Is the brimstone with us in this room right now?
This is not the same principle used in AAMs or airborne radars my child.
It’s also millimetric radar. Which exchanges range for resolution.
Different applications, not interchangeable.
Thank you for spending your time, to provide this, clearly explains my point with pictures too.
1 Like
What is a “millimetric radar”? And by the way they use the exact same principle, which is called “radar”.
clearly this is a MMW radar as well
and so is this
2 Likes
Congratulations you have discovered synthetic aperture radar
Which works differently from how the brimstone works
Yeah but surely it still cant detect a missile in the air /s
1 Like
If you don’t know the difference between the pros and cons of different frequency bands, I’m not going to bother teaching.
yes they totally are working completly differently and arent doing the same at the end of the day
creating an image from radar returns and process it
2 Likes
Please don’t teach anyone anything, you are not educated to even talk about this topic.
1 Like
I am going to also mention once again that the specifications of the AIM-120D are classified we have no idea how good its own radar, proxy etc. really are so speculation is fun and games but considering its later 2000s tech its not a long shot that it could follow with the help of an advanced radar and blow up incoming A2A missiles.
1 Like
Now tell me how long it takes for the brimstone to generate the image vs the f-16 at the same resolution lol
Ok go run JEM NCTR on a rocket engine
so you agree with me that they do the same thing
3 Likes
As much as a chariot and a train do the same thing, sure.
Edit: just to be clear, that’s a no. Brimstone works on millimeters, aircraft work on centimeters
so you think modern AESA radar is unabled to perform basic MASINT capabilities? You should maybe start reading more about the subject you are talking about , NCTR does not rely interely on microdoppler effect you know.
EDIT:
here is a preview of a paper, which is also enough to prove you wrong, aircraft absolutely use 2D image recogniton to identify targets
1 Like
I never said AESA can’t perform MASINT.
You said “AESA can identify missiles since it can perform NCTR”
I said “No, that not logical and has nothing to do with radars being AESA since NCTR has been done since 80s and 90s with MSA”
Your faulty logic, not mine.
EDIT:
No, it doesn’t. The paper PROPOSES a solution, using theory. Jesus christ do you even read what you post
“This paper shows a methodology to face the NCTI task by means of a synthetic database”
NOWHERE does it say or state that aircraft can do this or are doing this. Because it requires precisely a high radar resolution to scan which requires a high frequency which DIRECTLY DECREASES RANGE.
The solution presented in that preview is NOT the same as “yes aircraft do this rn”
Your technicality is incorrect. “AESA Radars are so accurate that they can identify different planes from eachother and they can surely identify a fast moving target flying towards the radar, no reason that ARH missiles couldn’t lock into those either, especially when you are guiding them with datalink lmao.” At no point was there a mention that AESA can identify because NCTR. “you realise that NCTR is possible because of the accuracy of the radar? You are just saying big words you know nothing about. Radar resolution in AESA radars is easily able to detect missiles against a sky.” Still no mention that EASA can detect missiles because of NCTR. Then he spoke about NCTR itself. Even in your final hail marry to save your ego you failed.
You are going into technicalities here, but your argument is still lost and I’ve proven you wrong. The main point is that AESA radars, can detect missiles and identify them easily, just like in War Thunder.
i cant even understand what youre saying
Sorry I didn’t know you spoke english on a lower level. I put quotation marks to quote Snuv_, and after both quotes I gave a reason of why you are incorrect.