Talk:Electronic countermeasure

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electronic countermeasure article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Technology C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Untitled

Page reverted due to the fact that a user had edited to make it discuss a completely different type of electronic warfare. Cap'n Refsmmat 00:05, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

The Sound Analogy

Is it appropriate to use the extended analogy to sound waves in this article? In addition, I think it needs to be clairified that radar uses raido waves and not sound waves.

Incomplete definition?

The definition provided is "any sort of electronic or electrical device..." but flares and chaff are mentioned in the next few paragraphs, which fit neither definition. Do we need to expand the definition or delete the mention of flares and chaff? -Toptomcat 17:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are electronic countermeasures, so removing the mention of flares and chaff would be the best thing to do. Cap'n Refsmmat 22:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Perspective

The article only looks at ECM from a Western perspective. Specifically, Soviet / Russian and Chinese technology is barely mentioned or not mentioned at all. An expansion on Eastern-bloc historic and modern-day perspectives on ECM would be useful, and integration of non-US examples, as well as clarification on the source countries of existing examples. Suntzu3500 (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is western oriented, but the story is much the same wherever you go. More examples from more diverse sources would improve the article, but the message would be very similar.Petebutt (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft ECM

-Added a mention of the alternative to EW aircraft (jamming pods on fighters).

-Rewrote the short description, with an appropriate reference, of the next generation jammer to read less like an advertisement (wide listening solid angles and focused jamming are not new features).

-Removed the nonsense about PREW, which is an arrangement of jammers, using synthetic aperture radar (the reference provided did not mention SAR once). The only link between the two is an application by General Dynamics to the PREW concept describing the use of a SAR for ground imaging.

-Removed the few lines about the Cognitive Jammer which, as of 2012, remains a vague appeal by an US governmental institution to the electronics industry to extremely generally inquire about what is currently feasible in the proportion of processing realized by software only. Despite statistically selecting frequency bands to jam, it uses no fundamentally new techniques and certainly has no reason to be a separate part of the article.82.249.48.246 (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electronic countermeasure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226192655/http://www.spectrumsignal.com/publications/Electronic_Counter_Measures.pdf to http://www.spectrumsignal.com/publications/Electronic_Counter_Measures.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]