You’re the one that wants to play the semantics games, and that never has a proper response aside from being dismissive, as if everything you’ve just said is a foregone conclusion. I’m the one being arrogant?

This BS is slowly stretching my patience. If the weight figures on the slides were higher not lower, you wouldn’t give fvck. All your trust in some mysterious powerpoint slides over the official websites and program documents has much to do with the fact that you WISH they were accurate.

But I don’t give damn about your filthy wishwork – neither yours, nor pfcem’s. I trust hard facts, nothing else. If the ACC figures are so damn accurate, then I’d guess they would appear on LM website, NAVY website, USAF website, USMC website and 233 other websites in the world within hours, wouldn’t they?

Until that happens, the empty F-35A stays for me 29,000 lbs. And you can believe what you want, not my concern.

There are a number of things to consider here.

A- the websites aren’t always updated as information is approved for release
B- the target audience for the open source websites is different than that in briefings
C- there’ll be differences between info on a unrestricted release, FOUO, secret, top secret slide show.
D- if the briefer’s numbers are so far off, where do you suppose they pulled those numbers from, and do you suppose they have little consideration for attempts at accuracy?
E- even if they updated the numbers on the websites, I’m guessing you’d find another reason to doubt them

I mean, where did you get the idea that jammer modifies original signal?
Who told you that?
Where have you read that?

What word would you prefer I use other than alter, to describe what the deception jammer does to the signal?

LOL—but ok…no you don’t, as established before and your next sentence just clears any doubt of that.

Another example of a response lacking substance.

All of this has been answered in previous posts, so feel free go back and try to read with understanding.
It couldn’t hurt to know how does the radar work as well and the lack of that knowledge is the major source of your misconceptions.

If this is the case, then it should be relatively easy for you to point out which post had the answer. How about you explain to me in your own words how ECCM works(or based upon your premise, doesn’t work).

It’s simple. If I want to know F-35’s weight, I will go to US NAVY website and read it for me. I certainly won’t depend on pink claims by some meaningless forum resident who has zero credibility and zero evidence to back it up. Why would I?

It’s pfcem who should write mail and ask if he needs his claims supported by something substantial. But I am afraid that any figures differing from his claims he will automatically consider as fake, erroneous and mislead. And I am also afraid that even if he had the real numbers, he wouldn’t have the guts to go in the open and admit that he was wrong 😎

You’re absolutely right. You can’t trust slides from an ACC briefer, as they’re not concerned about being accurate or credible to the folks that are in attendance.:rolleyes:

I’ll allow you to do that, mainly because it makes no difference.

Well it does matter if there are more than twice the number of F-16s than F-15s. What was the safety record/accident rate for A-4/A-7/F-8s?

If the ECM system is modifying the original signal, and part of that modification doesn’t include that coding, then the APG-77(79,81, etc..) will be able to filter out bogus returns.

Of course it won’t because it can’t, but you thought it can and it does and that was somehow the modus operandi of your imaginary DECM and that’s the point.

Wrong again. That’s what you keep trying to imply that I’m saying, but saying it repeatedly doesn’t make it so.

So, the sole purpose of this quotation was to show that you don’t know how DECM works, in spite of your permanent arguing on a very high level of “expertize”.
Anyway, that’s fulfilled now, so if you plan to throw more semantics this way, no need.

Semantics are important when you continually try to attribute statements to me, that I’ve never made. I have never said that the altered signal returns is seen first. I’ve continually pointed out that due to the frequency agility, coded signals etc.., it’s difficult for the altered signal to spoof the APG-77.

No and original signal won’t be processed prior to arrival of jammer’s signal and that’s the wole point of DECM, of which you obviously don’t have a clue.
I’ve posted you a several links where you can learn more about this…

The altered signal won’t be coded. This makes the task of picking out the correct return signifcantly easier, not to mention that due to the rapid change in freqs, a second return of the wrong freq will also be a huge indicator.

Ok, let’s not get into this. It’s sufficient to say “NO” and EWS doesn’t need to ID the radar in order to jam it. Period.

Once it identifies it as a hostile radar- YES. Until then. NO.