Airborne sensors have a size/weight limit, the future for air interception will be the use of main VLF radars , not because the mythic stealthy thingy, but because they definitivelly can’t be targeted with ARM’s, these systems will be combined with high presicion/frecuency radars
True, so I guess, future HARMs will be equipped with YAGI antennas :D, or if still using planar ones, future HARM’s layout would remind of Panzerfaust…;)
Cheers, Cola
ELP, thx for the link…
However, among a mile of text, nothing has actually been said. I understand Raptors’ systems have been classified, but there’s nothing to talk about. These are very general concepts for stealth’s approach to EW and frankly its been so general that most people could have conclude that for themselves. LPI, Sensor Fusion, etc…it all sounds fine IN THEORY, but there isn’t a single number around…
Cheers, Cola
Swerve, LOL.
How long it takes for you to tie your own shoes?? 😀
Cheers, Cola
It’s simple in its operating logic.
In reality there are constrains that can’t be circumvented and which pose design limit.
So, At some point (as jammer closes to emitter) the emitting radar eventually does a “burn through” jamming signal, because jamming signal cannot be amplified any more (Jammer power output limit is certainly lower than radar’s) and the actual radar’s signal becomes stronger than jammer’s, resulting in accurate target reading.
Further, wave-tube has limited frequency band and it’s possible for the illuminating radar to jump out of jammer’s operating band, thus achieving temporary “burn through”.
However, it’s a popular way, because today radar’s signals are rather complex in terms of high-digit watermarks (or other type of encoding) and frequency jumping and that may just prove impossible for a jammer to recreate such signals in given time and freq band.
Cheers, Cola
Not sure about that, but I already saw similar things happen…For example, by all public data GE/F110 was significantly more capable than PW/F100, but waited for long time (after cleared for installation) until actually got installed in F-16.
…Go figure, why…:confused:
Active cancellation is only possible if jammer can produce exact radar signal the SAM radar will be emitting , if the jammer uses DRFM or tries to active cancel it then SAM radar can use different frequencies and modulation, and use algorithms to see if the signal is fake.
Actually, its even simpler than it looks. Most “light” jammers work that way. So, the onboard system just delays the incoming signal via something like a infinite wave-tube capacitor and sends it back a bit amplified, after delaying a certain time (defined by capacitor’s dimensions and thus frequency limited). The result is, the receiving radar “sees” the aircraft normally, BUT shifted in position by the time delay, from jammer.
Cheers, Cola
ok, one last quote i think you got confused or its me ,but on 2 fronts you lose -again,
first is how much GAIN or sensitivity your few centimethers across RWR , which is an antenna have?
compare it to several mether squared of ground based antena?_;)especialy with sidelobe tracking where outer boundary of radar beam is just touching you from 1 side to another in a sweep()_?
with radar shuting down its beam to prevent illuminating whole plane while switching sides?
and also power available to ampplify the weak signal does you airfighter have available ,and processing powere available ,and number of operators you have onboard???
starting to get picture? 😎
Hm…didn’t think this is about loosing and winning (“again”???), but about clarifying things (answering the question).
So, from the general tone of my post, I hoped it was obvious that my point is purely academical, like that part of the question, was.
I really don’t know much about either system’s data (classified), but I was assuming that we have comparable systems involved.
So, in terms of frequency, not sure here, but I think we talk about X-band (or upper C-band) for tracking (missile-guidance) radars, for both air and land based systems.
In this conditions, RWR can actually detect another radar at roughly double the range regardless of gain.
Gain is just a matter of “focus”. So, a high-gain (guiding) antenna, has in turn longer range for the same wavelength and output power (and sooner the RWR will detect it).
In the real world, surveillance, tracking and/or guiding radars have different wavelengths, because shorter wavelength have higher resolution/precision on account of reduced range. So, it’s common to pair the shortest possible wavelength (highest frequency) radar with the SAM missile’s range, because you’ll get the most precise guiding for a given range (you actually don’t need guiding outside of missile’s max range).
