No, I’m not, YOU just fail to understand what I said since the beginning.
Detect, possibly. Identify, probably not.
And you are guessing. There is no data for this.
Sorry I didn’t know baboons learned to type.
Yes, this paper proves that such technology exist, because you seem to actually not get that AESA radars are abled to use multiple modes at the same time to detect missiles in the air. In war thunder this can be simplified to just being abled to detect them
1 Like
:D :D Funny you insult me after you could not read plane english
plain*
Input “my entire argument after a slight spelling mistake”
The paper doesn’t PROVE anything. It PROPOSES a solution.
The technology exists in theory. Practice is very different.
You seem to enjoy making overarching assumptions without any data or evidence.
EDIT: Im talking about fighter radars being able to do this. ground radars probably do this already.
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.