Air Force VS Air Defense

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 737
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 16:00

basher54321 wrote:
wewuzkangz wrote:.....Because there are not too many people that have different opinions and to confirm that you can check how many people respond or look at what i post with different opinions.


Example - wewuzkangz is of the opinion that all radars are made of Marshmallows and the pilot eats them after 12 minutes - he will prove this by posting walls of BS in incomprehensible pidgin English.

:lmao:


Lol!!!

So sad....but so true!
Offline

wewuzkangz

Banned

  • Posts: 93
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 21:08

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 18:00

@ Eloise

Yup lets ignore the fact that I already told you 100 times that degradation of radar signals over a distance exceed jammer signals. Because your comprehension is so outstanding that I have to point out my quotes with yours.

speaking of comprehenstion i want you to finish the entire quote where I repreatedly pointed out what you said compared to what I said.

"you don't understand even basic physics and you don't even try to read, just want every number to be spoon feed to you and if you don't like it" You sound like you dont understand what you post or hell even half the time where I have to point what you said and compare it to what I said.

"1) they do not work at the same frequency
2) GPS jammer doesnot actually jam the GPS satellite, they jam the GPS receiver on bombs and missiles. You do not jam a transmitter." 1)Explain how they dont work in the same frequency?
2)http://theconversation.com/how-syria-is-becoming-a-test-bed-for-high-tech-weapons-of-electronic-warfare-48779 yes its talking about jamming receivers( please start reading more tired of the disorientation.)

"Nope, not the same in any shape or form" please state my entire quotes.

"s i ****** expected, you only read information that convenient for you and ignores all the rest. You want to know why? come here https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... ermeasure/ and read everything, iam not wasting time explain the same thing over and over and over again" Please state my entire quotes you look like your having a mental breakdown.

"From 12 km aways, F-117 have no RWR to retaliate" Please state entire quote not what I used a reference point. You seem like you are constantly trying to switch the subject now.

"the difference is in their shape, radiowave interact differently with a different shape" Yes I think shapes are the reason to having low cross sections.(even i have said this earlier but your comprehensions is always off the roof) But please state my entire quote.

"F-35 was reported by gen Hostage to have smaller RCS than F-22" Thanks for the update even though I was referring to constant posts and sources like global security.

"But in this case only the VHF radar will see the stealth target. The X band radar will not. " I think your too embarassed to admit your royal screw up. I will re-quote the article, ""It retains the basic advantages of VHF: NNIRT says that the Chinese DF-15 short-range ballistic missile has a 0.002 m2 RCS in X-band, but is 0.6 m2 in VHF. The principle behind Nebo-M is the fusion of data from the three radars to create a robust kill chain.".........There ya go sensor fusion of 3 radars.......Now here is a pop quiz if sensor fusion of 2 different sensors happen will they work individually?

"and they will know it is from certain airbase as long as it pop up from some specific direction, aircraft doesnot appear out of thin air." Is italy a specific location or a direction? There is legitly a screen showing a moving aerial target.

"Because deep down you know that your act doesn't work. " Nope its amusing watching statements that have alot of irony to them.

"If they are acting like you then it certainly will." Yes I fail to see how I relate to a guy saying a nuclear confrontation is done by a small conflict."

"The picture i gave you have a ****** equation in it, how ****** hard is it to put number in the calculator and try for yourself ?
I even gave you this link http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm where you can literally put number in and click compute :doh:
Click on the link above, try put 50 meters for both target height and radar height => radar horizon = 58323 meters or 58 km
Now try put 100 km for target height while radar height is still 50 meters => radar horizon now = 1333 km
Is that enough now ? or you still can't do basic maths ?" Congrats you have finally became useful now. But there is 1 slight problem is which air defense are you trying to disapprove? because i dont recall the s-500 or nebo having a 100km height lol? Which sort of proves why did you start this charade if nothing was going to be accomplished in the 1st place only to lead back that the s-500 or Nebo-m is still not entirely limited in their ranges?

