F-22 vs J-20 - aka USA-made jet fighters vs China-made jet fighters

[gambit]

Well that was statement, my statement was that radar signature is not required, so if it's not required. It's not required. That was me asking you a question, see the question mark? And before that was me quoting you, see the quotation marks?

And my response is that you are partially wrong. The more details you know about anything, whether it is a process, a product, or an enemy, the better your response method(s). This is not about you. Never has been. This is about the silent readers out there. And I would wager that they learned more from me than from you.

PD argument was brought up later than MTI. lmao I was talking about bird sized radar signature traveling at impossible speed, it doesn't have to MTI and it doesn't have to be PD, it can be any other radar operational modes that take account of speed. The point is speed is a compromising factor, that's it.

And this is why you continues to be proven wrong. Your ignorance, nationalistic passion, and unwillingness to do basic research, you will always end up with eggs on your face regarding your claims.

So here it goes...

A Pulsed-Doppler (PD) radar can be either an independent system or a mode of operation inside a parent radar system.

A Moving Target Indicator (MTI) radar can be either an independent system or a mode of operation inside a parent radar system.

Both methods uses the Doppler component of the return signal.

A PD system or mode of operation uses higher pulse repetition freq (PRF) to produce unambiguous (precise) speed discriminator but the byproduct is ambiguous (imprecise) range resolutions.

An MTI system or mode of operation uses lower pulse repetition freq (PRF) to produce unambiguous (precise) range resolutions but the byproduct is ambiguous (imprecise) speed discrimination.

Weather radars prefers (not require) PD because precise speed of wind, snow, tornadoes, hurricanes, and other phenomena are considered more important than exactly where they are. The approximate location of the hurricane is adequate. Its wind speed is a more dangerous factor.

On the other hand, if the need is to simply to find the differences of velocities in a cluster of multiple bodies, the lower PRF is a less resource demanding operation so the MTI method is preferred.

If either method is a component WITHIN a parent radar, then the parent operating freq will determine which method is available. For example, the F-16's radar system...

https://duotechservices.com/f-16-radar-computer-apg-66

Search – In this mode, the APG-66 performs uplook and downlook scanning. During uplook, the radar is using a low Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF) for medium- and high-altitude target search above the horizon in low clutter. In downlook, it uses medium PRF for target detection in heavy clutter environments at, or below, the horizon.

The changes of PRF in either 'uplook' or 'downlook' matches exactly what I described above.

In 'uplook', there is far less clutter, so the pilot would be more interested in how far any target is than in how fast the target is traveling. He can find the exact speed with other radar modes such as boresight.

In 'downlook', there is ground clutter, so the pilot would need a better speed discrimination process so a higher PRF is desirable.

Mode switching is transparent. As far as the pilot is concerned, he does not care is the radar is running in either PD or MTI operation.

Even though what I said above is publicly available, not one of you Chinese on this forum can ever educate the laymen like I have, not even in the general sense. None of you ever served or have relevant experience in the subject under discussion. You guys ALWAYS ends up with making non-supportable claims and even produced 'Chinese physics'.

You think quoting someone from quora make your case?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...a16-8212-74fe5ee9ec94/?utm_term=.0d4a3abd2528

Because of their relatively small size, radars on missiles and aircraft must use short wavelengths that stealth designs are made to foil.

So switching to either PD or MTI operations to try to find a 'stealth' fighter deep in clutter is at best a dubious tactic precisely because of the parent radar's OPERATING FREQUENCY.

Employing moving-target indicator techniques to winnow stealth aircraft from the slower blips of birds and insect swarms may also be helpful. But experts such as Ted Postol, of the Center for International Security and Arms Control at Stanford, say that small stealthy cruise missiles, flying close to clutter from the ground or sea, could stay concealed from radar at all but the shortest distances. At that point, the human eye might be a better detector.

The operative word here is 'may', as in a high degree of uncertainty. Postol is just as good as anyone you can dredge up from quora.

So when you brought up 'Pulsed-Doppler', I laughed. It does not matter if you used in the initials 'MTI'. As far as radar operations goes, the two are fraternal twins, if not identical. I understand them better than you do.

Moore's Law have nothing to do with this. Am not saying that electronics advancement does not improve efficiency, but Moore's Law cannot override the physical limitations produced by ANTENNA/ARRAY SIZE. This is not 'Chinese physics'.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

And my response is that you are partially wrong. The more details you know about anything, whether it is a process, a product, or an enemy, the better your response method(s). This is not about you. Never has been. This is about the silent readers out there. And I would wager that they learned more from me than from you.


And this is why you continues to be proven wrong. Your ignorance, nationalistic passion, and unwillingness to do basic research, you will always end up with eggs on your face regarding your claims.

So here it goes...

