JF-17: Low Level Strike (Concept)

[hussain0216]

Subsonic cruise missiles are easily intercepted by long range and fast aircraft like the MKI.

No they are not!

 

[randomradio]

No they are not!

Why not?

 

[Ultima Thule]

For deep strike missions what options paf have?

other than JH-7 we have only one option this

J-16

​

 

[Readerdefence]

other than JH-7 we have only one option this

J-16
View attachment 460745 ​

Hi this option is like you asking for f35 from USA at the moment PLANAF are pitching j16 with
J20 so in my oipinion if anything twin engine paf can get from China at the moment is j11 as
These been pitched against jf17 and mirages in the exercises with paf and they did quiet well
Specially their upgraded versions now here learned memebers will not agree with me about
The copy cat thing betweeen China and Russia but alas if we keep the engine flow directly
From Russia for these machines they might agree on that may to so,e extent
Or we should wait until china start putting their own engines on these machines fully
Operational
Thank you

 

[Ultima Thule]

Hi this option is like you asking for f35 from USA at the moment PLANAF are pitching j16 with
J20 so in my oipinion if anything twin engine paf can get from China at the moment is j11 as
These been pitched against jf17 and mirages in the exercises with paf and they did quiet well
Specially their upgraded versions now here learned memebers will not agree with me about
The copy cat thing betweeen China and Russia but alas if we keep the engine flow directly
From Russia for these machines they might agree on that may to so,e extent
Or we should wait until china start putting their own engines on these machines fully
Operational
Thank you

J-16 has a WS-10 engine bro not AL-31F and when you hear PLANAF buying J-20 those are just a rumors, First customer of J-20 is PLAAF @Readerdefence

 

[Readerdefence]

J-16 has a WS-10 engine bro not AL-31F and when you hear PLANAF buying J-20 those are just a rumors, First customer of J-20 is PLAAF @Readerdefence

Hi my friend I never said PLANAF buying j20 I said j16 is accompanying j20 in exercise. Around china coz J-16 has 360-degree passive detection capabilities and will work closely with the J-20 in terms of network-centric warfare. About WS 10 china is still manufacturing for their own demand
Until unless they fulfill theirs they can not supply these to Pakistan
So basically j20 is tanker and awacs killer and j16 will be like a Growler kind of fighter escorting j20 to deal with the rest of the attacking players
Fo Pakistan best bet is to go for j11 as these been pitched with paf fighters and Pakistani pilots they already have experience to handle j11 as you must be knowing some of the j11 are also using home made engines but I’m not sure which one beside are they enough powerful to compete AL series Russian engines your input will be appreciated if you have some info
Thank you

 

[MastanKhan]

@MiG-35-BD

I do not know why you got banned---that is a shame---.

My thinking is that you might be a af pilot---because the information that you understood and the information that you displayed in the first post suggested that you have a very strong grip & understanding on the subject matter that you chose to discuss---.

But if you are not a pilot---then you have a very strong understanding of the subject matter---you also have an extremely keen ability to look beyond the surface and understand what is being said deeper in the conversation---.

For you to understand the primary low flight capability of an aircraft and explaining it in the format that you did---should be an eye opener for young pakistani enthusiaists on this forum---.

Neither the JF17---and nor the F16's or the SU30's were built with this capability in mind----. No doubt they may fly low---but not for long and not with the efficiency that you clarified about---.

The wing design of the above aircraft is fundamentally different in design than those that fly very low during the term of their mission---.

Sarcasm---rhetoric---I think so---kind of comments does not change the engineering realities of machines for the tasks that they are built for.

Only the F111---the Jaguar---the Tornado the JH7's were built with that criteria in mind from the gitgo---.

Now---how difficult is it to locate an aircraft flying low over the ocean---as @gambit would know---extremely extremely difficult even with the most modern gadgets---. It is not impossible---but our enemy may not have that capability---.

My understanding is that you cannot use dry land capabilities with success over the water---.

I have taken these comments from sinodef forum @Deino

" SinoSoldier said: ↑
According to OP, the J-16's radar has trouble distinguishing naval clutter from targets, thus requiring a forward-observer to mark & spot the target before the J-16 can engage it with guided weapons."