" you should work on your basic maths and reading skills." Bet you did not understand half of what i posted."

"I asked for manufacturer claims, such as a brochure like the one from NIIP that i gave you earlier, not some tabloid links and article of people who don't understand squat about physic" Uralvagonzavod officials were the 1st tell of these reports to russian reports which trinkled down to US reports.

"If you think the tiny active hard kill protection radar on T-14 can have longer range then no one can help you, you are simply too delusional" Hehehe someones mad about accomplishments of others

"You mean another topic where you don't understand more than half of what you posted and babbling about 3D radar again" Well there is no point anyways bringing it up I guess because i forget you comprehension skills.

"Only when it shows Russia equipment with higher performance and satisfy your confirmatory bias. Just admit it, your Russian stronk fanboi attitude is too strong for you to hide" So I was stating equipment with what you refer to as higher performances. Watchout i think you are becoming a russian fan boy yourself lol. Your making the red scare look cute.

"More trash post doesnot equal more lively." You love my trash post as much as everyone else that responds to it.

Yes it does the math for me and the results end up being in my favor for its accomplishments wont burden its tasks of what it can reach

Do you know what altitude satellite orbit at ? now what altitude does sea skimming missiles fly at ? So what do altitudes have to do with anything? Are you talking about the LEO or MEO's accuracy of tracking sea skimming missiles or what?

Here we go again, as soon as you found something that satisfy your inner Russia fanboy then you won't care anymore. You don't even try to understand the basics principles. You know what, here is the little something to trigger your fanboy brain again. Kolchuga cannot distinguish between MALD-J and aircraft because radar reflection, Jamming signal, radar signal, datalinks are all radiowave." BWAHAHAHA says the person that thinks that modern IADS have no means of protection against decoys. Here is a specification: Target identification, however, is more complex and is based on the measurement of different parameters of the transmitted signal—such as its frequency, bandwidth, pulse width, pulse repetition interval, etc. Kolchuga has been reported to use around forty different parameters when identifying a target. These parameters are compared to a database in order to identify both the type of emitter and, in some cases, even the specific piece of equipment (by identifying the unique signature or "fingerprint" that most transmitters have, due to the variations and tolerances in individual components). The database within Kolchuga is said to have the capacity to store around three hundred different types of emitter and up to five hundred specific signatures for each type.

"It is irrelevance, the picture is meant to show you how jamming get better if RCS get smaller. well nice picture can you put it into use of it attacking an air defense network?
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2484
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 20:39

A- early warning radars are large, immobile, and among the first targets that will be destroyed.
B- SAMs and associated systems are expensive, so the magazine depth is finite.
C- SAMs have to reload at some point.
D- MALD/MALD-J are inexpensive (and can be employed in greater numbers, than available SAMs) and will force an opponent to waste valuable missiles.
E- no enemy fire control radars can provide a firing solution against a VLO fighter, at a greater range than they can be engaged by VLO fighters.
F- SDB/SDB II are inexpensive, and are able to saturate SAM sites.
G- JSOW-ER/JASSM-ER are VLO and provide little advanced warning.
H- AARGM/AARGM-ER holds any threat emitters in danger
I- any SEAD/DEAD mission would involve decoys, stand off/stand in jamming, electronic attack against emitters, introducing malware/viruses into air defense networks
J- VLO aircraft and munitions would hide in the higher electronic noise floor, and among physical and electronic false targets.
K- the ESM systems on VLO aircraft allow them to avoid and geolocate all threat emitters, and use multi-axis attacks.
L- VLO aircraft have robust EW/EA self protection/mutual protection capabilities.
M- there's no realistic scenario, where a 5th generation force doesn't beat IADS.
Offline

arian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1203
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 20:47

WTF are you guys doing? It was ok the first couple of threads this retard trolled in, but now it's getting tired. This retard will continuously spam this forum to no end, if you continue to respond to him.

