Air Force VS Air Defense

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

wewuzkangz

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 21:08

Unread post08 Aug 2017, 02:44

Lets all pretend its 2020. I will just throw in simple mobile defense network stats and what amount of power an airforce would need to overcome a simple mobile air defense network than I will make a new topic in this forum explaining it Vice Versa if situations were reversed.Pantsir-SM, Tor-M2D2, Buk-M3, S-350 Vityaz, Morfey, krasukha-4, Nebo-M, S-500, S-400, S-300V4, repellent-1 all sharing radar information with each other.

Pantsir-SM: ammunition load 1,400, rate of fire 5,000 RPM, weapon max range 20km, max altitude 10km, missile range 30km, max tracking 4 targets such as HARM missiles, http://armyrecognition.com/october_2016 ... 10163.html Tracking targets at 75km engagement 20-40km.....Pantsir S-1 tracks RCS of 2m2 at 24 to 28km says more can be achieved at 45km.....Lowest RCS detection is .0004, With EO and radar 10-12 targets can be engaged per minute, reaction time to fire missile to target 4-6 seconds.......However I have no specs if the Pantsir-SM other than an increased radar range but their are no doubts that better specs in fire control are on the SM than the S1 version.

Tor-M2D2: track 10 targets, engage 4, number of missiles 16. http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_r ... 04174.html 25km 360 degree radar and 60 degree front for 15km. 48 processed targets and ten tracked targets max range 12km altitude max 10m-1km. http://defense-update.com/products/t/tor.htm target to missile launch reaction 5 to 8 seconds 3.4 seconds stationary, 10 seconds on the move. Tor M1 can detect and track up to 48 targets (minimum radar cross section of 0.1 square meter) at a maximum range of 25 km, and engage two of them simultaneously, at a speed of up to 700 m/sec, and at a distance of 1 to 12 km. The system's high lethality (aircraft kill probability of 0.92-0.95) is maintained at altitude of 10 – 6,000 m'.................As you can see sources vary 1st sources listed are deagel but for this sake I will chose the defense update one.

Buk-M3: engage 36 targets, hit probability 100%, target max altitude 35km, minimum 15 meters, target max speed 3km/s, reaction time 10 seconds, target max range 70km target minimum range 2.5km.......
other sources. http://rus-guns.com/buk-m3-samoxodnyj-zrk.html 95% aircraft, tactical ballistic missile 70%, cruise missile 80%, radar, guidance and target detection works at 120 degrees, spot RCS of .1 meters at 17-18km. minimum RCS detection of Buk-m2 is stated at .05 meters cant find minimum for this one. Time for the more fun systems ahead.

S-350 Vityaz: engage aerial targets 8, track aerial targets 40, max altitude 20km, max weapon range 40km https://www.armyrecognition.com/vityaz_ ... tures.html rotates 90 degrees at 60 rpm only info i can find of radar......carries 72 9m100 missiles, 36 9m96e missiles, 36 9m96e2 missiles, 36 9m96m missiles.....9m100: max range 15km.... 9m96e: max range 40km, min range 1km, max alt 20km, 9m96e2: max range 120km, min range 1 km, max alt 35km. 9m96m: 150km 2nd variant if made 200km

morfey: 360 coverage, max alt 5 km, max range 15km, tells me it has 36 missiles. uses 9M338K missiles but projected later for 9m100 missiles.

krasukha-4: borad band multifunctional EW system jams at 300km range, targets aircraft, LEOs and ground based radars.

Nebo-M: tracks 200 aerial targets, max detection range 600km, max detection against 20 ballistic missiles 1,800km, max detection in altitude 1,200km. http://aviationweek.com/technology/new- ... ion-claims "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."........ I still wonder why pentagon has spent billions upon billions in stealth? DF-15 in range depending on variant is anywhere from the 600 to 900km range. Whats bother me is what exact range did they find these RCS values?

S-500: track and intercept 10 7km/s missiles simultaniously, weapon max range 600km, weapon min range 20km. MARS voronezh-dm variant radar. 3000km range, RCS values of .1 detection from 1300-1400km range, reaction time 4 seconds, max altitude 200km, max detection range dont know.

S-400: max detection 600km, max altitude 60km, min alt 10 meters, weapon max range 400km, weapon min range 2km, target max speed 4.8km/s. reaction time 10 seconds... can engage 80 aerial targets earlier reports were 36, can track 160 guided missiles simultaniously. Says it can detect any of our aircraft. Detect RCS of .4 flying at 4.8km/s from 230km. RCS of 4 at 390km, strategic bomber sized aircraft at 570km. says the stealth threshold for stealth aircraft is at 150km which means they must have took into account of those RCS. Thought it cant be entirely doubted some of their aicraft was intercepted by an f-22 in alaska and hell a pilot died of oxygen related issues in Alaska as well makes me assume alot of f-22s are in Alaska. They are building powerful radar stations like the sunflower radar and other systems in the arctic regions......Too much damn missiles so sorry no description for each but amount. 24 of 40n6e, 48 of 40n6e2, 48 of 40n6e3, 144 of 9m96e, 144 of 9m96e2, 144 of 9m96m but it is unknown if 40n6e or 9m96m to be carried. Each s-400 batallion will carry 12 5P85TE2 around them. description of 1 5P85TE2 supply vehicle: carry 2 40n6e unknown if carried, 4 of 48n6e2, 4 of 48n6e3, 12 of 9m96e,12 of 9m96e2s.

S-300V4: engage 24 targets, max range 400km, weapon max range 250km, max altitude 30km. carries 48 of 48n63e2 missiles with the same amount of supply vehicles as s-400 mentioned.

Last but not least the best part: WHAT THESE SYSTEMS SHARE: Polyana-D4M1 protects these systems with a 800km by 800km square(size of france) monitors 500 targets, tracks 255. An (AI) makes the strategic decisions of sharing their radar information such as who engages what target from aircraft, decoys, HARMs, AWACS, etc. indescriminately monitoring what is approaching an which defense systems should engage each targets. Final interesting feature Extrasystematic radars Niobium(united against all targets says it can multiply radar ability by 4. in other words there was this as a given example RCS of .4 at 240km with this ability being shared with other radars that RCS becomes a .1 at 240km.