" Tam

fighter radar will always have problems distinguishing all echoes from the ground. Distinguishing non moving targets from another is not a radar's job. Radar distinguishes only between moving and non moving objects through Doppler effect. That's why ground attack aircraft uses FLIR to "see" targets, hence the second crewman and using a FLIR pod, and land attack missiles also use optical and IR recognition as opposed to radar for targeting, with the second crewman controlling the missile.

Third, you do not use your radar to find targets for air defense suppression. You should not use your radar at all, since it gives you away. Instead, SEAD aircraft are passive, they find the target radars via the target radar's own emissions. They use radar warning receivers to locate the enemy radar's position, through the enemy radar's signals. The missiles they fire home in on the target radar's own emissions.

Fourth, radars for naval aviation are different from land based aviation because naval aviation radars take account of surface water scatter effect. The J-16 is not a naval jet. When the time comes for the J-15D/J-17 whatever you want to call it, the fighter radar would have to be modified to account for surface water scatter.

Fifth. Littoral is the most difficult environment for radar due to having numerous radar targets, including rocks on the water, sea bed, all sorts of boats and ships, islands. Even antiship missiles have problems locking in on targets on this environment. Hence whey antiship missiles specializing on the littoral environment is better using FLIR, thermals, and optics."

 

[gambit]

It is very difficult to detect low altitude flying bodies, and even worse when over water.

The key phrase is 'multipaths propagation'.

Here is a simplified illustration of the phenomenon...

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...opagation-in-low-grazing-angle_fig2_284102877

But the data processing problems are not so easily compensated.

With multi-path propagation, from a single transmission signal, there WILL BE four return signals:

- Direct/Direct: This is where a portion of of the transmission signal go directly from antenna to target and a portion of the reflected signal will take the same direct path in returning to source.

- Direct/Indirect: This is where a portion of of the transmission signal go directly from antenna to target but a portion of the reflected signal will take an alternate path before returning to source.

- Indirect/Direct: This is where a portion of of the transmission signal from antenna will take an alternate path to target and a portion of the reflected signal will take a direct path in returning to source.

- Indirect/Indirect: This is where a portion of of the transmission signal from antenna will take an alternate path to target and a portion of the reflected signal will take an alternate path before returning to source.

Compounding the problem is if there are multiple seekers trying to detect one penetrator threat. The multiple seeking signals usually ends up jamming each other.

Water is the worst because water allows some penetration before reflection, thereby compounding the first four signals effects above.

The higher the seeker radar elevation, the less the multi-path propagation problem, but ground air defense radars do not have this luxury, and not every country can afford AWACS.

 

[denel]

It is very difficult to detect low altitude flying bodies, and even worse when over water.

The key phrase is 'multipaths propagation'.

Here is a simplified illustration of the phenomenon...

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...opagation-in-low-grazing-angle_fig2_284102877

But the data processing problems are not so easily compensated.

With multi-path propagation, from a single transmission signal, there WILL BE four return signals:

- Direct/Direct: This is where a portion of of the transmission signal go directly from antenna to target and a portion of the reflected signal will take the same direct path in returning to source.

- Direct/Indirect: This is where a portion of of the transmission signal go directly from antenna to target but a portion of the reflected signal will take an alternate path before returning to source.

- Indirect/Direct: This is where a portion of of the transmission signal from antenna will take an alternate path to target and a portion of the reflected signal will take a direct path in returning to source.

- Indirect/Indirect: This is where a portion of of the transmission signal from antenna will take an alternate path to target and a portion of the reflected signal will take an alternate path before returning to source.

Compounding the problem is if there are multiple seekers trying to detect one penetrator threat. The multiple seeking signals usually ends up jamming each other.

Water is the worst because water allows some penetration before reflection, thereby compounding the first four signals effects above.

The higher the seeker radar elevation, the less the multi-path propagation problem, but ground air defense radars do not have this luxury, and not every country can afford AWACS.

Yes, but there is another phenomena - ducting that is missing above; that afflicts signals a lot as well.

 

[CriticalThought]

It is very difficult to detect low altitude flying bodies, and even worse when over water.

