Russia installed a radio-jammer that interferes with the signals that direct GPS-guided munitions. Last week, Ukraine blew it up ... with a GPS-guided bomb.
Are you just using ChatGPT, or another LLM, to string words and concepts together?
Kinda sounds like you are, at least for significant sections of your responses.
Some parts are just confusing as to why even include them, unless you actually have no idea what they mean, or why they’re not contextually relevant, for example:
GSM? Nope, not a factor…
PCIE - why specify v4?
But, whatever, I’m not a Raytheon engineer. Doesn’t matter if you convice me (you haven’t, but doesn’t matter).
Edit: also, FWIW, Those constraints aren’t artificial. They’re each specific to what you’re suggesting.
Old American tech, retrofitted and repurposed with brand new tech, and then integrated with, and fired from, old Soviet tech.
There is a reason that NATO was only able to integrate fire control to the HARM for the SU’s, and not all of its cockpit control features and capabilities. Which is why they have to preprogrammed for each sortie…
It makes sense that somebody who thinks radar “radiation” is different from radiowaves can’t follow point-by-point electronics engineering explanations and design engineering considerations so thinks they must be the product of ChatGPT.
Should’ve dropped this conversation after the comment where you explained radar “radiation” as special.
Not special, just a lot more power being fed through it vs other battlefield RF.
I followed, but it was just dumb. Way too many words to explain, or justify, a functionally unsound idea: converting HARM into a new missle, with a different purpose (Counter-EW vs SEAD).
But okay, you’re cleary an ubermensch, go to Raytheon, or start a new company. I’m sure you’ll get boatloads of investors.
Are you just using ChatGPT, or another LLM, to string words and concepts together?
Kinda sounds like you are, at least for significant sections of your responses.
Some parts are just confusing as to why even include them, unless you actually have no idea what they mean, or why they’re not contextually relevant, for example:
But, whatever, I’m not a Raytheon engineer. Doesn’t matter if you convice me (you haven’t, but doesn’t matter).
Edit: also, FWIW, Those constraints aren’t artificial. They’re each specific to what you’re suggesting.
Old American tech, retrofitted and repurposed with brand new tech, and then integrated with, and fired from, old Soviet tech.
There is a reason that NATO was only able to integrate fire control to the HARM for the SU’s, and not all of its cockpit control features and capabilities. Which is why they have to preprogrammed for each sortie…
It makes sense that somebody who thinks radar “radiation” is different from radiowaves can’t follow point-by-point electronics engineering explanations and design engineering considerations so thinks they must be the product of ChatGPT.
Should’ve dropped this conversation after the comment where you explained radar “radiation” as special.
Thanks for the lesson.
Not special, just a lot more power being fed through it vs other battlefield RF.
I followed, but it was just dumb. Way too many words to explain, or justify, a functionally unsound idea: converting HARM into a new missle, with a different purpose (Counter-EW vs SEAD).
But okay, you’re cleary an ubermensch, go to Raytheon, or start a new company. I’m sure you’ll get boatloads of investors.