@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. 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/2019-05-01/doc-ihvhiqax6102967.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. 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.

Huh with the ballons, everyone and their friend know exactly where you are from thousands of miles ?

I am going to go to sleep now. I will go look back at RTIs articles and I believe the max height is 1km for the floating balloon meaning it can’t be tracked 1000 miles away because of below the radar horizon. If you want to attack the balloon I am sure a USN ship missile has more range than what your aircrafts carry.

Thank you for those weapons sources 😀 I only wish I was set with the load out carry for the JSOW-ER, MALD-X and JSM on the F-35

I will not insult you at all on the radars just like you were kind to not insult me on my mistakes of the weapons.

1. S-400 radar doesn’t track targets from 3000 km, you want longer range, there are cost you have to trade.

Mobile radars do not have the power output ground radars have. Go find out the amount of power ground radar like the Voronezh draws in comparison to a S-400 radar. The more juice you have the better the range.

2. Voronezh is difference because it is a sky wave radar, sky wave radar is not limited by radar horizon but instead have a bind sector of 1500-2500 km right in front of them.

Voronezh radars are brand new ground radar installations for A-235 system and a great integration for their entire defense network. They are not skywave radars there is a radar for that which is developed by RTI called Container. Voronezh, sm, dm,vp,work in vhf, uhf and shf. Blind sectors exist but because of russias land mass distance I am sure far distant placed container radars can cover the blind spots the other container radars have missed.

@moonlight

For points 1 and 3 I am trying to find sources for unless you got some of them being launched at low altitudes to achieve those ranges?

“only 2500 km shorter than your proposed number because you are referring to anti-ballistic missiles radars.”

yes radar horizon limits their ranges I have take this into account they will still track aerial targets that are within 500kms depending what altitudes they are at.

they are designed to detect and engage ballistic missiles with vastly different characteristics from a fighter aircraft such as significant Doppler shift, very high altitude with no clutter, you deal with a different kind of target the waveform you used is different and the Doppler rejection threshold is different. No one wants their ballistic missiles defense radar to track Mach 1 targets.

S-400 radars are designed to detect and track cruise missiles, jets, ballistic missiles, etc. There are sources that show voronezh radars track aircrafts as well. What I am showing is simply its performance in detection and tracking.

b) the range don’t take jamming into account.

OK I know you did not read what I posted at all:rolleyes: but just like spudman i dont blame you. I stated before I did not include jamming from land radars like krasukha or airborne jammers like the barricuda.

These radars will be attacked by very long-range missiles such as JASSM-XR or AGM-183A instead of JSM or SPEAR

By all means tell me what kind of operation you will use to achieve this but I hope your not assuming its a simple task and that there is no air defense network protecting these radars.

SBX is indeed a powerful radar and I will definetly include it next time after this upcoming maks airshow for the SU-57 like I will include the Voronezh-SM for the F-35. And just like the DM version I hope good old RTI gets there hands on them.

4. s-350s, s-300, s-400 , A-135 can intercept hypersonic targets as in ballistic missiles but they aren’t designed to intercept hypersonic missiles like scramjet missile. I don’t think buk-m3s can intercept either ballistic missiles or hypersonic missiles. Ballistic missiles can be as fast or much faster than scramjet missiles but they follow more predictable course and easier to intercept

Buk-m3 is designed for 3km/s targets is this speed hypersonic to you? Scramjets are basically ballistic missiles that can fly at lower altitudes to me similar to hypersonic glide vehicles. http://www.deagel.com/Artillery-Systems/S-400_a000371001.aspx The 9M96 is an extremely maneuverable surface-to-air missile intended to engage both air breathing and ballistic threats at ranges of up to 120 km. Airbreathing is basically another name for scramjet missile designs http://www.deagel.com/Artillery-Systems/S-500_a002423001.aspx The Mars mobile advanced radar system has been identified as a key sensor associated with the S-500 missile system. The advanced radar system will make possible to engage stealth and unmanned aircraft as well as ballistic missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles and low Earth satellites