Meet the US's answer to China's 'carrier killer' missile

[jhungary]

LOLs. Your argument is flip flop. Look at back your argument #83 and other post.

You were arguing that radar can track moving target like carriers, because you said radar cannot provide real time information. If you can accept that SAR can target moving carriers, then this debate is settled.

If you think my argument is flip flopping, then maybe you need to see a eye doctor, or a brain doctor, or both.

From the first post, I have ALWAYS argue the Satellite (and in parts, all Radar system) cannot track target in real time and hence they are not suitable as terminal guidance. This is post 83

This is post 83

Because I know for a fact that it can't.

Under the current technology, the only way a target can be track in real time is by human interaction.

As I said, you are just talking about target detection, but that is just one part of the whole ISTAR chain and if one part of this ISTAR chain fail, you failed to track the target in real time, hence you cannot guild your missile on target via a satellite with or without SAR Radar.

SAR radar HELPS you to put your target on your map, you need a pair of eyes and a brain to track it.

@gambit already explain what SAR radar can do.

Again, how do you know if China is launching a nuclear tipped IRBM or an conventional tipped ASBM? You cannot. Hence every shot over the horizon will be treated as Nuclear Warhead, you fire one of these, you may as well fire a nuclear missile, it is not "Will" US do it, they WILL for sure. The question is, would China fire one of these and bet US will not response in full?

Do point to me where is post 83 I am debating the tracking ability itself on SAR radar? I said, the only way to track a target IN REAL TIME is by human interaction.

I am, and has been, and always debating the possibility and availability on cant it track a target in real time, you, on the other hand, is the one that bring the topic from can they track and detect target, to are they feasible to track target in real time, to can they track moving target. Talking about flip flopping

SAR cannot always provide real time data is simply your assumption. No citation support it.

I know there is always delay in transmitting data etc, but technology and algorithm can solve the problem according to the citations. You should know that technology is progressive

Lol,didn't I?

AFRL-WPAFB has initiated various programs to better understand the coherent information in SAR data. The current effort is intended to further this objective by developing algorithms to detect dismounts in SAR imagery that are acquired via: i) subaperture monostatic and along-track bistatic monopulse SAR data from a single pass; ii) subaperture monostatic SAR data of a single pass; and iii) subaperture monostatic SAR data of multiple passes. We will use 2D spatially-varying adaptive filtering in range and Doppler domains to blindly calibrate these dual imagery for clutter cancellation. The approach does not require complicated hardware development and time-consuming signal processing of a multiple-channel SAR platform that are essential for other algorithms such as STAP. To improve the system sensitivity to detect dismounts, we propose the use of a nonlinear flight path such as AFRL"s GOTCHA platform. We also utilize an innovative feature-aided tracking technique which has shown good performance for tracking weak and slowly-moving target signatures in strong clutter. In addition to GOTCHA data, Goleta Star would also collect SAR data with its dual-channel Ka-band UAV radar. Thus, the proposed algorithms and associated signal processing form a basis for a practical and real-time approach to detect and track dismounts. BENEFIT: The anticipated result from successful completion of this project will be a set of innovative subaperture-based nonlinear SAR signal processing algorithms and their associated hardware implementation for real-time processing to detect, track and image moving dismounts that are applicable in surveillance and reconnaissance radar platforms of the Departments of Defense, Homeland, and Justice.


Source: https://defence.pk/threads/meet-the-uss-answer-to-chinas-carrier-killer-missile.445091/page-7#ixzz4IQioRTgo

It already said so in the DoD Tender the present system cannot track target in real time, the hardware upgrade and the strain of a signal processing of a multi-channel SAR required forbid the SAR radar to track anything in real time. That is the reason why DoD launch a tender in 2012 to find a solution so they can use SAR to track target in real time.

When I ask you on reference for claim, you on the other hand, provide me with a vague argument from an Indian site

At this stage, I have never read or receive any document from you backing up your claim that SAR radar can process target information in real time, and you are claiming this is my assumption? Buddy, you are assuming SAR can track target in real time, not me.

So, in the end, 3 page down, and you are still drawing dick with me, see that you cannot produce any evidence on anything (from SAR ro MAD) I am not going to reply to you in the future in this topic, as I am wasting time on a cchest thumping fan boy who don't even know what he is saying.

Ta-Ta- Have a good gay.

 

[gambit]

LOLs. Your argument is flip flop. Look at back your argument #83 and other post.

You were arguing that radar can track moving target like carriers, because you said radar cannot provide real time information. If you can accept that SAR can target moving carriers, then this debate is settled.

SAR cannot always provide real time data is simply your assumption. No citation support it.

Buddy, I say this kindly, but you are stupid. You clearly do not understand the idea of what is 'real time'.

When people say 'real time', it is about providing updates to someone or something that needs and queries that information.

Can I track a moving train ? Yes, I can write down the exact time the train meet each mile marker.

