Experimenting The F-35 Against SAMs

Many Air Defence systems are mounted on vehicles these days, especially the shorter-ranged systems.

OK. But that was always the case, right ? Air Defense systems like BUK, Panstir etc were always mounted on vehicles to facilitate rapid re deployment. Rather SAMs, that are capable of targeting an incoming hostile aircraft at long and short ranges backed up by Anti-Aicraft Artillery (AAA)are probably more effective.

How are they rapidly relocating ? IOW, is this because of some recent technological advancement ? I say this because, most SAMs do not carry enough fuel to change their location, frequently in order to engage the target.

I think he is referring to their launchers and not the missiles themselves. Many Air Defence systems are mounted on vehicles these days, especially the shorter-ranged systems.

Another factor in the SAM vs airplane issue is the ability of modern SAMs to rapidly relocate..

How are they rapidly relocating ? IOW, is this because of some recent technological advancement ? I say this because, most SAMs do not carry enough fuel to change their location, frequently in order to engage the target.

1. Try to read and digest your source before write

I wonder if you are capable of doing such a thing but the point this was brought up as that a company like google can track vessels anywhere. Also time to teach you english again. “but do not transmit AIS. And now it’s a new ball game,” Zeisel said.” than there is this “alongside AIS “””””””””historical””””””””” behavior.” historical references something of the past doesnt it?

2.”The interference coming from up/down conversion.
Photonics radar has many things similar to conventional radar.”

Yes it comes from the conversion as well………… But do you also agree that photonic radars have less noise because of better transmitter efficiency than conventional radars by using lasers as a source?

3. I was being cooperative, but you are ******* lazy and stubborn. It is tiresome. You don’t look for information.

I have no problems if people need better sources, especially if my own sources dont tell anything about a missiles flight based off of pictures.

4. It was me when you irritated me in ALBM thread. You should know that.

Oh so I was right, but I cant track of everything as to what everyone says.

I’m done, talking to you is as captivating as watching paint dry

Ok atleast you have creativity.

@moonlight

1. “Global Fishing Watch is a website launched in September 2016 by Google in partnership with Oceana and SkyTruth “to provide the worlds first global view of commercial fishing activities.” At any moment, 200,000 vessels are publicizing their locations via the Automatic Identification System (AIS)”
“The automatic identification system (AIS) is an automatic tracking system that uses transponders on ships and is used by vessel traffic services (VTS). When satellites are used to detect AIS signatures, the term Satellite-AIS (S-AIS) is used. AIS information supplements marine radar, which continues to be the primary method of collision avoidance for water transport.[citation needed]

Information provided by AIS equipment, such as unique identification, position, course, and speed, can be displayed on a screen or an electronic chart display and information system (ECDIS). AIS is intended to assist a vessel’s watchstanding officers and allow maritime authorities to track and monitor vessel movements. AIS integrates a standardized VHF transceiver with a positioning system such as a GPS receiver, with other electronic navigation sensors, such as a gyrocompass or rate of turn indicator. Vessels fitted with AIS transceivers can be tracked by AIS base stations located along coast lines or, when out of range of terrestrial networks, through a growing number of satellites that are fitted with special AIS receivers which are capable of deconflicting a large number of signatures.”

Google huh. https://breakingdefense.com/2012/05/…cluding-us-na/

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA: Google will soon make public information about virtually every ship at sea, giving the current location and identity even of American warships. Meanwhile, the company is consulting with the Navy and others about security issues.
UPDATED: (3:30 p.m.) Clarified Google Uses Satellite Technology, Not Building Satellites
Google paid several million dollars for the satellite technology to pinpoint ships locations. These things cost three million dollars for the whole program, Michael Jones, Chief Technology Advocate at Google Ventures, said at the annual Joint Warfighting Conference held by the US Naval Institute and the electronics industry group AFCEA. Google has talked to representatives of 50 navies worldwide about their new technology and has discovered it tracks ships better than their own commanders can. I watch them and they cant see themselves, Jone said. It angers me as a citizen that I can do this and the entire DoD cant.

https://www.satellitetoday.com/innov…ctivities-sea/

From this stage we get the output of vessels that do have AIS and vessels that were detected only in the imagery but do not transmit AIS. And now it’s a new ball game,” Zeisel said.
In order to catch illegal fishers red-handed, for example, ISI must be able to predict where the vessel will be in a few hours’ time to know where to aim the cameras of high-resolution optical satellites. To achieve this, the company turns again to AI algorithms, leveraging multi-agent simulation and deep learning techniques alongside AIS historical behavior. “[We’re] simulating all the possible positions of the vessel,” Zeisel said. “At the end, you get a heat map with a statistical probability of where the vessel can be in up to 12 hours.”

