Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Experimenting The F-35 Against SAMs

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • panzerfeist1
    Rank 6 Registered User
    • Feb 2018
    • 399

    #21

    1. The ballon and the ship will be at the same location. You find the ballon then you know the ship exact location. The ship will ballon will be detected at longer distance.

    So you can use satellites to identify where ships are at be it with or without a balloon all over the globe.

    2. The ballon is a slow moving big target without any ability to maneuver. Attack it is no harder than a ground target on mountain height

    I got atleast 3 things to say about this.

    1. Can you show me examples or sources of any these missiles being able to engage aerial targets? To me these missiles rather descend to their targets and if your firing from a long range they will descend. I do not think they are designed to ascend towards aerial targets.

    2. Lets say they can engage the balloon. The ship will have atleast a 500km distance which will give enough time to intercept the missile before touching the balloon.

    3. Since it is quite obvious that ships travel in groups and they consider the flying missile as an act of war. An aircraft carrier nearby will definetly go send an F-35 in an air to air loadout to engage whoever the hell launched the missile.
    I thought the fall of western civilization was a tragedy, now I realize it's a comedy.

    Comment

    • moon_light
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • May 2012
      • 1033

      #22
      Originally posted by panzerfeist1 View Post
      1. The ballon and the ship will be at the same location. You find the ballon then you know the ship exact location. The ship will ballon will be detected at longer distance.

      So you can use satellites to identify where ships are at be it with or without a balloon all over the globe.

      2. The ballon is a slow moving big target without any ability to maneuver. Attack it is no harder than a ground target on mountain height

      I got atleast 3 things to say about this.

      1. Can you show me examples or sources of any these missiles being able to engage aerial targets? To me these missiles rather descend to their targets and if your firing from a long range they will descend. I do not think they are designed to ascend towards aerial targets.

      2. Lets say they can engage the balloon. The ship will have atleast a 500km distance which will give enough time to intercept the missile before touching the balloon.

      3. Since it is quite obvious that ships travel in groups and they consider the flying missile as an act of war. An aircraft carrier nearby will definetly go send an F-35 in an air to air loadout to engage whoever the hell launched the missile.
      1. You can't, ship move and there are many ship at sea.
      2.
      a) cruise missiles are drones with explosive. Ascend or descend is depend on how you control them. You can also look at their terminal maneuver, anti ship missiles can even climb straight up. Cruise missiles aren't glider bombs
      b) we don't know that because we have no real number about your hypothetical system. If it ever materialize
      c) I know.

      Comment

      • panzerfeist1
        Rank 6 Registered User
        • Feb 2018
        • 399

        #23

        1. You can't, ship move and there are many ship at sea.

        So you dont think LEOs MEOs and GEOs cannot provide constant coverage for ships? I am pretty sure that atleast the US and Russia have a nice amount in orbit that give 24/7 SAR coverage.

        a) cruise missiles are drones with explosive. Ascend or descend is depend on how you control them. You can also look at their terminal maneuver, anti ship missiles can even climb straight up. Cruise missiles aren't glider bombs

        Again this is an issue. I can bet you that in order for those missiles to get a max 900km range they would have to slowly descend from a high altitude to achieve it. If you are going to slowly descend and than climb back up you are definetly using more fuel which of course will effect your range especially with a 1000lb warhead. If you dont have any sources of the missiles you provided to climb back up than this is a waste of time like trying to help you with the definition of S/N ratio and what its used for. Maybe you can get a 700-850km range if you launch at a 14km altitude to a 1km altitude immobile target less range than a 14km altitude to a 10 meter immobile target. But there are still good chances the ship will intercept the missile heading to the balloon and than start retaliation.

        b) we don't know that because we have no real number about your hypothetical system. If it ever materialize

        Comparing the purpose and range of the SM-3 to the purpose and range of the SM-6 the SM-6 is definetly a good missile to intercept the missiles you described and with future naval radars there is a great chance these missiles will be intercepted.
        Last edited by panzerfeist1; 11th August 2019, 15:52.
        I thought the fall of western civilization was a tragedy, now I realize it's a comedy.

        Comment

        • moon_light
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • May 2012
          • 1033

          #24
          Originally posted by panzerfeist1 View Post
          1. You can't, ship move and there are many ship at sea.

          So you dont think LEOs MEOs and GEOs cannot provide constant coverage for ships? I am pretty sure that atleast the US and Russia have a nice amount in orbit that give 24/7 SAR coverage.

          a) cruise missiles are drones with explosive. Ascend or descend is depend on how you control them. You can also look at their terminal maneuver, anti ship missiles can even climb straight up. Cruise missiles aren't glider bombs

          Again this is an issue. I can bet you that in order for those missiles to get a max 900km range they would have to slowly descend from a high altitude to achieve it. If you are going to slowly descend and than climb back up you are definetly using more fuel which of course will effect your range especially with a 1000lb warhead. If you dont have any sources of the missiles you provided to climb back up than this is a waste of time like trying to help you with the definition of S/N ratio and what its used for. Maybe you can get a 700-850km range if you launch at a 14km altitude to a 1km altitude immobile target less range than a 14km altitude to a 10 meter immobile target. But there are still good chances the ship will intercept the missile heading to the balloon and than start retaliation.

          b) we don't know that because we have no real number about your hypothetical system. If it ever materialize

          Comparing the purpose and range of the SM-3 to the purpose and range of the SM-6 the SM-6 is definetly a good missile to intercept the missiles you described and with future naval radars there is a great chance these missiles will be intercepted.
          1. They don't, it is still very hard to find a missing plane or missing ship , don't you see?
          2. Don't flatter yourself. I know what is S/N ratio, I didn't replied you because I am too lazy to argue when you can't distinguish internal and external noise.
          3. Search Harpoon terminal maneuver. Cruise missile can climb upward.
          4. LRASM range: 1000 km
          SM-6 range: 260-300 km
          how can the ship retaliate?
          Last edited by moon_light; 11th August 2019, 16:21.

          Comment

          • panzerfeist1
            Rank 6 Registered User
            • Feb 2018
            • 399

            #25

            1. They don't, it is still very hard to find a missing plane or missing ship , don't you see?

            Well yeah if they sink to the bottom of the ocean which is what happens on the news 1st anyway than starting the search.Like who the hell wants to keep track of every commercial airline out there. The majority of satellites are used for military and intelligence purposes for example the Russians already knew that the US navy was by the coast of Syria when Israel began their strikes on Damascus. I heard chinas laser satellite can have a 500 meter depth detection.

            "you can't distinguish internal and external background noise."

            1. https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/20...x6102967.shtml
            "The official propaganda of the Russians is generally the same: the detection distance is too far, the energy conversion efficiency is as high as 60%, the traditional radar is only 30%, and the noise is 100 times lower than the conventional radar, which greatly improves the signal-to-noise ratio, and the theoretical detection distance for the stealth target. More than 500 kilometers!"

            wiki: Define S/N ratio: is a measure used in science and engineering that compares the level of a desired signal to the level of background noise.

            S being the signal. N being the level of background noise. Ratio is the quantitive difference between the 2. Is the signal better heard if you lower the background noise? There is no definition out on the web of S/N ratio the way you described it. Internal noise meaning the signal and external background noise meaning the noise outside from the internal noise being measured? If thats what your trying to say than I agree.

            2. I am able to find Chinas claim about the percentage of energy loss from Russias sources but I cant find where they found the 100 noise level reduction in any of russias sources. I can find sources that say the noise level can be reduced but not describing the 100fold reduction. Than this slipped through my mind.

            I tried to find sources that show firecontrol radar satellites being able to track low altitude targets until I stumbled upon RTI's latest article. And that is firecontrol frequency satellites being able to track low altitude targets. Yes they have described noise interference being too high to allow the ability to track low altitude targets but thanks to software and supercomputers calculating algorithms it is now possible. But the question is how come it was not possible before with their current radars especially when they lag behind in MMIC technology against the west? I think that noise interference must have been lowered to allow the software and supercomputers to track low altitude targets from space especially with a company that specializes in producing FICs and using radar prototypes based on them. What do you think?

            3. Search Harpoon terminal maneuver. Cruise missile can climb upward.

            Please do not tell me you are actually comparing this missile to the missiles you have described as being the same thing.

            4. LRASM range: 1000 km
            SM-6 range: 260-300 km
            how can the ship retaliate?

            LRASM is high subsonic so below but close to mach 1 speeds. There is a 300km distance. 1km/s is like mach 3. But we need LRASM to be able to go 3 times as fast to get there in 300 seconds so instead it will take 900 seconds or in other words the ship has 15 minutes to intercept this target for being in its weapon range. SM-6 is mach 3.5 so its a little over 1km/s in speeds.

            LRASM will fly towards its target at medium altitude then drop to low altitude. I have no idea what range LRASM would drop to low altitude and how far it would be from the ship.

            http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm Lets say from 300kms it flies 5 meters above the sea so put .005km on h1 you will get 9km radar horizon to intercept the target. 1. I dont know the reaction time of an/spy-6 to track the target and than launch SM-6 but if it cant be done in 36 seconds than there is a good old CIWS will be there to the rescue. Now with .005km on h1, put 1km on h2 the radar horizon will be like 140kms meaning your ship now has 420 seconds or 7 minutes to intercept the sea skimming target than compared to 36 seconds needed. Yes you can use aircrafts to keep track of low altitude targets but the purpose of the balloon is to save money on flight hours, maintenance and operations. If something looks stupid, but works its not stupid. I will be taking a break from you for now, maybe I will later respond to you if you have better points on why a photonic radar balloon should not be used.
            I thought the fall of western civilization was a tragedy, now I realize it's a comedy.

            Comment

            • haavarla
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Dec 2008
              • 6696

              #26
              i'm sorry for the lazy question. What are the Warhead weight on SM3 and SM6 missiles?
              Thanks

              Comment

              • Ozair
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Oct 2015
                • 822

                #27
                Originally posted by haavarla View Post
                i'm sorry for the lazy question. What are the Warhead weight on SM3 and SM6 missiles?
                62kg continuous rod.

                ​​​https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...s/sm-specs.htm

                Comment

                • panzerfeist1
                  Rank 6 Registered User
                  • Feb 2018
                  • 399

                  #28
                  https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/leap.htm

                  SM-3 I guess differs with a projectile.




                  GlobalSecurity.org














                  The Lightweight Exoatmospheric Projectile (LEAP) is a miniaturized kinetic kill vehicle that, once delivered on a path towards the ballistic missile target, detects, acquires, and homes in on that target. LEAP destroys the target missile by force of impact. Efforts to pursue advanced, lightweight, low-cost components for space-based and ground-based ballistic missile defense interceptors have generated significant progress in the LEAP program in the early 1990s. The LEAP program succeeded in developing several miniature kill vehicles all weighing under 20 kilograms. These LEAP vehicles have undergone a series of hover tests to demonstrate their abilities to "fly" and, using optical seekers, acquire and track ballistic missile targets.
                  The Lightweight Exoatmospheric Projectile (LEAP) interceptor is a highly modular, lightweight, space tested kinetic kill vehicle (KKV) designed to defend against medium- and long-range ballistic missile attacks. Raytheon began development of the LEAP Kinetic Kill Vehicle (KKV) in 1985. The LEAP KKV had been validated in over a thousand simulation runs, over a hundred ground tests, several hover tests and several space flight tests.
                  The goal of the LEAP program, as originally conceived in 1985, was to develop and integrate the world's first advanced, miniature kinetic energy interceptors and associated technologies; and then to demonstrate their capabilities through extensive ground testing. The technologies were intended to enable development of ground-and space-based systems in support of the then-proposed Strategic Defense System architecture.
                  In 1985, the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) began the LEAP program, pioneering the development of small, miniaturized kill vehicle technology. At that time, the program's focus was to drive down weight and size of a kill vehicle for application in electromagnetic gun and rocket interceptor weapons. A year earlier, the U.S. Army demonstrated a successful exoatmospheric kinetic energy kill vehicle in the Homing Overlay Experiment. The kill vehicle in that experiment weighed over 200 kilograms and was about the size of a refrigerator. The challenge the LEAP team accepted was to drive down that weight by more than an order of magnitude to roughly ten kilograms"

                  I guess 10kg flight vehicle.




                  A certain user at a certain forum was talking about how great the range is on the sm-3 in comparison to the s-500. I wonder why that is.
                  Last edited by panzerfeist1; 12th August 2019, 02:12.
                  I thought the fall of western civilization was a tragedy, now I realize it's a comedy.

                  Comment

                  • PeeD
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Dec 2003
                    • 132

                    #29
                    On the original topic:

                    1. Use a OTH radar to get early warning on incoming targets and their behavior. Here VLO techniques are ineffective.
                    2. Use long range high power arrays such as ballistic missile early warning type radars down to systems like the Resonanz. Brute force of their array will allow extended range detection against VLO targets but only if line of sight restrictions are respected. That means in practice, generally only high flying VLO objects can be detected at extended ranges.
                    3. Use conventional EW radars that operate at bands in which RAM and RAS can be neglected. For the rest, the shaping, brute force of a high power radar can be used. High ECCM capabilities are helpful as well as a multi-band system for signal analysis, to counter ECM and false target rejection
                    4. Use a ESA starring asset for high target update rate necessary to guide a SAM close enough for a kill. For the kill, an active radar seeker may be used, that is activated in the last 1-3km distance to the VLO target to allow a "burn trough" of shaping and RAM/RAS. Up until then the ESA starring radar would guide the SAM on command guidance into a "kill box".
                    5. Use mature technology long range thermal cameras to assist the tracking of the target as well as false target rejection. Similarly have ESM systems for signal analysis and triangulation of the EM spectrum.
                    6. Use an Aerostat "balloon" mounted starring radar to cover low altitude and targets that make use of terrain masking. This restricts the tactical playground of airpower and protects the radar and SAM systems at extended range.
                    7. Use the starring high power radar assets for ABM purposes in order to protect static and larger components of the system against TBMs, MRBMs, IRBMs: OTH-B, ABM radar, Aerostat radar.
                    8. Use all available passive measures of sensor and guidance degradation: ECM, aerosol smoke screen, emitter decoys, relocation, GPS jamming, IR decoys, chaff, camouflage, thermal shielding etc.
                    9. Use short range missile air defense systems to protect the systems and AAA based air defense for expandable, low capability targets used for saturation.

                    Comment

                    • moon_light
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • May 2012
                      • 1033

                      #30
                      Originally posted by panzerfeist1 View Post
                      1. They don't, it is still very hard to find a missing plane or missing ship , don't you see?

                      Well yeah if they sink to the bottom of the ocean which is what happens on the news 1st anyway than starting the search.Like who the hell wants to keep track of every commercial airline out there. The majority of satellites are used for military and intelligence purposes for example the Russians already knew that the US navy was by the coast of Syria when Israel began their strikes on Damascus. I heard chinas laser satellite can have a 500 meter depth detection.

                      "you can't distinguish internal and external background noise."

                      1. https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/jssd/20...x6102967.shtml
                      "The official propaganda of the Russians is generally the same: the detection distance is too far, the energy conversion efficiency is as high as 60%, the traditional radar is only 30%, and the noise is 100 times lower than the conventional radar, which greatly improves the signal-to-noise ratio, and the theoretical detection distance for the stealth target. More than 500 kilometers!"

                      wiki: Define S/N ratio: is a measure used in science and engineering that compares the level of a desired signal to the level of background noise.

                      S being the signal. N being the level of background noise. Ratio is the quantitive difference between the 2. Is the signal better heard if you lower the background noise? There is no definition out on the web of S/N ratio the way you described it. Internal noise meaning the signal and external background noise meaning the noise outside from the internal noise being measured? If thats what your trying to say than I agree.

                      2. I am able to find Chinas claim about the percentage of energy loss from Russias sources but I cant find where they found the 100 noise level reduction in any of russias sources. I can find sources that say the noise level can be reduced but not describing the 100fold reduction. Than this slipped through my mind.

                      I tried to find sources that show firecontrol radar satellites being able to track low altitude targets until I stumbled upon RTI's latest article. And that is firecontrol frequency satellites being able to track low altitude targets. Yes they have described noise interference being too high to allow the ability to track low altitude targets but thanks to software and supercomputers calculating algorithms it is now possible. But the question is how come it was not possible before with their current radars especially when they lag behind in MMIC technology against the west? I think that noise interference must have been lowered to allow the software and supercomputers to track low altitude targets from space especially with a company that specializes in producing FICs and using radar prototypes based on them. What do you think?

                      3. Search Harpoon terminal maneuver. Cruise missile can climb upward.

                      Please do not tell me you are actually comparing this missile to the missiles you have described as being the same thing.

                      4. LRASM range: 1000 km
                      SM-6 range: 260-300 km
                      how can the ship retaliate?

                      LRASM is high subsonic so below but close to mach 1 speeds. There is a 300km distance. 1km/s is like mach 3. But we need LRASM to be able to go 3 times as fast to get there in 300 seconds so instead it will take 900 seconds or in other words the ship has 15 minutes to intercept this target for being in its weapon range. SM-6 is mach 3.5 so its a little over 1km/s in speeds.

                      LRASM will fly towards its target at medium altitude then drop to low altitude. I have no idea what range LRASM would drop to low altitude and how far it would be from the ship.

                      http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm Lets say from 300kms it flies 5 meters above the sea so put .005km on h1 you will get 9km radar horizon to intercept the target. 1. I dont know the reaction time of an/spy-6 to track the target and than launch SM-6 but if it cant be done in 36 seconds than there is a good old CIWS will be there to the rescue. Now with .005km on h1, put 1km on h2 the radar horizon will be like 140kms meaning your ship now has 420 seconds or 7 minutes to intercept the sea skimming target than compared to 36 seconds needed. Yes you can use aircrafts to keep track of low altitude targets but the purpose of the balloon is to save money on flight hours, maintenance and operations. If something looks stupid, but works its not stupid. I will be taking a break from you for now, maybe I will later respond to you if you have better points on why a photonic radar balloon should not be used.
                      1. If satellites can provide constant coverage at all point on the globe, it won't be hard to find a missing ship or missing plane, you will know their last moment before they sink into the ocean.
                      2. I don't need you to copy the definition of S/N ratio from Wikipedia and paste it here. I know what is S/N ratio.
                      You can find the definition of external and internal noise if you look hard enough.
                      Noise occurs in almost all electronic devices, and results from a variety of effects.

                      The sources of noise arise from inside and outside a circuit. Along with the signal power, a noise power (interference power) is received by the radar antenna. The received noise depends on the frequency and the receivers band width B. Antenna equivalent noise temperature is often quoted noting that it is elevation angle dependent. This interference power comes from extraterrestrial radiation sources (galactic or cosmic noise), mainly in the Milky Way, absorption of electromagnetic radiation in the atmosphere, and the noise temperature of the Earth. Since this noise can't be seperate from the backscattered radar signals, the received noise will be amplified like the radar signals in all stages of the radar receiver, too.

                      Noise sources within the circuit produce an internal noise power, whose most frequent causes are semiconductor noise and thermal noise of ohmic resistances or conductance and the noise current of charge carrier currents. The thermal noise is based on the irregular movement of the charge carriers in the resistance material, contributing to the current flow. The temporal average value of this current is not zero, the square temporal average value against it.
                      http://www.radartutorial.eu/18.expla...s/ex08.en.html

                      Click image for larger version  Name:	sssss.PNG Views:	0 Size:	51.9 KB ID:	3870683

                      Photonics radars are mean to reduce the internal noise from the up-down conversion instead of external background noise.

                      Researchers develop fully photonics-based radar system (Update)


                      Today's digital microwave components (synthesizers and analogue-to-digital converters) suffer from limited bandwidth with high noise at increasing frequencies, so that fully digital radar systems can work up to only a few gigahertz, and noisy analogue up- and downconversions are necessary for higher frequencies. In contrast, photonics provide high precision and ultrawide bandwidth, allowing both the flexible generation of extremely stable radio-frequency signals with arbitrary waveforms up to millimetre waves, and the detection of such signals and their precise direct digitization without downconversion
                      https://phys.org/news/2014-03-fully-...sed-laser.html
                      Click image for larger version  Name:	ssss.PNG Views:	0 Size:	125.7 KB ID:	3870684

                      3. They aren't the same thing, but very similar. LRASM will climb better than Harpoon because it has larger wings and can generate more lift.

                      4. Ship can intercept the missile, but it can't attack the aircraft.

                      Comment

                      • panzerfeist1
                        Rank 6 Registered User
                        • Feb 2018
                        • 399

                        #31

                        "1. If satellites can provide constant coverage at all point on the globe, it won't be hard to find a missing ship or missing plane, you will know their last moment before they sink into the ocean."

                        Again tell me why the DOD would be interested in keeping track of commercial airlines or merchant ships. https://www.outsideonline.com/207622...recks-all-time Most of the ships I here about gone missing was the days before we had no satellites.

                        https://www.popularmechanics.com/spa...lites-fishing/

                        In order to circumvent this shady behavior, Global Fishing Watch started supplementing beacon locations with data from earth-observation satellites. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) maps cloud cover. But with some smart processing, Global Fisher Watch used their data to locate small, bright patches at night, such as floodlights used for squid fishing.

                        A whole constellation of satellites means that ICEYE can track bergs, or vessels, in near real time. Not only can you spot an illegal fishing boat, you can track it and identify it when it turns on its radio beacon.



                        2. "You can find the definition of external and internal noise if you look hard enough."

                        How does any of this have to do with the definition of S/N ratio? You only defined 2 words that are not a part of S/N ratio in what the chinese mentioned.

                        Photonics radars are mean to reduce the internal noise from the up-down conversion instead of external background noise.

                        Yes photonic radars have less noise interference than conventional radars because they do not use electrical signals but light signals from fiber optics which makes it easier to monitor targets because you receive more noise using electrical signals than you do using light signals. I got plenty of sources for this.



                        3. LRASM will climb better than Harpoon because it has larger wings and can generate more lift.

                        You have no proof that it can do this. Your comparing a air to ground missile to a ground to air missile for christs sakes

                        4. Ship can intercept the missile, but it can't attack the aircraft.

                        Thats why ships travel in pairs and some carry aircrafts on them after the missile was intercepted.

                        I think you are screwing with me on purpose. I will just follow PeeDs get back on topic comment.
                        Last edited by panzerfeist1; 12th August 2019, 13:03.
                        I thought the fall of western civilization was a tragedy, now I realize it's a comedy.

                        Comment

                        • moon_light
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • May 2012
                          • 1033

                          #32
                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1 View Post
                          "1. If satellites can provide constant coverage at all point on the globe, it won't be hard to find a missing ship or missing plane, you will know their last moment before they sink into the ocean."

                          Again tell me why the DOD would be interested in keeping track of commercial airlines or merchant ships. https://www.outsideonline.com/207622...recks-all-time Most of the ships I here about gone missing was the days before we had no satellites.

                          https://www.popularmechanics.com/spa...lites-fishing/

                          In order to circumvent this shady behavior, Global Fishing Watch started supplementing beacon locations with data from earth-observation satellites. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) maps cloud cover. But with some smart processing, Global Fisher Watch used their data to locate small, bright patches at night, such as floodlights used for squid fishing.

                          A whole constellation of satellites means that ICEYE can track bergs, or vessels, in near real time. Not only can you spot an illegal fishing boat, you can track it and identify it when it turns on its radio beacon.



                          2. "You can find the definition of external and internal noise if you look hard enough."

                          How does any of this have to do with the definition of S/N ratio? You only defined 2 words that are not a part of S/N ratio in what the chinese mentioned.

                          Photonics radars are mean to reduce the internal noise from the up-down conversion instead of external background noise.

                          Yes photonic radars have less noise interference than conventional radars because they do not use electrical signals but light signals from fiber optics which makes it easier to monitor targets because you receive more noise using electrical signals than you do using light signals. I got plenty of sources for this.



                          3. LRASM will climb better than Harpoon because it has larger wings and can generate more lift.

                          You have no proof that it can do this. Your comparing a air to ground missile to a ground to air missile for christs sakes

                          4. Ship can intercept the missile, but it can't attack the aircraft.

                          Thats why ships travel in pairs and some carry aircrafts on them after the missile was intercepted.

                          I think you are screwing with me on purpose. I will just follow PeeDs get back on topic comment.
                          1. If satellite provide constant coverage every where 24/7 then they will know the location of all ship/ airliner at all point in time. DoD will like that very much because if that was possible, it will eliminate RoE and friendly fire problem, and it is impossible to sneak up on them.
                          Why do you think it is a good idea to post that link about Global fish watch? It debunked your argument. Global fish watch has to rely on individual ship publicizing their own location through the radio beacon. If constant coverage of satellite is possible that beacon will be pointless https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Fishing_Watch

                          2. Signal/Noise ratio = Signal / ( internal + external background noise)
                          Photonic radar has lower internal noise because it isn't suffer from the frequency up/ down conversion.It isn't because photonic radar use optical fiber. It is all in the study I provided, instead of talking about how many sources you have. How about really digest and understand them?.

                          3. LRASM and Harpoon are both anti ship missiles. Do you want to me to prove aerodynamic force will work on cruise misile's wing the same way they work on plane wing?

                          4. How many countries have more than one aircraft carrier?.

                          I tried very hard to be nice
                          Last edited by moon_light; 12th August 2019, 16:50.

                          Comment

                          • panzerfeist1
                            Rank 6 Registered User
                            • Feb 2018
                            • 399

                            #33

                            1.Why do you think it is a good idea to post that link about Global fish watch? It debunked your argument. Global fish watch has to rely on individual ship publicizing their own location through the radio beacon. If constant coverage of satellite is possible that beacon will be redundancy

                            Satellites and photonic radar balloons are a future concept. Since you are only worried about irrelevant interests of the DOD there will be satellites to be improve finding fishing boats in the dark because they seem to be more difficult to find.



                            If you don't think the DOD for the US or any Russian intelligence team does not focus on each others military than I don't know what else to tell you?

                            2. Signal/Noise ratio = Signal / ( internal + external background noise)

                            I get it your trying to save face from the embarassment by not providing a definition but adding your own words like internal and external to try to prove you know what your talking about although there is absolutely no mentions of this on the quote the chinese have used or even on the definition of S/N ratio itself on any online dictionary but you still go on talking about your 2 words by saying, "hey this is what the defintion means." Yes that is what the definition means but your talking about something completely different and irrelevant to the definition and the quote itself........This what are argument has literally been about the whole freaking time even I know when to quit acting like I know I am right and those were conversations with GarryA and atleast he acknowledged things he did not know when I brought up resolution of OTH radars. And we both know when to stop talking but here you are carrying this charade to your grave.

                            Photonic radar has lower internal noise because it isn't suffer from the frequency up/ down conversion.

                            There is no noise loss in the conversion there would be noise loss if this was done on conventional radars.

                            .It isn't because photonic radar use optical fiber. It is all in the study I provided, instead of talking about how many sources you have. How about really digest and understand them?.

                            Using light or electrical sources for signals matters especially when a source says there is a lot of noise on electrical signals than light signals.

                            LRASM and Harpoon are both anti ship missiles. Do you want to me to prove aerodynamic force will work on cruise misile's wing the same way they work on plane wing?

                            One is used on a damn aircraft and the other is used on an ship. The reason for the LRASM max range is the high to low altitude flight profile. Go high to low(if you designed it that way) will burn more fuel and effect the range but just like the definition of S/N ratio you cant find a single source of a anti-ship air to surface missile either going from descending to ascending correct?

                            4. How many countries have more than one aircraft carrier?.

                            I am talking about the USN this entire time since I started this whole conversation with you.
                            I thought the fall of western civilization was a tragedy, now I realize it's a comedy.

                            Comment

                            • moon_light
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • May 2012
                              • 1033

                              #34
                              Originally posted by panzerfeist1 View Post
                              1.Why do you think it is a good idea to post that link about Global fish watch? It debunked your argument. Global fish watch has to rely on individual ship publicizing their own location through the radio beacon. If constant coverage of satellite is possible that beacon will be redundancy

                              Satellites and photonic radar balloons are a future concept. Since you are only worried about irrelevant interests of the DOD there will be satellites to be improve finding fishing boats in the dark because they seem to be more difficult to find.

                              If you don't think the DOD for the US or any Russian intelligence team does not focus on each others military than I don't know what else to tell you?

                              2. Signal/Noise ratio = Signal / ( internal + external background noise)

                              I get it your trying to save face from the embarassment by not providing a definition but adding your own words like internal and external to try to prove you know what your talking about although there is absolutely no mentions of this on the quote the chinese have used or even on the definition of S/N ratio itself on any online dictionary but you still go on talking about your 2 words by saying, "hey this is what the defintion means." Yes that is what the definition means but your talking about something completely different and irrelevant to the definition and the quote itself........This what are argument has literally been about the whole freaking time even I know when to quit acting like I know I am right and those were conversations with GarryA and atleast he acknowledged things he did not know when I brought up resolution of OTH radars. And we both know when to stop talking but here you are carrying this charade to your grave.

                              Photonic radar has lower internal noise because it isn't suffer from the frequency up/ down conversion.

                              There is no noise loss in the conversion there would be noise loss if this was done on conventional radars.

                              .It isn't because photonic radar use optical fiber. It is all in the study I provided, instead of talking about how many sources you have. How about really digest and understand them?.

                              Using light or electrical sources for signals matters especially when a source says there is a lot of noise on electrical signals than light signals.

                              LRASM and Harpoon are both anti ship missiles. Do you want to me to prove aerodynamic force will work on cruise misile's wing the same way they work on plane wing?

                              One is used on a damn aircraft and the other is used on an ship. The reason for the LRASM max range is the high to low altitude flight profile. Go high to low(if you designed it that way) will burn more fuel and effect the range but just like the definition of S/N ratio you cant find a single source of a anti-ship air to surface missile either going from descending to ascending correct?

                              4. How many countries have more than one aircraft carrier?.

                              I am talking about the USN this entire time since I started this whole conversation with you.
                              1.
                              IF satellite can keep track of all ships all the time by radar or image THEN they won't have trouble finding missing ship.
                              BECAUSE, they still have issues with finding missing ship, THEN we know satellite can't keep track of everything on the ocean.
                              GLOBAL FISH WATCH track fishing ship by using the Automatic Identification system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automa...ication_system, it is a transponder that you gave to fishmongers, they put it on their ship and publicizing their locations.
                              A military ship can choose to not publicizing their locations, like how a stealth fighter can turn of their transponder.
                              Click image for larger version  Name:	image_263715.jpg Views:	4 Size:	198.7 KB ID:	3870798


                              2. I didn't try to save face and I don't have to because I am correct. I have provided you with links but you didn't bother to read them then you complain that I told about something completely different to the quote. I didn't talk about irrelevant definition, you didn't read the link I gave, so you don't understand why I talk about these definition
                              http://www.radartutorial.eu/18.expla...s/ex08.en.html tell you what is SNR and they also explain what is external and what is internal noise.
                              https://phys.org/news/2014-03-fully-...sed-laser.html tell you all about photonic radar, when you scroll down, you will see the part where they explain how internal noise is reduced with photonic radar.

                              3. LRASM black on the left, Harpoon on the right. LRASM and Harpoon can both be launch from aircraft or ship. I have given you source of a anti-ship air to surface missile going from descending to ascending even though I shouldn't have to. This is why I feel lazy to reply in previous topic, you ask for the source but you don't read them, you fixing on words instead of meaning.
                              Click image for larger version  Name:	0BEF8D8E-DBFC-4425-8EA2-02AFDEFF2D94.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	87.9 KB ID:	3870812
                              Click image for larger version  Name:	dfsdfa.PNG Views:	0 Size:	232.6 KB ID:	3870799Click image for larger version  Name:	sfas.PNG Views:	0 Size:	205.3 KB ID:	3870800
                              Last edited by moon_light; 13th August 2019, 14:09.

                              Comment

                              • panzerfeist1
                                Rank 6 Registered User
                                • Feb 2018
                                • 399

                                #35
                                @moonlight


                                "1.
                                IF satellite can keep track of all ships all the time by radar or image THEN they won't have trouble finding missing ship.
                                BECAUSE, they still have issues with finding missing ship, THEN we know satellite can't keep track of everything on the ocean.
                                GLOBAL FISH WATCH track fishing ship by using the Automatic Identification system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automa...ication_system, it is a transponder that you gave to fishmongers, they put it on their ship and publicizing their locations.
                                A military ship can choose to not publicizing their locations, like how a stealth fighter can turn of their transponder."

                                Yes it keeps track of AI messages, but also read this part https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ean-180968250/

                                "Most fishing happens near coastlines, where countries tend to stick within their own economic zones, but there are hot spots in open ocean, writes Carolyn Gramling for Science News. Those spots include the northeastern Atlantic and spots off the coasts of South America and West Africa where nutrient-rich waters well up from deeper waters. As Gramling writes, just five countries China, Spain, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea are responsible for more than 85 percent of fishing that happens on the high seas, outside of their own economic zones."

                                I think they figured out that these 5 asian countries did 85% of all fishing by tracking their fishing boats. They still have issues finding missing ships than why is it so hard for you to post sources? I dont know about you but I think Naval vessels are bigger and easier to spot than small fishing boats and I also think militaries from both countries with a huge amount of satellites focus more on their adversaries.

                                2. "I have provided you with links but you didn't bother to read them then you complain that I told about something completely different to the quote."

                                Those links have nothing to do with S/N ratio. Well of course its completely different from the quote because the quote mentioned noise and how its lowered 100 times improving the S/N ratio which """""only"""""" talks about signal and background noise but god knows where you came up with the idea of internal or external noise.

                                "tell you what is SNR and they also explain what is external and what is internal noise."
                                http://www.radartutorial.eu/18.expla...s/ex08.en.html

                                Oh look a source you actually provided me defining the the S/N ratio but absolutely no mentions of external background noise or internal background noise like you have mentioned before.

                                My definition of lowering noise 100fold and improving S/N ratio is lowering the background noise, since this is the only noise mentioned in the definition of S/N ratio since of course the chinese have said the noise will be lowered 100 times, not the signal.

                                your definition: "You can find the definition of external and internal noise if you look hard enough." You never really elaborated anything further from this.

                                Your source.

                                "The sources of noise arise from inside and outside a circuit. Along with the signal power, a noise power (interference power) is received by the radar antenna."

                                talks about noises from inside and outside a circuit, along with measuring the signal power to noise power(which causes interference) and this is received by the antenna.

                                I have been talking about this the entire time not the circuits but the difference between the signal and noise and that being the noise interferes with the received signal. Holy **** I think I have been telling you this the entire time!

                                "This interference power comes from extraterrestrial radiation sources (galactic or cosmic noise), mainly in the Milky Way, absorption of electromagnetic radiation in the atmosphere, and the noise temperature of the Earth."

                                They have refered to this interference power as noise according to your source.

                                Define: Background noise or ambient noise is any sound other than the sound being monitored (primary sound). Background noise is a form of noise pollution or interference. Background noise is an important concept in setting noise levels.

                                Extraterrestial radiation counts as background noise for causing interference of the signal being heard or monitored.

                                More from your source:

                                Since this noise can't be seperate from the backscattered radar signals, the received noise will be amplified like the radar signals in all stages of the radar receiver, too.

                                Now this goes back all the way to what the Chinese have said in their source, which is the noise is lowerered 100 times improving the S/N ratio. S/N ratio is defined as measuring the signal from the background noise or noise or interference however you want to say it. Chinese said the noise is lowered not the signal. However this draws the conclusion sigals are better heard if noise is lowered.


                                https://phys.org/news/2014-03-fully-...sed-laser.html tell you all about photonic radar, when you scroll down, you will see the part where they explain how internal noise is reduced with photonic radar.

                                photonic radars send signals than receive signals. When the signal comes back it will be monitored. Electrical circuits cause interference with this signal than compared to using fiber optics. You remove this interference and the signal is better monitored on radar. No noise loss when doing frequency conversion is another benefit.

                                I made sure this explanation was as simple and easy to understand for you or anyone else reading this. I like your source its explanation was the same way I have perceived it to be. Remember I am not taking the chinese too seriously because I have not yet found a source directly from the russians, but I did find sources that have said from them that the noise is lowered(not 100fold like chinas source) and I am lingering with a theory that FICS based satellites using supercomputers and software to track low altitude targets is much better than MMIC based satellites using supercomputers and software because of a drastic drop in noise interference which might relate to China's claim but thats about it.

                                "you ask for the source but you don't read them, you fixing on words instead of meaning."

                                The kettle is calling the pot black. I see the images of harpoon going up and aircrafts carrying LRASM. Where in that image shows a before or after images of LRASM ascending not on the aircraft but when its fired. And is there any news article that "shows any" mentions at all of air to ground anti-ship missiles(does not have to be limited to LRASM) descending and acending when in flight? If you can't than drop this point already.



                                I thought the fall of western civilization was a tragedy, now I realize it's a comedy.

                                Comment

                                • Sintra
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Aug 2007
                                  • 3849

                                  #36
                                  I love these arguments.
                                  Not one iota of information on the public domain on how these systems would fare against each other... But one and a half pages and we are already on industrial fisheries!
                                  Can we stop the thread? There's no available information in order to make any meaningful insight. The end.
                                  ​​​
                                  sigpic

                                  Comment

                                  • PeeD
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Dec 2003
                                    • 132

                                    #37
                                    Originally posted by Sintra View Post
                                    I love these arguments.
                                    Not one iota of information on the public domain on how these systems would fare against each other... But one and a half pages and we are already on industrial fisheries!
                                    Can we stop the thread? There's no available information in order to make any meaningful insight. The end.
                                    ​​​


                                    https://twitter.com/US_Stratcom/stat...18017957068800

                                    for what its worth...

                                    Comment

                                    • Levsha
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jan 2006
                                      • 2851

                                      #38
                                      Originally posted by Sintra View Post
                                      I love these arguments.
                                      Not one iota of information on the public domain on how these systems would fare against each other... But one and a half pages and we are already on industrial fisheries!
                                      Can we stop the thread? There's no available information in order to make any meaningful insight. The end.
                                      ​​​
                                      I have to agree. They have really ruined this forum - they haven't a clue what they are talking about, I'd say.

                                      Comment

                                      • panzerfeist1
                                        Rank 6 Registered User
                                        • Feb 2018
                                        • 399

                                        #39
                                        I have to agree. They have really ruined this forum - they haven't a clue what they are talking about, I'd say.


                                        Got anything worth contributing or nothing as usual I got bored so I sent your buddies an invite here to spice it up. http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic....425226#p425226
                                        Last edited by panzerfeist1; 13th August 2019, 18:33.
                                        I thought the fall of western civilization was a tragedy, now I realize it's a comedy.

                                        Comment

                                        • moon_light
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • May 2012
                                          • 1033

                                          #40
                                          Originally posted by panzerfeist1 View Post
                                          @moonlight


                                          "1.
                                          IF satellite can keep track of all ships all the time by radar or image THEN they won't have trouble finding missing ship.
                                          BECAUSE, they still have issues with finding missing ship, THEN we know satellite can't keep track of everything on the ocean.
                                          GLOBAL FISH WATCH track fishing ship by using the Automatic Identification system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automa...ication_system, it is a transponder that you gave to fishmongers, they put it on their ship and publicizing their locations.
                                          A military ship can choose to not publicizing their locations, like how a stealth fighter can turn of their transponder."