But providing information of that moving train in real time mean informing someone of the train's progress in as minimal time as possible. Between humans, real time is in minutes, but when computers are involved, the real time expectation is in milliseconds. Inside a flight control computer, anything more than a millisecond update in real time can cause a crash.

No one is saying an orbital SAR cannot track a moving ship, but if the SAR needs a few seconds to scan and re-scan in order to detect the surface translation of a ship and send that information somewhere else, that is not real time.

The problem of what is 'real time' update is compounded if the receiver of that information is moving.

In the case of the DF-21D, which is descending from orbit at double digits Mach, as it descends, any target updates must be continuous and in as short a time interval as possible. If the orbital SAR requires even just one second to re-scan in order to update the DF-21D, that is not real time.

You are incredibly dense.

 

[antonius123]

If you think my argument is flip flopping, then maybe you need to see a eye doctor, or a brain doctor, or both.

From the first post, I have ALWAYS argue the Satellite (and in parts, all Radar system) cannot track target in real time and hence they are not suitable as terminal guidance. This is post 83

This is post 83



Do point to me where is post 83 I am debating the tracking ability itself on SAR radar? I said, the only way to track a target IN REAL TIME is by human interaction.

I am, and has been, and always debating the possibility and availability on cant it track a target in real time, you, on the other hand, is the one that bring the topic from can they track and detect target, to are they feasible to track target in real time, to can they track moving target. Talking about flip flopping



Lol,didn't I?

AFRL-WPAFB has initiated various programs to better understand the coherent information in SAR data. The current effort is intended to further this objective by developing algorithms to detect dismounts in SAR imagery that are acquired via: i) subaperture monostatic and along-track bistatic monopulse SAR data from a single pass; ii) subaperture monostatic SAR data of a single pass; and iii) subaperture monostatic SAR data of multiple passes. We will use 2D spatially-varying adaptive filtering in range and Doppler domains to blindly calibrate these dual imagery for clutter cancellation. The approach does not require complicated hardware development and time-consuming signal processing of a multiple-channel SAR platform that are essential for other algorithms such as STAP. To improve the system sensitivity to detect dismounts, we propose the use of a nonlinear flight path such as AFRL"s GOTCHA platform. We also utilize an innovative feature-aided tracking technique which has shown good performance for tracking weak and slowly-moving target signatures in strong clutter. In addition to GOTCHA data, Goleta Star would also collect SAR data with its dual-channel Ka-band UAV radar. Thus, the proposed algorithms and associated signal processing form a basis for a practical and real-time approach to detect and track dismounts. BENEFIT: The anticipated result from successful completion of this project will be a set of innovative subaperture-based nonlinear SAR signal processing algorithms and their associated hardware implementation for real-time processing to detect, track and image moving dismounts that are applicable in surveillance and reconnaissance radar platforms of the Departments of Defense, Homeland, and Justice.


Source: https://defence.pk/threads/meet-the-uss-answer-to-chinas-carrier-killer-missile.445091/page-7#ixzz4IQioRTgo

It already said so in the DoD Tender the present system cannot track target in real time, the hardware upgrade and the strain of a signal processing of a multi-channel SAR required forbid the SAR radar to track anything in real time. That is the reason why DoD launch a tender in 2012 to find a solution so they can use SAR to track target in real time.

Antonius:

No problem. Then why dont you just accept that the ASBM can track the target with help of SAR based on the citation given, regardless you understand technically or no

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/meet-the...er-killer-missile.445091/page-6#ixzz4ISCTM92N​

Jhungary reply (post #83)

Because I know for a fact that it can't.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/meet-the...er-killer-missile.445091/page-6#ixzz4ISChPQVZ​

See .. When I told you to accept that ASBM can trac the target with help of SAR, you reply: "Because I know for a fact that it can't!"

If this is not a flip flop, then maybe you cannot formulate correct statement that confuse people (except your friend gambit maybe).

When I ask you on reference for claim, you on the other hand, provide me with a vague argument from an Indian site

It is not vague, the article clearly said based on analysis that China has ASBM that capable to track moving target. If you said that the SAR is still not providing real time data, then that means tracking moving target doesnt need real time data, that is as simple it is. If you said tracking moving target must require real time data, then it means China's SAR is capable providing real time data.

It is your logic that is circling around.

My point is simple: based on analysis there could be ASBM that can track moving target, regardless it depend on realtime data or not, as I am not talking about technical detail.

If you cannot accept the citation because it is indian, tell me what kind of article that you can accept.

At this stage, I have never read or receive any document from you backing up your claim that SAR radar can process target information in real time, and you are claiming this is my assumption? Buddy, you are assuming SAR can track target in real time, not me.

Doesnt matter.
My point is not about whether SAR can process target information in real time or not.
My point is about: ASBM that capable to track moving target.

It is you that drag the "real time data issue" here.

So, in the end, 3 page down, and you are still drawing dick with me, see that you cannot produce any evidence on anything (from SAR ro MAD) I am not going to reply to you in the future in this topic, as I am wasting time on a cchest thumping fan boy who don't even know what he is saying.

Ta-Ta- Have a good gay.