I could have made this more complex by throwing in ground radars and aircraft sharing information hell even their tanks with 100km AESAs can be helpful to their cause. So give me examples of how to defeat them all together sharing info or defeating one of them in a single handed manner.

Examples of what I mean is such as an aircrafts flight ceiling to avoid altitude detection for some of these systems to defeat them in a single manner with too much bombs for a pantsir, tor or morfei to handle or defeat every system launching 10,000 of tomahawks simultaniously by giving distances of each progressing missile that did not get destroyed meaning whats the kill probability that some will go through based on air defense performance, accuracy of tomahawks meaning not missing their target or flying off course, distance of speed for every tomohawk also using the reaction time of the air defenses to determine when each missile will get hit and as some get hit how much distance will the others cover to get closer for every air defense reaction time of launching rounds or missiles at them for every passing second that they get closer, how fast will air defenses move away such as shoot and scoot, are you launching in all distances or 1 straight path, also when will the air defense ammunition give out ranging from all rounds and missiles that were used precisely and when one air defense was covering the other's a$$ for them to reload from their supply vehicles?......Again these are examples of my guesses?
Offline

wewuzkangz

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 21:08

Unread post08 Aug 2017, 04:24

Interesting things I have picked up and learned from research.......Unmanned AI co-pilot for T-50, AI from Polyana-D4M1 making strategic decisions and now unmanned AI t-14 tank tests. Its funny a year ago someone quoted 20 years from now we will have AI tanks. My response was are you sure because apparently for some its just around the corner. There can be a drunk a$$ Gopnik with an IQ in the retardation level on a su-50, or t-14. Heard if I remember correctly that an AI beated some russian chess master with an IQ of 190 something so it would come to no surpise that if your a genius in strategy the results would still not be in your favor....polyana and voronezh radars seem to show me that the max tracking of aerial targets is 500 but still I wonder what if multiple systems increased the tracking even higher. Also using a lower frequency than X-band like VHF with sensor fusion of multiple radars turning a .002 RCS to a .6 RCS I found pretty staggering.
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 398
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post08 Aug 2017, 12:07

I remember seeing a documentary on the Su-27, and they were talking about it having "AI" (massive air quotes), and it turns out it had a system not too unlike F-15s Bitchin' Betty, i.e. voice commands and warnings. So I guess that's the Russian idea of AI. ;)

As for chess, don't be silly, that has nothing to do with any kind of AI, just enough computing power.
Russia stronk
Offline

sdkf251

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 11:02

Unread post08 Aug 2017, 14:46

I have to apologize ahead of time, but I just could not resist....

It is 2020 and PLA now very strong! We launch recon stealth J-20 to mark the targets and launch many DF-xx missiles at the site. Mach xx missile impossible to stop, so Russian SAM site destroyed completely. So really, just recon aircraft. :mrgreen:

Ha! Ha! ha!... sorry, but I find it really very entertaining......

But seriously, could I ask some questions about the IADS you are contemplating given the systems you have
enumerated?

1. How much power does your IADS need to function properly. How are these units getting their power?
2. How many people does it need to man all these systems? What is the support chain look like for the IADS
you are contemplating?
3. How soon will the system break down without maintenance? What are the key equipment that needs to
function in order for the IADS to be effective?
4. How much logistical support does you IADS need? What is it's operational timeline unassisted? What is the
stores depth in terms of engagements can your IADS function in 1 day, 2 days, 1 week, two weeks?
5. How does your command and control structure look like? What is the authority chain look like?
What are your rules of engagement?
6. What is your operational orders for the IADS? Elaborate and expound on what it is suppose to
accomplish.
7. What is your Communications structure?
8. What are the environmental conditions your IADS is in? How will the environment affect deployment and
equipment reliability and accuracy? Do you need to split your IADS due to terrain constraints? Is mobility
a primary requirement to accomplish your operational orders?

Hopefully these questions will help in improving what you want to do.
Good Luck!
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1694
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post08 Aug 2017, 17:06

wewuzkangz wrote:krasukha-4: borad band multifunctional EW system jams at 300km range, targets aircraft, LEOs and ground based radars.

Jamming is easier at long distance, so jamming from 300 km away isn't something you really want to brag
Image
A ground based jammer is extremely vulnerable to this
Image
Image

wewuzkangz wrote: Nebo-M: tracks 200 aerial targets, max detection range 600km, max detection against 20 ballistic missiles 1,800km, max detection in altitude 1,200km. http://aviationweek.com/technology/new- ... ion-claims "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."........ I still wonder why pentagon has spent billions upon billions in stealth?

ballistic MIRV have a cone, tube body shape so they are extremely vulnerable to creeping wave return effect of low frequency, stealth aircraft with diamond blended facet are different
Image
Image
Low frequency radar are also not accurate and highly immobile

wewuzkangz wrote:MARS voronezh-dm variant radar. 3000km range, RCS values of .1 detection from 1300-1400km range, reaction time 4 seconds, max altitude 200km, max detection range dont know.

VORONEZH-DM is an early warning radar, like US AN/FPS-115, they have very long range but low accuracy, intended to detect rather target rather than guide missiles


wewuzkangz wrote:Says it can detect any of our aircraft. Detect RCS of

Stop saying "we" as if you are from USA , we know you are not American, you aren't from an English speaking country either.

wewuzkangz wrote:says the stealth threshold for stealth aircraft is at 150km which means they must have took into account of those RCS. Thought it cant be entirely doubted some of their aicraft was intercepted by an f-22 in alaska

F-22 in Alaska carries external fuel tanks that will make their RCS hundreds times higher
Image


wewuzkangz wrote:Last but not least the best part: WHAT THESE SYSTEMS SHARE: Polyana-D4M1 protects these systems with a 800km by 800km square(size of france) monitors 500 targets, tracks 255. An (AI) makes the strategic decisions of sharing their radar information such as who engages what target from aircraft, decoys, HARMs, AWACS, etc. indescriminately monitoring what is approaching an which defense systems should engage each targets

Polyana-D4M1 is a command post, the cover area equal to the area that radar connected to it can cover, so there is no automatic 800*800 km cover

.
wewuzkangz wrote: Final interesting feature Extrasystematic radars Niobium(united against all targets says it can multiply radar ability by 4. in other words there was this as a given example RCS of .4 at 240km with this ability being shared with other radars that RCS becomes a .1 at 240km.

