Hacker News Reader

Comment by squarefoot | Hacker News Reader

Brute force wide band jamming would be easy too and would make hopping ineffective. Unless drones use self tuning antennas to overcome losses, they can't hop too far away from the antenna resonance frequency, which makes jammers job easier.

View on HN

Jamming broadband is a lot more energy expense than frequency hopping. Orders of magnitude.

But the jammer can be plugged in to the grid or a diesel generator. Being on the ground without flight requirements grants access to such resources.

But such a jammer is expensive and a magnet for HARMs that only need that RF signature as guidance.

Which is a completely unrelated to what we were talking about.

How is SEAD unrelated to drone warfare? Unless you believe anti radiation missiles/drones can't target jammers.

The topic was energy expense of wideband vs narrowband jamming.

Both can be used for targeting.

Yes. That makes it fat, expensive and vulnerable target. There are videos of them being blown up regularly.

Which is a completely unrelated to what we were talking about.

How come? It plainly negates the "easy" part. It's not easy at all, you need to scale your signal path to the magnitude of power. I.e. the expensive part.

I mean, drones trailing fiber optic cables are widely documented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_optic_drone

So I’m pretty sure avoiding jamming by a military adversary is not trivial, even with frequency hopping and suchlike.

FPV drones in the Russian war are generally pretty dumb devices, there's usually no frequency hopping involved to begin with. They have a lot more in common with baby monitors than with modern military comms.

Lol, even baseline DJI drone chipsets from a decade ago do frequency hopping. Many baby monitors probably do too.

You can literally see the analog video links in countless thousands of published recordings. Nobody really does the hopping with analog video.

From early in the war, sure.

True, but they can't use directional antennas nor lots of power, and once they're far enough from the transmitter inverse square law does the rest. Ground stations always have an advantage because of higher gain antennas and more power available.

So what? It's not the airborne platform with limited energy and an explosive payload that needs to do the jamming, it's the ground-based targets.

However, as pointed out elsewhere in the thread a lot of these jamming arguments are academic because drones are either tethered with a fiberoptic cable and/or navigating autonomously.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com