The key phrase is 'multipaths propagation'.

Here is a simplified illustration of the phenomenon...

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...opagation-in-low-grazing-angle_fig2_284102877

But the data processing problems are not so easily compensated.

With multi-path propagation, from a single transmission signal, there WILL BE four return signals:

- Direct/Direct: This is where a portion of of the transmission signal go directly from antenna to target and a portion of the reflected signal will take the same direct path in returning to source.

- Direct/Indirect: This is where a portion of of the transmission signal go directly from antenna to target but a portion of the reflected signal will take an alternate path before returning to source.

- Indirect/Direct: This is where a portion of of the transmission signal from antenna will take an alternate path to target and a portion of the reflected signal will take a direct path in returning to source.

- Indirect/Indirect: This is where a portion of of the transmission signal from antenna will take an alternate path to target and a portion of the reflected signal will take an alternate path before returning to source.

Compounding the problem is if there are multiple seekers trying to detect one penetrator threat. The multiple seeking signals usually ends up jamming each other.

Water is the worst because water allows some penetration before reflection, thereby compounding the first four signals effects above.

The higher the seeker radar elevation, the less the multi-path propagation problem, but ground air defense radars do not have this luxury, and not every country can afford AWACS.

This guy @MastanKhan is a serial bullsh*tter who is waging a war of disinformation to shape the views of Pakistani public so they become inclined to adopt backward and outdated methodologies and technologies. His campaign is to be vilified and countered at every opportunity possible. Your affirmation of his garbage post constitutes intellectual dishonesty. Rather than guiding readers towards the best options available, you are a party to conditioning them to accept outdated concepts.

The problem of cancelling sea clutter is well studied and practical solutions exist today:

1.1 Prologue
The largest part of the Earth’s surface lies beneath the sea (see Figure 1.1); events taking place in, on and directly above the oceans have an enormous impact on our lives. Consequently, maritime remote sensing and surveillance are of great importance. Since its discovery during the 1930s, radar has played a central role in these activities. Much of their military development was driven by the circumstances of the Cold War; now this era is past and a different set of imperatives holds sway. Military surveillance does, however, remain a key requirement. Great progress has been made recently on non-military applications, particularly the remote sensing of the environment, of which the sea is the most important component. These newly emerging concerns, whether they are ecological or geopolitical, currently define the requirements imposed on maritime radar systems. Nonetheless, the underlying principles of the systems’ operation, and the interpretation of their output, remain the same; the body of knowledge developed in the twentieth century provides us with the tools with which to address the problems facing the radar engineer of the twenty-first century. This book attempts to bring together those aspects of maritime radar relating to scattering from the sea surface, and their exploitation in radar systems. The presentation aims to emphasise the unity and simplicity of the underlying principles and so should facilitate their application in these changing circumstances.
1.2 Maritime radar
A wide variety of radars can be deployed to sense or interrogate a maritime environment. Space-based radars are used for Earth remote sensing and, particularly, for oceanography. The earliest example of this application was SEASAT [1]. The SEASAT-A satellite was launched on 26 June 1978, and continued until 19 October 1978. Its mission was to demonstrate that measurements of the ocean dynamics are feasible. It carried a synthetic aperture radar (SAR), which was intended to obtain radar imagery of ocean wave patterns in deep oceans and coastal regions, sea and fresh water ice, land surfaces and a number of other remote sensing objectives. It also carried a radar altimeter and a wind scatterometer. More recent
examples of remote sensing radars have been the ESA ERS-1 and ERS-2 [2] satellites, which had similar missions to SEASAT and a similar range of radar instruments. The most recent example at the time of writing this book is ENVISAT [3]. Each of the radar instruments carried by these satellites exploits different aspects of scattering from the sea surface. The radar altimeter is used to make very accurate measurements of the sea height. The SEASAT-A satellite carried an altimeter having a measurement accuracy of better than 10 cm, which allowed the measurement of oceanographic features such as currents, tides and wave heights. A wind scatterometer measures the average backscatter power over large areas of the sea surface. The measurement of backscatter scattering coefficients at three different directions relative to the satellite track allows the surface wind direction to be calculated. Finally, an SAR images the surface at much finer resolution (typically about 25 m25 m) over grazing angles typically in the range of 20–60. Figure 1.2 shows an example of an ERS-1 SAR image of the sea surface, showing wave, current and weather patterns on the sea off the eastern tip of Kent in the south of England. Data such as these allow scientists to better understand air–sea interactions, which have a major effect on the world’s weather patterns and overall climate. They are therefore an important component of modelling for climate change, and in particular global warming.
Figure 1.1 A view of the Earth from space (http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/)
2 Sea clutter: scattering, the K distribution and radar performance
The backscatter from the sea observed by remote sensing radars is the intended radar signal. Airborne radar may also be used for ocean imaging in this way. However, for most airborne and surface radars operating in a maritime environment, the backscatter from the sea is unwanted and is called sea clutter. A prime example of a military application that encounters problems of this kind is maritime surveillance. Typical examples include the Searchwater radar [4], which was in service with the UK RAF Nimrod MR2 aircraft (Figure 1.3), the AN/APS-137 radar fitted in the US Navy P3-C aircraft, and the Blue Kestrel radar in the Royal Navy Marlin helicopter. These radars have many operating modes, but in particular are used for long-range surveillance of surface ships (known as ASuW, anti-surface warfare) and detection of small surface targets, including submarine masts (ASW, anti-submarine warfare). For ASuW operation, the radar must detect, track and classify surface ships at ranges in excess of 100 nautical miles. For ASW operation, the radar must detect submarine masts just above the surface in high sea states, at ranges of many miles. In both of these modes, the radar operator and the automatic detection processing must be able to distinguish between returns from wanted targets and those from the sea surface. Unlike satellite radars, the grazing angle at the sea surface for such radars is typically less than 10 and often the area of interest extends out to the radar horizon (i.e. zero grazing angle). Under these conditions, returns from the sea can often have target-like characteristics and may be very difficult to distinguish from real targets. In order to aid discrimination between targets and clutter and, in extreme cases, prevent overload of the radar operator or signal processor, the radar detection processing must attempt to achieve an acceptable and constant false alarm rate (CFAR) from the sea clutter.
Figure 1.2 ERS-1 radar image of North East Kent and the surrounding sea (data copyright ESA – image processed by DERA UK)
Introduction 3
Air-to-air detection modes are also important for airborne radars. Obvious examples are airborne interceptor (AI) radars for fast jets, such as the Blue Vixen radar on the RN Sea Harriers [5], and Airborne Early Warning Radars such as the AWACS or the Searchwater 2000AEW radar fitted to the RN Mk7 Sea King helicopters (see Figure 1.4, which shows the earlier Mk2 Sea King with the
Figure 1.3 Nimrod MR2 with Searchwater radar (copyright Crown Copyright/MOD, image from www.photos.mod.uk)
Figure 1.4 RN Mk2 Sea King helicopter with Searchwater AEW radar (copyright Crown Copyright/MOD, image from www.photos.mod.uk)
4 Sea clutter: scattering, the K distribution and radar performance
Searchwater radar). In order to detect targets that are much smaller than the sea backscatter, these radars use pulsed Doppler processing to distinguish moving targets from the sea clutter. Targets with a high radial velocity are easily distinguished from the clutter, but slower targets or those on a crossing trajectory may have Doppler shifts that are not much separated from the Doppler spectrum of the sea clutter. Once again, the challenge for the radar processing is to maintain an acceptable false alarm rate from the clutter, especially in the edges of its Doppler spectrum. Surface radars, especially ship-borne radars, must also cope with sea clutter. Ship radars are used, among other applications, for navigation, surface surveillance and air defence. Naval warships are increasingly being fitted with multi-function radars (MFRs), such as the Sampson radar, fitted to the RN Type 45 Destroyers. These MFRs must undertake all these modes and many others in an interleaved manner. Once again, the radar processing must distinguish between clutter returns and targets. Figure 1.5 shows the MESAR MFR which was the experimental precursor to Sampson.
Figure 1.5 MESAR 2 MFR (reproduced with the kind permission of BAESystems Integrated Systems Technology)
Introduction 5
1.3 The modelling of radar returns from the sea
The accurate and physically motivated modelling of radar returns from the sea surface should provide a firm foundation for the analysis of their impact on maritime radar performance. Simple models, of limited application, formed the basis of earlier work: thus the physical optics or Kirchoff approximation could be made in an EM scattering approach, while a Gaussian model might form the basis of a tractable statistical description. These models can be applied quite effectively to the analysis of sea clutter in low resolution radar systems, deployed well away from grazing incidence. In the past four decades modelling techniques able to capture the salient features of low grazing angle, high resolution, radar sea clutter have been developed. Ad hoc non-Gaussian statistical models had been proposed, chosen in the main for their analytic convenience; since the 1970s these have been supplanted by the K distribution and related models. This class of models was first introduced, in the context of radar sea clutter, by Jakeman and Pusey [6]; these authors drew on analogies between scattering at microwave and optical wavelengths to motivate their discussion. The K distribution was shown to emerge directly from a detailed analysis of sea clutter in the work of Ward [7]. This approach highlighted the usefulness of the compound representation of the clutter process, which, in the hands of Ward, Watts and others, made possible the systematic analysis of effects of thermal noise and the spatial and temporal correlation properties displayed by the clutter and their impact on maritime surveillance radar [8]. Oliver developed similar ideas, in the context of SAR, which have contributed significantly to interpretation of two-dimensional radar imagery [9]. These developments in the application of the K distribution in the microwave regime have been complemented by work at optical wavelengths [10]; a further interchange of ideas between these two areas occurred when the generalised K model, developed by Jakeman and Tough for weak forward scattering in the visible regime, proved invaluable in the analysis of polarimetric and interferometric SAR performance [11, 12]. This brief review of the development of the K distribution would be incomplete if it did not mention the careful statistical analysis that has ensured that the estimation of the parameters defining the K distribution has been carried out accurately and meaningfully; Oliver and co-workers contributed significantly in this area. The electromagnetic scattering by the sea surface at close to grazing incidence presents many problems. Perhaps the simplest model that makes direct contact with both EM theory and a reasonable statistical description of the sea surface is Rice’s perturbation theory analysis of scattering by a slightly rough surface, from which a picture of resonant or Bragg scattering from small-scale structure emerges [13]. The composite model [14] incorporated the imperfect electrical conductivity of sea water and allowed for the modulation of local grazing angle by the large-scale structure of the sea surface. Subsequent attempts to incorporate shadowing and multipath effects, which become important at low grazing angles, have been in the main essentially uncontrolled, or ad hoc. More recently, however, the problems
6 Sea clutter: scattering, the K distribution and radar performance
inherent in the direct numerical calculation of scattering by a surface wave profile have been addressed; the past decade or so has seen the development of methods able to cope with low grazing angle geometries and realistic conductivities [15]. These can now be used in the careful analysis of grazing angle and polarisation dependence of the fluctuations and dynamics of scattering in this regime; detailed numerical results of this type have led to significant insights into the observed properties of sea clutter.

Two things become apparent from this:

1. Modern radars can cancel sea clutter using advanced algorithms.
2. If a real-time, space based observation of sea state (which is not hampered by low grazing angles) is combined with modern algorithms, a very high degree of accuracy can be obtained.

This is the future of technology, versus the garbage propagated by @MastanKhan. Also note that Pakistan main adversary, i.e., India, will be armed by the best technologies, courtesy Israel.

By the way, the link you posted shows the paper is not cited by any other researcher:

I implore Pakistani readers to not blindly trust foreign experts. You are your only best friend. All others have an agenda which they will advance under the pretext of friendliness, openness, and 'knowledge-sharing'.

 

[gambit]

By the way, the link you posted shows the paper is not cited by any other researcher:

So what? The keywords 'multipath propagation' does not work for Google?

Here is an IEEE source dated 2011...

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5747422/

If the multipath propagation problem have been easily solved, then why are people still working on it and submitted their papers for professional reviews?

Here is another source dated 2014...

http://www.iosrjen.org/Papers/vol4_issue12(part-2)/J0412261066.pdf

The multipath propagation problem persists because the immediate environment changes enough that we still have yet to have software and hardware solutions to compensate for all potential environments.

Here is another source that involved AWACS...

https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/06_1489.pdf

Abstract—Airborne radars often receive more than one report on airborne targets due to what is called multipath. Multipath is merely a second, and sometimes third, radar report at a greater range than the actual target. The multipath reports are due to reflections from the earth, and if the location and altitude of the point of reflection is known, the altitude of the target can usually be estimated with good accuracy.

Here is another IEEE submission...

http://skillmansofamerica.com/IMS2011.pdf

However, the three returns fluctuate independently due to changing angle of incidence on the target and varying atmospheric multipath effect on the different paths. Each return has a different Doppler shift and also a different apparent altitude.

I can continue on and on...

 

[!eon]

@MastanKhan Why your bull is always on the loose and $hiting in front of my friend Critical thought ? Tie a strong rope in his neck.
After that you can check this thing, if you haven't already.

 

[Armchair]

@MiG-35-BD

I do not know why you got banned---that is a shame---.

My thinking is that you might be a af pilot---because the information that you understood and the information that you displayed in the first post suggested that you have a very strong grip & understanding on the subject matter that you chose to discuss---.

But if you are not a pilot---then you have a very strong understanding of the subject matter---you also have an extremely keen ability to look beyond the surface and understand what is being said deeper in the conversation---.

For you to understand the primary low flight capability of an aircraft and explaining it in the format that you did---should be an eye opener for young pakistani enthusiaists on this forum---.

Neither the JF17---and nor the F16's or the SU30's were built with this capability in mind----. No doubt they may fly low---but not for long and not with the efficiency that you clarified about---.

The wing design of the above aircraft is fundamentally different in design than those that fly very low during the term of their mission---.

Sarcasm---rhetoric---I think so---kind of comments does not change the engineering realities of machines for the tasks that they are built for.

Only the F111---the Jaguar---the Tornado the JH7's were built with that criteria in mind from the gitgo---.

Now---how difficult is it to locate an aircraft flying low over the ocean---as @gambit would know---extremely extremely difficult even with the most modern gadgets---. It is not impossible---but our enemy may not have that capability---.

My understanding is that you cannot use dry land capabilities with success over the water---.

I have taken these comments from sinodef forum @Deino

" SinoSoldier said: ↑
According to OP, the J-16's radar has trouble distinguishing naval clutter from targets, thus requiring a forward-observer to mark & spot the target before the J-16 can engage it with guided weapons."


" Tam

fighter radar will always have problems distinguishing all echoes from the ground. Distinguishing non moving targets from another is not a radar's job. Radar distinguishes only between moving and non moving objects through Doppler effect. That's why ground attack aircraft uses FLIR to "see" targets, hence the second crewman and using a FLIR pod, and land attack missiles also use optical and IR recognition as opposed to radar for targeting, with the second crewman controlling the missile.

Third, you do not use your radar to find targets for air defense suppression. You should not use your radar at all, since it gives you away. Instead, SEAD aircraft are passive, they find the target radars via the target radar's own emissions. They use radar warning receivers to locate the enemy radar's position, through the enemy radar's signals. The missiles they fire home in on the target radar's own emissions.

Fourth, radars for naval aviation are different from land based aviation because naval aviation radars take account of surface water scatter effect. The J-16 is not a naval jet. When the time comes for the J-15D/J-17 whatever you want to call it, the fighter radar would have to be modified to account for surface water scatter.

Fifth. Littoral is the most difficult environment for radar due to having numerous radar targets, including rocks on the water, sea bed, all sorts of boats and ships, islands. Even antiship missiles have problems locking in on targets on this environment. Hence whey antiship missiles specializing on the littoral environment is better using FLIR, thermals, and optics."

These are all very valid points. So there are three basic areas to make an optimal (low level) naval strike platform:

1. Aerodynamics
2. Engine
3. Avionics / Radar / IR / EOTS

The Tornado / Jaguar / F-111 / J/H-7s are built for this role but perhaps the first 3 were designed better than the J/H-7As.

The requirement is surely there, but the question then becomes, can the PAF afford a single role strike platform. Are were really headed for an F-35 world of Swiss army knife military aviation platforms?

A well-ranged low level strike platform would put immeasurable strain on IN plans and would asymmetrically negate a surface fleet advantage. At the same time, for PAF, such a platform on land could mean the IAF would need greater resources relegated to defense.

But given PAF mindset, (and current global military aviation mindset), there just doesn't seem to be a room for such a platform.

One could try to at best push for a dedicated strike variant of the JF-17. whose short chord delta aerodynamics does not completely negate a relatively reasonable low altitude role. There just may be room for such an aircraft with the ticket of ROSE replacement.

>>>>>>>>

Another idea is to look for a turbo-prop SABA type aircraft both for the CAS role (attack helicopters are very expensive) and as a naval asymmetric substitute. Basically a low cost S-3 Viking, another aircraft category that has not seen meaningful replacement.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/paki...information-pool.203829/page-29#post-10480182

 

[CriticalThought]

So what? The keywords 'multipath propagation' does not work for Google?

Here is an IEEE source dated 2011...

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5747422/

If the multipath propagation problem have been easily solved, then why are people still working on it and submitted their papers for professional reviews?

Here is another source dated 2014...

http://www.iosrjen.org/Papers/vol4_issue12(part-2)/J0412261066.pdf

The multipath propagation problem persists because the immediate environment changes enough that we still have yet to have software and hardware solutions to compensate for all potential environments.

Here is another source that involved AWACS...

https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/06_1489.pdf


Here is another IEEE submission...

http://skillmansofamerica.com/IMS2011.pdf

I can continue on and on...

@gambit you have only lowered your esteem in my eyes. How should I label this response? Carelessness? Or blatant intellectual dishonesty?

The first paper relates specifically to Over The Horizon Radars. The second paper is shoddy, low quality research which doesn't even provide a survey of prior research. The third paper actually uses multipath reflection as an advantage in computing heights. And the fourth paper is a study and re-affirmation of multipath effects, which does not discount the fact that such effects can be compensated.

I will advance the discussion forward from your lame attempts so far. For the astute reader, it should be pre-eminently obvious that such 'multi-path' effects are encountered in top end systems such as F-22 and F-35. So are we to believe that American might is ineffective against legacy fighters flying low over the sea?

The fact of the matter is, that clutter can be avoided in multiple ways:

1. Real time satellite feed of ground elevation.
2. Multi-sensor/multi-spectrum fusion.
3. Radar wave shaping to make consecutively emitted signals statistically orthogonal to each other.

Note that these multipath effects are encountered even in the humble mobile phone in your pocket. If mobile phones can work at sea, then high end radars can most definitely work perfectly well.

@gambit accept when you are wrong and let's move on. The fairy tale cooked by a car salesman doesn't deserve valuable time spent in refuting it.

 

[denel]

@gambit you have only lowered your esteem in my eyes. How should I label this response? Carelessness? Or blatant intellectual dishonesty?

The first paper relates specifically to Over The Horizon Radars. The second paper is shoddy, low quality research which doesn't even provide a survey of prior research. The third paper actually uses multipath reflection as an advantage in computing heights. And the fourth paper is a study and re-affirmation of multipath effects, which does not discount the fact that such effects can be compensated.

I will advance the discussion forward from your lame attempts so far. For the astute reader, it should be pre-eminently obvious that such 'multi-path' effects are encountered in top end systems such as F-22 and F-35. So are we to believe that American might is ineffective against legacy fighters flying low over the sea?

The fact of the matter is, that clutter can be avoided in multiple ways:

1. Real time satellite feed of ground elevation.
2. Multi-sensor/multi-spectrum fusion.
3. Radar wave shaping to make consecutively emitted signals statistically orthogonal to each other.

Note that these multipath effects are encountered even in the humble mobile phone in your pocket. If mobile phones can work at sea, then high end radars can most definitely work perfectly well.

@gambit accept when you are wrong and let's move on. The fairy tale cooked by a car salesman doesn't deserve valuable time spent in refuting it.

Sire OTH causes havoc on hf bands.
Please visit any ham radio operator's shack. Ask them on ducting especially on uhf/suhf, they will share with you what happens. This is not small range we are talking about sometimes several hundred km open up. A cellphone is not a good example.