This is simply nonsense, you can't multiple RCS like that

wewuzkangz wrote:even their tanks with 100km AESAs can be helpful to their cause.

What exactly tank has 100 km AESA?

wewuzkangz wrote:So give me examples of how to defeat them all together sharing info or defeating one of them in a single handed manner.

MALD-J, EA-18G, F-35, GBU-53, SDB II, JSM, CHAMP
Image
Offline

wewuzkangz

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 21:08

Unread post09 Aug 2017, 01:10

@Eloise

But range is still important depending on the targets you want to hit right? So would you rather have a Koral EW with an effective jamming range of 100km or one with a 300km?

Yes and missiles are vulnerable to rounds targetting them. Unless your just talking about targetting the ground based jammer alone. Than it also depends on the guidance of the missile.

I agree that shape has a factor hence petr ufimstevs 3d radar reflection equation off of objects gave principle designs for aircraft being shaped the way they are. 1st missiles generally have a smaller mass than aircraft and mass does matter to the amount of RCS that can be detected. http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/xu- ... NA==/?ref= and because of shape design I believe that is why the DF-15 has a nice lower RCS in the x-band compared to aircraft........So because of both mass and shape missiles are more likely to have a low RCS....OK this confirms that the nebo-m can take lower RCS by operating at a lower frequency than x-band. But I dont understand why you are generally stating missiles to be smaller in size in RCS than aircraft? So how are aircrafts with diamond blended facets are suppose to help them compared to missiles if missiles in shape and mass by design alone have a lower RCS than aircraft?

"Low frequency radar are also not accurate and highly immobile " Yup you already stated what my article stated. Which is why I this part, "The principle behind Nebo-M is the fusion of data from the three radars to create a robust kill chain." it uses 3 radars in different bands to make a single picture target. They work as one yes low frequency radars are not accurate and immobile but thats if it works alone.

So voronezh can see targets. Interesting. So is that its only purpose or can it share this information to other units? Voronezh being a variant for the S-500 an air defense sounds like it can engage as well if its talking about intercepting multiple nukes. if its an early warning or VHF band I wonder if the same concept is applied to it like the nebo using muliple radars to work in unison.

"Stop saying "we" as if you are from USA , we know you are not American, you aren't from an English speaking country either." Ouch I think meds can help if your getting that flustered listening to a different oppinion......So this is the same sh*t Milo had to deal with in Berkley. Believe what you want to but I wont judge

"F-22 in Alaska carries external fuel tanks that will make their RCS hundreds times higher" Source? fuel tanks can be jettisoned. But for me it would sound like our government is on the retard level if they would want to raise a 412 million dollar aircrafts RCS to be easily noticable on enemy radars.

"Polyana-D4M1 is a command post, the cover area equal to the area that radar connected to it can cover." Yes I know but the 800km by 800km is the max distance for each unit that is within that perimeter.

"This is simply nonsense, you can't multiple RCS like that " But multiple sources say they can. I try to google translate the charts as well but only got lucky with one because they are all over the place nor would i want to consume my time doing each individually.

"what exactly tank" I am talking about the T-14 of course.

"MALD-J, EA-18G, F-35, GBU-53, SDB II, JSM, CHAMP" Yes i remember the cute raytheon propaganda video. but what amount is needed to overwhelm a defense network system? Or you just want me to individually pick them apart? You need numbers and to devise a plan in how you will conduct an operation. Mald-J 926km cheap and meant for same RCS coverage as aircraft. Well there is Glonass to watch these missiles leave the jets, radars like nebo-m or s-500 that far exceed the Mald-J range that if random RCS's start coming out of one RCS they are already listed as decoys in that radar and will get picked off by smaller air defense that use fragmentation rounds, Also I am sure there is a RWR device that will look into which target is using a radar. EA-18G and F-35 so what do they use and what do they carry to strike these air defenses or hell how far can one get spotted from an air defense? GBU-53 sounds cool but can get picked off of by radars. However they can fly to real low altitudes but there are some air defenses that work in low altitude levels. SDB-2 is same sh*t as GBU-53, JSM anti-ship land attack high subsonic cruise missile.....YAWN......kh-32, Zircon, Isklander and Brahmos-2 are telling me if they are developing hypersonic cruise missiles to cruise far ranges what makes you think their air defenses wont intercept subsonic level missiles? This Champion will talk about the Champ. so it fires shots using JASSMER for 1000km range? wonder how it handles fragmentation rounds and missiles its quite an expensive missile.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 644
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post09 Aug 2017, 05:24

wewuzkangz wrote:"F-22 in Alaska carries external fuel tanks that will make their RCS hundreds times higher" Source? fuel tanks can be jettisoned. But for me it would sound like our government is on the retard level if they would want to raise a 412 million dollar aircrafts RCS to be easily noticable on enemy radars.


VLO aircraft routinely carry EFTs or Luneburg lenses to increase RCS when flying near people we don't want to know the true RCS. (Another reason is to show up on civilian ATC radars when flying in the NAS in peacetime.)
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1694
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post09 Aug 2017, 06:25

wewuzkangz wrote:But range is still important depending on the targets you want to hit right? So would you rather have a Koral EW with an effective jamming range of 100km or one with a 300km?

I don't think you understand my point. If a jammer can jam a radar from 100 km then it can jam the same radar from 300 km ,but the opposite isn't true because jamming power reduce at the slower rate than radar power
Image
Image
wewuzkangz wrote:Yes and missiles are vulnerable to rounds targetting them.

