Claims of ‘Game-Changing’ F-35 Data Fusion Debunked

[LeGenD]

You mean your response isn't related to capabilities of F-35?

If you have scholarly abilities (research skills), you can do OSINT on your own. However, looking through the haze of disinformation, and shedding your biases in the process, is a personal characteristic and cannot be taught. People have different tastes and preferences in real life, and everybody is not good at reading between the lines.

A member (not difficult to guess who) opened a thread titled "Japan air force F-35 vs Russia air force Su-35" some days ago, and it was easy for me to highlight sheer disparity in the capabilities of the two in there, with the wealth of information which I have accumulated by now (I shot down many arguments with concrete data at hand). That thread was TAKEN DOWN nevertheless [interesting].

I would say that there is no such thing as a PERFECT aircraft. Different aircraft have their respective merits. Even F-35 have 3 major variants A, B and C - each having distinct specializations and roles to fulfill. However, F-35 is a marvel of engineering on the whole with unparalleled capabilities in certain areas.

Lot of stuff is classified as well, so a TRUE comparison of capabilities between modern-era combat aircraft will not be possible anytime soon. Fanboys take advantage of this reality (the unknown), and create illusions.

US and Europe have remarkable aviation industries and can compete with each other on many levels (e.g. Boeing versus Airbus). However, US is ahead of every other country in pushing the [technological] envelope, and this reality will not change anytime soon.

Sensor fusion is not a new concept in theory (Cold War era), and implementation (F-22A Raptor). However, US commenced a multi-national 5th generation fighter project in F-35 and other countries learned a great deal from it. Therefore, it is not surprising that stand-alone European options such as British Eurofighter Typhoon and French Rafale have sensor fusion capabilities (keep in mind that these are evolving platforms). Swiss Gripen-E also have sensor fusion capabilities (another evolving platform).

The term "sensor fusion" might have lost its CHARM by now, but blanket comparisons between senor fusion capabilities of each aircraft is a MISTAKE. Sensor fusion capabilities significantly vary in COMPLEXITY from aircraft to aircraft.

Testimonial from a pilot of Eurofigher Typhoon in 2015:

"...Question: How would characterize the role of the F-35 compared to the other elements in the evolving RAF air combat force?

Group Captain Townsend: The F-35 is not a multi-role fighter. Multi-role, in current thinking, would be a sequential series of tasks. The F-35 is doing a number of missions simultaneously. The concept of mission simultaneity is really important.

The airplane has the ability to do things without the pilot asking it to do it. Automatically conducting, particularly, ISR whilst it’s conducting an OCA mission or an attack mission in a very different way than platforms have done business in the past. This is something that other operators are working in the package alongside F-35 need to understand.

That the F-35 operator won’t be going through sequential thought process. He will be thinking about the battle space in a broader sense, a much different way than a Typhoon operator would be thinking about the battle space.

I think there is another step change and difference in the way in which the information is displayed to the pilot which is important and is extremely intuitive. I’ll give you an example. I commanded a Typhoon squadron for two years.

Very early on this job with F-35, I was lucky enough to fly the F-35 simulator. and the different way in which F35 displays information compared to Typhoon is eye-catching. In fact, I asked for the simulator to be stopped because I was taken aback by the information being displayed to me. There was just so much data available at my fingertips, but displayed in a really different sense in Typhoon.

So very, very quickly, I knew a great deal about the entity being targeted – sensor fusion at work. I think it’s a very different way of displaying information that any other fast jet has done before.

Knowing what my wingman is seeing and my wingman knowing what I am seeing, and my ability to communicate what I want to have achieved by my formation, by my package, which all may be by the air wing that’s air-borne at the time. This airplane changes the game in a way which we can conduct that sort of business."

Source: Shaping a New Combat Capability for 21st Century Operations: The Coming of the F-35B to the New British Carrier (Robbin Laird)

---

The pilot felt overwhelmed when trying to come to terms with the capabilities of F-35 in the domain of sensor fusion and otherwise (his first experience).

We can distinguish sensor fusion capabilities on the lines of TRACK CORRELATION and FULL SPECTRUM. Even this categorization sound like a generalization. F-35 have pushed the envelope in several areas including sensor fusion, and other aircraft have a lot of catching to do. I get the impression from my readings that only F-35 have FULL-SPECTRUM sensor fusion capabilities, thus far.

