Message posted by Tom on November 13, 2001 at 18:38:12 PST:
I'm always more than a bit suspicious of folks who spill That said, a couple things. First, never heard of Lincoln Labs being involved there. Second, this strikes me as a nonsensical statement: "The so-called "Quick-Kill" radar (operated by Lincoln Lab) Unless things have changed recently, EG&G handled all the Remember that the term "Quick Kill" first appeared in the Tom
their guts so easily and publicly on Groom specifics.
Mr. Wolfbane could be quite legit, and if what he's saying
is correct, I'd bet he'll be receiving a security visit
soon.
Could be, but never heard of it.
is of the network radar system (there are 3 Quick Kill
sites), and these are said to be better than bi-static
type for detecting and tracking low RCS vehicles."
radar there. My understanding is that "Quick Kill" sites
merely had the ability to shut off rapidly. As for being
superior to bistatic radars, that's unlikely. With bistatic
radar, the transmitter and receiver are in two different
places, maybe many miles apart. With a collection of
receivers (and enough computer horsepower), a bistatic
system can see the reflections off stealth aircraft, or
the electromagnetic "holes" they create in the sky.
circa mid-80's Cammodude manual, so they've been around
a while. Old tech. Stealth-busting bistatic radars are
likely the way to see stealth (and probably highly
classified as a result). So I'm not inclined to give
much weight to anyone who tells me that a Quick-Kill radar
is superior to bistatic.
In Reply to: Re: Lincoln Lab at Groom posted by wolfbane on November 13, 2001 at 14:01:23 PST:
Replies: