There’s no misinterpretation and I’m full aware that you don’t know this from your prior posting.
Wrightwing, these are your words.
How else could “The radar return would give the Raptor accurate info, as its ping would return prior to an altered return from a jammer.” be interpreted??
Apparently, you think jammer’s pulses return before original radar’s and that jammer is somehow jamming in advance, before seeing the inbound signal at all.

You’re still misrepresenting my point. I never said that the altered signal would return first, which was the entire point. By the time the altered signal arrived, the radar would’ve already changed freqs many times, and the unaltered signals would’ve been interpreted prior to any altered ones being filtered(due to not having the correct coding).

Radar signal doesn’t have to be identified to be jammed.
Where did you get that idea?
One detected (not identified), LPI signal can be jammed normally, in fact even easier due radar’s low power output, while in LPI op.mode.

Which goes back to the whole- is the jammer operating at all times, or only if a threat is detected question? If the RWR/jammer don’t realize that a signal is a radar, it’s not going to be doing anything. The LPI signal has to be detected and identified as a threat, or it will be treated as background noise, and filtered out.

Let me rephrase the question- what do you envision the RuAF looking like in terms of updated aircraft in terms of total numbers of Fulcrums and Flankers brought up to SMT/MKI comparable specs, along with Su-34s, 35s, and 50s, in say 2015, 2020? The fact of the matter is that the RuAF budget is still nothing spectacular.

A — yes I understand that, however they could consider to sell the newest SH and replace both the old and new SH with F-35. There is a great market for second-hand 4. gen a/c, just look at all the second-hand F-16 being sold.

B — This is what I don’t understand. The F-35 fanboys keep telling us that in the future 5. gen a/c like the F-35 is the only thing that will “cut it”. At the same time the same fanboys seem to have no problems accepting that the SH will be good enough for the USN for many many years to come.

They’re using a hi/low mix just like the USAF is using F-22/35 mix. The Super Hornets will have Growlers supporting them.

LOL, Wrightwing, this is why I told you to learn how does the radar work and yet you didn’t.
Of course, the original pulse returns before, the jammed one. So what?

How could it return faster, when both travel the speed of light? :D[/quote]

Nice strawman.

However, DECM (also called, RGPO – range gate pull off) jammers exploit exactly that, to spoil radar’s range finding and target usually appears farther then actually is.

That works great if the jammer can keep up with the rapidly changing freq. You seem to be under the impression that all of this is occurring in real time, and the jammer not only has had time to process the signal, react to it, and send the altered signal back, all the while ignoring the fact that if the altered signal is on the old freq, that the radar’s signal processor won’t notice. I’m not saying that LPI is NPI, or that AESA performance can’t be degraded. I am saying that you’re greatly oversimplifying the challenges in doing so.

What’s POI?

Probability of intercept.

Anyway, the points you’re trying to push don’t matter, since both systems use same principals.
You have tried to portray APG77’s periodical sweeps as something authentic, while it isn’t and APG63 did that 40 years ago (periodical sweeps), so that’s another false claim.

The big differences between the 2 systems is that the APG-77 could’ve done a complete sweep many times, in the time it’d take for the -63 to conduct 1 sweep. The -77’s ability to detect a target in one sweep is considerably better than the -63. The likelihood of an enemy RWR detecting the -77 is considerably lower. The brains of the backends are in no way comparable, in term of capability.

Try jamming an adverse radar with it for over a minute and it will cook your coffee alright :diablo:

It’s not necessary to continuously jam, or even desirable if you’re trying to maintain a discrete profile. You just need to jam long enough to break a lock while performing an evasive maneuver, or to provide bogus info to the source.

Wrightwing :

Yes .
You see that I am with you on this one , because of Physics laws .

What you don ‘t seem to understand is how an Aesa radar works in the first place , secondly you greatly underestimate Bragg Cells and to a lower extent Superheterodyne .

An Aesa radar need multiples reflected “pings” to build a picture . Thousand times per seconds , an Aesa radar send multiple (hundreds) “pings” on various frequencies and hope to get enough “returns” to buid the picture .
That is how it works .

This isn’t quite accurate. The APG-77 has a ~86% probability of detection of a target at well over 100nm with a single scan.

At 200km away , the Rafale wouldn ‘t be considered at all while Spectra would consider the “pings” .
As I said , thousands of “pings” can be stored and analysed in matter of seconds and/or minutes .

That’s great except the second ping wouldn’t look like the first one. It’d take a lot more than a few scans to correctly ID the signal, and realize that something was amiss.

It doesn’t matter if it’s for practical, or other matters.
You make false claims.

B2 only appears smaller than Cessna but really isn’t, which is precisely the place where will the anti-stealth combat begin and it already did with widespread of networked combat systems.

What matters is how far/near you can detect an incoming platform. Whether the B-2 only appears smaller to the radars that are looking for it, is kind of an important detail.

The huge parabolic/Cassegrain antenna of the original N001 radar probably contributes a lot of the difference between the Su-27 and the Eagle with its flat plate antenna. Other than that, I don’t see how there would be a lot in it between the two in terms of RCS – certainly not a 300% factor. So simply by giving the more recent Flankers a different radar a handsome reduction has probably come about. Add RAM (features on most recent production variants), a coated canopy (apparently at least being tested on Su-30MK #02) as well as possibly a FSS radome (no information on whether Russia has developed this though) and you could likely slash signature quite a bit. All without altering the actual airframe in any significant way, effectively just by replacing the materials in selected areas. Define “minor”.

I understand all of these things can certainly contribute to reductions, but take the Super Hornet vs. Legacy Hornets- there was a lot of actual physical redesign involved, as well as additional RAM treatment, radar blockers, change of radar array type, etc.. The Flanker’s shape hasn’t changed much, was what I was concerned about. We’ll have to wait and see about the canopy and radome mods. I’m just skeptical about slapping RAM on a bad shape to get large improvements, without the other things I’ve discussed.

Yes, exactly like those. Su-27SM, Su-25SM, Su-24M2, MiG-29SMT, MiG-31BM – there are upgrades available for every tactical aircraft in the Russian inventory, their pace and scope has just been hampered in the past by crippling economic problems. Prior to that, the Soviet Union did not believe in the upgrade idea at all, preferring to use hardware until it was obsolete and then replace it with up-to-date newbuilds – that era is not really a relevant example.

My point wasn’t that updates were available. It was how many have been updated(i.e. how many Flankers in the RuAF are comparable to an MKI variant, if any, etc…..). The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the RuAF has been updated very little.