Interesting read: https://sldinfo.com/2018/11/the-f-3...om-the-international-fighter-conference-2018/

@gambit

 

[randomradio]

Yawn is correct -- to your argument.

The kind of sampling I was talking about that SPECTRA must do have nothing to do with A/D conversion. So when you brought on quantization errors, I thought: 'WTF does vinyl to CD conversion have to do with aviation?'

If you cannot figure out what and why, then there is no hope for you.

This is exactly what I meant when I said you use strawman tactics. You make up your own argument and then dispute that, pretending it means something. So basically you are saying digitised radar signals do not have quantization errors. Cheers for that.

Regardless, SPECTRA does not digitise the signal for ACT anyway, so any argument you have with regards to sampling is meant for the recycling bin.

"...Question: How would characterize the role of the F-35 compared to the other elements in the evolving RAF air combat force?

Group Captain Townsend: The F-35 is not a multi-role fighter. Multi-role, in current thinking, would be a sequential series of tasks. The F-35 is doing a number of missions simultaneously. The concept of mission simultaneity is really important.

Rafale already does this, that's why this was defined as omnirole.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/frances-rafale-fighter-proves-its-omnirole-skills-357687/
Dassault describes its Rafale as being an "omnirole" fighter, a tag that it says denotes the type's ability to perform multiple mission types simultaneously.

Knowing what my wingman is seeing and my wingman knowing what I am seeing,

The Rafale has been capable of this since 2006.

"The Rafale really is a gathering platform. You're being fed by different means - that can be via AWACS using Link 16, or from your wingman, all with no radio communications," Pierre says. "All the information you can get from your sensors is vital."

 

[JohnWick]

This is exactly what I meant when I said you use strawman tactics. You make up your own argument and then dispute that, pretending it means something. So basically you are saying digitised radar signals do not have quantization errors. Cheers for that.

Regardless, SPECTRA does not digitise the signal for ACT anyway, so any argument you have with regards to sampling is meant for the recycling bin.



Rafale already does this, that's why this was defined as omnirole.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/frances-rafale-fighter-proves-its-omnirole-skills-357687/
Dassault describes its Rafale as being an "omnirole" fighter, a tag that it says denotes the type's ability to perform multiple mission types simultaneously.



The Rafale has been capable of this since 2006.

"The Rafale really is a gathering platform. You're being fed by different means - that can be via AWACS using Link 16, or from your wingman, all with no radio communications," Pierre says. "All the information you can get from your sensors is vital."

A built in inherit genuine troll.

 

[LeGenD]

Rafale already does this, that's why this was defined as omnirole.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/frances-rafale-fighter-proves-its-omnirole-skills-357687/
Dassault describes its Rafale as being an "omnirole" fighter, a tag that it says denotes the type's ability to perform multiple mission types simultaneously.



The Rafale has been capable of this since 2006.

"The Rafale really is a gathering platform. You're being fed by different means - that can be via AWACS using Link 16, or from your wingman, all with no radio communications," Pierre says. "All the information you can get from your sensors is vital."

No, it doesn't.

Please check some discussions on Western portals, and you will learn a few things. Rafale is also doing TRACK CORRELATION.

Here is some description:

"Implementation of the “multi-sensor data fusion” into the RAFALE translates into accurate, reliable and strong tracks, uncluttered displays, reduced pilot workload, quicker pilot response, and eventually into increased situational awareness.

It is a full automated process carried out in three steps:

[1] Establishing consolidated track files and refining primary information provided by the sensors,
[2] Overcoming individual sensor limitations related to wavelength / frequency, field of regard, angular and distance resolution, etc, by sharing track information received from all the sensors,
[3] Assessing the confidence level of consolidated tracks, suppressing redundant track symbols and decluttering the displays."

Notice the word TRACKS in there? CONSOLIDATED TRACKS = TRACK CORRELATION in the nutshell.

FULL-SPECTRUM sensor fusion in F-35 is relatively much deeper and complex phenomenon. The entire avionics + sensor suite is electronically fused to create a single correlated picture of situational awareness for the pilot (huge amount of data streaming and automation on a continuous basis). This is why changing a sensor system in F-35 is a herculean task (a real pain in the ***).

