit so why do people perisit
> with it?
> > Here's one version:
> > Fortunately,
> > the pilot caught and aborted the firing sequence with 1.5 seconds to go,
> > saving all of the following: the police officer, the squad car, the radar
> > equipment, international headlines, the pilot's career, and one
> > Sidewinder AIM-9M missile worth $500,000.
Typical of the level of technical ignorance by the folks who invent
these urban legends.
An AIM-9M is an air-to-air heat-seeking missile, not an air-to-ground
anti-radiation missile and would be quite blind if launched against
an EMR target. Especially one on the ground.
And the price of an AIM-9 is considerably less than half a million -
about $50,000 actually.
'Course, maybe the top-secret air-to-ground, anti-radiation version
costs a bit more. :-)
Cheers and all,
Steven James Forsberg
: about $50,000 actually.
Well, we could wish they were that cheap. :-) It is true, some
unsourced military PR pubs list such a price (for example, Chinfo says
they are 41k) -- but then general PR releases are always going to try
and come up with some kind of lowball number. There are a number of
'tricks' to getting such a low number, but it the number isn't very valid.
According to an HQ AF pub, the cost per missile for the production
run of AIM-9M that started in 1983 was about 84K. The Chinfo figure, for
example, might well have included missiles purchased waaay back as part
of the 'average', sort of like Ford figuring in the cost of a model-T.
Those numbers are all "history" anyway. Apparently, any ne
sidewinders procured are going to be the AIM-9X version, and the average
unit cost for them was supposed to be 200K, but I've seen recent reports
that bump that up to over 260K per missile (that's for the initial
10,000 missile production run).
I can recall reading an old 'Proceedings' magazine in which the
author pointed the incredibel costs of new technology. It was rumored
that the then brand-new Sidwinder might cost $4,000 a missile!
: 'Course, maybe the top-secret air-to-ground, anti-radiation version
: costs a bit more. :-)
The exotic varieties of Sidewinder (and there have been many)
usually aren't listed as "production" items but are covered under R&D
or other such listings. One of the more successful (and utilized) was
a Vietnam War era model specially designed to home in on IR lamps and
lights (like those used by vehicles at night). There have been
anti-radiation types tested here and there, but I don't know if the US
has procured any in numbers. Hmmmm, did Israel produce an ARM version
of the Sidewinder? For some reason I seem to recall one....
regards,
----------------------------------------------
sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu
Keith Willshaw
"Steven James Forsberg" <sjfo...@Bayou.UH.EDU> wrote in message
news:9l1d93$hd1$1...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU...
AGM-122A SIDEARM is Sidewinder based
Keith
Paul J. Adam
<sjfo...@Bayou.UH.EDU> writes
>There have been
>anti-radiation types tested here and there, but I don't know if the US
>has procured any in numbers.
The US did convert some AIM-9Cs into short-range anti-radar missiles and
called them the AGM-122 Sidearm - enough, and with enough publicity, to
turn up in Microprose computer games and Tom Clancy novels :)
Apparently several hundred were procured in the mid-late 1980s , but I
don't know if any were used in action and AFAIK all have since been
retired.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Anzac
call a person who fly's SEAD a bastard I would expect him or her also to
know the other countries involved in the attacks. And I cannot imagine that
a person would find the sead pilot a bastard but not a pilot who does
regular bombings. Thats why I was wondering about the credibility of the
story. Apart from the technical details that is, which has already been well
adressed previously. I am aware Dutch didn't fly sead missions. As your part
of thinking it may be an offence, I can see how you may think that, but
thats not the meaning of it. The above is the meaning of it. I also happen
to be kinda Dutch, which is probably why that part caught my attention. Hope
this addition makes it a bit clearer.
"Ralph Savelsberg" <r.save...@tue.nl> wrote in message
news:3B740E98...@tue.nl...