Depending on how stealthy they are and what altitude they fly at, and then depending on support airbone jamming as well

wewuzkangz wrote: I agree that shape has a factor hence petr ufimstevs 3d radar reflection equation off of objects gave principle designs for aircraft being shaped the way they are. 1st missiles generally have a smaller mass than aircraft and mass does matter to the amount of RCS that can be detected. http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/xu- ... NA==/?ref= and because of shape design I believe that is why the DF-15 has a nice lower RCS in the x-band compared to aircraft

Main factors that affect RCS are shaping and material, in both case stealth aircraft are superior to MIRV because they don't have to sustain extreme high temperature like MIRV. The only factor that give MIRV low RCS is their size




wewuzkangz wrote:But I dont understand why you are generally stating missiles to be smaller in size in RCS than aircraft? So how are aircrafts with diamond blended facets are suppose to help them compared to missiles if missiles in shape and mass by design alone have a lower RCS than aircraft?

I never said MIRV has lower RCS than stealth aircraft, I said their tube body make them 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
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=pate ... 271253.pdf

wewuzkangz wrote: Yup you already stated what my article stated. Which is why I this part, "The principle behind Nebo-M is the fusion of data from the three radars to create a robust kill chain." it uses 3 radars in different bands to make a single picture target.

So what is the frequency of the other 3 radars ? if it is low then they have the same disadvantages as NEBO, if it is high then they are not so effective against stealth aircraft

wewuzkangz wrote: They work as one yes low frequency radars are not accurate and immobile but thats if it works alone.

low frequency radars are always less accurate and more immobile

wewuzkangz wrote:So voronezh can see targets. Interesting. So is that its only purpose or can it share this information to other units? Voronezh being a variant for the S-500 an air defense sounds like it can engage as well if its talking about intercepting multiple nukes. if its an early warning or VHF band I wonder if the same concept is applied to it like the nebo using muliple radars to work in unison.

Nope, i said it before, voronezh is the same as PAVE PAW, it can be linked to other air defense system but the purpose is strictly early warning, they don't have to accuracy to guide missiles and they are extremely immobile
Image

wewuzkangz wrote: Ouch I think meds can help if your getting that flustered listening to a different oppinion......So this is the same sh*t Milo had to deal with in Berkley. Believe what you want to but I wont judge

Nice try but no, i know for sure that you are not American because your English is extremely bad, you don't understand English articles, along with extreme Russia stronk altitude.

wewuzkangz wrote:Source? fuel tanks can be jettisoned. But for me it would sound like our government is on the retard level if they would want to raise a 412 million dollar aircrafts RCS to be easily noticable on enemy radars.

They would be retarded if they don't have a way to keep real RCS a secret in peace time, it called Luneberg lens, both F-22 and F-35 carry them
Image
Image

All F-22 intercept Tu-95 carry external fuel tank
Image

wewuzkangz wrote: Yes I know but the 800km by 800km is the max distance for each unit that is within that perimeter.

You mean radar stations can be anywhere within 800 km area from the command post ? that nonsense, radar horizon would have prevent that


wewuzkangz wrote:
But multiple sources say they can. I try to google translate the charts as well but only got lucky with one because they are all over the place nor would i want to consume my time doing each individually.

Then all these source are nonsense period. Radar doesn't work like that. I bet you cannot find official statement about multiply RCS

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.

Image
Image
Image



wewuzkangz wrote: Yes i remember the cute raytheon propaganda video.

Funny that what you say about Raytheon video while at the same time took all Russia advertising, RT , sputnik propaganda as absolute truth. I recall that at the previous thread you also doubt the practical of US laser system until you realized that Russia has the same system :mrgreen: . If you want us to think that you are American, at least pretend to have a balanced view

wewuzkangz wrote:
Well there is Glonass to watch these missiles leave the jets

Glonass is the counterpart of GPS, they are coordinate system, not radar or infrared sensor system, they cannot know missiles corordinate without authorization from the pilots, and US doesn't use Glonass either



wewuzkangz wrote: radars like nebo-m or s-500 that far exceed the Mald-J range that if random RCS's start coming out of one RCS they are already listed as decoys in that radar

Not so easy, range of ground radar are heavily limited by radar horizon, if the missiles , aircraft fly low enough they can get extremely close to surface radar.
Image
Image

Secondly, the volume of radar resolution cell will extend with distance so radar will easily see several targets as one at long distance, this even worse for low frequency with their wide beamwidth
Image
Image



wewuzkangz wrote:Also I am sure there is a RWR device that will look into which target is using a radar.

MALD-J can transmit, and normally only a few aircraft in the squadron transmit, they share information with the others while the rest will remain silent for maximum stealthiness
Image

wewuzkangz wrote: hell how far can one get spotted from an air defense?

Very close thanks to synergy between jamming and low RCS
Image
Image


wewuzkangz wrote: JSM anti-ship land attack high subsonic cruise missile.....YAWN......kh-32, Zircon, Isklander and Brahmos-2 are telling me if they are developing hypersonic cruise missiles to cruise far ranges what makes you think their air defenses wont intercept subsonic level missiles?

.kh-32, Zircon, Isklander and Brahmos are all supersonic missiles with very big infrared and radar signature due to their size and speed. Their radar seeker will alert targets defense system very early as well. If they can be detect then they can be shot down.
JSM is a stealth, sea skimming with passive seeker, so it is much harder to detect, therefore much harder to shot down.
US tested their defense system against supersonic targets such as very often, yet still decided to stick with subsonic stealth anti ship missiles. Supersonic antiship missiles are no longer the unterceptable threat they once were
Image
Image

wewuzkangz wrote:This Champion will talk about the Champ. so it fires shots using JASSMER for 1000km range? wonder how it handles fragmentation rounds and missiles its quite an expensive missile.

JASSM-ER airframe is extreme stealthy so it is unlikely to be detected until it is too late, with HPM warhead, there is a possibility that it can disable interceptor too.
Offline

wewuzkangz

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 21:08

Unread post09 Aug 2017, 21:01

@Eloise

"If a jammer can jam a radar from 100 km then it can jam the same radar from 300 km" Its as your charts shows its effectiveness reduces at a distance. But of course radar signal effectiveness reduces at a faster rate than jamming and therefore you draw the conclusion that it wont matter what distance it is........But the small issue is what jammers were used in your graphs and what signals were being used and type of radar and what jamming method was used matters as well. There is a reason why different EW systems are given ranges to their effectiveness in what they can jam unless you can give an explanation as to why 1 EW system from multiple sources say it can jam an aircraft at 100km compare to the other with multiple sources that say 300km?

