Escalation in the Taiwan strait as the Taiwanese president boldly confirms US troops are present on the Island

[Itachi]

now you move the goal post. You said decoy. Decoys are physical. It is the definition of a decoy.

What you showed is not a decoy, it is a sensor spoof. Note how it's deployed by an aircraft, not by a missile itself. Hsiung Feng III is not air launched. A non-air launched missile cannot deploy an aircraft based decoy. Again this is self evident and something that is easily understood by anyone with eyeballs and a brain.

Lmao....did I say decoys aren't physical?? I just said that they emit EM waves (work through the EM spectrum)?? rather than trying to explode right on top of the target.

I'll state in again, in a longer way since you can barely understand English........the decoys work through the EW spectrum to confuse enemy radars into thinking that what they're seeing are actual missiles or air crafts.....rather than decoys.....thus the radar lets the operators know who then follow the procedure.....either to not shoot them down (to not waste missiles and to not let the enemy know the position of the launchers) in which case the decoy keeps on doing what it does whereas the actual missiles mixed in with the decoys start striking or finding targets.......OR they'll try to shoot down the decoys which 1) wastes missiles 2) lets the enemy know of the position of the launchers thus giving better estimates as to the whereabouts of the launchers and missiles

Believe me, this isn't the only scenario but the tip of the iceberg. There's tons of different way decoys work in and under. But I'm sure you wont even understand half of what I just said and will keep on rambling like a broken record.

No worries, Sensei Itachi is here.

Hsiung Feng III is not air launched. A non-air launched missile cannot deploy an aircraft based decoy. Again this is self evident and something that is easily understood by anyone with eyeballs and a brain.

Lmao...the physical appearance of the decoy has nothing to do with the role it has to perform........it's not going to look like a cheaper version of the Hsiung Feng III

 

[gambit]

Here we go again...

Someone said how easy it is for China to invade Taiwan, as if the 'easy' part have not been debunked already.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Lmao....did I say decoys aren't physical?? I just said that they emit EW waves (work through the EW spectrum)?? rather than trying to explode right on top of the target.

I'll state in again, in a longer way since you can barely understand English........the decoys work through the EW spectrum to confuse enemy radars into thinking that what they're seeing are actual missiles or air crafts.....rather than decoys.....thus the radar lets the operators know who then follow the procedure.....either to not shoot them down (to not waste missiles and to not let the enemy know the position of the launchers) in which case the decoy keeps on doing what it does whereas the actual missiles mixed in with the decoys start striking or finding targets.......OR they'll try to shoot down the decoys which 1) wastes missiles 2) lets the enemy know of the position of the launchers thus giving better estimates as to the whereabouts of the launchers and missiles

Believe me, this isn't the only scenario but the tip of the iceberg. There's tons of different way decoys work in and under. But I'm sure you wont even understand half of what I just said and will keep on rambling like a broken record.

No worries, Sensei Itachi is here.

That is the claimed capability. But if they emit the wrong signals, it's a beacon that tells the other side which ones are decoys. Against an AESA radar that can produce a huge variety of frequencies and pulse patterns, it is highly unlikely that a decoy can match them exactly.

Taiwan has never demonstrated this capability in all of history either. Instead they've demonstrated that they lose wars and their weapons miss, crash, friendly fire, sink, jam or just aren't effective.

 

[Itachi]

That is the claimed capability. But if they emit the wrong signals, it's a beacon that tells the other side which ones are decoys. Against an AESA radar that can produce a huge variety of frequencies and pulse patterns, it is highly unlikely that a decoy can match them exactly.

Taiwan has never demonstrated this capability in all of history either. Instead they've demonstrated that they lose wars and their weapons miss, crash, friendly fire, sink, jam or just aren't effective.

Decoys will be working in tandem with other missiles to overwhelm, diminish and degrade air defenses.

Don't over think about it.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Decoys will be working in tandem with other missiles to overwhelm, diminish and degrade air defenses.

Don't over think about it.

That is an inaccurate statement. They will attempt to do so and may be utterly ineffectual.

 

[Itachi]

That is an inaccurate statement. They will attempt to do so and may be utterly ineffectual.

Yawn....


You predicting what'll happen in a actual battle is as believable as my cat trying to kill me in sleep.

 

[KampfAlwin]

nope because Taiwanese aircraft and weapons have actually crashed, gone missing, hit each other in the sky, hit their own ship and overall just failed to perform.

even their civilian airline is one of the most dangerous in the world and produced movie quality scenes like the below in 2015.

Why do you even bother debating with an armchair general? All it does is constantly spam early 2000's era emojis and 'gish gallop' you, hoping one of it sticks. Just take pride in the fact that if words were to occupy its brain, 'China' would take up >99% of it.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Why do you even bother debating with an armchair general? All it does is constantly spam early 2000's era emojis and 'gish gallop' you, hoping one of it sticks. Just take pride in the fact that if words were to occupy its brain, 'China' would take up 99% of it.

this isn't for him, this is for the neutral audience.

 

[gambit]

What you showed is not a decoy, it is a sensor spoof. Note how it's deployed by an aircraft, not by a missile itself. Hsiung Feng III is not air launched. A non-air launched missile cannot deploy an aircraft based decoy. Again this is self evident and something that is easily understood by anyone with eyeballs and a brain.

How about BOTH ?

A TOOL FOR DECEPTION: THE URGENT NEED FOR EM DECOYS

Maybe inflatable tanks won't fool a modern enemy, but that doesn't mean the U.S. should ignore the employment of decoys on the battlefield.

warroom.armywarcollege.edu

To be effective, decoys need to imitate the signature that an adversary is searching for. As they exist now, radios at the squad, platoon, and company levels are easily identified on the battlefield by adversary electronic warfare assets. But having decoys for those systems would turn that liability into an asset. Electromagnetic spectrum decoys could be manufactured at a fraction of the cost of the radios that they imitate because they need far less functionality.​

​

The decoy of today is not static like that of WW II time. In order to be effective, the decoy should emulate at least two signatures, one of them is PHYSICAL and the other could be EM or IR. The word 'physical' does not mean the decoy must look or shaped like the real thing but can exhibit other physical characteristics like MOVEMENT. An airborne decoy does not have to look like an aircraft but can MANEUVER like an aircraft and emit certain EM signatures to match how the real aircraft would produce its multiple spectrum signatures.

Not only do I have eyeballs and brain, but I also have the relevant military experience as I have seen on a radar scope, over the Gulf of Mexico, what a towed airborne decoy could do.

So here is the real deal...

At 10,000 to 15,000 ft, human visual acuity to discern sufficient details maxes out at about 50 miles, that leave non visual EM spectrum as the best way to track any target.

An airborne decoy cannot exaggerate its physical signature but it can enhance its non-visual signature. Any airborne decoy at that distance or more will be effectively indistinguishable from a real aircraft or missile, leaving maneuver signature the only way any pilot can tell if he is looking at a real aircraft or a decoy. For any non-visual seeker, the decoy can enhance that spectrum, EM or IR.

 

[Itachi]

nope because Taiwanese aircraft and weapons have actually crashed, gone missing, hit each other in the sky, hit their own ship and overall just failed to perform.

even their civilian airline is one of the most dangerous in the world and produced movie quality scenes like the below in 2015.

Yawn....should I bring up the amount of times Chinese have crashed their stuff??

Here you go:

Anyone can do a basic google search. What's your points??

That the Taiwanese aren't the only ones crash landing?

 

[gambit]

this isn't for him, this is for the neutral audience.

Amen to that. Now those neutral audience have something else to consider besides yours.

 

[KampfAlwin]

Yawn....should I bring up the amount of times Chinese have crashed their stuff??

Here you go:
View attachment 788493

View attachment 788494

View attachment 788495

Anyone can do a basic google search. What's your points??

That the Taiwanese aren't the only ones crash landing?

@FairAndUnbiased, see what I mean? It uses 'gish gallop' to win arguments. Doesn't even bother to check who operates China Airlines lol.

 

[Itachi]

How about BOTH ?

A TOOL FOR DECEPTION: THE URGENT NEED FOR EM DECOYS

Maybe inflatable tanks won't fool a modern enemy, but that doesn't mean the U.S. should ignore the employment of decoys on the battlefield.

warroom.armywarcollege.edu

To be effective, decoys need to imitate the signature that an adversary is searching for. As they exist now, radios at the squad, platoon, and company levels are easily identified on the battlefield by adversary electronic warfare assets. But having decoys for those systems would turn that liability into an asset. Electromagnetic spectrum decoys could be manufactured at a fraction of the cost of the radios that they imitate because they need far less functionality.​

​

The decoy of today is not static like that of WW II time. In order to be effective, the decoy should emulate at least two signatures, one of them is PHYSICAL and the other could be EM or IR. The word 'physical' does not mean the decoy must look or shaped like the real thing but can exhibit other physical characteristics like MOVEMENT. An airborne decoy does not have to look like an aircraft but can MANEUVER like an aircraft and emit certain EM signatures to match how the real aircraft would produce its multiple spectrum signatures.

Not only do I have eyeballs and brain, but I also have the relevant military experience as I have seen on a radar scope, over the Gulf of Mexico, what a towed airborne decoy could do.

So here is the real deal...

At 10,000 to 15,000 ft, human visual acuity to discern sufficient details maxes out at about 50 miles, that leave non visual EM spectrum as the best way to track any target.

An airborne decoy cannot exaggerate its physical signature but it can enhance its non-visual signature. Any airborne decoy at that distance or more will be effectively indistinguishable from a real aircraft or missile, leaving maneuver signature the only way any pilot can tell if he is looking at a real aircraft or a decoy. For any non-visual seeker, the decoy can enhance that spectrum, EM or IR.

I think you exploded his brain. Too many words for him to understand.

@FairAndUnbiased, see what I mean? It uses 'gish gallop' to win arguments. Doesn't even bother to check who operates China Airlines lol.

So Taiwanese aren't Chinese?

Mission Accomplished.....no such thing as united China...there's Taiwan and China.

Here's a pic of CCP China:

China Northern Airlines Flight 6136; 2002.

At least the Taiwanese can safely land the jet in water.

 

[gambit]

That is the claimed capability. But if they emit the wrong signals, it's a beacon that tells the other side which ones are decoys. Against an AESA radar that can produce a huge variety of frequencies and pulse patterns, it is highly unlikely that a decoy can match them exactly.

The decoy does not have to match freq-to-freq and pulse-to-pulse. It just need to create a momentary blind spot. 1/100 of a sec will do.

Like I said often here, China have not contributed to the science and crafts of warfare for 300 yrs. Everything that is the PLA came from foreign sources, including all the way down to how PLA troopers dresses. YOU are treading into an area, that of the EM spectrum, that the US have secrets inside secrets that only war will reveal. Did anyone thought of mating a dumb bomb to a set of maneuverable vanes and GPS guidance? Certainly not your China.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Yawn....should I bring up the amount of times Chinese have crashed their stuff??

Here you go:
View attachment 788493

View attachment 788494



Anyone can do a basic google search. What's your points??

That the Taiwanese aren't the only ones crash landing?

LMAO China Airlines is Taiwanese.

You might notice the Taiwanese flag on tail of the aircraft in photo 2.