In terms of other frequency bands, I’m not sure how RWR antennas have been layed out (for particular system) and therefore frequency limits, the given RWR can detect at all.
Anyway, keep in mind that the lower you go (towards VHF) the more interference you get and you need larger antennas. Then large LC (coil-capacitor) filters come into play, but anyhow radar will be operating significantly more difficult…
Phew, I think I got it right (it’s been a while), but if I didn’t, feel free to correct me 😀
Cheers, Cola
Is there any reason why the whole photo is sharp just the AESA antenna looks totally blurred? :confused:
At first, I thought so too. But then I got a pic in Photoshop and raised brightness and zoomed in. It seems that the antenna has some kind of sponge on the borders and that has been causing a blurry effect.
Cheers, Cola
Maybe the F-22 got its data from an E-3 and not from another F-22.
Possible, but then I wonder…Is there actually a verified launch of an AAM in that manner from F22? A link would be nice, thx.
Cheers, Cola
…and if you guys are in the mood, could plz, clarify one other thing.
Found on EF’s site a report (http://www.eurofighter.com/news/20090104_AMRAAMFiring.asp), which states that a pair of EFs did a data linked launch and that this is the 1st KNOWN LAUNCH of that kind?!
…I was under the impression that Americans already did it with F22:confused:…and I’m not sure that EF’s officials would make a April Fool’s jokes on their business site (check the date)…
Thx, Cola
So luckily the videos made a point. We are fed marketing bs from all sides.
Here is a nice dramatic Typhoon clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weYvdpY2VbU
But all videos make one common point. The airframe itself matters less and less, the avionics and weapons matter more.
Yes, Seahawk. So, don’t post stupid videos anymore. Man, you ain’t kid any more (you’re 4 days younger than me:D)…and, no…airframes are more and more important, because they need to defeat modern missiles and other types of projectiles, fired upon the aircraft…
@Sintra:
Thx ;). I was “out of the loop” for some time and those guys sure didn’t thought much of that…
Cheers, Cola
But how practical is it for non stealthy aircraft? The probability of their detection before they can launch missiles is much higher, especially since VLRAAMs are not yet available.
No, in fact it’s very well suited and more important for non-stealth aircraft.
So, for a radar to steady illuminate and therefore track a target (required to fire), the radar (both, ground and airborne) must emit a signal and wait for target’s reflex in a passive portion of scanning. So, the returning signal is very much weaker than sent one, because it must travel two ways (to target and back).
Consequently, target’s RWR is able to “see” emitting radar at ROUGHLY double the range of that radar’s detecting range, because it doesn’t have to wait for the beam to return.
So, having good RWR suite is very much of an advantage, because it allows a potential target to “see and hear” before it gets threatened and plan its next action, accordingly.
Cheers, Cola
Cola
I do imagine that they were talking about this EADS release:
http://www.eads.com/1024/en/pressdb/pressdb/20090506_eads_defence_de_amsar.htmlCheers
Yes, thx.
However, what this CECAR exactly is? Risk-reduction CAESAR?! What’s that?
Cheers, Cola
okay..
so in the F-35 video, the Typhoon gets shot down by a Flanker
in the Flanker video, the Typhoon gets shot down by a Flanker:diablo:
I await a French video.
Apparently, Eurofighter became a yardstick for air superiority, or at least its intimidating enough for others to shoot it down, even in simulations…Same was with F-16, back in ’80s and I see it as a verification of its capabilities.
Cheers, Cola
Guys, I admire your energy level to even comment on these films :D. I mean its humiliating, even intelligence insulting, for eventual buyers (and I think this could prove to be a serious problem, if LM maintains such an apporach).
Btw, just red in local military newspaper that Euroradar completed testing and process of fitting?! (very unclear news) of CAESAR in EF at the beginning of this month. So, I went to EF official page and was nothing there…Anyone knows more on this? Thx.
Cheers, Cola