A Pulsed-Doppler (PD) radar can be either an independent system or a mode of operation inside a parent radar system.

A Moving Target Indicator (MTI) radar can be either an independent system or a mode of operation inside a parent radar system.

Both methods uses the Doppler component of the return signal.

A PD system or mode of operation uses higher pulse repetition freq (PRF) to produce unambiguous (precise) speed discriminator but the byproduct is ambiguous (imprecise) range resolutions.

An MTI system or mode of operation uses lower pulse repetition freq (PRF) to produce unambiguous (precise) range resolutions but the byproduct is ambiguous (imprecise) speed discrimination.

Weather radars prefers (not require) PD because precise speed of wind, snow, tornadoes, hurricanes, and other phenomena are considered more important than exactly where they are. The approximate location of the hurricane is adequate. Its wind speed is a more dangerous factor.

On the other hand, if the need is to simply to find the differences of velocities in a cluster of multiple bodies, the lower PRF is a less resource demanding operation so the MTI method is preferred.

If either method is a component WITHIN a parent radar, then the parent operating freq will determine which method is available. For example, the F-16's radar system...

https://duotechservices.com/f-16-radar-computer-apg-66

The changes of PRF in either 'uplook' or 'downlook' matches exactly what I described above.

In 'uplook', there is far less clutter, so the pilot would be more interested in how far any target is than in how fast the target is traveling. He can find the exact speed with other radar modes such as boresight.

In 'downlook', there is ground clutter, so the pilot would need a better speed discrimination process so a higher PRF is desirable.

Mode switching is transparent. As far as the pilot is concerned, he does not care is the radar is running in either PD or MTI operation.

Even though what I said above is publicly available, not one of you Chinese on this forum can ever educate the laymen like I have, not even in the general sense. None of you ever served or have relevant experience in the subject under discussion. You guys ALWAYS ends up with making non-supportable claims and even produced 'Chinese physics'.

You think quoting someone from quora make your case?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...a16-8212-74fe5ee9ec94/?utm_term=.0d4a3abd2528

So switching to either PD or MTI operations to try to find a 'stealth' fighter deep in clutter is at best a dubious tactic precisely because of the parent radar's OPERATING FREQUENCY.


The operative word here is 'may', as in a high degree of uncertainty. Postol is just as good as anyone you can dredge up from quora.

So when you brought up 'Pulsed-Doppler', I laughed. It does not matter if you used in the initials 'MTI'. As far as radar operations goes, the two are fraternal twins, if not identical. I understand them better than you do.

Moore's Law have nothing to do with this. Am not saying that electronics advancement does not improve efficiency, but Moore's Law cannot override the physical limitations produced by ANTENNA/ARRAY SIZE. This is not 'Chinese physics'.

Explaining what MTI or PD is not going to change anything.

The point is speed is a compromising factor, that's it.

 

[gambit]

Explaining what MTI or PD is not going to change anything.

The point is speed is a compromising factor, that's it.

At the very least, it shows the silent readers out there that I understand the concepts and the systems better than you do. I explained their similarities and differences, not to make our 'stealth' fighters as something invincible, but to show the readers how we are not as ignorant as you think we are.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

At the very least, it shows the silent readers out there that I understand the concepts and the systems better than you do. I explained their similarities and differences, not to make our 'stealth' fighters as something invincible, but to show the readers how we are not as ignorant as you think we are.

But I'm trying to make a point and all you do is explain things that really do not effect my point at all. I can assure you most of these "silent readers" don't even care about your explanations, they probably stopped reading this discussion pages ago lol.

If you're not gonna challenge my point then I'm done here.

 

[gambit]

But I'm trying to make a point and all you do is explain things that really do not effect my point at all. I can assure you most of these "silent readers" don't even care about your explanations, they probably stopped reading this discussion pages ago lol.

You had no 'point'.

By your own admittance, you have never heard of the phrase 'Pulsed-Doppler' until recently, whereas, I showed you I explained the concept and combat tactic long before you came on this forum. So in that sense, you are in no position to 'assure' me of anything.

If you're not gonna challenge my point then I'm done here.

Not only have I challenged your point, I completely demolished it -- YRS AGO.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

You had no 'point'.

By your own admittance, you have never heard of the phrase 'Pulsed-Doppler' until recently, whereas, I showed you I explained the concept and combat tactic long before you came on this forum. So in that sense, you are in no position to 'assure' me of anything.


Not only have I challenged your point, I completely demolished it -- YRS AGO.

William Keim, the person with 10 years working defense sector with integrated air and missile defense, whom I quoted on quora.com doesn't seem to agree with you. Moreover since this guy has a reputable account and real identity, he's definitely more credible than you. You can look into his profile, or whatever.

https://www.quora.com/If-a-stealth-...ture-why-wouldnt-its-speed-be-a-dead-giveaway

This guy even has a Linkedin.com account

https://www.linkedin.com/in/william-keim-132136125/

He worked at Raytheon as a Senior System Engineer for more than 7 years. Very credible.

Anyway, have a good day Mr. "gambit". Unlike you, I comment for my own enjoyment not because I want to show how smart I am. Everyone on Pakistan Defence must think you're very smart hahaha.

 

[gambit]

William Keim, the person with 10 years working defense sector with integrated air and missile defense, whom I quoted on quora.com doesn't seem to agree with you. Moreover since this guy has a reputable account and real identity, he's definitely more credible than you. You can look into his profile, or whatever.

https://www.quora.com/If-a-stealth-...ture-why-wouldnt-its-speed-be-a-dead-giveaway

This guy even has a Linkedin.com account

https://www.linkedin.com/in/william-keim-132136125/

He worked at Raytheon as a Senior System Engineer for more than 7 years. Very credible.

Anyway, have a good day Mr. "gambit". Unlike you, I comment for my own enjoyment not because I want to show how smart I am. Everyone on Pakistan Defence must think you're very smart hahaha.

Yeah...I actually read and understood what Kleim said.

He said this: Does the speed help? Yes it can, most certainly, particularly if the radar employs MTI or the more advanced Pulse Doppler processing. Detection and track will certainly be more reliable with Pulse Doppler than without.

See the highlighted? It said 'can'. It is not absolute. If it is absolute as how you interpreted, then the progress of 'stealth' would have ended with the F-117. By the way, Kleim mentioned the MTI radar, something that you missed.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

Yeah...I actually read and understood what Kleim said.

He said this: Does the speed help? Yes it can, most certainly, particularly if the radar employs MTI or the more advanced Pulse Doppler processing. Detection and track will certainly be more reliable with Pulse Doppler than without.

See the highlighted? It said 'can'. It is not absolute. If it is absolute as how you interpreted, then the progress of 'stealth' would have ended with the F-117. By the way, Kleim mentioned the MTI radar, something that you missed.

So it can right? That’s my point all along. Lmao gambit. You are funny. How did I miss? I quoted this exact quote from the start. Your trolling is done gambit. The internet is smarter than you.

 

[gambit]

So it can right?

Yeah...The same as you 'can' be as rich as Bill Gates or you 'can' look like Mr. Universe or you 'can' date Son Youn Jun...

There are many things in the world that you 'can', but the issue that I have tried to educate you is 'able' and 'efficacy'.

Are you 'able' to get a date with the beautiful Ms. Son? I seriously doubt it.

How did I miss?

Ach...You missed plenty.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

Yeah...The same as you 'can' be as rich as Bill Gates or you 'can' look like Mr. Universe or you 'can' date Son Youn Jun...

There are many things in the world that you 'can', but the issue that I have tried to educate you is 'able' and 'efficacy'.

Are you 'able' to get a date with the beautiful Ms. Son? I seriously doubt it.


Ach...You missed plenty.

Google “can definition”

 

[gambit]

Google “can definition”

No need.

The word 'can' implies a theoretical possibility, while the word 'able' means a practical achievement.

So...CAN you get a date with Son Youn Jun? Of course.

But are you ABLE to get that date? We highly doubt it.

So 'can' the Doppler component works against 'stealth'? Theoretically -- yes.

But is it 'able' to? So far -- ain't. Else people in the radar world would have jumped all over that money bandwagon.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

No need.

The word 'can' implies a theoretical possibility, while the word 'able' means a practical achievement.

So...CAN you get a date with Son Youn Jun? Of course.

But are you ABLE to get that date? We highly doubt it.

So 'can' the Doppler component works against 'stealth'? Theoretically -- yes.

But is it 'able' to? So far -- ain't. Else people in the radar world would have jumped all over that money bandwagon.

The definition of can is “able to”. According to the credible person I quoted, PD and MTI certainly can help. Go away you little troll.

 

[gambit]

The definition of can is “able to”. According to the person I quoted, PD and MTI certainly can help. Go away you little troll.

If it was that easy, the person you cited would have been a millionaire. Would, not could. Kinda like the difference between 'can' and 'able'.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

If it was that easy, the person you cited would have been a millionaire. Would, not could. Kinda like the difference between 'can' and 'able'.

Well he was a Senior System Engineer at Raytheon, one of the best defense companies in the world for more than 7 years. I bet he’s making money alright.

 

[gambit]

Well he was a Senior System Engineer at Raytheon, one of the best defense companies in the world for more than 7 years. I bet he’s making money alright.

And yet his opinion regarding the use of Doppler is either misinterpreted by you or is considered not feasible by those who are more knowledgeable and experienced than him. Your pick.