Ralph Savelsberg
> The thing is that from someone who is involved enough in this conflict to
> call a person who fly's SEAD a bastard I would expect him or her also to
> know the other countries involved in the attacks. And I cannot imagine that
> a person would find the sead pilot a bastard but not a pilot who does
> regular bombings. Thats why I was wondering about the credibility of the
> story. Apart from the technical details that is, which has already been well
> adressed previously. I am aware Dutch didn't fly sead missions. As your part
> of thinking it may be an offence, I can see how you may think that, but
> thats not the meaning of it. The above is the meaning of it. I also happen
> to be kinda Dutch, which is probably why that part caught my attention. Hope
> this addition makes it a bit clearer.
>
It certainly does. No offence is taken. We were basically thinking the same
thing all along.
Regards,
Ralph
Venik
> aren't nearly powerful enough to be used as simple noise jammers and I think
> that any halfway decent ECM system wouldn't identify the type of transmissions
> from a microwave as any type of SAM radar,
First, microwave ovens were not used as jammers for the reason you
mentioned. They were used as decoy targets.
Second, ECM stands for electronic counter-measures.
even though they might operate in
> similar bands. The signal modulation, pulse repetition etc. of a microwave
> oven very likely won't match that of any SAM radar.
Put yourself in a fighter pilot's position and "likely won't match"
likely won't make you feel particularly secure.
Modulation and repetition aside, a microwave oven emits radiation in
the same bands as many anti-aircraft radars and will be picked up by
the aircraft's sensors.
At this point everything will boil down to the question of whether the
pilot values his life more than his HARM. Since the cost of a wasted
missile will not come out of the pilot's pay, the microwave oven's
outlook would look very grim.
> There have been a lot of BS stories from the FRY and from its supporters in
> other countries since Allied force. The fact that the person who wrote it
> refers to Venik's website as anything other than good for a few laughs doesn't
> exactly help his credibility. In case you don't know Venik, he was one of the
> most memorable people to spread pro-FRY propaganda in this NG some two years
> ago.
Oh boy, they heard of me in some place called Netherlands. As to my
web site: its purpose is to collect and share information. All
available information and not just what people in Netherlands prefer
to know about.
Venik
> world most of us have never seen. Let me tell you about it and spread
> the word.
Since most of "you" derive your knowledge of the world from CNN,
spreading the word is not something you should be concerned about.
Venik
Ralph Savelsberg
> > I don't think the content of the message makes much sense. Microwave ovens
> > aren't nearly powerful enough to be used as simple noise jammers and I think
> > that any halfway decent ECM system wouldn't identify the type of transmissions
> > from a microwave as any type of SAM radar,
>
> First, microwave ovens were not used as jammers for the reason you
> mentioned. They were used as decoy targets.
>
Okay.
>
> Second, ECM stands for electronic counter-measures.
>
> even though they might operate in
> > similar bands. The signal modulation, pulse repetition etc. of a microwave
> > oven very likely won't match that of any SAM radar.
>
> Put yourself in a fighter pilot's position and "likely won't match"
> likely won't make you feel particularly secure.
>
I cannot put myself into a fighter pilots position. I do think that the people
performing SEAD will generally know what they're doing.
>
> Modulation and repetition aside, a microwave oven emits radiation in
> the same bands as many anti-aircraft radars and will be picked up by
> the aircraft's sensors.
>
Assuming that the safety which prevents the thing from working with the door open
is disabled and that the it delivers enough power and it probably will be.
>
> At this point everything will boil down to the question of whether the
> pilot values his life more than his HARM. Since the cost of a wasted
> missile will not come out of the pilot's pay, the microwave oven's
> outlook would look very grim.
>
Another relevant question is whether the pilot thinks that he might want tosave his
HARM for a real target later during the mission.
>
> > There have been a lot of BS stories from the FRY and from its supporters in
> > other countries since Allied force. The fact that the person who wrote it
> > refers to Venik's website as anything other than good for a few laughs doesn't
> > exactly help his credibility. In case you don't know Venik, he was one of the
> > most memorable people to spread pro-FRY propaganda in this NG some two years
> > ago.
>
> Oh boy, they heard of me in some place called Netherlands. As to my
> web site: its purpose is to collect and share information. All
> available information and not just what people in Netherlands prefer
> to know about.
>
Don't gloat too much. I've been reading from and posting to this NG from before
Allied Force. I guess that means that 'they've heard of me' in a little place
called Yugoslavia, a rather big place called Russia and the US (which is where you
are staying if my memory serves me well). You were rather prominent for spreading
your 'information'.
The problem I have with your website isn't that it tells me things that I do not
want to know about. I could just ignore it if that was the problem. Some of the
factual info on russian aviation is quite interesting (news about new prototypes,
the Russian AF).
The thing is that there is no clear distinction between factual info and things
which are presented as factual info, whilst they're not (yugoslavia was successful
in beating NATO, a B-2 was shot down, NATO covered up massive losses of aircraft).
It's the same problem I have with the Discovery Channell, although there its even
bigger because it reaches more people. They could have a fairly decent documentary
on whatever one moment and then have a piece of crap about Erich Von Daeniken (a
guy who has 'proof' of the existence of Atlantis, of aliens visiting earth, of
ancient cultures long extinct which knew aviation and electric light etc.) the next
in the same format, without a distinction.
Regards,
Ralph
> Venik
> www.aeronautics.ru
> http://way.to/venik
Bill Shatzer
On 14 Aug 2001, Venik wrote:
> Modulation and repetition aside, a microwave oven emits radiation in
> the same bands as many anti-aircraft radars and will be picked up by
> the aircraft's sensors.
This is, of course, nonsense. Microwave ovens radiate at 2450
MHz. All anti-aircraft radars I am aware of radiate in frequencies
measured in GigaHertz. These are several bands removed from the UHF
band used by microwave ovens. There is a physical reason for this - the
shorter wave lengths at the higher frequencies are required to give
sufficiently precise location for actual targeting.
There are a few -search- radars which operate in the same UHF band
as microwave ovens (although not at the same frequencies - the UHF
band is a relatively BIG place). But no one is going to get particularly
excited about a -search- radar or lose off a HARM against one unless, of
course, a particular search radar is the actual target of the strike.
Indeed, I wonder if HARMs are even capable of detecting or locking on to
EMR emissions in the UHF band. It would seem an unnecessary complication.
Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of ARM technology could comment
further?
Cheers and all,
Steven James Forsberg
: > Modulation and repetition aside, a microwave oven emits radiation in
: > the same bands as many anti-aircraft radars and will be picked up by
: > the aircraft's sensors.
"Modulationa and repetition aside"? That's like saying that
"water aside" the ocean is wet! Pulsed radars are pulsed in large part
in order to generate tremendous peak power. The peak ERP of a microwave
oven (even at "high" power setting :-) )is so low as to probably not
tweak the receivers, let alone the interest, of a SEAD aircraft. I don't
know of a single continuous-wave radar that operates off of household
power.
: This is, of course, nonsense. Microwave ovens radiate at 2450
: MHz. All anti-aircraft radars I am aware of radiate in frequencies
: measured in GigaHertz. These are several bands removed from the UHF
: band used by microwave ovens. There is a physical reason for this - the
: shorter wave lengths at the higher frequencies are required to give
: sufficiently precise location for actual targeting.
Well, I'm not so certain about this. 2450 MHz is just another way
of saying 2.45 GHz. There are lots of radars that operate on lower
frequencies (nearby are 'Aegis' and 'AWACS' at lower 3 GHz). But they are
vastly more powerful than a microwave oven and 'look' entirely different.
: There are a few -search- radars which operate in the same UHF band
: as microwave ovens (although not at the same frequencies - the UHF
: band is a relatively BIG place). But no one is going to get particularly
: excited about a -search- radar or lose off a HARM against one unless, of
: course, a particular search radar is the actual target of the strike.
: Indeed, I wonder if HARMs are even capable of detecting or locking on to
: EMR emissions in the UHF band. It would seem an unnecessary complication.
: Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of ARM technology could comment
: further?
Well, the common US household microwave oven operates at 2450 MHz,
which is actually in the UHF range (300 MHz to 3 GHz), and there are
scads and scads of radiolocation bands in that range. And I wouldn't
underesimate the importance of search and EW radars, either, they can
often become prime SEAD targets. Indeed, they are often among the first
during planned missions. Precise frequency ranges of anti-radiation missiles
is not something the US government has chosen to publicize, but apparently
the newest ones can cover ranges to down below 1 GHz. The Shrike had
greater limitations, according to Gulf War reports, but they may have
finally shot the last of those off (God knows they were trying to get rid
of them during Desert Storm!).
As an aside, in the US most household microwave ovens operate at
approx 2450 MHz, though I seem to recall something about leakage near
400 MHz. There are also commerical microwaves operating at 915 MHz,
and the FCC has bands for them at 5800 and 24125 MHz though I've never
noticed any specific microwaves using those freqs. Overseas one can often
find different freqs for microwaves.
I doubt the Yugoslavs could 'fool' the US with microwave ovens for
another reason -- the US has probably spent more money studying microwave
ovens than all the Balkans has on Electronic Warfare in total. For starters,
pick up NTIA pubs 94-303-1 and 94-303-2 "Radio Spectrum Measurements of
Individual Microwave Ovens, volumes One and Two".
regards,
-----------------------------------
sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu
TJ
Venik
Come on Venik. It was you who "spread the word" from a media cock-up
also shown on CNN.
Date: 1999/03/27
blahbla wrote in message <01be781a$5005e900$1618...@j.m.cerw>...
>I've watched the footage on CNN that purports to show the wreckage of
one
>of those Mig-29s shot down today. Clearly stenciled on a piece of
this
>thing is "ANNUAL INSPECTION" in the Latin alphabet. In English. I've
seen
>the footage three times now. WTF !!
>
>Does anyone have a plausible explanation for this? Why would a
>Russian-built, Serbian flown aircraft have this stencil.
Venik replies 1999/03/27:
It wouldn't. The fuzzy, poorly lit images shown on CNN, NBC, etc. can
hardly
be interpreted as a MiG-29 wreckage or that of any other aircraft. In
fact,
from what was shown it's nearly impossible to say what in fact that
was. I
have clearly seen many markings in Latin alphabet, so the wreckage is
definitely not of Yugoslav origin. A reasonable guess may be that NATO
troops stationed in Bosnia shot down Luftwaffe MiG-29s, which could
have
been on a special mission and strayed off course. Suspicious lack of
information and contradictions in various official statement coming
from
Pentagon and NATO command, in my opinion, confirm this possibility.
Venik, you claim you never wanted to mislead visitors to your website,
but came up with the following piece of rubbish which you still
haven't updated. Why do you still show a picture of an F-15 venting
fuel pictured over Bosnia? Why not show any other frames from the "CNN
video"?
http://www.aeronautics.ru/fakemig.htm
http://www.aeronautics.ru/mig29bosnia.htm
Any chance of admitting that you were completely wrong about "NATO
MiG-29" on secret missions and Major Peric shooting down an F-15?
What Venik fails to inform visitors to his website:
http://website.lineone.net/~tommyjo/
http://members.tripod.co.uk/TomJoe/photoinfo/
TJ
Dan Seur
Brian
>
> : > Modulation and repetition aside, a microwave oven emits radiation in
> : > the same bands as many anti-aircraft radars and will be picked up by
> : > the aircraft's sensors.
>
> "Modulationa and repetition aside"? That's like saying that
> "water aside" the ocean is wet! Pulsed radars are pulsed in large part
> in order to generate tremendous peak power. The peak ERP of a microwave
> oven (even at "high" power setting :-) )is so low as to probably not
> tweak the receivers, let alone the interest, of a SEAD aircraft. I don't
> know of a single continuous-wave radar that operates off of household
> power.
>
> : This is, of course, nonsense. Microwave ovens radiate at 2450
> : MHz. All anti-aircraft radars I am aware of radiate in frequencies
> : measured in GigaHertz. These are several bands removed from the UHF
> : band used by microwave ovens. There is a physical reason for this - the
> : shorter wave lengths at the higher frequencies are required to give
> : sufficiently precise location for actual targeting.
>
> Well, I'm not so certain about this. 2450 MHz is just another way
> of saying 2.45 GHz. There are lots of radars that operate on lower
> frequencies (nearby are 'Aegis' and 'AWACS' at lower 3 GHz). But they are
> vastly more powerful than a microwave oven and 'look' entirely different.
For starters...radars are modulated(ok, Illuminators aren't). Microwave
ovens are CW. A microwave oven fooling a HARM or even a Shrike is a joke.
You wouldn't even operate an air search radars at 2450MHz (2.4 Gig) because
it's the frequency(in that band) that is absorbed the most by water (this is
what makes it soooo good for cooking). You don't want high attenuation for
radar. Air Search radars don't start till around 2.7GHz (they skip from
around 1.2GHz to 2.7Ghz).
Santos Ramos, LtCol
We can agree that most radars are modulated. But not all are.
A Police radar, for example, is not modulated. It is a CW
(Continuous Wave) radar, and only detects Doppler shifts from
relative moving targets. Technically, I suppose, it isn't really
a radar since it has no ranging. But radar today is synonymous
with radio detection.
Water absorption is greatest at 24 GHz, not 2.4 GHz.
The 2.45GHz operating frequency of domestic ovens is
selected to be some way from this maximum in order to
limit the efficiency of the absorption.
The reason there are no radars in the 2.4 GHz band, is that
it is not allocated for radar (tell that to the countries who don't
follow World Allocation agreements).
Most Slav countries, like Serbia, use Microwave Ovens that
operate at 2375 MHz rather than the popular 2450. But, there
are allocations of 434 MHz, 896 MHz, 915 MHz, 3.39 GHz,
5.8 GHz, 6.78 GHz, 24.15 GHz, and 40.68 is becoming
popular in the U.K.
"Brian" <Witch*D...@usa.nospam.net.ru> wrote
Anzac
radar warning sensor on the aircraft could detect the signal, they are also
programmable. Most microwaves work in the same area and are CW with no
special signal in them. Shouldnt be too hard to let the software ignore
that.
Andrew P Pavacic
Ralph Savelsberg <r.save...@tue.nl> wrote:
>Anzac wrote:
>> The thing is that from someone who is involved enough in this conflict to
>> call a person who fly's SEAD a bastard I would expect him or her also to
>
>thing all along.
Offense, what offense. Half northern Europe is bastard.
"No offense since you're Dutch" is the one-liner of the century
-Andrew
Paul J. Adam
<pav...@ecf.toronto.edu> writes
>Offense, what offense. Half northern Europe is bastard.
If you care about bloodlines, you have to wade through a lot of bars
sinister, in my casual study.
>"No offense since you're Dutch" is the one-liner of the century
What was the old Spanish saying? "Are we in the Netherlands?" Back then
they understood that casual brutality in conquered countries was fine
_there_ but not acceptable at home.
How long should a nation hold a grudge for?
Steve Remis
long.
"Anzac" <wol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JIwe7.33802$z7.3...@dbsch1.home.nl...
Gord Beaman
>My microwave on medium isn't CW, although the pulse width is a few seconds
>long.
>
>
Don't they, in microwave ovens, for less than full power, just
use a time interval of full power broken up by a time interval of
no power then decrease/increase the 'time on' to 'time off' ratio
to adjust the 'cook power'?. If that's so then the 'mode' is
still CW, after all, that's what they call radio telegraphy
(Morse Code), CW, even though the 'waves' aren't continuous but
the method uses 'continuous waves'.
--
Gord Beaman
PEI, Canada
Ralph Savelsberg
Very funny.
I don't know which hole you came crawling out of, but I'd suggest you crawl
back into it.
Ralph
Venik
>
> Venik, you claim you never wanted to mislead visitors to your website,
> but came up with the following piece of rubbish which you still
> haven't updated. Why do you still show a picture of an F-15 venting
> fuel pictured over Bosnia? Why not show any other frames from the "CNN
> video"?
>
'cause I am interested in the truth, unlike certain RAF PR sluts.
Venik
Venik
> On 14 Aug 2001, Venik wrote:
>
>
> > Modulation and repetition aside, a microwave oven emits radiation in
> > the same bands as many anti-aircraft radars and will be picked up by
> > the aircraft's sensors.
>
> This is, of course, nonsense. Microwave ovens radiate at 2450
> MHz. All anti-aircraft radars I am aware of radiate in frequencies
> measured in GigaHertz.