If you somehow dont think Russian satellites are not watching US vessels leave the east coast, to continuously monitor where they are heading to next like Syria than I do not know what to tell you. Identifying where US naval ports are located is not a difficult task to do even for regular citizens with an internent connection. US Naval ships happen to be at naval ports, if they leave with a fleet you thinks its going to be a struggle with satellites giving 24/7 coverage. If you somehow believe in the fantasy that they cant be monitored when they leave their ports than you can hide the balloon or use it only if you are spotted by another source. Whatever floats your fishing boat dude.

S”/N ratio is affected by both and external background noise, “

by both and external? what are these both things you are talking about in addition to external background noise there buddy?

“read up AESA – PESA relation”

Conventional radars that have absolutely nothing to do with ROFAR right?

“External background noise can’t be reduced.”

Have you findly made up your mind about background noise? Remember there is more interference in electronic received RF signals than compared to a photonic radar which I already gave you a source. The less interference or noise the better the signal is heard this does not change the end result of the differences between a radar that uses FICs to one that uses MMICs.

3. I shouldn’t have to, you can find the video if you were looking for it. I don’t enjoy spoon feed information to anyone, it is time consuming and tiresome.

your just not being cooperative which I love to be.

4. No, should you conceive that I am a sock puppet coming to get you then we can stop talking immediately.

Have you already used this redundant post before or was it mig-31bm? It seems too familiar.

1. Try to read and digest your source before write

However, several intelligence experts noted that, while Googles data possesses enormous commercial appeal, its military and intelligence utility is limited. Most Google images are weeks or months old, at least, making them problematic for that most rarified and demanding use targeting. And as one intelligence source noted: Just because you have the data, doesnt mean you can analyze the data or know how to use it.

https://breakingdefense.com/2012/05/…cluding-us-na/

Until a few years ago, AIS was the only way to keep track of goings-on in the middle of the ocean, Zeisel said

ISI then cross-references the data with AIS signals from the specific time the image was taken. From this stage we get the output of vessels that do have AIS and vessels that were detected only in the imagery but do not transmit AIS. And now its a new ball game, Zeisel said.

In order to catch illegal fishers red-handed, for example, ISI must be able to predict where the vessel will be in a few hours time to know where to aim the cameras of high-resolution optical satellites. To achieve this, the company turns again to AI algorithms, leveraging multi-agent simulation and deep learning techniques alongside AIS historical behavior. [Were] simulating all the possible positions of the vessel, Zeisel said. At the end, you get a heat map with a statistical probability of where the vessel can be in up to 12 hours.
https://www.satellitetoday.com/innovation/2017/08/02/using-artificial-intelligence-track-illegal-activities-sea/

2. I already gave you two sources, don’t ask me the same things again, it is very tiresome. The interference coming from up/down conversion.
Photonics radar has many things similar to conventional radar.

3. I was being cooperative, but you are ******* lazy and stubborn. It is tiresome. You don’t look for information.

4. It was me when you irritated me in ALBM thread. You should know that.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3871436}[/ATTACH]

I’m done, talking to you is as captivating as watching paint dry

@moonlight

1. “Global Fishing Watch is a website launched in September 2016 by Google in partnership with Oceana and SkyTruth “to provide the worlds first global view of commercial fishing activities.” At any moment, 200,000 vessels are publicizing their locations via the Automatic Identification System (AIS)”
“The automatic identification system (AIS) is an automatic tracking system that uses transponders on ships and is used by vessel traffic services (VTS). When satellites are used to detect AIS signatures, the term Satellite-AIS (S-AIS) is used. AIS information supplements marine radar, which continues to be the primary method of collision avoidance for water transport.[citation needed]

Information provided by AIS equipment, such as unique identification, position, course, and speed, can be displayed on a screen or an electronic chart display and information system (ECDIS). AIS is intended to assist a vessel’s watchstanding officers and allow maritime authorities to track and monitor vessel movements. AIS integrates a standardized VHF transceiver with a positioning system such as a GPS receiver, with other electronic navigation sensors, such as a gyrocompass or rate of turn indicator. Vessels fitted with AIS transceivers can be tracked by AIS base stations located along coast lines or, when out of range of terrestrial networks, through a growing number of satellites that are fitted with special AIS receivers which are capable of deconflicting a large number of signatures.”

Google huh. https://breakingdefense.com/2012/05/google-satellites-can-track-every-ship-at-sea-including-us-na/

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA: Google will soon make public information about virtually every ship at sea, giving the current location and identity even of American warships. Meanwhile, the company is consulting with the Navy and others about security issues.
UPDATED: (3:30 p.m.) Clarified Google Uses Satellite Technology, Not Building Satellites
Google paid several million dollars for the satellite technology to pinpoint ships’ locations. “These things cost three million dollars for the whole program,” Michael Jones, “Chief Technology Advocate” at Google Ventures, said at the annual Joint Warfighting Conference held by the US Naval Institute and the electronics industry group AFCEA. Google has talked to representatives of 50 navies worldwide about their new technology and has discovered it tracks ships better than their own commanders can. “I watch them and they can’t see themselves,” Jone said. “It angers me as a citizen that I can do this and the entire DoD can’t.”

https://www.satellitetoday.com/innovation/2017/08/02/using-artificial-intelligence-track-illegal-activities-sea/

From this stage we get the output of vessels that do have AIS and vessels that were detected only in the imagery but do not transmit AIS. And now it’s a new ball game,” Zeisel said.
In order to catch illegal fishers red-handed, for example, ISI must be able to predict where the vessel will be in a few hours’ time to know where to aim the cameras of high-resolution optical satellites. To achieve this, the company turns again to AI algorithms, leveraging multi-agent simulation and deep learning techniques alongside AIS historical behavior. “[We’re] simulating all the possible positions of the vessel,” Zeisel said. “At the end, you get a heat map with a statistical probability of where the vessel can be in up to 12 hours.”

If you somehow dont think Russian satellites are not watching US vessels leave the east coast, to continuously monitor where they are heading to next like Syria than I do not know what to tell you. Identifying where US naval ports are located is not a difficult task to do even for regular citizens with an internent connection. US Naval ships happen to be at naval ports, if they leave with a fleet you thinks its going to be a struggle with satellites giving 24/7 coverage. If you somehow believe in the fantasy that they cant be monitored when they leave their ports than you can hide the balloon or use it only if you are spotted by another source. Whatever floats your fishing boat dude.

S”/N ratio is affected by both and external background noise, “

by both and external? what are these both things you are talking about in addition to external background noise there buddy?

“read up AESA – PESA relation”

Conventional radars that have absolutely nothing to do with ROFAR right?

“External background noise can’t be reduced.”

Have you findly made up your mind about background noise? Remember there is more interference in electronic received RF signals than compared to a photonic radar which I already gave you a source. The less interference or noise the better the signal is heard this does not change the end result of the differences between a radar that uses FICs to one that uses MMICs.

3. I shouldn’t have to, you can find the video if you were looking for it. I don’t enjoy spoon feed information to anyone, it is time consuming and tiresome.

your just not being cooperative which I love to be.

4. No, should you conceive that I am a sock puppet coming to get you then we can stop talking immediately.

Have you already used this redundant post before or was it mig-31bm? It seems too familiar.

“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.”

So your telling me that the US kept track of 85% of other countries majorly doing fishing by letting them use their GPS? Does this forum have a facepalm emoji?

. 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.

I read every word from your quote and your quote exactly refers to what I have said this an entire time. The entire 1st paragraph talks about circuit, frequency noise and signals. the 2nd paragraph takes about the idea of ohm resistance, etc another topic talking about interference but this of course has nothing to do with background noise and the signals being measured.

noise within a receiver and communication systems. Yes noise like this exists with background noise. But refer back to the chinese only refering to background noise which relates to your external noise definition than refer back to what the chinese have said again about S/N ratio is which only defines the signal being measured from the background and they have said the background noise or external noise however you want to say it since they are the same thing has been lowered 100 times.

Here let me teach you English. “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!”

“noise is 100 times lower than conventional radar”. this noise is defined as background noise in the definition of the S/N ratio. S/N ratio according to its definition measures a received signal from the amount of background noise interfering with the signal from better being heard. “which greatly improves the signal-to-noise ratio” After they stated the noise is lowered they say the S/N ratio has improved. to improve the S/N ratio you either strengthen the signal or lower the noise causing interference with the signal.

I got a questionaire for you.

If you lower the internal or external noise which causes interference with the signal will the signal be better heard?

Photonic radar: reduce noise by eliminating the up and down-conversion.

Notice that I have never disagreed with this. But you seem to act like this next important feature does not exist for some reason.

https://phys.org/news/2014-03-fully-…sed-laser.html

The radar system, part of a project known as PHODIR (Photonics-based fully digital radar) is an effort to improve the tracking and speed calculation abilities of current electronic signal based systems. It’s well understood that making improvements in such a system will require higher frequency signals, something that can’t be done with current systems due to an increase in noise that creates more uncertainty in the signals received. For that reason, scientists have been looking to use lasers—such signals are much more stable.

unstable signals cause more noise than stable signals. I got plenty of more sources if you are not convinced. Italy who started their version have got it to the same level as a conventional radar and plan to still improve it back from 2014, Raytheon’s project manager in 2017 thinks the DOD should start producing it. RTI atleast has dates of when to start a mass laser module production and usually one does not do this if they have the same results as the US naval research laboratory back in 2014 who reported to have the same issues as the italians or the ability to allow satellites to track low altitude targets and are willing to allow their own company to pay out of their pockets to launch 1 satellite.

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/92836/factsheet/en Sadly the Phodir project seems to be closed on this site. There is also one more important benefit that they have not went into detail and that is how would the performance of a FICs based jammer compare to a MMIC since they have said it would outperform conventional jammers and that these ROFAR systems are more immune to jamming. So if the Chinese were right about noise being lowered 100 times better target detection and tracking seeing a .01m2 instead of a 1m2 target from 400kms away. Than the next question is how immune are FICS based radars compared to MMIC ones and how much do FICS based airborne jammers outperform MMIC ones. KRET 2018 book went into some detail so maybe later they will give performance evaluations next.

3. I gave you the image of F-18 with Harpoon, it isn’t only a ship launch missile

You should have gave me the video to begin with but due to physics this would still effect the range and I have not come to an agreement yet that it can be used for aerial targets but if it has the ship has defenses to deal with it and send aircrafts which still makes radar balloons a general good idea.

Not not to waste further points but this should have added back to point 1. If you think it gives the location away of a ship how about this idea not using the balloon but if identified by another vessel for example equipped with brahmos missiles than quickly ascend the balloon.

Still not convinced that photon radar balloons are not a bad idea? Do you happen to also by any chance go by the name euromaster at F-16.net?

1. “Global Fishing Watch is a website launched in September 2016 by Google in partnership with Oceana and SkyTruth “to provide the worlds first global view of commercial fishing activities.” At any moment, 200,000 vessels are publicizing their locations via the Automatic Identification System (AIS)”
“The automatic identification system (AIS) is an automatic tracking system that uses transponders on ships and is used by vessel traffic services (VTS). When satellites are used to detect AIS signatures, the term Satellite-AIS (S-AIS) is used. AIS information supplements marine radar, which continues to be the primary method of collision avoidance for water transport.[citation needed]

Information provided by AIS equipment, such as unique identification, position, course, and speed, can be displayed on a screen or an electronic chart display and information system (ECDIS). AIS is intended to assist a vessel’s watchstanding officers and allow maritime authorities to track and monitor vessel movements. AIS integrates a standardized VHF transceiver with a positioning system such as a GPS receiver, with other electronic navigation sensors, such as a gyrocompass or rate of turn indicator. Vessels fitted with AIS transceivers can be tracked by AIS base stations located along coast lines or, when out of range of terrestrial networks, through a growing number of satellites that are fitted with special AIS receivers which are capable of deconflicting a large number of signatures.”
2. S/N ratio is affected by both and external background noise, read up AESA – PESA relation. External background noise can’t be reduced.
In Photonics radar, internal noise is reduced by canceling the need for up/down conversion, noise from up/down conversion is internal noise
3. I shouldn’t have to, you can find the video if you were looking for it. I don’t enjoy spoon feed information to anyone, it is time consuming and tiresome.
4. No, should you conceive that I am a sock puppet coming to get you then we can stop talking immediately.

“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.”

So your telling me that the US kept track of 85% of other countries majorly doing fishing by letting them use their GPS? Does this forum have a facepalm emoji?

. 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.

I read every word from your quote and your quote exactly refers to what I have said this an entire time. The entire 1st paragraph talks about circuit, frequency noise and signals. the 2nd paragraph takes about the idea of ohm resistance, etc another topic talking about interference but this of course has nothing to do with background noise and the signals being measured.

noise within a receiver and communication systems. Yes noise like this exists with background noise. But refer back to the chinese only refering to background noise which relates to your external noise definition than refer back to what the chinese have said again about S/N ratio is which only defines the signal being measured from the background and they have said the background noise or external noise however you want to say it since they are the same thing has been lowered 100 times.

Here let me teach you English. “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!”

“noise is 100 times lower than conventional radar”. this noise is defined as background noise in the definition of the S/N ratio. S/N ratio according to its definition measures a received signal from the amount of background noise interfering with the signal from better being heard. “which greatly improves the signal-to-noise ratio” After they stated the noise is lowered they say the S/N ratio has improved. to improve the S/N ratio you either strengthen the signal or lower the noise causing interference with the signal.

I got a questionaire for you.

If you lower the internal or external noise which causes interference with the signal will the signal be better heard?

Photonic radar: reduce noise by eliminating the up and down-conversion.

Notice that I have never disagreed with this. But you seem to act like this next important feature does not exist for some reason.

https://phys.org/news/2014-03-fully-…sed-laser.html

The radar system, part of a project known as PHODIR (Photonics-based fully digital radar) is an effort to improve the tracking and speed calculation abilities of current electronic signal based systems. It’s well understood that making improvements in such a system will require higher frequency signals, something that can’t be done with current systems due to an increase in noise that creates more uncertainty in the signals received. For that reason, scientists have been looking to use lasers—such signals are much more stable.

unstable signals cause more noise than stable signals. I got plenty of more sources if you are not convinced. Italy who started their version have got it to the same level as a conventional radar and plan to still improve it back from 2014, Raytheon’s project manager in 2017 thinks the DOD should start producing it. RTI atleast has dates of when to start a mass laser module production and usually one does not do this if they have the same results as the US naval research laboratory back in 2014 who reported to have the same issues as the italians or the ability to allow satellites to track low altitude targets and are willing to allow their own company to pay out of their pockets to launch 1 satellite.

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/92836/factsheet/en Sadly the Phodir project seems to be closed on this site. There is also one more important benefit that they have not went into detail and that is how would the performance of a FICs based jammer compare to a MMIC since they have said it would outperform conventional jammers and that these ROFAR systems are more immune to jamming. So if the Chinese were right about noise being lowered 100 times better target detection and tracking seeing a .01m2 instead of a 1m2 target from 400kms away. Than the next question is how immune are FICS based radars compared to MMIC ones and how much do FICS based airborne jammers outperform MMIC ones. KRET 2018 book went into some detail so maybe later they will give performance evaluations next.

3. I gave you the image of F-18 with Harpoon, it isn’t only a ship launch missile

You should have gave me the video to begin with but due to physics this would still effect the range and I have not come to an agreement yet that it can be used for aerial targets but if it has the ship has defenses to deal with it and send aircrafts which still makes radar balloons a general good idea.

Not not to waste further points but this should have added back to point 1. If you think it gives the location away of a ship how about this idea not using the balloon but if identified by another vessel for example equipped with brahmos missiles than quickly ascend the balloon.

Still not convinced that photon radar balloons are not a bad idea? Do you happen to also by any chance go by the name euromaster at F-16.net?

@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 :rolleyes: 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.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t1.PNG Views:t0 Size:t369.4 KB ID:t3870986″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3870986″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
http://www.radartutorial.eu/18.expla…s/ex08.en.html
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:timage_263692.png Views:t0 Size:t51.9 KB ID:t3870987″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3870987″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

Photonic radar: reduce noise by eliminating the up and down-conversion.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t33.PNG Views:t0 Size:t82.1 KB ID:t3870988″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3870988″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
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:
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t44.PNG Views:t0 Size:t295.0 KB ID:t3870989″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3870989″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

JASSM ascend to higher altitude after launch

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 :stupid: I got bored so I sent your buddies an invite here to spice it up. http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=55959&p=425226#p425226

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.

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.
​​​

:rolleyes:

https://twitter.com/US_Stratcom/status/1160218017957068800

for what its worth…

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.
​​​

@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-news/tracking-fishing-vessels-reveals-industrys-toll-ocean-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.explanations/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 shit 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 :rolleyes: 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.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.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:timage_263715.jpg Views:t4 Size:t198.7 KB ID:t3870798″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3870798″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]

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.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t0BEF8D8E-DBFC-4425-8EA2-02AFDEFF2D94.jpeg Views:t0 Size:t87.9 KB ID:t3870812″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3870812″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tdfsdfa.PNG Views:t0 Size:t232.6 KB ID:t3870799″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3870799″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH][ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tsfas.PNG Views:t0 Size:t205.3 KB ID:t3870800″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3870800″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

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 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 Administration’s 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

“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 Administration’s 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. 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 ƒ 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

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tsssss.PNG Views:t0 Size:t51.9 KB ID:t3870683″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3870683″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

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
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tssss.PNG Views:t0 Size:t125.7 KB ID:t3870684″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3870684″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

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.

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.