The deception methods that were applied were truly remarkable, they used decoy tanks and sent people out to imprint fake tank tracks into fields.
They also understood IR and would shield real troops while leaving coal to burn in empty pillboxes and bunkers
There was also the shoot down of the F-117A by what was effectively a rag-tag group of AA who planned the operation and pulled it off
A lot of what was learned in the earlier Bosnia campaign was applied later in '99 - not just the use of decoys and microwaves, but using spotters to track the regular flight paths of incoming fighters and intermittently switching radar off and on (this is how Scott O'Grady was shot down in his F16)
Gen. Wesley Clark was a huge advocate of the doctrine that you could win wars with air power alone and never have to sacrifice ground troops - that thinking changed after '99
[0] note that I in no way condone the overall goal of what took place there and those same family members would be the first to tell you it was horrific
Delusions about winning wars with only air power are very close to a century old now. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_Mafia ) But they seem hugely appealing to parts of human psychology - so "proved horribly wrong, yet again" doesn't do much to cure them.
That said - Gen. Clark was a career Army officer, not Air Force. And "we don't need an army to win" ideas have, ah, limited appeal to career Army folks. My read is that he was a good officer, stuck under a political leader (Pres. Bill Clinton) extremely reluctant to commit ground forces. Clark knew not to contradict his boss, and did what he could within the imposed constraints.
It puts success entirely in the hands of the best funded. You can simply simulate the war and arrive at the outcome.
So as a member of the “losing” side, how do you respond? You only have one choice to win: escalate. Escalate to terrorism, NBC weapons, etc.
Both sides have to bleed in a fair-ish fight to keep wars roughly conventional.
Microwave ovens frequency is 2.45GHz with a narrow spectrum because microwave ovens are under strict RF regulation, like anything that is an intentional or unintentional radiator.
Microwave oven magnetron's power is miserable compared with any AAD radar. Plus, microwave oven is not designed to emit RF energy when it's opened. So, emitted power will be even less.
https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/1254/2017/01/tang264.pdf
The mesh of the door can be simply cut out, or the interlock microswitches pressed down with dowels or tape.
The article you linked shows that there’s frequency drift over time with a microwave, and that different magnetrons have different spectrum profiles.
ECM gear in US warplanes can classify a system based off its emissions and people think they're fooled by a microwave oven?
People often say "nuke" when referring to using a microwave.
I tried growing marijuana with CFL lights in my dorm room. When the cops showed up, I ate the biggest of the 3 plants, a few inches tall, right in front of them.
S band is used for target acquisition a whole lot.
> and are not modulated in any way resembling a missile fire control system
Yup, but when you're deciding whether or not to launch a HARM it's better safe than sorry. In turn, asymmetries accrue.
Indeed, you can't really afford to ignore the microwave oven S-band emitter, because you could use even a literal microwave oven for illumination with passive radar techniques for target acquisition pretty well.
Point being - even if the emissions doesn't match anything you have on record (except possibly a microwave) - would you risk a $100M airplane on it being a decoy?