You cannot understand the difference with mere marketing information on the web.

 

[randomradio]

No, it doesn't.

Please check some discussions on Western portals, and you will learn a few things. Rafale is also doing TRACK CORRELATION.

Here is some description:

"Implementation of the “multi-sensor data fusion” into the RAFALE translates into accurate, reliable and strong tracks, uncluttered displays, reduced pilot workload, quicker pilot response, and eventually into increased situational awareness.

It is a full automated process carried out in three steps:

[1] Establishing consolidated track files and refining primary information provided by the sensors,
[2] Overcoming individual sensor limitations related to wavelength / frequency, field of regard, angular and distance resolution, etc, by sharing track information received from all the sensors,
[3] Assessing the confidence level of consolidated tracks, suppressing redundant track symbols and decluttering the displays."

Notice the word TRACKS in there? CONSOLIDATED TRACKS = TRACK CORRELATION in the nutshell.

FULL-SPECTRUM sensor fusion in F-35 is relatively much deeper and complex phenomenon. The entire avionics + sensor suite is electronically fused to create a single correlated picture of situational awareness for the pilot (huge amount of data streaming and automation on a continuous basis). This is why changing a sensor system in F-35 is a herculean task (a real pain in the ***).

You cannot understand the difference with mere marketing information on the web.

Let me make it simpler. Instead of throwing around terms, it's better to discuss what it all actually means.

The radar provides good ranging information, whereas the IR sensor on the MICA provides good angular resolution. In order to generate targeting information, the MDPU fuses the radar's ranging data with the MICA's angular data to generate the most accurate firing solution.

The only aircraft that can do this are the M-2000, F-22, Rafale, F-35 and Gripen E (in the order of release) in the West. Why? Only these aircraft have a centralised computer. That's how Rafale can fuse raw sensor data from multiple sensors in a single computer. This is what they mean by "Overcoming individual sensor limitations".

All other aircraft have different computers for each sensor, and data fusion, if any, happens post processing where the best targeting information from just one sensor is made available to the pilot that we call decluttering. Even the MKI has this now, so does the Typhoon and Gripen C. This is nowhere near what the Rafale does.

Changing a sensor on Rafale is also a herculean task. No different from the M-2000. One of the reasons why the M-2000 doesn't already come with an AESA radar. You can see the cost of the customisation that IAF is paying already. We can buy an entire squadron of Rafales with that money. Similar integration on the IAF's Mig-29 was peanuts, and the amount included changing everything else also.

 

[JohnWick]

Let me make it simpler. Instead of throwing around terms, it's better to discuss what it all actually means.

The radar provides good ranging information, whereas the IR sensor on the MICA provides good angular resolution. In order to generate targeting information, the MDPU fuses the radar's ranging data with the MICA's angular data to generate the most accurate firing solution.

The only aircraft that can do this are the M-2000, F-22, Rafale, F-35 and Gripen E (in the order of release) in the West. Why? Only these aircraft have a centralised computer. That's how Rafale can fuse raw sensor data from multiple sensors in a single computer. This is what they mean by "Overcoming individual sensor limitations".

All other aircraft have different computers for each sensor, and data fusion, if any, happens post processing where the best targeting information from just one sensor is made available to the pilot that we call decluttering. Even the MKI has this now, so does the Typhoon and Gripen C. This is nowhere near what the Rafale does.

Changing a sensor on Rafale is also a herculean task. No different from the M-2000. One of the reasons why the M-2000 doesn't already come with an AESA radar. You can see the cost of the customisation that IAF is paying already. We can buy an entire squadron of Rafales with that money. Similar integration on the IAF's Mig-29 was peanuts, and the amount included changing everything else also.

Stop trolling in modnight.

 

[LeGenD]

Let me make it simpler. Instead of throwing around terms, it's better to discuss what it all actually means.

The radar provides good ranging information, whereas the IR sensor on the MICA provides good angular resolution. In order to generate targeting information, the MDPU fuses the radar's ranging data with the MICA's angular data to generate the most accurate firing solution.

The only aircraft that can do this are the M-2000, F-22, Rafale, F-35 and Gripen E (in the order of release) in the West. Why? Only these aircraft have a centralised computer. That's how Rafale can fuse raw sensor data from multiple sensors in a single computer. This is what they mean by "Overcoming individual sensor limitations".

