From: Ryan Gill (rmgill@mindspring.com)
Date: Tue Aug 03 2004 - 08:06:44 PDT
At 10:50 AM -0400 8/3/04, Steve Grammont wrote:
>Well, the drug cover concern is the first explanation that I've heard
>that sounds even remotely rational.
>
>I think what Joe was told is a bunch of bunk :-) Sounds like someone at
>DRMO didn't know why he was destroying the netting so he came up with his
>own reason. I can't even begin to imagine how something that is supposed
>to not draw the attention of radar (absorb/scatter signal, not reflect it
>back) could possibly affect anything. Think about it... if the netting
>screwed with aircraft radar, then it would be detectable by the radar
>operator. Said operator would then be able to say "gee, someone has some
>netting down there. Let's drop a bomb on it and find out what it is".
What the netting does is helps the object appear as part of the
ground clutter vs appearing as a distinct object in the ground
clutter. Exactly how it could be used to conceal a field from radar
(when it's already part of the ground clutter) is beyond me. Further,
the drug dealers can still get camo net or just make it.
-- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- - Data Center Operations Group - - http://web.turner.com/data_center/ - ---------------------------------------------------------------- - Ryan Montieth Gill One CNN Center SE0813 E - - Internet Technologies -- Data Center Operations Manager - - Hours 11am - 7pm Mon - Fri (8Sdc, 10Sdc IT@3Ndc) - - Cellular: 404-545-6205 e-mail: Ryan.Gill@cnn.com - - Office: 404-588-6191 - ---------------------------------------------------------------- - Emergency Power-off != Door release! - ----------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:34:18 PDT