"Depending on how stealthy they are and what altitude they fly at, and then depending on support airbone jamming as well".....Yes explain how close that f-22 will get with its aim-120s to destroy some of these systems individually or even the entire defense network system this was my interest from the beginning.

"in both case stealth aircraft are superior to MIRV because they don't have to sustain extreme high temperature like MIRV" Thank you for clearing that up so this only makes MIRV's more detectable to IRST regardless but not X-band when one is compared to the other.

What I am saying is that MIRVs are generally smaller and do to shape are bound to have a lower RCS than small aircraft however material is a seperate story. CNTs yes but I also look at the amount of material in an aircraft that are CNTs so generally speaking about 24% of it is on an f-22.

The Nebo-M includes three truck-mounted radar systems, all of them -AESAs: the VHF RLM-M, the RLM-D in L-band (UHF) and the S/X-band RLM-S. The example I provided earlier is that x-band has difficulty seeing a low RCS but sensor fusion with VHF to turned a .002 to a .6 in RCS. If VHF was to be used alone of course it wont track anything each band compliments the others weaknesses.

"low frequency radars are always less accurate and more immobile "...Are you trolling me I did say i agreed to this when it works alone.

"it can be linked to other air defense system but the purpose is strictly early warning" -The Voronezh early warning system is capable of tracking up to 500 objects simultaneously and has been designed for energy efficiency. - The state-of-the-art Voronezh-SM radar system utilizes centimeter wavelength to detect and track stealth aircraft and other elusive targets. The radar system is under development and is expected to join the Russian Armed Forces by 2020........Yes they dont guide missiles but share this information to other units of where these targets specifically are.

"Nice try but no, i know for sure that you are not American because your English is extremely bad, you don't understand English articles, along with extreme Russia stronk altitude." If I was a grammar nazi I would state the same to you but I dont judge others

"They would be retarded if they don't have a way to keep real RCS a secret in peace time" The reason I find this genuinely stupid is that it looks like we our giving even 4th gen aircrafts a chance to shoot a 5th gen down than this will be the biggest military humiliation meme since, serbias,"sorry we did not know the f-117 was invisible." For example an Su-35 will gladly want to intercept a target that raises its RCS by 100 times near the arctic region along with sharing future ground radar or sunflower radar, etc information to the SU-35. Hopefully this sh*t is not being done in syria. Only thing i see modern there is the pantsir s1, s-400 and s-300.

radar horizon would have prevent that. Please explain this only info I got from someone is the earths curvature limiting radar distance to a limit of 5000km.

"Radar doesn't work like that"- Than what about Extrasystemic Radars?

"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"..........Not to be a comedian but in some ways you are unknowingly promoting just how great their tech is becoming..........So your are saying is that because of the size of their radars they have a limited range? I would stoop to being an ******* mocking this statement but I love different opinions and dont resort to personal attacks. 1st. I want you to check the size of a GaN MMIC and compare that to GaAS MMICs. 2nd. google translate this https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content ... 9-uvb5.htm Has a range of 100 km and is used mainly by the APS. Up to 40 airborne or 25 ground targets down to 0.3 m (12 in) in size can be tracked simultaniously......."they are very short range radar for self protection" - The tracking system provides an automatic firing solution for the destruction of the target, which can then be transferred to either the APS or the main gun control computers.https://vpk.name/library/f/armata.html google translate it.. Last but not least 3rd they have reduced a 200kg radar to a 100kg radar called the FGA-50 with about 1016 t/r modules(since its called a further evolution of the fga-35) got an RCS of 3m2 at 260km! Now I might or might not go into much deep research but there is a equation that talks about power, range, RCS in determining the amount of power each module must use. This can also help determine an estimation of rather if its GaN or GaAS MMICs, etc that are being used but a good hypothetical guess I already know its above 10 watts per t/r modules.

"Funny that what you say about Raytheon video while at the same time took all Russia advertising, RT , sputnik propaganda as absolute truth." I dont think you have short term memory loss but dont forget my US army recognition website sources.

"not radar or infrared sensor system" There are seperate sats for that.

"Not so easy, range of ground radar are heavily limited by radar horizon" Explain? earth curvature is one of many reasons but thats at a farther range. tracking 20 ballistic missiles at 1800km supposedly overlooks your radar horizon which of course you have not told me any range distances. I believe ballistic missiles can fly low as well but they are taken into account for ranges as well.

Secondly, the volume of radar resolution cell will extend with distance so radar will easily see several targets as one at long distance. -looks like images unrelated to radars we are talking about. For example the S-500 is taller than 80 ft in altitude detection well according to your picture anyways its a bigger bubble :)

"MALD-J can transmit" Transmit what exactly? I am sure they dont transmit as much power as an/apg-81 well if they did it would be difficult to indescriminately tell them apart. "while the rest will remain silent for maximum stealthiness " Geez with an extended period of time of staying silent with no transmissions I wonder the accuracy compared to statistics of TOWs really on nonstop transmissions.

"Very close thanks to synergy between jamming and low RCS" It seems that the AWACs in the picture has not seen it in its azimuth search range. Wonder how counter jamming would do or with anti-jamming protection air defenses. Good methods but I want your method of attack such as how many missiles and aircraft in your personally made operation to take out air defenses either individually or an entire network.

".kh-32, Zircon, Isklander and Brahmos are all supersonic missiles with very big infrared and radar signature due to their size and speed" hmmm I dont recall cruise missiles at speeds above mach 5 to be considered supersonic but instead hypersonic but mistakes happen so I wont bother you too much about it......."Their radar seeker will alert targets defense system very early as well" GPS and infrared can be taken into account to you know for navigation etc etc? I was also going to throw in the Kh-74m2 in the high speed missile equation but not much is known......."JSM is a stealth, sea skimming with passive seeker, so it is much harder to detect, therefore much harder to shot down" Your already describing what they have had in their possession I am just saying it is ludicrious to believe they have not built defensive measures on their air defenses with technology that they have already possessed using themselves.

