Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: hangfire@*****.com (Hangfire)
Subject: Tracking (was: Cyber for Soldiers (was: Std. equipment for
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 21:56:40 +0000
That is again dependent on jamming... if I saw a bunch of drones
hovering in the sky I'd shout active jamming faster than you can say
"what's happened to my signal?" and down goes that fancy network....
either that or just shoot em out of the sky with AA flak fire... I'm
pretty certain they couldn't hack that either way sounds like a really
bad idea to me... and we can't even begin to discount someone maybe
compromising one of the drones (I mean they ARE on a remote network
right?) and finding everryone and compromisng the whole net and then
you've jsut lit everyone up for the enemy... sounds like a lousy idea
and breaks about 30 years of EMCON doctrine in one go
Message no. 2
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Tracking (was: Cyber for Soldiers (was: Std. equipment for
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 15:04:54 -0700
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 13:39:16 -0800 (PST), Jan Jaap van Poelgeest
<jjvanp@*****.com> wrote:
> I imagine problems of transmissions being triangulated
> upon could be solved by having relatively weak
> broadcasting devices that are either amplified by a
> nearby strong relay, or passed on by a network of
> similarly weak drone relays spread throughout an area.
> This cuts down on the radio visibility of a force and
> makes it far less likely that actual forces, rather
> than the communications network, will be targeted.

Except that weak signals can be easily jammed.

--
-Graht
Message no. 3
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: Tracking (was: Cyber for Soldiers (was: Std. equipment for
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:28:23 -0800 (PST)
The drones I am talking about would be relatively tiny
things; very difficult to target using any kind of
automatic means. This besides the fact that, if
mobile, they could actively try to remain within
cover. Alternatively they could be little pods that
are strewn about by advancing forces, or even
air-dropped into an area.

The issue of weak signals being jammed: if multiple
drones have the capability to receive a signal the
resulting redundancy requires that the jamming be very
succesful indeed (and I'd say anything *that*
succesful at jamming could easily be taken out as it'd
be broadcasting its position like a hot beacon of
noise and would therefore be useless on the battlefield).



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
Message no. 4
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Tracking (was: Cyber for Soldiers (was: Std. equipment for
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 15:59:32 -0700
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:28:23 -0800 (PST), Jan Jaap van Poelgeest
<jjvanp@*****.com> wrote:
>
> The issue of weak signals being jammed: if multiple
> drones have the capability to receive a signal the
> resulting redundancy requires that the jamming be very
> succesful indeed (and I'd say anything *that*
> succesful at jamming could easily be taken out as it'd
> be broadcasting its position like a hot beacon of
> noise and would therefore be useless on the battlefield).

Which is why jamming is done from things like AWACs, which have a ton
of ECM and ECCM, and a fighter escort.

--
-Graht
Message no. 5
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Tracking (was: Cyber for Soldiers (was: Std. equipment for
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:04:30 +0100
According to Jan Jaap van Poelgeest, on Monday 01 November 2004 22:39 the
word on the street was...

> relatively weak
> broadcasting devices that are either amplified by a
> nearby strong relay, or passed on by a network of
> similarly weak drone relays spread throughout an area.
> This cuts down on the radio visibility of a force and
> makes it far less likely that actual forces, rather
> than the communications network, will be targeted.

So what happens if someone takes out the relay hub? If it's a powerful
transmitter, it's sitting there asking for an anti-radiation missile to
come through its roof, and once that happens all its child units can only
talk to each other. And this will get your ass kicked, because pretty much
nobody will know what anyone else is doing or where they are.

Weak drone relays might have more survivability, but because in your vision
they're also carrying only short-ranged transmitters the network would
still be vulnerably if you shoot out a few in the right places (such as
chokepoints). Not to mention that weak transmitters are easier to jam by
simply flooding the airwaves with white noise.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Ik ben het beu
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 6
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Tracking (was: Cyber for Soldiers (was: Std. equipment for
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:08:52 +0100
According to Jan Jaap van Poelgeest, on Monday 01 November 2004 23:28 the
word on the street was...

> The drones I am talking about would be relatively tiny
> things; very difficult to target using any kind of
> automatic means.

1980s anti-aircraft radars could already track birds in flight; directing
AA fire against them would be easy too by simply using time-fuzed HE
rounds (that's 1930s tech) or proximity-fuxed ones (1940s tech). Remember
that you don't need a direct hit, especially against Body 0 airborne
drones if you're firing HE.

> The issue of weak signals being jammed: if multiple
> drones have the capability to receive a signal the
> resulting redundancy requires that the jamming be very
> succesful indeed

Or you place your jammers fairly close to the original transmitter, and
drown that out. For examply by using an expendable drone of your own :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Ik ben het beu
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 7
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Tracking (was: Cyber for Soldiers (was: Std. equipment for
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:18:22 -0800 (PST)
> chokepoints). Not to mention that weak transmitters are easier to
> jam by simply flooding the airwaves with white noise.

Full spectrum jamming means you can't talk to your own troops either.
Not often an ideal situation. And anything less than full spectrum
jamming is all in a day's work for a rigger to work around. It will
be no more of a headache than any other form of electronic warfare.
Everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that dealing with jamming,
false signals, and the like is ~~what riggers do~~. Battle fields of
2060 are going to be a hideous cacophany of electronic/radio chatter.
BattleTac networks, drone networks, and combinations there of... all
talking away... trying to keep their own comms open while jamming and
confusing the enemy's comms. It is CommInt expanded exponentially,
but the principles remain the same. There will always be a race to
harden your own signals, while compromising the enemy's. Soldiers in
the field will always use their radios, but they will also always be
trained for those times when they have to cope without. It does not
matter if those radios are a walky-talky or a full simsense BattleTac
link.

Full spectrum jamming makes your own troops as vulnerable as the
enemy's... and will be used sparingly. Most electronic warefare will
be more subtle. And every army will have whole manuals of tactics
for integrating and combatting it.

As to cyber for soldiers...

Every punk street ganger in SR1 seemed to have a smartlink, wired
reflexes, and cyberspurs. Probably harvested out of deceased,
chip-head, desert war vets and taken to the nearest street doc.
;) Why would the military not take advantage of the same tech every
corp, gang, and syndicate does? Sure, not every buck private out of
basic will be chromed. But, I'd bet that most long time servicemen
and women have one or two pieces of chrome installed. It is an edge.
It would be an option. It would almost be a must for special
forces, if they were going to keep up with all the various missions
they would face (anti-corp, anti-runner, anti-merc, etc). I don't
believe the military would typically use the higher grades of cyber.
Nor do I believe they would use a lot of bioware. But I think it is
ludicrous to say that the military would not grab some of the basic
augmentations available and boost the effectiveness of their fighting
force. Cyber in Shadowrun is portrayed as fairly reliable. It is
not portrayed as constantly 'breaking down', or as being particularly
vulnerable to tampering. It seems ideal for military purposes.

======Korishinzo
--insert sig of choice



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
Message no. 8
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Tracking (was: Cyber for Soldiers (was: Std. equipment for
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 19:45:33 +0100
According to Ice Heart, on Tuesday 02 November 2004 18:18 the word on the
street was...

> > chokepoints). Not to mention that weak transmitters are easier to
> > jam by simply flooding the airwaves with white noise.
>
> Full spectrum jamming means you can't talk to your own troops either.

Ah, but if the radio eggs have such low power, you can (probably -- I'm no
expert) jam them in such a way that your own, more powerful, radios will
still get their signal through. The jammer only needs to be powerful
enough to block the radio eggs, after all, not _all_ comms. (Yes, I am
aware that this means the enemy can then easily switch back to their
normal radio sets as well, but it does counter whatever good reason they
had for adopting the eggs in the first place.)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Ik ben het beu
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 9
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: Tracking (was: Cyber for Soldiers (was: Std. equipment for
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:34:47 -0800 (PST)
> comms. (Yes, I am
> aware that this means the enemy can then easily
> switch back to their
> normal radio sets as well, but it does counter
> whatever good reason they
> had for adopting the eggs in the first place.)

Eggs = stealth. These are invisible radio eggs that
signal doom. This is their main advantage; they will
make any force that utilises them far more difficult
to localise. Once the opponent's jamming equipment
gets going the SOP might be to have ECCM and stronger
signal relays set up already. Essentially this
technology seems like a possible way to hide the size
of an incursion force.

Cheers,

Jan Jaap



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Tracking (was: Cyber for Soldiers (was: Std. equipment for, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!