SAR => I have given many citation. Your denial doesnt eradicate the fact that the citation has been given. It is you who cannot provide citation that support your argument.

Regarding MAD, see bellow:

Mutual assured destruction or mutually assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender (see pre-emptive nuclear strike and second strike).[1] It is based on the theory of deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
​

Keyword:

• full scale use of nuclear weapons (not single or 2 missile shot).
  
• complete annihilation (not only target Guam, but must target whole /complete America)
• Neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict (means USA has no incentive to retaliate with nuclear if she is not assured that she was being attacked by nuclear). Thats the reason why USA should ensure at the first place that the attack on Guam is nuclear attack not conventional one.

Another rationale of MAD: what we call as "SECOND STRIKE"

Retaliation capability (second strike)
The strategy of MAD was fully declared in the early 1960s, primarily by United States Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. In McNamara's formulation there was the very real danger that a nation with nuclear weapons could attempt to eliminate another nation's retaliatory forces with a surprise, devastating first strike and theoretically "win" a nuclear war relatively unharmed. True second-strike capability could only be achieved when a nation had a guaranteed ability to fully retaliate after a first-strike attack.


The United States had achieved an early form of second-strike capability by fielding continual patrols of strategic nuclear bombers, with a large number of planes always in the air, on their way to or from fail-safe points close to the borders of the Soviet Union. This meant the United States could still retaliate, even after a devastating first-strike attack. The tactic was expensive and problematic because of the high cost of keeping enough planes in the air at all times and the possibility they would be shot down by Soviet anti-aircraft missiles before reaching their targets. In addition, as the idea of a missile gap existing between the US and the Soviet Union developed, there was increasing priority being given to ICBMs over bombers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Retaliation_capability_.28second_strike.29​

Notice the following terminology:

Surprise devastating first strike
That means the attacker (assuming China) will not only launch 1 or 2 ICBM to Guam, but she will launch surprise devastating first strike which will be massive and sudden!

Second Strike
This already CRYSTAL CLEAR indication that USA may consider "second strike" even if after she has been destroyed by first nuclear attack by China

This SECOND STRIKE scenario has shown that USA is very careful and avoid to be the first one to use nuclear weapons. She need to ensure first that she is being attacked by nuclear weapon before she retaliate with nuclear attack.

So see ..the US abrupt retaliation with massive nuclear soon after China launch ICBM to Guam is not according to MAD Scenario.

From now I hope you can understand and willing to learn from the citation given to you.

It is you who has no citation at all.

Buddy, I say this kindly, but you are stupid. You clearly do not understand the idea of what is 'real time'.

When people say 'real time', it is about providing updates to someone or something that needs and queries that information.

Can I track a moving train ? Yes, I can write down the exact time the train meet each mile marker.

But providing information of that moving train in real time mean informing someone of the train's progress in as minimal time as possible. Between humans, real time is in minutes, but when computers are involved, the real time expectation is in milliseconds. Inside a flight control computer, anything more than a millisecond update in real time can cause a crash.

No one is saying an orbital SAR cannot track a moving ship, but if the SAR needs a few seconds to scan and re-scan in order to detect the surface translation of a ship and send that information somewhere else, that is not real time.

The problem of what is 'real time' update is compounded if the receiver of that information is moving.

In the case of the DF-21D, which is descending from orbit at double digits Mach, as it descends, any target updates must be continuous and in as short a time interval as possible. If the orbital SAR requires even just one second to re-scan in order to update the DF-21D, that is not real time.

You are incredibly dense.

Hello ..

http://www.ti.com/tool/TIDEP0045

This TI design shows a real-time synthetic aperture radar (SAR) implementation running on a TI's multicore TMS320C6678 digital signal processor (DSP). One of the main challenges of SAR is to generate high resolution images in real-time, since forming the image involves computationally demanding signal processing procedures. TI has implemented a SAR algorithm on the C6678 eight core fixed- and floating-point DSP to show the full application performance and how it scales across one, two, four, and eight DSP cores. Here, the range-Doppler SAR processing algorithm is modularized from a functional perspective and the computational task is mapped to multiple cores running in parallel. The task mapping procedure is accomplished using OpenMP.
​

Your delusional claim is always consistently debunked with solid citation.

You are really clown in this forum Thats why you have to stop being a clown professor.

Thanks for entertaining me

 

[gambit]

Hello ..

http://www.ti.com/tool/TIDEP0045

This TI design shows a real-time synthetic aperture radar (SAR) implementation running on a TI's multicore TMS320C6678 digital signal processor (DSP). One of the main challenges of SAR is to generate high resolution images in real-time, since forming the image involves computationally demanding signal processing procedures. TI has implemented a SAR algorithm on the C6678 eight core fixed- and floating-point DSP to show the full application performance and how it scales across one, two, four, and eight DSP cores. Here, the range-Doppler SAR processing algorithm is modularized from a functional perspective and the computational task is mapped to multiple cores running in parallel. The task mapping procedure is accomplished using OpenMP.
​

​

Yes, hellooooo...

