@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?

As explained by our colleague Gabriele from UK Armed Forces Commentary, it must be noted that SPEAR 3 is a powered weapon, while the American-made Small Diameter Bomb II only glides. SPEAR 3 has two small side intakes for its Hamilton Sundstrand TJ-150 turbojet, and the engine opens up a whole range of unique capabilities for a weapon so small. This 80 kg mini-cruise missile can be launched even when not facing the target (differently from SDB) and with more freedom regardless of launch height and weather conditions that affect gliding. The weapon is to be able to engage fixed and mobile targets alike, with a data link enabling post-launch control and retargeting.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/inde…faa-f-35s.html

Glide bomb to cruise missile
But its incursion in and importance to the Navy’s F-35C plans may help breathe added life into the program once again. Most notably, the service is once again exploring the possibility of a powered JSOW-Extended Range, or JSOW-ER, cruise missile variant.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon…t-inside-f-35c

“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.

1. S-400 radar doesn’t track targets from 3000 km, you want longer range, there are cost you have to trade, one is waveform. Unless you can give a source state that Army radar is used to track aircraft and low altitude cruise missile, i believe it fills the same role as AN/TPY-2 or SBX
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.

1. SPEAR is a cruise missile with a turbojet engine, it is not greatly dependent on altitudes like SDB
2. “claimed 5m2 at 3000km range radar and Voronezh-SM”, radar horizon vs a fighter at 50.000 ft is around 500 km, only 2500 km shorter than your proposed number because you are referring to anti-ballistic missiles radars. The issues are three folds:
a) 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.
b) the range don’t take jamming into account.
c) detection range come with the cost of size, powerful radar are more stationary and harder to hide. These radars will be attacked by very long-range missiles such as JASSM-XR or AGM-183A instead of JSM or SPEAR
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t1.PNG Views:t0 Size:t51.8 KB ID:t3870492″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3870492″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
3. JSOW-ER is JSOW with jet engine and therefore not dependent on altitudes like GBU-53
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

Then they are not made to be LPI. Clearly ESM will have advantage.

I meant even one with alleged LPI such as APG-79, APG-81 still got higher average output than 1 W, far higher in fact

Or presented with low sidelobe that the only one who detect it is the one getting painted.

So if you are the one getting painted, ESM effectively beaten LPI radar?

No real consensus as there isnt even official metric being adopted as a measure of merit of being LPI.
Many, ranged from managing and trading between power vs dwell time. Low sidelobes, or make the signal unrecognizable (say random PRF etc)
Countering these techniques are possible but it is hard to tell which is “easier” to counter than the other.

Radar with 1W output can be detected from 25 km
any 10Kw can be detected from 2500 km
Doesn’t that show ESM won the race?
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a456960.pdf
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3863476}[/ATTACH]

I think EODAS and MAW are something like the difference between the FLIR and the IRST, one give you a picture-like image while the others are concentrated on giving the vectorial data of the incoming missile/planes.
It decisively an useful innovation but hardly a game-changer, plane would still need to turn toward the detected object and use the main sensor to engage it.

UV sensor can’t detect missiles in the coasting phase, all BVR missiles except Meteor and S-200 are coasting in the terminal phase. On top of that, missiles can use propellant with very low UV radiation
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3863118}[/ATTACH][ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3863119}[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3862821}[/ATTACH]

Thanks
SAB is the same with GCAS?

“The first prototype of a flying car is VZ-8 Airgeep, do you know when it was made? 1962. Today is 2019, 57 years later and yet flying cars isn’t produce in large number or commercially available”

​

This looks like a cluster**** between a helicopter and aircraft bought to you by uber but yet its called a flying car. Hell I put flying cars on google images and cant find one without wings.

​

Now this is something I would be proud to call a flying car or is closer to that concept without looking like an airplane or helicopter was f@cking it like the above image or your Vz-8 whatever its called. Oh and this thing can travel on water as well cant wait for this to enter the market. This will be my last post regarding cars since I don’t feel like getting in trouble again if this account goes to h#ll I will just make another one.

Neither are commercially available, the uber flying car is CGI
The first flying car prototype was made in 1962. That the work of cost and technological maturity.