In this case what frequency range do Vega and Tamara radars operate at?
Venik
Steve Remis
from the signal of a pulsed emitter except for the duty cycle?
Steve
"Gord Beaman" <gbe...@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
news:3b7b1b4c...@news1.islandtelecom.com...
Santos Ramos, LtCol
Very distinctive to an observer on a spectrum analyzer,
not to mention automated analyzers.
A good basic theory is at:
http://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/modulate.htm
"Steve Remis" <sre...@ieee.org> wrote
Brian
"Venik" <ven...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:8ca6fc84.01081...@posting.google.com...
Vega and Tamara aren't radars.
Venik
They are passive radars, but they use microwave background radiation
as well as aircraft EM emissions to track their targets.
Venik
Brian
> as well as aircraft EM emissions to track their targets.
There is no such thing as a passive radar. They are ES/ESM devices that can
be used to triangulate a position. No emissions, no target picture.
Steve Remis
5 -- isn't this exactly what my microwave does on a lower setting? The
sidelobes are in the frequency domain due to the convolution of the square
wave (modulating pulse) and the single-frequency source.
Except for the lobe width and actual frequency values, shouldn't my uwave
have a similar frequency domain plot? I think so.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this microwave detection thing is
anything other than an urban legend. I just don't believe the reason given
(pulsed vs continuous) is quite correct.
Steve
"Santos Ramos, LtCol" <ltcol...@norad.com> wrote in message
news:1DYe7.35730$c8.11...@news1.denver1.co.home.com...
Brian
"Steve Remis" <sre...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:9lj8h6$lu8$1...@iac5.navix.net...
> Excellent pointer. Thanks. If you follow your link and consider figure
> 5 -- isn't this exactly what my microwave does on a lower setting? The
> sidelobes are in the frequency domain due to the convolution of the square
> wave (modulating pulse) and the single-frequency source.
>
> Except for the lobe width and actual frequency values, shouldn't my uwave
> have a similar frequency domain plot? I think so.
Microwaves don't pulse, they simply cycle power on and off every few
seconds. A receiver would only detect that exact frequency. You won't have
sidebands, etc. If you've ever seen this stuff on an analysis scope, you'd
be able to tell instantly. Radar pulses are also coherent.
Steve Remis
I don't see the difference you are describing. Let me try to explain with a
way-too-simple example:
I build a device that contains a DC power supply and an RLC circuit (there's
my microwave oven signal). I use something like a 555 timer to generate a
train of square pulses. I use the pulses to turn on and off the power
supply input to my RLC circuit. This sounds like the microwave oven
example, right?
Second device: use the same DC power supply and RLC circuit (this time it's
my "coherent" -- whatever that means for a single-frequency signal --
signal). Use the 555 pulses to enable/disable the output of the RLC. This
is the pulsed radar emitter, right?
If you agree that these circuits represent the microwave and the radar, then
you must also realize that the frequency plots of the two devices will be
the same. This includes sidebands. Convolution is commutative.
Steve
Brian
AFAIK, ovens don't pulse, they simply turn on for a few seconds and turn
off. They don't pulse (unless you count 2 seconds on, 2 seconds off a
pulse). Using a 555 circuit would give you many pulses per second so it may
appear as a radar if you had a spec analyzer. But, microwaves use a CW (ie.
100% duty cycle), radars use true pulsed emissions (we're talking ~2% duty
cycle). So even if you could pulse the thing a few times a second, I don't
think the signal would look much different from CW since you're going to
have such a high duty cycle.
Steve Remis
"except for pulse width and duty cycle...."
I understand what you're saying about the pulses being so long that they'll
appear continuous.
Steve
"Brian" <Witch*D...@usa.nospam.net.ru> wrote in message
news:tnvmsme...@corp.supernews.com...
Brian
> Ok, I think we agree. You must've missed an earlier post where I said,
> "except for pulse width and duty cycle...."
Yeah, I missed it:)
John Keeney
> I don't see the difference you are describing. Let me try to explain with
a
> way-too-simple example:
The "pulses" from the microwave run into the whole seconds for
both on and off.