You misunderstood the usage of 'real time' in your own source, son.

Here is the relevant passage: 'One of the main challenges of SAR is to generate high resolution images in real-time, since forming the image involves computationally demanding signal processing procedures.'

You have to look at the entire passage, not just picking out words you recognize.

That passage mentioned a well known issue with SAR systems.

The above is an illustration of an airborne SAR operation.

How long does it take to process a completed cycle depends on several factors such as frequency employed, pulse duration, distance involved, and if there are any unplanned motion by the radar and/or the target.

In the early designs of SAR systems, the radar computer has to wait until the beam completed ALL of its sweep cycles before the image could be produced, which could be a few seconds to a few minutes, depending on the scan area size. The reason was lack of computational power. For the above illustration, the SAR computer would have to wait until the entire assigned sector is done scanning before it can create a radar image of that sector. That is not 'real time'.

Your source -- 'generate high resolution images in real-time' -- talks about having enough computing power to process EACH scan cycle as it completed. Then once all scan cycles are done, a radar image is immediately available. Then the entire operation starts all over again another image is immediately produced. That is the 'real time' context your source meant.

For what we are talking about, which is using an orbital SAR system to scan for a moving ship and send that information elsewhere, that is another context of 'real time'. Updating a third party in 'real time' is not the same as creating a SAR image in 'real time'.

Your delusional claim is always consistently debunked with solid citation.

No. It is YOU who have been debunked. You do not understand your own source. Your source talks about image creation, not notifying a third party of that image. Where is your 'aviation studies' now, liar ?

 

[antonius123]

​

Yes, hellooooo...

You misunderstood the usage of 'real time' in your own source, son.

Here is the relevant passage: 'One of the main challenges of SAR is to generate high resolution images in real-time, since forming the image involves computationally demanding signal processing procedures.'

You have to look at the entire passage, not just picking out words you recognize.

That passage mentioned a well known issue with SAR systems.

The above is an illustration of an airborne SAR operation.

How long does it take to process a completed cycle depends on several factors such as frequency employed, pulse duration, distance involved, and if there are any unplanned motion by the radar and/or the target.

In the early designs of SAR systems, the radar computer has to wait until the beam completed ALL of its sweep cycles before the image could be produced, which could be a few seconds to a few minutes, depending on the scan area size. The reason was lack of computational power. For the above illustration, the SAR computer would have to wait until the entire assigned sector is done scanning before it can create a radar image of that sector. That is not 'real time'.

Your source -- 'generate high resolution images in real-time' -- talks about having enough computing power to process EACH scan cycle as it completed. Then once all scan cycles are done, a radar image is immediately available. Then the entire operation starts all over again another image is immediately produced. That is the 'real time' context your source meant.

For what we are talking about, which is using an orbital SAR system to scan for a moving ship and send that information elsewhere, that is another context of 'real time'. Updating a third party in 'real time' is not the same as creating a SAR image in 'real time'.

LOLs clown professor .. You try to twist logic in order to defend your crap claim.

Real Time data means: "information that is delivered as it happens"

Keyword: "delivered as it happens"

You cannot say the (high resolution) image is real time when the (high resolution) image is not delivered as it happens.

So real time to get high resolution image is still talking about the image that is delivered (by radar) as it happens + with high resolution ;
Actually it is a solution for relative motion between radar and target; the relative motion between radar and target happen either the radar is stationed while target is moving, either the radar is moving (airborne radar) while target is stationed, or both radar and target are moving, where tracking moving target like ship or carrier is one of the case. Without this solution the SAR cannot display real time data of moving target (or station target from moving radar) with high resolution.

There is no real time high resolution image which is not real time, that is self contradictive and fatally logical error.

If you can read the article (as it seems you have poor comprehension capability), it is clear about the case where the solution is aimed for:

Typically, the radar is carried by a spaceborne or an airborne platform moving at known speed. A single physical antenna is used to gather signals reflected from the targets at different positions, at different times. The relative motion between the radar and the targets encodes the targets’ information, which is processed to form a focused image of the surface area.

http://www.ti.com/general/docs/lit/getliterature.tsp?baseLiteratureNumber=tidub40&fileType=pdf

​

So where do you get your education to become a clown professor?

No. It is YOU who have been debunked. You do not understand your own source. Your source talks about image creation, not notifying a third party of that image. Where is your 'aviation studies' now, liar ?

Ooops... sorrryyy, your behaving like clown professor that proving you are such a liar and fraudster in this forum.

 

[Nibiru]

@antonius123

Thanks for your sound & beautiful explanation.

 

[gambit]

Real Time data means: "information that is delivered as it happens"

Keyword: "delivered as it happens"

You cannot say the (high resolution) image is real time when the (high resolution) image is not delivered as it happens.

This is where your poor understanding of the English language is evident.

The word 'deliver' does not automatically mean to send information outside of the local system. Real time data processing have many levels and each level must complete its task(s) before delivering the compiled information to the next level/stage.

For example...

If I am listening and writing down what I hear, information is being 'delivered' from one stage/process to another. This process is happening in real time, but that does not mean I am delivering what I hear to someone else who is waiting for the compiled information.

What you are doing is taking the context that you want of the word 'deliver' and making that context suit your argument regardless of the technical issues involved.

So real time to get high resolution image is still talking about the image that is delivered (by radar) as it happens + with high resolution ;

Another failure of understanding of technical issues by you.

The radar here is the antenna and its associated beam generation components. What it deliver in real time is independent of whatever next stage/process does with that information. The next stage/process is about image creation. If that stage/process does not have the computational power to process that raw information DELIVERED by the radar, there is no real time creation of that desired image.

The radar antenna does not deliver its raw data outside of the local processes. It is delivering that raw data in real time inside the local stage/process.

Actually it is a solution for relative motion between radar and target; the relative motion between radar and target happen either the radar is stationed while target is moving, either the radar is moving (airborne radar) while target is stationed, or both radar and target are moving, where tracking moving target like ship or carrier is one of the case. Without this solution the SAR cannot display real time data of moving target (or station target from moving radar) with high resolution.

I can tell that this is not from you. This is a composite copy/paste job from someone who does not have the necessary technical background.

There is no real time high resolution image which is not real time, that is self contradictive and fatally logical error.

Actually, the error is still with YOU. This is about image creation. Whether it is high resolution or not is besides the point. You can have delayed creation of that high resolution image due to other issues, such as resource management.

This is like taking a chain of photographs, putting it away for a few minutes, then laying the chain out to form a panoramic composite photograph. This is a delayed process.

The real time process is to lay down each photo as it complete, forming the panoramic image as you go. This is real time.

The resolution of each photo have nothing to do with this.

If you can read the article (as it seems you have poor comprehension capability), it is clear about the case where the solution is aimed for:

Typically, the radar is carried by a spaceborne or an airborne platform moving at known speed. A single physical antenna is used to gather signals reflected from the targets at different positions, at different times. The relative motion between the radar and the targets encodes the targets’ information, which is processed to form a focused image of the surface area.

http://www.ti.com/general/docs/lit/getliterature.tsp?baseLiteratureNumber=tidub40&fileType=pdf​

​

I read and understood that article better than you have, kid.

What you posted is a common explanation of the SAR operation. It has nothing to do with high resolution or real time processing.

Your source is a sales brochure for a SAR image processing component by a company. It says nothing about sending that information outside to a third party. It is about image creation and it just happened to be powerful enough to create that image as fast as the radar can provide raw data.

Where are those 'aviation studies' now ?

@antonius123

Thanks for your sound & beautiful explanation.

One technical ignoramus sucking up to another.

 

[antonius123]

This is where your poor understanding of the English language is evident.

The word 'deliver' does not automatically mean to send information outside of the local system. Real time data processing have many levels and each level must complete its task(s) before delivering the compiled information to the next level/stage.

For example...

If I am listening and writing down what I hear, information is being 'delivered' from one stage/process to another. This process is happening in real time, but that does not mean I am delivering what I hear to someone else who is waiting for the compiled information.

What you are doing is taking the context that you want of the word 'deliver' and making that context suit your argument regardless of the technical issues involved.

Even you have poor understanding with my explanation.
I am not saying that "deliver" meant to send information outside the system.

It is funny to see you are arguing with your own fantasy

I was explaining you that the real time data (image) will be helpful for the application of detect/track moving target, where you said that SAR will never be able to track moving target. You really dont get it even though my explanation is quite clear

Another failure of understanding of technical issues by you.

The radar here is the antenna and its associated beam generation components. What it deliver in real time is independent of whatever next stage/process does with that information. The next stage/process is about image creation. If that stage/process does not have the computational power to process that raw information DELIVERED by the radar, there is no real time creation of that desired image.

The radar antenna does not deliver its raw data outside of the local processes. It is delivering that raw data in real time inside the local stage/process.

LOLs. I am talking radar as a system not only antenna as you thought, as radar is not only "antenna", but a system.

Radar is an object-detection system that uses radio waves to determine the range, angle, or velocity of objects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar

Even for this simple basic you dont have clue / correct technical understanding.

I can tell that this is not from you. This is a composite copy/paste job from someone who does not have the necessary technical background.

LOLs. What you are accusing as copy/paste job is Texas Instrument, as the citation is from Texas Instrument.

The one should be questioned about the technical background here is you. Very Funny

Actually, the error is still with YOU. This is about image creation. Whether it is high resolution or not is besides the point. You can have delayed creation of that high resolution image due to other issues, such as resource management.

This is like taking a chain of photographs, putting it away for a few minutes, then laying the chain out to form a panoramic composite photograph. This is a delayed process.

The real time process is to lay down each photo as it complete, forming the panoramic image as you go. This is real time.

The resolution of each photo have nothing to do with this.

You mistakenly understand not only my explanation, but also the technical explanation of citation
It doubt you really have technical background.

