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 historical references something of the past doesnt it?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.

“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?

https://tass.com/defense/960570

“S-111 provides radio telephone communication and encrypted data exchange among various aircraft and also command centers (ground and sea-based and airborne). Its effective range of operation is up to 1,500 kilometers,” the official said. “The system’s reliability is guaranteed by the multiple redundancy of the main functions and cutting edge technical solutions, as well as a wide range of radio channels.”

S-111 is capable of transmitting a large amount of information through centimeter wavelength radio channels inside a group of planes.

The system is based on the modular principle, which allows for building up the number of channels and the range of functions performed and for using it on any aircraft, including helicopters Ka-52 Alligator, Mi-28NM, Ka-50, PSV, military transport planes (Ilyushin-76, Ilyushin-112, Antonov-124, PAK VTA), jet fighters and frontline aviation planes (T-50, MiG-31, Sukhoi-34), long-range planes (Tupolev-22M3M, Tupolev-160M, PAK DA) and drones.”

Yes the datalink information allows the SU-57 to share its targeting information to other units. Although I say it is quite surprising that they gave us its effective range of communication.