"JASSM-ER airframe is extreme stealthy" I cant say much there since no RCS is given.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 00:00

wewuzkangz wrote:I still wonder why pentagon has spent billions upon billions in stealth?


Probably because you're not all that smart.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3190
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 01:47

This^^^^^^ pretty much sums it up. The volume of nonsense that he posts, is staggering.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1694
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 05:04

wewuzkangz wrote: Its as your charts shows its effectiveness reduces at a distance.

Look at the chart again, effectiveness of jamming increase with distance because jamming/signal ratio will increase

wewuzkangz wrote:.But the small issue is what jammers were used in your graphs and what signals were being used and type of radar and what jamming method was used matters as well.

Irrelevance, different jamming require different J/S but at the end, they still follow the main rule that radar degrade quicker than Jamming signal over a distance, so for self protect jamming, it is always easier to jam a radar at longer distance

wewuzkangz wrote: There is a reason why different EW systems are given ranges to their effectiveness in what they can jam unless you can give an explanation as to why 1 EW system from multiple sources say it can jam an aircraft at 100km compare to the other with multiple sources that say 300km?

The reason are people like you who don't actually understand how jamming work so they put a massive number for jamming effective range because they think that is better.

wewuzkangz wrote: explain how close that f-22 will get with its aim-120s to destroy some of these systems individually or even the entire defense network system this was my interest from the beginning.

I already did, you will not have access to exact number unless you can know the classified data of each system

wewuzkangz wrote: Thank you for clearing that up so this only makes MIRV's more detectable to IRST regardless but not X-band when one is compared to the other.What I am saying is that MIRVs are generally smaller and do to shape are bound to have a lower RCS than small aircraft

No, because MIRV have to sustain the extreme heat of reentry , they cannot have the specific shape like a stealth aircraft,they cannot have effective RAM, and because they have tube body, low frequency will increase their radar cross section by much more


wewuzkangz wrote:however material is a seperate story. CNTs yes but I also look at the amount of material in an aircraft that are CNTs so generally speaking about 24% of it is on an f-22.

As long as the CNT are at the outter layer, it doesn't matter

wewuzkangz wrote:The Nebo-M includes three truck-mounted radar systems, all of them -AESAs: the VHF RLM-M, the RLM-D in L-band (UHF) and the S/X-band RLM-S. The example I provided earlier is that x-band has difficulty seeing a low RCS but sensor fusion with VHF to turned a .002 to a .6 in RCS.

You don't understand, a target with RCS = 0.02 m2 in X band can have RCS = 0.6 in VHF, so VHF radar can detect it easier, but that doesn't physically increase the RCS of target in X band. In other words, while VHF radar can see stealth target,X band radar still can't. Sensor fuse will only give you the rough location of targets based on infor from the VHF.

wewuzkangz wrote:"low frequency radars are always less accurate and more immobile "...Are you trolling me I did say i agreed to this when it works alone.


The only troll here is you. Low frequency radar will always be immobile and not accurate whether they are linked to others or not. X band radar can only improve accuracy of final firing solution if they can see the target themselves

wewuzkangz wrote:Yes they dont guide missiles but share this information to other units of where these targets specifically are

No, they give the general direction of target, not specific location

wewuzkangz wrote: If I was a grammar nazi I would state the same to you but I dont judge others

Nope, your English is too bad to be American. Iam pretty sure by now that you don't understand 1/10 of what i gave you. Either that or you don't bothered reading any links given at all.

wewuzkangz wrote:The reason I find this genuinely stupid is that it looks like we our giving even 4th gen aircrafts a chance to shoot a 5th gen down than this will be the biggest military humiliation meme since, serbias,"sorry we did not know the f-117 was invisible." For example an Su-35 will gladly want to intercept a target that raises its RCS by 100 times near the arctic region along with sharing future ground radar or sunflower radar, etc information to the SU-35

You seriously believe that big nation like Russia and USA will risk a conflict and potential mutual assuared destruction for a meme ?. About F-117, the aircraft doesn't even have a countermeasure or radar warning receiver but it was shotdown one time over its careers of thousands sorties


wewuzkangz wrote: Please explain this only info I got from someone is the earths curvature limiting radar distance to a limit of 5000km.

I explained radar horizon to you before , but you choose to ignore it and keep repeating the nonsense about 5000 km limit, so for the last time Radar horizon is affected by both radar height and target height, if targets is at very low altitude, radar horizon can be shorter than dozen km.

Image
http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm


wewuzkangz wrote:Than what about Extrasystemic Radars?

Irrelevance buzz word that has no bearing to reality

wewuzkangz wrote:Not to be a comedian but in some ways you are unknowingly promoting just how great their tech is becoming..........So your are saying is that because of the size of their radars they have a limited range? I would stoop to being an ******* mocking this statement but I love different opinions and dont resort to personal attacks. 1st. I want you to check the size of a GaN MMIC and compare that to GaAS MMICs. 2nd. google translate this https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content ... 9-uvb5.htm Has a range of 100 km and is used mainly by the APS. Up to 40 airborne or 25 ground targets down to 0.3 m (12 in) in size can be tracked simultaniously......."they are very short range radar for self protection" - The tracking system provides an automatic firing solution for the destruction of the target, which can then be transferred to either the APS or the main gun control computers.https://vpk.name/library/f/armata.html google translate it

It is nothing more than tabloid nonsense. I bet you can't find official manufacturer claim for that 100 km range

wewuzkangz wrote: Last but not least 3rd they have reduced a 200kg radar to a 100kg radar called the FGA-50 with about 1016 t/r modules(since its called a further evolution of the fga-35) got an RCS of 3m2 at 260km!

1) source
2) they may reduce weight but not aperture area, because when you do that you are reducing gain

wewuzkangz wrote:Now I might or might not go into much deep research but there is a equation that talks about power, range, RCS in determining the amount of power each module must use.

There are dozens of different equation, which one are you talking about?


wewuzkangz wrote: I dont think you have short term memory loss but dont forget my US army recognition website sources.

You mean that because you sometimes cite US website that prove that you are not a Russian fanboy ? How? you basically, took all Russia advertising, RT , sputnik propaganda as absolute truth while at the the same time cast doubt on every single US system. Not to mention the fact that you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again without even attempting to learn basic radar physics

wewuzkangz wrote:There are seperate sats for that.

Doesn't matter, Golasss and GPS cannot determine when MALD-J leave the aircraft


wewuzkangz wrote:Explain? earth curvature is one of many reasons but thats at a farther range. tracking 20 ballistic missiles at 1800km supposedly overlooks your radar horizon which of course you have not told me any range distances. I believe ballistic missiles can fly low as well but they are taken into account for ranges as well.

I gave you the equation several time already, put number in and doing the math yourself. Stop being lazy

wewuzkangz wrote:Secondly, the volume of radar resolution cell will extend with distance so radar will easily see several targets as one at long distance. -looks like images unrelated to radars we are talking about. For example the S-500 is taller than 80 ft in altitude detection well according to your picture anyways its a bigger bubble :)

Go to this link https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... ermeasure/ and read what a radar resolution cell is



wewuzkangz wrote: Transmit what exactly?

radiowave


wewuzkangz wrote:I am sure they dont transmit as much power as an/apg-81

Depend, AESA can devide their aperture into several sectors for multi role purpose, if the sector is small then the power would be low and vice versa

wewuzkangz wrote:Geez with an extended period of time of staying silent with no transmissions I wonder the accuracy compared to statistics of TOWs really on nonstop transmissions.

Some of them will transmit and share data with others through datalink, the rest can remain silent.



wewuzkangz wrote: It seems that the AWACs in the picture has not seen it in its azimuth search range.

What are you trying to say?


wewuzkangz wrote:
Your already describing what they have had in their possession I am just saying it is ludicrious to believe they have not built defensive measures on their air defenses with technology that they have already possessed using themselves

In short, you believe that Russian must have found a way to intercept US made cruise missiles because of their experience yet at the same time with all their experience US cannot build anything to penetrate Russia defense system.
Offline

wewuzkangz

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 21:08

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 08:02

@Eloise

yes its showing a decrease though supposedly thats what downward slopes do? So how does this relate to the range of the effectiveness between Koral or Krasukha?

"Irrelevance" Are you talking about the picture lol. "they still follow the main rule that radar degrade quicker than Jamming signal over a distance" and this is what I said earlier in this post no joke, "But of course radar signal effectiveness reduces at a faster rate than jamming and therefore you draw the conclusion that it wont matter what distance it is" Oh look we agree on that already? I recommend continuing reading whats later.

"The reason are people like you who don't actually understand how jamming work so they put a massive number for jamming effective range because they think that is better."- #very deep sigh, I will make this more simple to comprehend......How come one EW can have an effective jamming range to hit a satellite while the other is only limited to jamming an aircraft.....#Chants, "please dont nuke this, please dont nuke this, please dont nuke this."

"you will not have access to exact number unless you can know the classified data of each system" so you dont know have a generall idea. Not looking at the stats I posted earlier like range, RCS, probability of hitting certain targets ring a bell? I am already starting to feel flustered myself especially when I quote the same things you have quoted starting with the vhf nebo example where I personally agreed that VHF is not that reliable and the effectives of radars signals dropping faster than jamming signals. Its like there is a disorientation or something.

"low frequency will increase their radar cross section by much more" Thank you this is the response I was looking for so that someone could explain why the difference.......Did you know that long wavelength or hell low frequency picked up the f-117 in the kosovo war? I fail to see whats the difference between a MIRV with a .002 RCS or a f-117 probably with an RCS of .01? Low frequency sees low RCS despite poor performance like guidance......To make this simple again imagine x-band seeing RCS of .01 but with sensor fusion using VHF a lower frequency will give it a RCS of 1 how would this the sake of arguement be any different than the DF-15 example provided way earlier?

yes stealth is on the outer layer but composite materials help as well. What sound like exaggerated reports say f-22 front RCS .0001 F-35 front RCS .001....I fail to see how a much smaller aircraft in size with about if i heard correctly 10% more composite material than the F-22 still have a higher RCS. I get that the f-22 is stealth and everything but I aviod topics such as this for such reasons.

" while VHF radar can see stealth target,X band radar still can't" Do you even know what sensor fusion is? I think Wiki will be helpful for you by giving this as an example. Sensor fusion is combining of sensory data or data derived from disparate sources such that the resulting information has less uncertainty than would be possible when these sources were used individually.......The problem you seem to be having here is that you believe that x band and vhf are used individually by saying 1 cant see it while the other can........But thats not how sensor fusion works I mean just simply look at the defintion. ....It even gives an example stereoscopic vision (calculation of depth information by combining two-dimensional images from two cameras at slightly different viewpoints).......You see one camera cant work seperately without the other to create stereoscopic vision( Dont get the wrong idea that I sm mocking you I am just telling you how it works)

"The only troll here is you. Low frequency radar will always be immobile and not accurate whether they are linked to others or not. X band radar can only improve accuracy of final firing solution if they can see the target themselves" Just look at the paragraph above this and it can help you.

"No, they give the general direction of target, not specific location" You are now making this too easy for me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abW_ZQAvVXk 1:45 of video.......Italy airbase does sound like a specific location.

"Nope, your English is too bad to be American. Iam pretty sure by now that you don't understand 1/10 of what i gave you." Why is it that I cant stop laughing from this statement?

"You seriously believe that big nation like Russia and USA will risk a conflict and potential mutual assuared destruction for a meme" hold on you actually thinks nukes will fly from a small confrontation?

"I explained radar horizon to you before" Jesus christ you are seriously to easy for me but why? The problem is you have not explained in your words you just showed a picture....I will put this in lay man terms as usual. I talked about Nebo and S-500, RCS ranges, gave ranges even gave altitudes correct? now use that equation to prove to me why its limited?

Gave a definition of sensor fusion now you want me to give you a definition of this? Quit making me feel like a teacher.

http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/T- ... 78001.aspx and http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... anks-15158 it goes on and on............Oh wait hold on I wonder why it has future plans of using 30mm anti-aircraft guns do you?

feel free to look at the fga-50 topic i made

The 1st one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_cross-section

"you sometimes cite US website" oh come on its more than sometimes. You really are taking this too seriously. You know this F-16 forum has become more lively with me in it.......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

I will just leave this right here https://www.ion.org/publications/abstra ... eID=100569

"Stop being lazy" Your presented the image now explain the image's equation using the s-500 or nebo as you say limited by radar horizon.

You dont even give me a page number

radiowaves.....Guess things will make easy for Kolchuga to tell apart decoys and aircraft.

I realized it does not matter and my apologies for asking. Emitter locating systems would detect the decoys emitting a radar signature trying to simulate an aircraft and know it's fake right away.

What I am saying is that picture is engaging an aircraft than an air defense.

"yet at the same time with all their experience US cannot build anything to penetrate Russia defense system." nope I am saying these are similiar experiences. Air defenses are penetrable but that is depending how you conduct operations to take them out.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1694
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 10:07

wewuzkangz wrote:yes its showing a decrease though supposedly thats what downward slopes do?

Can you not ****** read ? :doh:
The blue line is the degrade of reflection (radar wave) over distance
The red line is the degrade of jamming (jammer signal)
The green line is the required J/S to get burn through
But the actual effectiveness of jamming depending on Jamming power divided by radar signal power,and because jamming signal decrease at a slower rate over distance, the J/S will increase over distance. Or you cannot do basic math again? :doh:
Image


wewuzkangz wrote:Are you talking about the picture lol.

No iam talking about your brain, which doesn't seem to comprehend even the simplest stuff

wewuzkangz wrote:#very deep sigh, I will make this more simple to comprehend

The only one who keep having to make stuff more simple here is me, 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 will ignore them

wewuzkangz wrote:.How come one EW can have an effective jamming range to hit a satellite while the other is only limited to jamming an aircraft

Because
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.

wewuzkangz wrote: so you dont know have a generall idea. Not looking at the stats I posted earlier like range, RCS, probability of hitting certain targets ring a bell

Nope, not the same in any shape or form

wewuzkangz wrote: Thank you this is the response I was looking for so that someone could explain why the difference

As 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



wewuzkangz wrote: Did you know that long wavelength or hell low frequency picked up the f-117 in the kosovo war?

From 12 km aways, F-117 have no RWR to retaliate

wewuzkangz wrote: I fail to see whats the difference between a MIRV with a .002 RCS or a f-117 probably with an RCS of .01?

the difference is in their shape, radiowave interact differently with a different shape

wewuzkangz wrote:I fail to see how a much smaller aircraft in size with about if i heard correctly 10% more composite material than the F-22 still have a higher RCS. I get that the f-22 is stealth and everything but I aviod topics such as this for such reasons.

F-35 was reported by gen Hostage to have smaller RCS than F-22


wewuzkangz wrote:Do you even know what sensor fusion is?I think Wiki will be helpful for you by giving this as an example. Sensor fusion is combining of sensory data or data derived from disparate sources such that the resulting information has less uncertainty than would be possible when these sources were used individual ly.......The problem you seem to be having here is that you believe that x band and vhf are used individually by saying 1 cant see it while the other can........But thats not how sensor fusion works I mean just simply look at the defintion.

Yes, i do know what sensor fusion is, unlike you i do read and understand all article i cited. Now sensor fusion can improve accuracy if you have information from2 separate source. But in this case only the VHF radar will see the stealth target. The X band radar will not. In short, you will fuse data from VHF radar with nothing.


wewuzkangz wrote: You are now making this too easy for me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abW_ZQAvVXk 1:45 of video.......Italy airbase does sound like a specific location.

:doh: Do you know how big is the general location of an air base is?, 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.

wewuzkangz wrote:Why is it that I cant stop laughing from this statement?

:wink:
Because deep down you know that your act doesn't work.

wewuzkangz wrote: hold on you actually thinks nukes will fly from a small confrontation?

If they are acting like you then it certainly will.

wewuzkangz wrote:Jesus christ you are seriously to easy for me but why? The problem is you have not explained in your words you just showed a picture....I will put this in lay man terms as usual. I talked about Nebo and S-500, RCS ranges, gave ranges even gave altitudes correct? now use that equation to prove to me why its limited?

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 ?

wewuzkangz wrote:Quit making me feel like a teacher.

Before you deluded yourself into thinking that you are a teacher, you should work on your basic maths and reading skills.


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 physics.

wewuzkangz wrote:Oh wait hold on I wonder why it has future plans of using 30mm anti-aircraft guns do you?

So ? look at the radar of Sa-15, how massive it is and what is the range ? and that a dedicated anti air system. 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
wewuzkangz wrote:feel free to look at the fga-50 topic i made

You mean another topic where you don't understand more than half of what you posted and babbling about 3D radar again ?

wewuzkangz wrote:oh come on its more than sometimes.

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

wewuzkangz wrote:You know this F-16 forum has become more lively with me in it.

More trash post doesnot equal more lively.

wewuzkangz wrote:I will just leave this right here https://www.ion.org/publications/abstra ... eID=100569

"Stop being lazy" Your presented the image now explain the image's equation using the s-500 or nebo as you say limited by radar horizon.
You dont even give me a page number

I gave you this ****** links http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm as well. Go in, put the number in and it does the math for you. Do you know what altitude satellite orbit at ? now what altitude does sea skimming missiles fly at ?



wewuzkangz wrote:radiowaves.....Guess things will make easy for Kolchuga to tell apart decoys and aircraft.
I realized it does not matter and my apologies for asking. Emitter locating systems would detect the decoys emitting a radar signature trying to simulate an aircraft and know it's fake right away.

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.


wewuzkangz wrote:What I am saying is that picture is engaging an aircraft than an air defense.

It is irrelevance, the picture is meant to show you how jamming get better if RCS get smaller
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1718
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 13:23

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:
Next

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests