it’s just funny to me that someone calling another person illiterate can’t even write properly.
You didn’t start your sentence with a capital letter, yet you decided to end it in a dot. Can you stop jerking me?
no.
Well then I say everything you have written that did not start with a capital letter is unreadable english thus not understandable.
It’s ok, you’ll get the hang of it with time and effort. I believe in you.
Is this enough for you, the description already proves my point here.
2nd page, read it
https://www.sbir.gov/awards/205551
Even more sources, literally from the US Navy
Low blow, I get that you are angry, losing an argument its not good for ones ego, but you know what might help, getting off the WT forum :D
What exactly does this prove?
“Research into techniques for Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) has been a long term activity within NATO and through extensive field trials by this Task Group and its predecessors many techniques and algorithms have been tested and some are now implemented in operational systems.”
This just means that NCTR is operational in some systems. It doesn’t state which type of NCTR, doesn’t state if it includes type-ID, nor the application.
Read what? The paper talks about GROUND MULTISTATIC RADARS RUNNING 2D ISAR FROM SEVERAL DIFFERENT PLACES PRECISELY BECAUSE IT REQUIRES MASSIVE PROCESSING AND OUTPUT
bro what are you even trying to prove
That’s a money grant for development. What of it?
I don’t think you understand the orders of magnitude of difference between the capabilities, processing power, compute, and output of ground-radar or an AWACS vs a fighter radar
Im not saying the tech doesnt exist. Im saying that i find it doubtful that a fighter radar can run NCTR on a missile from long range or that it can run 2D ISAR on a moving target from long range either, with both moving relative to each other to boot.
womp womp
Your only point right now is that I don’t have a document proving that a certain aircraft for sure uses this technology, which was invented over 40 years ago. I’m pretty sure even if I had access to one it would not only get me banned from the platform but probably in somesort of problems with the authorities I think it’s pretty clear that if we can see from the earlier post that and older F-16 radar can map accurate pictures of ground and identify SAM systems from the backround, we can safely assume that modern AESA radars are abled to use more than JEM to identify targets. Your original argument was already weak by saying that aesa radars wouldn’t be abled to even DETECT missiles, you just made a giant strawman argument. Even if no image recognition could be used to differentiate missiles from planes, you could still easily classify them by speed / acceleration, and radar return. So personally I have no idea what it is with you even dying on this hill.
You also fail to actually look at my provided sources and actually think with your own brain, fighter jets use multimode radars, and modern AESA radars are even better at that, they can easily switch modes and track using different modes and frequencies.
That’s the entire point: you are presenting claims as being factual when you can’t provide proof or evidence. That’s the problem.
SAR is not a new technology and has existed since 1950s. Being able to run SAR does not mean anything else. Everything past this is your assumption
Furthermore 99% of the time that an aircraft is using SAR is to image TERRAIN.
My original argument wasn’t this. My original argument was
- NCTR and radar type (MSA vs AESA) have nothing to do with each other
- Filtering is irrelevant if there are no detectable RCS returns to start with
- You are jumping to absurd conclusions by extrapolating that ARH missiles should be able to lock each other based on the assumptions you previously made.
To classify something you need to detect it first. So you would need to first be able to provide data regarding the capabilities of specific airborne AESA radars in regards to detection. THEN, you’d need to investigate the filtering and logic of tracks to check that it wouldn’t just be dropped. Finally, you’d need to provide evidence that the track was reliable enough that the computer, assuming everything prior worked flawlessly, would promote the track into a target with fire-control solution.
I’m dying on the hill of not letting people dump absolute imaginary assumptions and opinions and dressing them up as fact
I deal with facts and data. None of which have been presented so far in regards to airborne fighter AESA radars.
Multimode doesn’t mean anything. MSA radars have inherent properties that cannot be handwaved or changed on a whim. AESA are a different beast but still constrained by laws of physics and radar equations.
Despite the capabilities, without ACTUAL DATA AND EVIDENCE, this is just a very nice fantasy.