If you can read / comprehend what the citation said, it is talking about how to obtain :"high resolution image in real time". So there are 2 keyword here: resolution, and realtime.
High resolution is about image quality, and real time is about delivered as it happen.

Here I repost my citation from Texas Instrument, please read again carefully:
http://www.ti.com/general/docs/lit/getliterature.tsp?baseLiteratureNumber=tidub40&fileType=pdf

It doesn't require very deep technical knowledge to understand that, except you dont have technical knowledge.

I read and understood that article better than you have, kid.

What you posted is a common explanation of the SAR operation. It has nothing to do with high resolution or real time processing.

Your source is a sales brochure for a SAR image processing component by a company. It says nothing about sending that information outside to a third party. It is about image creation and it just happened to be powerful enough to create that image as fast as the radar can provide raw data.

Where are those 'aviation studies' now ?

Nope.It is you who really dont understand what the article explain.

In fact SAR has thing to do with high resolution and real time processing, as both are the challenge for SAR. And the article from TI is clearly explaining on their challenge to generate high resolution imate in real-time.

One of the main challenges of SAR is to generate high resolution images in real-time, since forming the image involves computationally demanding signal processing procedures.
http://www.ti.com/tool/TIDEP0045
​

Sending out information to third party is your own word/fantasy.

Now tell me where do you get aviation study or engineering? you seems has little understanding of basic technical to understand technical explanation. No fraud no faking anymore please

One technical ignoramus sucking up to another.

The one who is faking his technical background here is you

 

[gambit]

I was explaining you that the real time data (image) will be helpful for the application of detect/track moving target, where you said that SAR will never be able to track moving target.

I never said that.

Here is what I really said back in post 79...

SAR are best for creating high resolution radar images of STATIONARY targets. But we are talking about a moving target -- a ship.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/meet-the...er-killer-missile.445091/page-6#ixzz4IftQwLYg

The words 'best for' mean most effective and most efficient at doing a task. The words 'best for' also mean can do other tasks, just not as good. Nowhere have I said a SAR system cannot track a moving target.

But since the PDF Chinese and their suck-ups routinely bring up an orbital SAR platform to track US ships and to provide 'real time'' targeting information to a descending DF-21D warhead, what do professionals in the field, regardless of country and nationality, have to say about the idea ?

Remember, this is real physics, not 'Chinese physics'.

Here are the relevant passages:

'...moving targets are usually smeared and/or imaged at incorrect positions due to the target motions during the SAR integration time.

...a moving target will cause multiple ghost targets in the reconstructed SAR image.'

Look at the date in upper right corner: July 2016.

Look at the authors' names: Not American.

What exactly is the 'SAR integration time' ?

First...This is an airborne SAR platform operation...

Staying with the illustration for now, we have five 'slices' of a target area. The SAR integration process is about creating a final and composite radar image from ALL slices.

The aircraft cannot fly in a stable manner. There are always unplanned deviations. If there is insufficient computational power, data for all SAR slices and those unplanned flight deviations are simply stored and later offloaded to where there are sufficient computational power to generate that final and composite radar image of the targeted area.

If there is sufficient computational power, it does not always mean that final and composite radar image can be generated in time to update a third party. For the above image, the left is the mathematical model of the aircraft's flight, the right is a column showing how long -- in milliseconds -- it takes for an integration process to work on ALL flight data components. All those milliseconds add up, whether the processing times are done in parallel or consequential. So even if a SAR system does have sufficient on-board computational power, it does not mean all SAR systems are the same. Some will be faster and some slower.

For the on-board SAR computer, the slower it is, the BLURRIER THE MOVING TARGET over time.

So when Gary said this...

I never said SAR radar cannot track target, they can track target, but NOT IN REAL TIME. It said so in your article. If you cannot track something in real time, then you cannot guide the attacks.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/meet-the...er-killer-missile.445091/page-7#ixzz4Ig2SfzvL

Gary is TACTICALLY correct. He is not trying to be TECHNICALLY correct. No one said that a SAR platform, whether it is air or space borned, cannot track moving targets and provide that information in real time.

But what we are saying is that when there are such poor target resolutions -- blurs -- that target information is TACTICALLY useless. Updating a ballistic warhead traveling at double digits Mach with blurry target information is TACTICALLY worthless and will make the warhead miss.

The one who is faking his technical background here is you

You are a doofus. The PDF Chinese tried 'Chinese physics' and ended up looking like fools. Now they are laughing at you for being the greater fool than all of them combined.

You think a sales brochure from Texas Instruments is a 'citation' ? The abstract that I presented is a real citation, kid.

For those Chinese professionals ? I may not be familiar with the math simply because I am no longer in the field, but at least I understand their work at the conceptual and at the system design levels. In your case, you do not even understand your own sources.

We are still waiting for your explanation on why lasers cannot hit a target at greater than Mach 2.

 

[antonius123]

I never said that.

Here is what I really said back in post 79...


The words 'best for' mean most effective and most efficient at doing a task. The words 'best for' also mean can do other tasks, just not as good. Nowhere have I said a SAR system cannot track a moving target.

But since the PDF Chinese and their suck-ups routinely bring up an orbital SAR platform to track US ships and to provide 'real time'' targeting information to a descending DF-21D warhead, what do professionals in the field, regardless of country and nationality, have to say about the idea ?

Remember, this is real physics, not 'Chinese physics'.

Here are the relevant passages:

'...moving targets are usually smeared and/or imaged at incorrect positions due to the target motions during the SAR integration time.

...a moving target will cause multiple ghost targets in the reconstructed SAR image.'

Look at the date in upper right corner: July 2016.

Look at the authors' names: Not American.

What exactly is the 'SAR integration time' ?

First...This is an airborne SAR platform operation...

Staying with the illustration for now, we have five 'slices' of a target area. The SAR integration process is about creating a final and composite radar image from ALL slices.

The aircraft cannot fly in a stable manner. There are always unplanned deviations. If there is insufficient computational power, data for all SAR slices and those unplanned flight deviations are simply stored and later offloaded to where there are sufficient computational power to generate that final and composite radar image of the targeted area.

If there is sufficient computational power, it does not always mean that final and composite radar image can be generated in time to update a third party. For the above image, the left is the mathematical model of the aircraft's flight, the right is a column showing how long -- in milliseconds -- it takes for an integration process to work on ALL flight data components. All those milliseconds add up, whether the processing times are done in parallel or consequential. So even if a SAR system does have sufficient on-board computational power, it does not mean all SAR systems are the same. Some will be faster and some slower.

For the on-board SAR computer, the slower it is, the BLURRIER THE MOVING TARGET over time.

LOLs. We all know about the delay in processing etc. But the problem is : you dont understand what the "real time" meant here.

The real time meant here is not "ideal real time" where there is no delay at all even for milli/micro/nano/pico second. There is no such a real time in process, everything takes time even for nano second.

The real time meant here is practical real time for application purpose and man-machine interfacing.

The citation is talking about high resolution image in real time (remember: practical real time).

So when Gary said this...


Gary is TACTICALLY correct. He is not trying to be TECHNICALLY correct. No one said that a SAR platform, whether it is air or space borned, cannot track moving targets and provide that information in real time.

But what we are saying is that when there are such poor target resolutions -- blurs -- that target information is TACTICALLY useless. Updating a ballistic warhead traveling at double digits Mach with blurry target information is TACTICALLY worthless and will make the warhead miss.

This is your responses:

This is how delusional are the PDF Chinese and their supporters of how difficult it is to target a moving ship.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/meet-the...er-killer-missile.445091/page-6#ixzz4InL6aM6W

If you said it is delusional to track moving ship, then please read again my citation from TI.

The citation clearly say that the challenge for real time is because the processing time, thats why the computational power and algorithm is what they are focusing for the solution.

You are a doofus. The PDF Chinese tried 'Chinese physics' and ended up looking like fools. Now they are laughing at you for being the greater fool than all of them combined.

You think a sales brochure from Texas Instruments is a 'citation' ? The abstract that I presented is a real citation, kid.

For those Chinese professionals ? I may not be familiar with the math simply because I am no longer in the field, but at least I understand their work at the conceptual and at the system design levels. In your case, you do not even understand your own sources.

Where is the wrong with the physics? Nobody said that real time is ideally real time.

Like I said before: there is always delay. That means there is no ideal real time. But what ASBM need is not ideal realtime but practically one. I hope you know the difference.

How do you know the TI article is sales/marketing brochure?
Even if it is, still the technical explanation should be valid.

Remember, you are wrong and have been debunked on the claim that radar is about "antenna". This already disqualify you in explaining about how radar work here

We are still waiting for your explanation on why lasers cannot hit a target at greater than Mach 2.

Where did I said laser cannot hit target with greater mach 2?

I am saying that laser shoot down mach 10 / mach 30 missile is still in fantasy now.
It seems you have reading comprehension problem. If you dont agree, please explain why.

 

[gambit]

LOLs. We all know about the delay in processing etc. But the problem is : you dont understand what the "real time" meant here.

The real time meant here is not "ideal real time" where there is no delay at all even for milli/micro/nano/pico second. There is no such a real time in process, everything takes time even for nano second.

The real time meant here is practical real time for application purpose and man-machine interfacing.

The citation is talking about high resolution image in real time (remember: practical real time).

Show the readers where I said a SAR system cannot track a moving target.

This is your responses:

This is how delusional are the PDF Chinese and their supporters of how difficult it is to target a moving ship.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/meet-the...er-killer-missile.445091/page-6#ixzz4InL6aM6W

If you said it is delusional to track moving ship, then please read again my citation from TI.

The citation clearly say that the challenge for real time is because the processing time, thats why the computational power and algorithm is what they are focusing for the solution.

This is where your poor English continually shows.

I did not say it is delusional to track a moving ship. I said it is delusional to simply say an orbital SAR platform can update target information to a DF-21D. People who simply make such declaration are ignorant of the details involved. One of those details is that while a SAR system and track a moving target, that moving target ended up blurry, often indistinguishable from background. How is any third party to do anything with that bad information ?

Where did I said laser cannot hit target with greater mach 2?

Right here...

That laser gun can only hit cruise missile (< mach 2) at best.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/meet-the...er-killer-missile.445091/page-3#ixzz4InfQEoSw

Do you know why you cannot even keep track of your own argument ? Because you have no real background in science in general, let alone the specific technologies often discussed in this forum. You lied about your 'aviation experience' which changed into 'aviation studies' when challenged. Liars have to work much harder than those who have genuine experience, but eventually they always slip up.

Looky here, kid...I know you hate America and you have worn out several pairs of kneepads for China. But stay out of technical issues, eh ? You are terrible at it.

 

[antonius123]

Show the readers where I said a SAR system cannot track a moving target.


This is where your poor English continually shows.

I did not say it is delusional to track a moving ship. I said it is delusional to simply say an orbital SAR platform can update target information to a DF-21D. People who simply make such declaration are ignorant of the details involved. One of those details is that while a SAR system and track a moving target, that moving target ended up blurry, often indistinguishable from background. How is any third party to do anything with that bad information ?

You did not say directly indeed, but you implied that in your several post (eg: your post #79, #94), until you made your clarification recently.

For example:

Jhungary:
I never said SAR radar cannot track target, they can track target, but NOT IN REAL TIME. It said so in your article. If you cannot track something in real time, then you cannot guide the attacks.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/meet-the...er-killer-missile.445091/page-7#ixzz4IoLj5PJ8​

Gambit reply:
He is absolutely incapable of understanding the idea of 'real time'. This is amazing. I have never meet anyone so mentally deficient outside of medical issues

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/meet-the...er-killer-missile.445091/page-7#ixzz4IoLxm5M1​

Your approval on Jhungary statement that SAR cannot track moving target in real time, imply that SAR should not be capable to help ASBM to hit moving carrier, as this is our context of discussion.

Not to mention your statement about how difficult to track moving target imply that ASBM capability to track moving ship is questionable.

Gambit said:
This is how delusional are the PDF Chinese and their supporters of how difficult it is to target a moving ship.

Yeah...Chinese satellites with Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) will be able to REAL TIME direct a DF-21D ballistic missile to a US aircraft carrier.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/meet-the...er-killer-missile.445091/page-6#ixzz4IoO5uq4q​

So the problem is either with your knowledge or your language.

Do you know why you cannot even keep track of your own argument ? Because you have no real background in science in general, let alone the specific technologies often discussed in this forum. You lied about your 'aviation experience' which changed into 'aviation studies' when challenged. Liars have to work much harder than those who have genuine experience, but eventually they always slip up.

LOLs.

It is you who cannot track your own argument, neither has real background in science except fraudster.

• Your poor understanding about radar (you think radar = only antenna)
• Your poor comprehension about technical explanation in TI citation.
• Your poor comprehension about "real time" meaning
• Not to mention your previous technical misconception in the previous discussion.

has proven and demonstrated clearly your insufficient background in basic science and technical.

Looky here, kid...I know you hate America and you have worn out several pairs of kneepads for China. But stay out of technical issues, eh ? You are terrible at it.

When did I say I hate America? LOL

"That laser gun can only hit cruise missile (< mach 2) at best."

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/meet-the...er-killer-missile.445091/page-8#ixzz4IoJgL4fS

So you dont understand the question right?

That laser gun => the laser gun that somebody has shown in this thread.

https://defence.pk/threads/meet-the...ier-killer-missile.445091/page-2#post-8602370


Please explain how it could hit mach 30 missile. I am waiting ..

 

[gambit]

You did not say directly indeed, but you implied that in your several post (eg: your post #79, #94), until you made your clarification recently.

So the best you have is 'implied'. Be content that the PDF Chinese takes you as their pet. We are done with you.

 

[antonius123]

So the best you have is 'implied'. Be content that the PDF Chinese takes you as their pet. We are done with you.

And the best of you are only miss understanding (citation, people's explanation, etc), miss conception (technics & basic science), ignorance, dwindling and run away?

I am still waiting your answer why that laser could hit missile with speed mach 30, please dont run away

If you give up, I will help to answer you why it is difficult to hit mach 30

 

[Nibiru]

Yes, I am also interested to know the reason why the laser could hit mach 30 missile, or why not.

Show the readers where I said a SAR system cannot track a moving target.


This is where your poor English continually shows.

I did not say it is delusional to track a moving ship. I said it is delusional to simply say an orbital SAR platform can update target information to a DF-21D. People who simply make such declaration are ignorant of the details involved. One of those details is that while a SAR system and track a moving target, that moving target ended up blurry, often indistinguishable from background. How is any third party to do anything with that bad information ?

I think Antonius has answered that based on Texas Instrument article right?
SAR can update target information without blurr simply by the powerful computation and improved algorithm as offered by TI's solution.