If the mods don't ban him, then at least stop feeding this idiot.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1372
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 01:55

arian wrote:WTF are you guys doing? It was ok the first couple of threads this retard trolled in, but now it's getting tired. This retard will continuously spam this forum to no end, if you continue to respond to him.

If the mods don't ban him, then at least stop feeding this idiot.

Honestly, the only reason i still respond to him is so that forum not just flooded with his retarded comments without any correction. Can you imagine new user coming to F-16.net and all they see are posts about " 3D radar" , " radar horizon has 5000 km limit" , "UV sensors are more sensitive than IIR" :doh: and no one correct him.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1372
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 02:14

wewuzkangz wrote:@ Eloise
Yup lets ignore the fact that I already told you 100 times that degradation of radar signals over a distance exceed jammer signals. Because your comprehension is so outstanding that I have to point out my quotes with yours.

speaking of comprehenstion i want you to finish the entire quote where I repreatedly pointed out what you said compared to what I said.

Nope, you said jammer effectiveness decrease with distance, which is absolutely wrong


wewuzkangz wrote:"1) they do not work at the same frequency
2) GPS jammer doesnot actually jam the GPS satellite, they jam the GPS receiver on bombs and missiles. You do not jam a transmitter." 1)Explain how they dont work in the same frequency?
2)http://theconversation.com/how-syria-is-becoming-a-test-bed-for-high-tech-weapons-of-electronic-warfare-48779 yes its talking about jamming receivers( please start reading more tired of the disorientation.)

Read what i wrote again.
"GPS jammer doesnot actually jam the GPS satellite, they jam the GPS receiver on bombs and missiles. You do not jam a transmitter."

wewuzkangz wrote:Please state my entire quotes you look like your having a mental breakdown.

No, iam tired of your sh*t

wewuzkangz wrote:Please state entire quote not what I used a reference point. You seem like you are constantly trying to switch the subject now.

No i don't, you just lack basics comprehension


wewuzkangz wrote:Yes I think shapes are the reason to having low cross sections.(even i have said this earlier but your comprehensions is always off the roof) But please state my entire quote.

I already explained it, read from start,
tube body make MIRV more vulnerable to effect of creeping wave return at low frequency compared to stealth aircraft, Blended diamond shape stop the creeping wave from go a full circle around the object and come back to the source. Stealth aircraft also have RAM, Lockheed Martin CNT has effective bandwidth between 0.1 Mhz and 60 Ghz


wewuzkangz wrote: Thanks for the update even though I was referring to constant posts and sources like global security.

You mean like you only refering to sources that will fit your agenda ?

wewuzkangz wrote: I think your too embarassed to admit your royal screw up. I will re-quote the article, ""It retains the basic advantages of VHF: NNIRT says that the Chinese DF-15 short-range ballistic missile has a 0.002 m2 RCS in X-band, but is 0.6 m2 in VHF. The principle behind Nebo-M is the fusion of data from the three radars to create a robust kill chain.".........There ya go sensor fusion of 3 radars.......Now here is a pop quiz if sensor fusion of 2 different sensors happen will they work individually?

Nice try, but no, the X band radar won't see stealth target => no accurate tracking for the whole system. Only information you get are from the VHF

wewuzkangz wrote: Is italy a specific location or a direction? There is legitly a screen showing a moving aerial target.

and how big is Italy?
wewuzkangz wrote:Nope its amusing watching statements that have alot of irony to them.

Nice try but at this point, everyone already known what you are

wewuzkangz wrote:]Yes I fail to see how I relate

:roll: said the one who think government will send aircraft to opposing airspace and fight for a meme



wewuzkangz wrote:Congrats you have finally became useful now. But there is 1 slight problem is which air defense are you trying to disapprove? because i dont recall the s-500 or nebo having a 100km height lol? Which sort of proves why did you start this charade if nothing was going to be accomplished in the 1st place only to lead back that the s-500 or Nebo-m is still not entirely limited in their ranges?