Unless you are a US Airforce officer I doubt you are getting the specs of modern missiles and radars, WT is practically all guess work and estimation of what something could do and thats what matters FOR THE GAME
Ah, you finally understand the point I’ve been making this entire time
Everyone is making shit up like it’s a fact instead of stating them as opinions
And unless you can provide DATA, with NUMBERS, you don’t have ground to claim anything either for or against anything.
Here is a source proving that aircraft radars can infact detect Cruise missiles, now of course these are smaller, and also usually use a jet engine which makes it recognizable. We probably both knew this already, but the fact is that modern AESA radars are easily abled to detect a small cruise missile. Your point is that you think that AESA radar could not detect a smaller missile coming head on at it while ALSO providing a strong radar return. Have we actually forgot that AMRAAMs themselves have Home-on-jam capability? Not to even mention AESA radars lmao. But even without this its actually stupid to think that a radar could not pick a missile from headon just because of “low rcs”. you realise that looking at a plane from +100 km would make it as small to the radar as the missile at closer range. I think you think too much about “facts and data” and stopped thinking with your actual brain. I can reinforce this point by looking at your post history which basically proves your full time job is posting on war thunder forums.
Even more to add, we know that ground based radars can detect missiles easily, even mortar launched grenades. With common sense we can verify that airborne radars with similar capability are able to do more or less do the same. Not only is information about this subject very rarely publicly available, but it’s most likely also not researched enough, since in reality things are usually different enough for this not be a cause of concern, thus no direct information about this is present.
That is why most of the time games like war thunder have to make intelligent assumptions about subjects
Only one “making shit up” is you. You’ve been proven wrong about multiple things but you just back track and try stray away from the main point.
regarding that, It would be quite easy to make a change, if you are locked by a missile (no matter the type) J out should be a counted kill.
1 Like
Which is
- common knowledge
- meaningless to the topic at hand
I never said that lol. I pointed out that your assumptions are based on vibes and “I feel like”. Do you know how to read?
And? What the fuck does this have to do with anything lmao??? What is this slop???
Unless you can provide any data on radar capability, this is another “I feel like” argument. RCS is only one part of the equation. Detection, tracking, and fire-control logic, as well as radar resolution, among other things, play a role.
It’s actually stupid to handwave everything because you have feels and vibes as your basis for argumentation.
True. But then, math.
If an F-18 loaded, RCS around 3m^2
AIM-120, RCS around 0.01m^2
If F-18 detected at max range of 100km, the missile, to have the same signal strength return, is gonna have to be around 24km.
That’s to be DETECTED as a signal return. We aren’t even considering stable track for display, much less promotion to a fire-control target. Or radar resolution, automatic gain compensation, and more.
It costs USD 0.00 to use your neurons, I suggest you try it.
What ground radars can do is irrelevant.
No, you can’t. That’s you presenting vibes as fact again.
Which again is the core of my argument: Stop making shit up presenting it as fact lol. Sit down.
I’ve been proven wrong about nothing, but feel free to kick and scream as much as you want.
1 Like
Sounds like someone is mad lmao. You say you present facts yet you have presented zero (0) evidence, other than your own ramblings, which are quite poor. You are in no way qualified to talk about the subject, Just based on the fact that your own profile tells me you have no relevant education and all the things you say are based on war thunder forum knowledge. Can’t help to notice you actually spend most of you life arguing against other people in here about litearally anything, which makes sense since you only seek argument. I also don’t know what the fuck you are defending lmao, war thunder devs?
I’m not the one making claims lmao
you have the burden of proof. I guess you don’t even know what that means.
Join the fan club, send me your address and I’ll even throw in a free autograph for you. For some money I can even throw some feet pics.
If you still don’t understand my position then I apologize. I overestimated your intellect.
1 Like
It is as much of a claim to say that AESA radars can not do this as much as it is to say that they can.
But speaking of, you are seriously hindering to ability to have any sort of meaningfull conversation in the forums and also constantly claiming to be “intelligent”, yet judging by your arguments (and they many flaws you are making) you are either 1. not really educated at all 2. just don’t care and you are by definion trolling