<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Site Survey on Counter UAV Radar — Low-Altitude Surveillance Radar</title>
    <link>https://www.counteruavradar.com/tags/site-survey/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Site Survey on Counter UAV Radar — Low-Altitude Surveillance Radar</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0800</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.counteruavradar.com/tags/site-survey/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>What Makes an RF Bearing Trustworthy in Real Sites?</title>
      <link>https://www.counteruavradar.com/knowledge-base/what-makes-an-rf-bearing-trustworthy-in-real-sites/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.counteruavradar.com/knowledge-base/what-makes-an-rf-bearing-trustworthy-in-real-sites/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;An RF bearing becomes trustworthy when operators can treat it as evidence rather than as a hint. That does not happen because a brochure promises a small angle error. It happens because the bearing is repeatable, physically plausible, calibration-aware, and validated in the actual site where it will be used.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That distinction matters in low-altitude security because many teams still buy direction finding as if bearing accuracy were a fixed property of the sensor alone. In practice, the same DF hardware can perform very differently from one site to another, and even from one sector of the same site to another, simply because the propagation environment, calibration condition, or signal geometry changed.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
