Jump to content

Talk:Jindalee Operational Radar Network

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tidy up

[edit]

I've just made significant edits to the article. I want to let them sit for a while before continuing. If I have ruined something you cherish, or plan to, please speak up. I am concerned about the whole article's clarity and reference quality, which draws very heavily on speculative media stories and old reports. My next changes will be: 1. Improve referencing regarding range. I've stuck with 4000km as it appears to be the specification/designed range, per references. But other references say 3000km from the antenna. Will need to look deeper into refs. 2. Halve the length of information on antennas. Summarise lists, and reduce redundant data. Merge operational data into the operational section. 3. Merge costing information, possibly add a table. Remove costings mentioned multiple times. Possibly merge with history. 4. Make the history section less confusing, aiming to conserve all content. 5. Improve in text linking to relevant pages, such as [ionosphere]

Millionmice (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


earlier comments

[edit]

It's interesting to note that the IP address 203.14.96.53 belongs to RLM Group, the company that built Jindalee. I wonder why they, or their client, don't want coordinates in a Wikipedia article?

Results of query:

IP address: 203.14.96.53
Reverse DNS: srv000.rlmgroup.com.au.
Reverse DNS authenticity: [Verified]
ASN: 1221
ASN Name: ASN-TELSTRA (Telstra Pty Ltd)
IP range connectivity: 1
Registrar (per ASN): APNIC
Country (per IP registrar): AU [Australia]
Country Currency: AUD [Australia Dollars]
Country IP Range: 203.14.64.0 to 203.14.127.255
Country fraud profile: Normal
City (per outside source): Burwood, New South Wales
Country (per outside source): AU [Australia]
Private (internal) IP? No
IP address registrar: whois.apnic.net
Known Proxy? No
Link for WHOIS: 203.14.96.53
What do you think? It's pretty bloody obvious given the strategic importance of such a system! Wikiphyte 15:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. All the facts in the article are from freely available publications. There are no secrets in the article. One thing about the Department of Defence is that they do security properly. They recognise that securing data properly takes time and money so one of their mantras is "do not over classify". Over classification simply overloads the system and reduces the security of the real secrets. Compare this with the paranoia in a typical company, where everything is a secret and consequently every piece of information gets the same low level of security. To me it's the work of a weekend warrior from RLM who took matters into his own hands. John Dalton 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you work for the Department of Defence? Are you really sure that they "do security properly"? Wikiphyte 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It being a large organisation, maybe I have a little too much faith in the Department of Defence. I'll restate my position: parts of the Department know how to do security properly while other parts are incompetent. Question is which part is currently handling the Jindalee project? The part that handled the contracting seems to be the latter, but the part that developed the technology would seem to be smart and fall into the category of knowing security. John Dalton 04:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Just out of interest, what parts of Defence do you think are incompetent? Wikiphyte 09:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the co-ordinates are cited to a public website it seems perfectly safe to assume that this isn't classified information. The Defence Annual Report is always worth a read to see the suprising level of detail on operations and military readiness which is publicaly available. Publically available Australian National Audit Office Reports on Defence also go into great detail. --Nick Dowling 08:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Defence Term for "isn't classified" is UNRESTRICTED, but yeah you maybe right. Wikiphyte 09:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term is actually unclassified. WizRd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.20.202 (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. John Dalton (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I'm not too well up on the syntax for references, but there's a broken link (gone 404) in citation #4. http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm is unavailable, but it's on the Wayback Machine at http://web.archive.org/web/20071116065249/http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm - if someone can check over my edit and see that it's in proper syntax, it'd be much appreciated! Rosuav (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capability questioned

[edit]

Perhaps some of this information http://www.smh.com.au/national/border-fiasco-as-boats-go-undetected-20110702-1gwaz.html should be included. It questions the capability and whether "JORN [is] operational on a day-to-day basis" 122.106.177.130 (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They mentioned "the $1.8 billion Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) has not picked up any of the boats that have carried thousands of people to Christmas Island and Ashmore Reef." in the article. Does anybody know if there is another radar (civilian or not) on the Christmas Island itself? If the answer is yes, then what is the radar range? I am asking because the MH370 during his proposed trajectory during 8th of March 2014 should pass quite near Christmas island. KOT-TOK (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of Plagiarism

[edit]

It appears that the book "The Armed Forces: Instrument of Peace, Strength, Development and Prosperity", by Joseph Babatunde Fagoyinbo, has copied slabs of text from this article, without attribution. In support of this, I offer the following evidence:

  • The book was published on May 28, 2013 amazon, and the Wikipedisa history for this article shows that I wrote the words in this article during 2006, 7 years before the publication of the book.
  • My wikipedia article is extensively referenced back to primary sources. The book has no significant references for this text.