:doh: all these radar will be horizon limited you ****** retard :doh: if targets fly low enough then S-500 range will be limited to dozen km.
http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm
Click on the link above, try put 50 meters for both target height and radar height => radar horizon = 58323 meters or 58 km
Now the hundreds km radar on S-500 will not see further than 58 km if missiles flew 50 meters from ground

wewuzkangz wrote:Bet you did not understand half of what i posted

when you wrote nonsense in half English and half pig sh*t no one can understand you

wewuzkangz wrote:Uralvagonzavod officials were the 1st

Then shows the interview

wewuzkangz wrote:Hehehe someones mad about accomplishments of others

More like someone who actually understand how radar operate



wewuzkangz wrote: You love my trash post as much as everyone else that responds to it.

The only reason i respond is to keep it in check, otherwise the forum will flood with your babbling nonsense


wewuzkangz wrote:Yes it does the math for me and the results end up being in my favor

No it isn't.

wewuzkangz wrote:Do you know what altitude satellite orbit at ? now what altitude does sea skimming missiles fly at ? So what do altitudes have to do with anything? Are you talking about the LEO or MEO's accuracy of tracking sea skimming missiles or what?

Read the quote about radar horizon again, target altitude will limit it.
Image
wewuzkangz wrote:Here is a specification: Target identification, however, is more complex and is based on the measurement of different parameters of the transmitted signal—such as its frequency, bandwidth, pulse width, pulse repetition interval, etc.

Nice try copy and paste but all of these parameters can be simulated easily


wewuzkangz wrote: well nice picture can you put it into use of it attacking an air defense network?

:doh: So now you don't even understand basics jamming, bravo
Offline

tincansailor

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 602
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 12:41

wewuzkangz wrote:
I am talking about the T-14 of course.

T-14 has 2 tiny radar for its hard kill protection, just like the EL/M-2133 on Merkava, they are very short range radar for self protection, they are even smaller than Longbow radar on AH-64 so they cannot and will not reach anywhere near 100 km detection range. Never mind the fact that no one will put a powerful and expensive radar on a tank either.



Seems to me that a simple radar jammer might defeat the low power systems on tanks. Commercial jammers have had some effect vs. police radar guns, Tank radar is probable not much more powerful then that, if it was the tanks in a formation might interfere with each other. A man on the ATGM team uses a radar detector to identify the signal frequency, sets a radar gun to match it, and aims at the tank. Is this practical, or am I being too simplistic? Sometimes the simplest solution is best, like B-1B crews buying commercial GPS systems off the shelf.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3116
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 13:37

tincansailor wrote:
Seems to me that a simple radar jammer might defeat the low power systems on tanks. Commercial jammers have had some effect vs. police radar guns, Tank radar is probable not much more powerful then that, if it was the tanks in a formation might interfere with each other. A man on the ATGM team uses a radar detector to identify the signal frequency, sets a radar gun to match it, and aims at the tank. Is this practical, or am I being too simplistic? Sometimes the simplest solution is best, like B-1B crews buying commercial GPS systems off the shelf.

Probably depends on how advanced the radar is. It should be easy to jam something operating on a fixed frequency, but you may not be so lucky if it hops frequencies.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1372
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 17:06

tincansailor wrote:Seems to me that a simple radar jammer might defeat the low power systems on tanks. Commercial jammers have had some effect vs. police radar guns, Tank radar is probable not much more powerful then that, if it was the tanks in a formation might interfere with each other. A man on the ATGM team uses a radar detector to identify the signal frequency, sets a radar gun to match it, and aims at the tank. Is this practical, or am I being too simplistic? Sometimes the simplest solution is best, like B-1B crews buying commercial GPS systems off the shelf.

Tank APS radar are very weak in power because they need to be very rugged, doesn't have alot of cooling like aircraft radar, and unlike aircraft or SAM radar that need to detect targets from long distance, APS radar need to have very wide field of view => wide beam width => power less concentrated. So they are much more vulnerable to jamming.
Previous

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests