Well, you can using signal modulation. It's simply a matter of knowing the speed of travel and the rate at which frequency is increased. You know the distance the signal has to cover and you can compare (by correlation for example) the signal you should receive and the signal you did receive. That way, through the equation of modulation (like f = f0+k.t, where t is time and k is frequency increase rate) you know at which time in the flight path the signal interacted with the beam. You'll know the vertical data using the time the signal got intercepted to calculate the total flight path and, since you know X and Y, you're able to extract Z. The problem however is when you take into account the fact that you're trying to detect something going through the ionosphere, with something that doesn't go through the ionosphere... Not to mention the fact mentioned by Todjaeger that ionosphere is not constant during the day though I left that problem further on because first I need to think of a way to have a frequency that does both these things... Athmospherec correction is achieved in the visible spectrum with active optics and a laser star... Radio however is another matter. But probably having a secondary station measuring ionosphere response coupled through a graphene tube to provide maximum speed of transmission... but that drifts from the issue since Iran has no capabilities of building graphene. The purpose of this exercise to me is to see how easy a theory can be formulated and if it is indeed feasible for a nation like Iran to pursue it. That involves lower tech assets and ability to test such intelligence.
rq-170 video decoded and shown off by iran
- Thread starter plasmahawk
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
What you have started to describe is a OTH radar array. Such systems do already exist, typically using HF radio bouncing off the ionosphere. Australia has several such systems (JORN, SECAR, etc) involving several different emitters and even more receivers.
As GF has mentioned more than once though, such systems are 2D, not 3D.
There is more about them, but attempting to detect/track SATCOM emissions from a UAV using such an array is not viable, because the sensing arrays will not know specific pieces of information needed to determine position.
-Cheers
and has been repeatedly explained to you, you cannot. Signal modulation will not work because of the nature of the tech involved, repeatedly stating it will work ignores the reality of what developments have been conducted by countries such as the US, France, Australia and Russia - ie the leading tech proponents of bi-static/backscatter solutions
please don't present opinions as technical solutions, there are a whole pile of tech experts on here who can refute but are going to be disinclined to discuss in detail on a public forum anyway
but, perhaps you are aware that the US and Australia are currently involved in enhancing track management for such systems, but it cannot be done on a single system
you are starting to push the boundaries of tolerance so I suggest that you find a way to present your responses, but arguing at a technical level when you clearly are not aware of the limitations already is not helping your credibility - esp when you imply that you have a teacher who can help you out - if he doesn't know this already then he needs to find another career as if he is giving you advice he obviously has no clue at all
none of the above theory works in reality - and there's close to 30 years of real world exp by the russians, americans, french, australians to back it up - if he doesn't understand it by now then I wonder what the hell he is teaching kids. he's no EM/Signature/Signals/RF expert - that's for sure.
in addition, as also stated prev, the Iranians have NONE of the infrastructure in place to actually try it on anyway.
there are only 6 countries in the world that have those basics in place. Iran isn't one of them
re the issue about discussing the theory on possibilities, perhaps thats why the US and Australia decided to arrange a formal agreement to transfer and develop technology to cross those boundaries - NONE of the detail will end up being discussed seriously in an open public forum
Again, I'm talking from a purely theoretical point of view. I'm sorry if I overstepped. Not my intention.
I was told they don't work to detect 3D and I believe you. I was just thinking of theory. I never said that those systems were built. It's something I like to do. To build hypothetical scenarios and try to evaluate their feasibility. It's a hobby. I was aware of bystatic Radars but I wasn't aware that pulse modulation was already used and i never suggested using just one transmitter receiver to do so. It shouldn't have come off that way.
I never got around to talk to my former teacher as i didn't happen to run into him. However, he is a theoretical physicist so that's always in the theory realm. I don't pretend that me or him know more about the technicalities of build such a system then anyone who is a pro in the area. Theory however is ahead of practice however and another matter all together.
I'll stop arguing this subject as per your request and will develop my brain teasers in peace and quiet
I don't have a problem at all with debating technical issues (within the opsec constraints of what can be discussed in an open forum) , but it was the way it was coming across, that may be one of the frailties of debating across the internet when intent and tone are not easy to always determineAgain, I'm talking from a purely theoretical point of view. I'm sorry if I overstepped. Not my intention.
I was told they don't work to detect 3D and I believe you. I was just thinking of theory. I never said that those systems were built. It's something I like to do. To build hypothetical scenarios and try to evaluate their feasibility. It's a hobby. I was aware of bystatic Radars but I wasn't aware that pulse modulation was already used and i never suggested using just one transmitter receiver to do so. It shouldn't have come off that way.
I never got around to talk to my former teacher as i didn't happen to run into him. However, he is a theoretical physicist so that's always in the theory realm. I don't pretend that me or him know more about the technicalities of build such a system then anyone who is a pro in the area. Theory however is ahead of practice however and another matter all together.
I'll stop arguing this subject as per your request and will develop my brain teasers in peace and quiet
by all means discuss, but it might be worth your while to check your package before you post just in case it can come across adversely