| ▲ | throw0101d 5 hours ago |
| On the defensive side, see perhaps this phased array radar system with a 20km range: * https://github.com/NawfalMotii79/PLFM_RADAR |
|
| ▲ | defrost 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Expanding on that, for interest: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array * https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2003/02/11/294058... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-role_Electronically_Scan... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-7_Wedgetail |
| |
| ▲ | throw0101d 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-7_Wedgetail Somewhat interesting in that the Pentagon did not want the E-7 (as a replacement to the E-3): * https://www.twz.com/air/e-2-hawkeye-replaces-usaf-e-3-sentry... nominally because it wanted to spend the money on more E-2s, which can operate on smaller and rougher airfields, which would be handy in (e.g.) the Pacific where tiny islands don't necessary 'fancy' runways that the E-7 needs. But they're actually very handy in tracking tiny targets—like drones—so Australia is sending E-7(s) to the Middle East: * https://www.twz.com/air/massive-leap-in-ability-to-spot-iran... Congress rebuffed the Pentagon's attempted to 'completely kill' E-7 acquisitions, and the USAF has now put in an order, and it may be that people now realizing having some number of E-7s may be handy: * https://breakingdefense.com/2026/03/following-congressional-... | | |
| ▲ | markhahn 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | little unclear what drove the E-7 thing - my impression is that accelerationists on the political side wanted to push for space-based defense, and drove the attempt to cancel. it is a reasonable point that any airborne radar is an attractive target to long-range missile. and that if your radar is in space, it's a different, less available class of missile to attack it (and also that so far treating space as contested is taboo). the recent loss of THAAD radar should also make people rethink how to make an emitter that survives the first round of missiles. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | throwa356262 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What a time to be alive. In fact, I think I now have all I need to start a war with my neighbours. |
| |
| ▲ | notlenin 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | you could have started a war with your neighbors using only sticks and stones - indeed, much of human history is people starting wars with their neighbors using weapons that we today would call primitive. But now you can start a very destructive war with your neighbors.
Thanks to modern technology, you don't have to bother beating your neighbor to death with a wooden club, you now can annihilate them, and basically anything in their immediate vicinity, from a comfortable distance :D | | |
| ▲ | postalcoder 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | For the non-Americans, the modern technology you're referring to is the HOA. | | | |
| ▲ | pif 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > you now can annihilate them [...] from a comfortable distance The problem is: they can, too. | |
| ▲ | rainmaking an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Convenient warfare! |
| |
| ▲ | mlsu 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Don't worry, US government's already got you covered! |
|
|
| ▲ | Thrymr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| How is DIY radar regulated by the FCC? |
| |
| ▲ | subscribed 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Emitting in the regulated part of the spectrum must comply with the regulations, regardless of the origin of the transmitter. | | |
| ▲ | nickff 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are actually a few exempted categories, such as test and measurement equipment (because something like a signal generator can obviously generate whatever the user selects). |
| |
| ▲ | bagels 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You need a license for most frequencies. | | |
|