All other aircraft have different computers for each sensor, and data fusion, if any, happens post processing where the best targeting information from just one sensor is made available to the pilot that we call decluttering. Even the MKI has this now, so does the Typhoon and Gripen C. This is nowhere near what the Rafale does.

Changing a sensor on Rafale is also a herculean task. No different from the M-2000. One of the reasons why the M-2000 doesn't already come with an AESA radar. You can see the cost of the customisation that IAF is paying already. We can buy an entire squadron of Rafales with that money. Similar integration on the IAF's Mig-29 was peanuts, and the amount included changing everything else also.

You do not read a post properly, and hold your BELIEF above actual realities.

Simple disclosure for you:

"Very early on this job with F-35, I was lucky enough to fly the F-35 simulator. and the different way in which F35 displays information compared to Typhoon is eye-catching. In fact, I asked for the simulator to be stopped because I was taken aback by the information being displayed to me. There was just so much data available at my fingertips, but displayed in a really different sense in Typhoon."

Both aircraft have sensor fusion capabilities but F-35 felt something else in comparison in this very domain. What was difference again?

"The F-35 is not a linear performance enhancement over legacy or fourth generation fighter aircraft. When one considers information and the speed at which it can be collected, fused, presented and acted upon in the combat environment, those who possess this advanced decision capability will be clearly advantaged.

While this is not a new concept having been originally conceived in the famous Boyd “OODA” loop, the information dimension of combat aircraft design now is so important that it forces us to gauge the value of such a weapon system along a third dimension, the “Z” axis."

I have already made distinction simple with terms TRACK CORRELATION and FULL-SPECTRUM SENSOR FUSION.

Read and learn: https://sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The-Impact-of-Advanced-Fusion.pdf

 

[randomradio]

You do not read a post properly, and hold your BELIEF above actual realities.

Simple disclosure for you:

"Very early on this job with F-35, I was lucky enough to fly the F-35 simulator. and the different way in which F35 displays information compared to Typhoon is eye-catching. In fact, I asked for the simulator to be stopped because I was taken aback by the information being displayed to me. There was just so much data available at my fingertips, but displayed in a really different sense in Typhoon."

Both aircraft have sensor fusion capabilities but F-35 felt something else in comparison in this very domain. What was difference again?

"The F-35 is not a linear performance enhancement over legacy or fourth generation fighter aircraft. When one considers information and the speed at which it can be collected, fused, presented and acted upon in the combat environment, those who possess this advanced decision capability will be clearly advantaged.

While this is not a new concept having been originally conceived in the famous Boyd “OODA” loop, the information dimension of combat aircraft design now is so important that it forces us to gauge the value of such a weapon system along a third dimension, the “Z” axis."

I have already made distinction simple with terms TRACK CORRELATION and FULL-SPECTRUM SENSOR FUSION.

Read and learn: https://sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The-Impact-of-Advanced-Fusion.pdf

What I'm saying is the Typhoon pilot will feel the same way about the Rafale as he did for the F-35 when he actually sits in a Rafale simulator or aircraft.

What's similar between the Rafale and F-35? It's simple, it's a common computer.

So you want full spectrum sensor fusion, your basic requirement is a common computer based on IMA. The Rafale does not have separate processors for radar, EW suite etc like the Typhoon does.

The basic structure of the Rafale and F-35 are literally the same. One internal integrated network powered by a single computer.

 

[CriticalThought]

Let me make it simpler. Instead of throwing around terms, it's better to discuss what it all actually means.

The radar provides good ranging information, whereas the IR sensor on the MICA provides good angular resolution. In order to generate targeting information, the MDPU fuses the radar's ranging data with the MICA's angular data to generate the most accurate firing solution.

The only aircraft that can do this are the M-2000, F-22, Rafale, F-35 and Gripen E (in the order of release) in the West. Why? Only these aircraft have a centralised computer. That's how Rafale can fuse raw sensor data from multiple sensors in a single computer. This is what they mean by "Overcoming individual sensor limitations".

All other aircraft have different computers for each sensor, and data fusion, if any, happens post processing where the best targeting information from just one sensor is made available to the pilot that we call decluttering. Even the MKI has this now, so does the Typhoon and Gripen C. This is nowhere near what the Rafale does.