In light of this evidence, I ask that anyone who removed my words from this article, in response to the cut/paste tag, restore the words they removed. Thanks. John Dalton (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Hmm. I think I put the copy/paste tag in the article in the first place. Will have a look through the history and see if its been restored yet. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Okay, I think Pdfpdf is the editor who restated the text... although I believe the copy-paste tag was removed by another editor beforehand. Not one hundred percent certain unfortunately.
  3. I do regret adding the tag in light of the book postdating your original edits. Ill have to be more careful in future. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever I did was not intended to make anyone's life more difficult - believe-it-or-not, I was trying to improve the situation. If there is something I need to do to improve the situation, please advise - I'm sure I'd be happy to do so. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight to minority conspiracy theory

[edit]

The section "Operation and uses" consists of 58% (by word count) discussion concerning why the system should have detected MH370 but didn't. This is very disproportionate, certainly. But the sources for the controversial content are the opinions of a single journalist and the easily refuted reasoning and blatant falsehoods described in a letter to politicians from an "aviation expert" (I.e., the trajectory proposed by the Inmarsat data was never inbound toward Australian territory) published in ibitimes.co(.uk and .au), a source whose reputability I seriously question. (Like the questioned material in this article, ibitimes is full of spelling and grammar errors, and doesn't appear to be edited.) The place for these conspiracy theories is Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories, not here. I am therefore removing this content. Let's keep this article about JORN. Dcs002 (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Various Australian experts have noted that it's not surprising that JORN didn't spot the aircraft given the way it works - it can only focus on certain areas at a given time, and there was no reason for it to have been looking in the middle of the Indian Ocean during the relevant period. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I support this removal as well, per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Anotherclown (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why didn't you provide sources about these "Various Australian experts have noted that it's not surprising that JORN didn't spot" and official release from JORN team or Australian AAD or any official? Please, put these notes in text with remark "JORN didn't spot MH370 because..." and then I will agree with that decision! 109.252.29.23 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am placing back the shorter version of the text until any info from "various Australian experts" or official info from JORN operation authority will be placed here. (I mean we need any official explanation about the reasons why JORN didn't spot any sign of big commercial jetliner model Boeing 777-200ER of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370). If one find any link to the info with explanation from authority and put it here then one can delete my text. Othervise it's just censorship. KOT-TOK (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That section contains original research / synthesis citing several sources to make it appear heavily sourced when in fact the sources do not make any statements regarding JORN. You can't say look at a wikipedia picture and compare it with a map on this other link. That's synthesis. You need a reliable source that draws that conclusion. All that's there now is a conspiracy theory. OTH radar is completely different from normal conventional search radars, we need reliable sources, not conspiracy theories for that section. The OR/SYN needs to be removed. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about its use for mind control over the massess? Why isn't this mentioned? Well, I guess it's obvious ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ IVORK Discuss 21:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jindalee Operational Radar Network. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jindalee Operational Radar Network. 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:

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) 21:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jindalee Operational Radar Network. 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:

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) 21:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name: Jindalee

[edit]

Any story to why it’s called Jindalee?

(I thought Jindalee [for this] was a place).

MBG02 (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MBG02: This webpage says "The name Jindalee – an indigenous word for bare bones – was apparently first applied in 1972, a reflection of the lean project which researchers were undertaking. There are suburbs called Jindalee in Brisbane and Perth, where the name is said to mean bare hills, while the vast JORN antenna arrays stretching across the red dirt landscape are vaguely reminiscent of the skeleton of some enormous ancient reptile." DH85868993 (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Objection

[edit]

2406:3400:31b:eea0:145b:b8d2:cf52:729a added this text following "As JORN uses the Doppler principle to detect objects, it cannot detect objects moving at a tangent to the system, or objects moving at a similar speed to their surroundings":

Objection: this seems to contradict the capability - a target moving at a tangent/on a constant radius, will (i) generate a return with a constant offset frequency, but (ii) will cross virtual beam "fingers" and, therefore, (iii) can be identified as a moving object, and (iv) can be assigned a track.

I transferred it here. DH85868993 (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd have to read the source cited to confirm that, since regardless of what a doppler radar system can theoretically detect, there will certainly be practical limitations to what it actually does. Sadly, the link for the source cited no longer works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jindalee_Operational_Radar_Network&oldid=1252174826"