                                          Yes it keeps track of AI messages, but also read this part https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ean-180968250/

                                          "Most fishing happens near coastlines, where countries tend to stick within their own economic zones, but there are hot spots in open ocean, writes Carolyn Gramling for Science News. Those spots include the northeastern Atlantic and spots off the coasts of South America and West Africa where nutrient-rich waters well up from deeper waters. As Gramling writes, just five countries China, Spain, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea are responsible for more than 85 percent of fishing that happens on the high seas, outside of their own economic zones."

                                          I think they figured out that these 5 asian countries did 85% of all fishing by tracking their fishing boats. They still have issues finding missing ships than why is it so hard for you to post sources? I dont know about you but I think Naval vessels are bigger and easier to spot than small fishing boats and I also think militaries from both countries with a huge amount of satellites focus more on their adversaries.

                                          2. "I have provided you with links but you didn't bother to read them then you complain that I told about something completely different to the quote."

                                          Those links have nothing to do with S/N ratio. Well of course its completely different from the quote because the quote mentioned noise and how its lowered 100 times improving the S/N ratio which """""only"""""" talks about signal and background noise but god knows where you came up with the idea of internal or external noise.

                                          "tell you what is SNR and they also explain what is external and what is internal noise."
                                          http://www.radartutorial.eu/18.expla...s/ex08.en.html

                                          Oh look a source you actually provided me defining the the S/N ratio but absolutely no mentions of external background noise or internal background noise like you have mentioned before.

                                          My definition of lowering noise 100fold and improving S/N ratio is lowering the background noise, since this is the only noise mentioned in the definition of S/N ratio since of course the chinese have said the noise will be lowered 100 times, not the signal.

                                          your definition: "You can find the definition of external and internal noise if you look hard enough." You never really elaborated anything further from this.

                                          Your source.

                                          "The sources of noise arise from inside and outside a circuit. Along with the signal power, a noise power (interference power) is received by the radar antenna."

                                          talks about noises from inside and outside a circuit, along with measuring the signal power to noise power(which causes interference) and this is received by the antenna.

                                          I have been talking about this the entire time not the circuits but the difference between the signal and noise and that being the noise interferes with the received signal. Holy **** I think I have been telling you this the entire time!

                                          "This interference power comes from extraterrestrial radiation sources (galactic or cosmic noise), mainly in the Milky Way, absorption of electromagnetic radiation in the atmosphere, and the noise temperature of the Earth."

                                          They have refered to this interference power as noise according to your source.

                                          Define: Background noise or ambient noise is any sound other than the sound being monitored (primary sound). Background noise is a form of noise pollution or interference. Background noise is an important concept in setting noise levels.

                                          Extraterrestial radiation counts as background noise for causing interference of the signal being heard or monitored.

                                          More from your source:

                                          Since this noise can't be seperate from the backscattered radar signals, the received noise will be amplified like the radar signals in all stages of the radar receiver, too.

                                          Now this goes back all the way to what the Chinese have said in their source, which is the noise is lowerered 100 times improving the S/N ratio. S/N ratio is defined as measuring the signal from the background noise or noise or interference however you want to say it. Chinese said the noise is lowered not the signal. However this draws the conclusion sigals are better heard if noise is lowered.


                                          https://phys.org/news/2014-03-fully-...sed-laser.html tell you all about photonic radar, when you scroll down, you will see the part where they explain how internal noise is reduced with photonic radar.

                                          photonic radars send signals than receive signals. When the signal comes back it will be monitored. Electrical circuits cause interference with this signal than compared to using fiber optics. You remove this interference and the signal is better monitored on radar. No noise loss when doing frequency conversion is another benefit.

                                          I made sure this explanation was as simple and easy to understand for you or anyone else reading this. I like your source its explanation was the same way I have perceived it to be. Remember I am not taking the chinese too seriously because I have not yet found a source directly from the russians, but I did find sources that have said from them that the noise is lowered(not 100fold like chinas source) and I am lingering with a theory that FICS based satellites using supercomputers and software to track low altitude targets is much better than MMIC based satellites using supercomputers and software because of a drastic drop in noise interference which might relate to China's claim but thats about it.

                                          "you ask for the source but you don't read them, you fixing on words instead of meaning."

                                          The kettle is calling the pot black. I see the images of harpoon going up and aircrafts carrying LRASM. Where in that image shows a before or after images of LRASM ascending not on the aircraft but when its fired. And is there any news article that "shows any" mentions at all of air to ground anti-ship missiles(does not have to be limited to LRASM) descending and acending when in flight? If you can't than drop this point already.


                                          1. They keep track of that with AIS.
                                          fishing boat are smaller than naval vessel but they aren't small enough to be invisible to satellite image. The AIS is used because you don't have satellite at all location.

                                          2. Can you read every word before you make a reply? do you see they talk about inside and outside? indubitably, signal is better heard when noise is lowered.

                                          Click image for larger version  Name:	1.PNG Views:	0 Size:	369.4 KB ID:	3870986
                                          http://www.radartutorial.eu/18.expla...s/ex08.en.html
                                          Click image for larger version  Name:	image_263692.png Views:	0 Size:	51.9 KB ID:	3870987

                                          Photonic radar: reduce noise by eliminating the up and down-conversion.
                                          Click image for larger version  Name:	33.PNG Views:	0 Size:	82.1 KB ID:	3870988
                                          https://phys.org/news/2014-03-fully-...sed-laser.html

                                          3. I gave you the image of F-18 with Harpoon, it isn't only a ship launch missile
                                          LRASM ascending:
                                          Click image for larger version  Name:	44.PNG Views:	0 Size:	295.0 KB ID:	3870989




                                          JASSM ascend to higher altitude after launch
                                          Last edited by moon_light; 15th August 2019, 08:22.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X