Changing a sensor on Rafale is also a herculean task. No different from the M-2000. One of the reasons why the M-2000 doesn't already come with an AESA radar. You can see the cost of the customisation that IAF is paying already. We can buy an entire squadron of Rafales with that money. Similar integration on the IAF's Mig-29 was peanuts, and the amount included changing everything else also.

The F-35 fuses multiple sensors to create a single visible picture for the pilot. Does Rafale fo the same?

The resulting view is much more richer for applying detection techniques than correlating data points between two different streams.

@LeGenD but the point is that the French are not sitting idle either. They know what F-35 offers, and they will be looking to better that.

 

[randomradio]

The F-35 fuses multiple sensors to create a single visible picture for the pilot. Does Rafale fo the same?

Yes, the Rafale does exactly that. This is what they mean when they say:

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/the-sheer-power-of-multisensor-data-fusion/
Overcoming individual sensor limitations related to wavelength / frequency, field of regard, angular and distance resolution, etc, by sharing track information received from all the sensors,

It literally means the best data from the raw data of all sensors is fused into a single track information.

For example, the MDPU can take range and speed data from the radar, the aspect angle from the FSO and the target bearing data from the EW suite and compute track information. All the poor quality data from the radar, FSO and EW suite will be discarded.

So if the EW suite provides better angular data than the radar, but the radar has better speed data, while the FSO has better range data, then these will be considered. Inferior range, speed and angle data from all sensors will be discarded. Which is not the case with the Typhoon.

They even use the term “multi-sensor data fusion” to describe it.

In essence, the “multi-sensor data fusion” concept implemented into the Rafale allows the pilot to act as a true “tactical decision maker”, rather than being only a sensor operator.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Yes, the Rafale does exactly that. This is what they mean when they say:

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/the-sheer-power-of-multisensor-data-fusion/
Overcoming individual sensor limitations related to wavelength / frequency, field of regard, angular and distance resolution, etc, by sharing track information received from all the sensors,

It literally means the best data from the raw data of all sensors is fused into a single track information.

For example, the MDPU can take range and speed data from the radar, the aspect angle from the FSO and the target bearing data from the EW suite and compute track information. All the poor quality data from the radar, FSO and EW suite will be discarded.

So if the EW suite provides better angular data than the radar, but the radar has better speed data, while the FSO has better range data, then these will be considered. Inferior range, speed and angle data from all sensors will be discarded. Which is not the case with the Typhoon.

They even use the term “multi-sensor data fusion” to describe it.

In essence, the “multi-sensor data fusion” concept implemented into the Rafale allows the pilot to act as a true “tactical decision maker”, rather than being only a sensor operator.

Cool. I thought all the latest planes have data fusion, I mean 21st century ones. It's really easy to program sensor fusion. Even I can do it on my home computer.

 

[LeGenD]

What I'm saying is the Typhoon pilot will feel the same way about the Rafale as he did for the F-35 when he actually sits in a Rafale simulator or aircraft.

How do you know? Do you have a testimonial to share?

What's similar between the Rafale and F-35? It's simple, it's a common computer.

So you want full spectrum sensor fusion, your basic requirement is a common computer based on IMA. The Rafale does not have separate processors for radar, EW suite etc like the Typhoon does.

The basic structure of the Rafale and F-35 are literally the same. One internal integrated network powered by a single computer.

Really?

"Rafale features a Multi-Sensor Data Fusion with a "Modular Data Processing Unit" (MDPU) at its core which connects 19 Line-Replaceable Unit in Rafale multiplying the processing power up to 50 times giving an unprecedented advantage to Rafale in terms of weapons integration and battlescape grasping. This, in turn, leads to less work-load on the pilot, more reliable outputs and increased situational awareness." - Harsh B Mishra

Once again, that is TRACK CONSOLIDATION AND CORRELATION via MDPU. Similar to what Eurofighter Typhoon is doing.

From the link you cited:

"Overcoming individual sensor limitations related to wavelength / frequency, field of regard, angular and distance resolution, etc, by sharing track information received from all the sensors,"

READ THIS AGAIN: "By sharing track information received from all the sensors."

---

"Rafale’s sensor fusion in terms of a common picture presented to the pilot is currently slightly ahead of Typhoon although the P3E upgrade being trialled at BAE Warton will close this gap to a significant extent. It is important to remember, however, that both fighters use a post-sensor picture fusing approach to streamline information for the pilot, rather than the much more complex approach being pursued by the F-35 development programme where all sensors feed into a single process which analyses, contrasts and compares them before presenting a single, processed picture to the pilot. Post sensor fusion is where the different sensors are not linked per se but their outputs are combined by an information management system to streamline the displayed data for the pilot."

Source: https://hushkit.net/2015/12/18/typhoon-versus-rafale-the-final-word/

CASE CLOSED

@CriticalThought

 

[CriticalThought]

How do you know? Do you have a testimonial to share?


Really?

"Rafale features a Multi-Sensor Data Fusion with a "Modular Data Processing Unit" (MDPU) at its core which connects 19 Line-Replaceable Unit in Rafale multiplying the processing power up to 50 times giving an unprecedented advantage to Rafale in terms of weapons integration and battlescape grasping. This, in turn, leads to less work-load on the pilot, more reliable outputs and increased situational awareness." - Harsh B Mishra

Once again, that is TRACK CONSOLIDATION AND CORRELATION via MDPU. Similar to what Eurofighter Typhoon is doing.

---

"Rafale’s sensor fusion in terms of a common picture presented to the pilot is currently slightly ahead of Typhoon although the P3E upgrade being trialled at BAE Warton will close this gap to a significant extent. It is important to remember, however, that both fighters use a post-sensor picture fusing approach to streamline information for the pilot, rather than the much more complex approach being pursued by the F-35 development programme where all sensors feed into a single process which analyses, contrasts and compares them before presenting a single, processed picture to the pilot. Post sensor fusion is where the different sensors are not linked per se but their outputs are combined by an information management system to streamline the displayed data for the pilot."

Source: https://hushkit.net/2015/12/18/typhoon-versus-rafale-the-final-word/

CASE CLOSED

@CriticalThought

It's criticalthought btw. And I got the point in your last post. I see now, Rafale's fusion is an algorithmic fusion, whereas F-35 fusion is a fused visible picture. A world of difference. But I am sure Rafale will catch up.

 

[LeGenD]

It's criticalthought btw. And I got the point in your last post. I see now, Rafale's fusion is an algorithmic fusion, whereas F-35 fusion is a fused visible picture. A world of difference. But I am sure Rafale will catch up.

Rafale cannot catch up due to significant difference in the architectures of both aircraft, how they process information, what kind of information, and how much information in one go. France would have to develop a new aircraft on the lines of F-35.

This is a good read: https://sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The-Impact-of-Advanced-Fusion.pdf

Testimonial of a pilot of Eurofighter Typhoon is self-explanatory. In fact, a large number of pilots have reported similar experiences when they moved to F-35.

---

This is like comparing Pentium 4 (+ Windows XP) to Core2 Duo (+ Windows 7). I still recall the leap I felt by moving from Pentium 4 @ 3.0 GHz to Core2 Duo @ 1.8 GHz: massive to say the least.

Cool. I thought all the latest planes have data fusion, I mean 21st century ones. It's really easy to program sensor fusion. Even I can do it on my home computer.

What most aircraft have is TRACK CORRELATION via SENSOR CORRELATING PROCESSOR. Lockheed Martin's conception of SENSOR FUSION is entirely different from this approach. See my responses above.

 

[gambit]

This is exactly what I meant when I said you use strawman tactics. You make up your own argument and then dispute that, pretending it means something. So basically you are saying digitised radar signals do not have quantization errors. Cheers for that.

Regardless, SPECTRA does not digitise the signal for ACT anyway, so any argument you have with regards to sampling is meant for the recycling bin.

This continually proved -- at least to me -- that you do not know what you are talking about.

When I said that SPECTRA must sample an incoming signal, you thought I was talking about sampling the sine wave part of the total signal, that is why you brought up quantization errors, A/D conversion, and so on.

That is not the kind of sampling I was talking about.

You continually said what SPECTRA does not do, but never said what SPECTRA does in order to do what it claimed to do, which is create a countermeasure signal in real time.

So nowhere have I said anything about digitized signals having no QE, buddy.

I repeat, SPECTRA must sample the incoming radar signal, but the sine wave and QE is not what I was talking about. See if you figure out what that is.