Russia experts estimate F-22 RCS at 0.3 m^2 and Su-57 RCS at 0.35 m^2. Fairly realistic numbers.

[gambit]

I've already said it before, even if the radar did not pick up the F-22, the Rafale still has other sensors to track it.

Yeah...The ROE ALLOWED such tracking.

Haha. Let's talk about Iraqi WMDs after you actually find some.

Whatsamatta? The UN is not good enough for you?

The rest is just pointless rambling.

From you -- yes.

SPECTRA is not the 'stealth-killer' as you have feebly tried to make it out to be. You cannot create an out of phase countermeasure signal without sampling it FIRST. Simple as that. And yes, you have to sample it at the sine wave level. This is real physics. Not Indian physics. Not French physics.

 

[nahtanbob]

No, it's not, the SU-57 was built with sensors that are not found on the F-22, it was built to have better situational awareness and it was built to do things that the F-22 simply can not.

I have a hard time believing Russians can come up with sensors that USA cannot come up with
If the Su-57 was a 5th generation aircraft the Indian air force would have ordered it in a heartbeat.
They ordered Rafale 4.5+ gen aircraft for $200 million per aircraft.
I take it from the IAF rejection that it is not a quantum leap above the Su-35
The Indian air force has a large fleet of Su-30 Flankers which are close to the Su-35 in capabilities

 

[randomradio]

Yeah...The ROE ALLOWED such tracking.

Lol. Most exercises involving foreign air forces are kept as realistic as possible, this includes using sensors that will be used in real scenarios. It's mostly seasoned fighters fighting it out.

All you are doing is making excuses. It's the F-22's fault for not having an IRST of its own.

And it still doesn't change the fact that the F-22 struggled against an aircraft that's over 10 years older, with inferior TWR and no TVC.

Whatsamatta? The UN is not good enough for you?

Let's see what the Iraq Survey Group has to say:

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
Discussions concerning WMD, particularly leading up to OIF, would have been highly compartmentalized within the Regime. ISG found no credible evidence that any fi eld elements knew about plans for CW use during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Uday—head of the Fedayeen Saddam—attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF, according to reporting, but ISG found no evidence that Iraq ever came into possession of any CW weapons.

ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The network of laboratories could have provided an ideal, compartmented platform from which to continue CW agent R&D or small-scale production efforts, but we have no indications this was planned.

ISG investigated pre-OIF activities at Musayyib Ammunition Storage Depot—the storage site that was judged to have the strongest link to CW. An extensive investigation of the facility revealed that there was no CW activity, unlike previously assessed.

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level.

Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so, but ISG discovered no indications that the Regime was pursuing such a course.

The Iraqi WMD story was entirely fabricated.

From you -- yes.

SPECTRA is not the 'stealth-killer' as you have feebly tried to make it out to be. You cannot create an out of phase countermeasure signal without sampling it FIRST. Simple as that. And yes, you have to sample it at the sine wave level. This is real physics. Not Indian physics. Not French physics.

Of course you have to sample a continuous signal before conversion, I have already said it, but there is no new signal being newly created for Spectra's ACT.

There are designs based on interrupted-sampling for ACT, which I told you about a long time ago.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/elex/advpub/0/advpub_11.20130997/_pdf/-char/ja

From the link: This method can arrive at a jamming method analogous to active stealth but it has the advantage of simpleness and convenience.

I would recommend reading the rest of it.

All I know is conventional sampling ADCs are useless, but the French are doing it without sampling. If you are gonna ask me how they are doing it without sampling, I don't have an answer to that. That's why the closest I reached was this concept based on interrupted-sampling. Spectra is more akin to a mirror reflecting light off its surface. But in terms of hardware, you will most likely need a digital tranceiver which can keep both uplink and downlink switched on at the same time. I doubt it's going to work without simultaneous transmit and receive.

However the fact is it exists.

"software-based virtual stealth technology"

I have a hard time believing Russians can come up with sensors that USA cannot come up with
If the Su-57 was a 5th generation aircraft the Indian air force would have ordered it in a heartbeat.
They ordered Rafale 4.5+ gen aircraft for $200 million per aircraft.
I take it from the IAF rejection that it is not a quantum leap above the Su-35
The Indian air force has a large fleet of Su-30 Flankers which are close to the Su-35 in capabilities

The Russians were the first to use phased array radars on their jets. The Mig-31 came with the Zaslon in the early 80s. The Americans began using phased array radars for the first time on the F-15 in 2000. The Su-57's new radar will be a digital AESA radar based on GaN, which is a generation ahead compared to what's on the F-22 and F-35. So they basically skipped a generation. They jumped straight from analog PESAs to digital AESAs, while the Americans are operating analog AESAs.

As for the Su-57, I already told you, it's not finished development yet. And the Rafale requirement has nothing do to with Su-57. Meaning, IAF plans to buy both. They have divided their air force into single engine medium, twin engine medium and heavy aircraft.The Rafale comes under twin engine medium, while Su-57 is a heavy. Right now, we have enough heavy aircraft through the Su-30s while we have zero twin engine medium aircraft, hence the focus on Rafale.

The IAF has rated the FGFA to be superior to the J-20.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/russ...realistic-numbers.589471/page-3#post-10987376
@LeGenD Check the above link. Less than a minute long.

 

[nahtanbob]

The Russians were the first to use phased array radars on their jets. The Mig-31 came with the Zaslon in the early 80s. The Americans began using phased array radars for the first time on the F-15 in 2000. The Su-57's new radar will be a digital AESA radar based on GaN, which is a generation ahead compared to what's on the F-22 and F-35. So they basically skipped a generation. They jumped straight from analog PESAs to digital AESAs, while the Americans are operating analog AESAs.

As for the Su-57, I already told you, it's not finished development yet. And the Rafale requirement has nothing do to with Su-57. Meaning, IAF plans to buy both. They have divided their air force into single engine medium, twin engine medium and heavy aircraft.The Rafale comes under twin engine medium, while Su-57 is a heavy. Right now, we have enough heavy aircraft through the Su-30s while we have zero twin engine medium aircraft, hence the focus on Rafale.

The IAF has rated the FGFA to be superior to the J-20.

Americans are ahead of Russia in semiconductor technology

I am fine if you claim the Su-57 is an incomplete program. there is no point comparing an incomplete aircraft platform with operational deployed platform

 

[randomradio]

Americans are ahead of Russia in semiconductor technology

When it comes to radars and stuff, nobody really knows. But it doesn't matter if the Russians end up with something that's a generation ahead.

For example, if American GaAs is better than Russian GaAs, this difference won't matter if the Russians skipped GaAs and are using GaN instead. Then it's the Americans who are behind.

I am fine if you claim the Su-57 is an incomplete program. there is no point comparing an incomplete aircraft platform with operational deployed platform

The Su-57 variant of most interest is expected to become fully operational only in 2024-25.

 

[gambit]

Lol. Most exercises involving foreign air forces are kept as realistic as possible,...

Lol...NOT TRUE...This is where your lack of military experience is evident.

For example, if A is allowed to regenerate while B is not, that is a rigged exercise. Not realistic. It is realistic only in the sense that the exercise is designed to stress the combat tempo capability of B.

Another example is when the instructor deliberately put himself in an inferior position to teach the trainee how to exploit the superior and maintains that position.

It is no different of hosting foreign air forces. The ROE is determined weeks, months, or even a couple yrs in advance. Will the US send an actual B-52? Not always. If not, then a few F-15s will fly an altitude, airspeed, and behaviors as if they are B-52s. The B-1 can fly faster and lower a penetration pattern than the B-52, so an F-15 will fly in the manner of a B-1.

I can go on with dozens of different scenarios where exercises are rigged in terms of ROEs that includes variations from equipment to tactics. But the readers get the point, which you do not.

All you are doing is making excuses. It's the F-22's fault for not having an IRST of its own.

And all you are doing is posting edited images and videos in a feeble attempt to hype something that no one outside of Internet forums take seriously. This is more for your ego than for understanding military affairs.

Let's see what the Iraq Survey Group has to say:

Would you care to know what the UN has to say about the definition of 'WMD'?

Of course you have to sample a continuous signal before conversion,...

All I know is conventional sampling ADCs are useless, but the French are doing it without sampling. If you are gonna ask me how they are doing it without sampling, I don't have an answer to that.

That is all we need to know how SPECTRA cannot handle the F-22's and F-35's radar.


MOD EDIT: No personal insults

 

[randomradio]

Lol...NOT TRUE...This is where your lack of military experience is evident.

For example, if A is allowed to regenerate while B is not, that is a rigged exercise. Not realistic. It is realistic only in the sense that the exercise is designed to stress the combat tempo capability of B.

Another example is when the instructor deliberately put himself in an inferior position to teach the trainee how to exploit the superior and maintains that position.

It is no different of hosting foreign air forces. The ROE is determined weeks, months, or even a couple yrs in advance. Will the US send an actual B-52? Not always. If not, then a few F-15s will fly an altitude, airspeed, and behaviors as if they are B-52s. The B-1 can fly faster and lower a penetration pattern than the B-52, so an F-15 will fly in the manner of a B-1.

I can go on with dozens of different scenarios where exercises are rigged in terms of ROEs that includes variations from equipment to tactics. But the readers get the point, which you do not.

In most exercises like Rafale and F-22, the ROEs are made as close to real scenarios as possible.

As one IAF pilot pointed out about the exercises with the US, the exercises only stop at actually shooting at each other, but ROEs were as close to the real thing as possible.

Of course, there will be some restrictions for safety reasons, for example, the Rafale never exceeded 9G even though it can perform at 11G, but it's going to be as close to the real thing as possible or there is no real learning experience.

You can have tightly scripted exercise with your closest allies, but a country like France isn't one of your closest allies.

And all you are doing is posting edited images and videos in a feeble attempt to hype something that no one outside of Internet forums take seriously. This is more for your ego than for understanding military affairs.

What if those are not edited videos and pictures?

Would you care to know what the UN has to say about the definition of 'WMD'?

Once the UN finds some in Iraq, let me know.

But why are you so worried about the UN? It is the US that claimed WMDs, so where's the proof?

That is all we need to know how SPECTRA cannot handle the F-22's and F-35's radar. If you cannot figure out what kind of sampling SPECTRA must do, too bad for you because of your ignorance and arrogance. As we Americans says: You know jackshit.

Lol. You think some LPI modes will stop Spectra. The modes that became operational in your air force in the 2000s were countered by the French in the 90s through the Carbone Demonstrator program.

You have no clue about the Rafale's EW capabilities, that's why it's easy for you to dismiss them. But the Americans have no equivalent to the Spectra even today.

Here's a fun conversation:
-----------------------------------------------
Me: Rafale doesn't have to rely on a threat library alone.

Indian pro (15 years a fighter pilot, high rank, highly trained in EW from ships, fighter jets and dedicated EW aircraft): (in reply to me) yes, as it can record it on the spot and create a cancellation signal. but in case of lpI radar, the signal is not continuous nor repetative.

French pro (ran ASW programs, nuclear weapons programs, nuclear missiles, GALILEO and many more): (in reply to Indian pro about LPI) Doesn't matter it's the signal itself that we modify and send back, it takes no time, just the time to change the phase: the modification to apply is prepared but we apply it to the signal itself to gain time.

Indian pro: Bro, I am sure its not somekind of cocktail shaker where you have ice and other ingredients ready and just need to add the main drink to shake and serve.

French pro: Preparation can be done independant of the signal because it depend of the model of own plane (known by spectra), position of the plane, course of the plane, position of the ennemy radar. All these parameters evolve slowly compare to the time scale of the signal...

Me: Do you even sample the signal?

French pro: It can be done in parallel for the library. The library in SPECTRA is primarily used to identify threats, not real-time processing.

Me: No, I mean doesn't AC require sampling?

French pro: no

Indian pro: (in reply to "Do you even sample the signal?") Spectra can't something like a mirror. it will have a time gap between the signal falling on it and the signal sent out.

French pro: (quoting Indian pro) 5.83 10^-11 second

Indian pro: and that time is too small to generate a completely new signal. How much time do you think it will take for the system to let electricity pass thru its own circuit to create a new signal from the time it receives one to the time it transmits.

French pro: but it's not a completly new signal.
The distance traveled by the signal in the electronics must be less than 1.75 cm but it is the same antenna which receives and emits and all is already prepared, it is only necessary to add the attenuations already calculated.
-----------------------------------------------

So you can keep talking of irrelevant stuff, it doesn't matter. But that conversation there is a good enough hint for what Spectra does.

 

[gambit]

In most exercises like Rafale and F-22, the ROEs are made as close to real scenarios as possible.

As one IAF pilot pointed out about the exercises with the US, the exercises only stop at actually shooting at each other, but ROEs were as close to the real thing as possible.

Of course, there will be some restrictions for safety reasons, for example, the Rafale never exceeded 9G even though it can perform at 11G, but it's going to be as close to the real thing as possible or there is no real learning experience.

You can have tightly scripted exercise with your closest allies, but a country like France isn't one of your closest allies.

I will put it as politely as possible -- you know jackshit about military exercises.

What if those are not edited videos and pictures?

You can 'what if' as often as you like. Common sense -- which you clearly do not have -- dictate unverified data cannot be considered even as 'evidence', let alone proof, of any claim.

Once the UN finds some in Iraq, let me know.

But why are you so worried about the UN? It is the US that claimed WMDs, so where's the proof?

Again...I have the UN's DEFINITION of 'WMD' on my side. What do you have other than your ignorance?

Lol. You think some LPI modes will stop Spectra.

I do not 'think'. I know.

The modes that became operational in your air force in the 2000s were countered by the French in the 90s through the Carbone Demonstrator program.

You have no clue about the Rafale's EW capabilities, that's why it's easy for you to dismiss them. But the Americans have no equivalent to the Spectra even today.

Here's a fun conversation:

So you can keep talking of irrelevant stuff, it doesn't matter. But that conversation there is a good enough hint for what Spectra does.

I call that conversation bullshit. The 'Indian pro' did not even mentioned for the readers a few examples of sampling methods that the 'French pro' claimed SPECTRA does not perform. You call that 'verification'?

 

[SME11B]

Lol. Most exercises involving foreign air forces are kept as realistic as possible, this includes using sensors that will be used in real scenarios. It's mostly seasoned fighters fighting it out.

All you are doing is making excuses. It's the F-22's fault for not having an IRST of its own.

And it still doesn't change the fact that the F-22 struggled against an aircraft that's over 10 years older, with inferior TWR and no TVC.

F-22 never "struggled" against anything. In the one area the enemy can put up any real fight the f-22 ALLOWED them to get close, something even 5th gens like j-20 or su-57 would struggle to do in real war without f-22 allowing them. In a real situation f-22 most likely wouldn't condecend to let rafeal get to the merge and stand a chance, it's painful watching someone act like a 4.5 gen can compete against the king. Funny thing is while IRST would have been nice to have it still isn't needed after all these years. That's what an f-35 wingman is for anyway and they are very networked together and with stealthy and high bandwidth datalinks.

Let's see what the Iraq Survey Group has to say:

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
Discussions concerning WMD, particularly leading up to OIF, would have been highly compartmentalized within the Regime. ISG found no credible evidence that any fi eld elements knew about plans for CW use during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Uday—head of the Fedayeen Saddam—attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF, according to reporting, but ISG found no evidence that Iraq ever came into possession of any CW weapons.

ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The network of laboratories could have provided an ideal, compartmented platform from which to continue CW agent R&D or small-scale production efforts, but we have no indications this was planned.

ISG investigated pre-OIF activities at Musayyib Ammunition Storage Depot—the storage site that was judged to have the strongest link to CW. An extensive investigation of the facility revealed that there was no CW activity, unlike previously assessed.

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level.

Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so, but ISG discovered no indications that the Regime was pursuing such a course.

The Iraqi WMD story was entirely fabricated.



Of course you have to sample a continuous signal before conversion, I have already said it, but there is no new signal being newly created for Spectra's ACT.

There are designs based on interrupted-sampling for ACT, which I told you about a long time ago.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/elex/advpub/0/advpub_11.20130997/_pdf/-char/ja

From the link: This method can arrive at a jamming method analogous to active stealth but it has the advantage of simpleness and convenience.

I would recommend reading the rest of it.

All I know is conventional sampling ADCs are useless, but the French are doing it without sampling. If you are gonna ask me how they are doing it without sampling, I don't have an answer to that. That's why the closest I reached was this concept based on interrupted-sampling. Spectra is more akin to a mirror reflecting light off its surface. But in terms of hardware, you will most likely need a digital tranceiver which can keep both uplink and downlink switched on at the same time. I doubt it's going to work without simultaneous transmit and receive.

The receiving end has to wait and detect, and identify, and mimic an lpi short burst at minimal power and changing waveform and frequency 1000 times a second. Good luck.
However the fact is it exists.

"software-based virtual stealth technology"
F-22 can supercruise with 8 aams internally at mach 1.82 and have many orders of magnitude smaller rcs while doing it in addition to ir suppression.


The Russians were the first to use phased array radars on their jets. The Mig-31 came with the Zaslon in the early 80s. The Americans began using phased array radars for the first time on the F-15 in 2000. The Su-57's new radar will be a digital AESA radar based on GaN, which is a generation ahead compared to what's on the F-22 and F-35. So they basically skipped a generation. They jumped straight from analog PESAs to digital AESAs, while the Americans are operating analog AESAs.

The russians have been behind on radar tech for decades where have you been? You are the first to bring up this fanciful story so call me skeptical. Why is it they were able to make this jump but were behind for so long? Why is it performance specs on any recent russian radars are not competitive with the latest out of the west but now they somehow jumped TWO generations? 50 ruble or rupee army much?

As for the Su-57, I already told you, it's not finished development yet. And the Rafale requirement has nothing do to with Su-57. Meaning, IAF plans to buy both. They have divided their air force into single engine medium, twin engine medium and heavy aircraft.The Rafale comes under twin engine medium, while Su-57 is a heavy. Right now, we have enough heavy aircraft through the Su-30s while we have zero twin engine medium aircraft, hence the focus on Rafale.

Finally something you are right about, it is still in development and they are so far behind they are talking about trying to just make it their 6th gen contender. It might be superior whenever it comes out years from now to j-20 but I have been hearing hype about these systems for so long and they are still half baked and not operational in any serious capacity. Even if they were both finished today they still appear in many respects inferior and have about 500 f-22/35 already combat tested and waiting with some pilots and crew with nearly two decades experience in the 5th gen game and backed by a complex with 40 years fielding and supporting stealth systems.
The IAF has rated the FGFA to be superior to the J-20


https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/russ...realistic-numbers.589471/page-3#post-10987376
@LeGenD Check the above link. Less than a minute long.

 

[randomradio]

I will put it as politely as possible -- you know jackshit about military exercises.

Yeah, yeah, all ROEs are never in America's favour. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

You can 'what if' as often as you like. Common sense -- which you clearly do not have -- dictate unverified data cannot be considered even as 'evidence', let alone proof, of any claim.

*yawn* Ah, yes, videos and photos are not good enough when it goes against the US. But then, let's throw common sense aside and forget that the French are more trustworthy than the Americans.

Again...I have the UN's DEFINITION of 'WMD' on my side. What do you have other than your ignorance?

Again, show me proof of WMDs in Iraq. Screw the UN, the UN did not want war. The US wanted war, and the war was based on lies. So show your way out of it there. As usual, strawman arguments. Your own judges have declared there were no WMDs in Iraq.

I do not 'think'. I know.

Well, you are in for a surprise then.

I call that conversation bullshit. The 'Indian pro' did not even mentioned for the readers a few examples of sampling methods that the 'French pro' claimed SPECTRA does not perform. You call that 'verification'?

Remember I once told you that the Rafale doesn't require a threat library to react automatically. He agreed with me, while you didn't. The reason: The US is decades behind the French in EW. So you are the one with stupid questions. Sensible people do not resort to strawman arguments. He obviously has his reasons why not to pursue the subject.

PS: The Indian pro now runs a company that's designing a 5th gen aircraft (he designed it himself actually), and 2 helicopters, along with an infantry jet pack. So he has his reasons why he can't discuss about everything under the sun. And he obviously knows a lot more than you considering dealing with military secrets is his day job.

 

[SME11B]

In most exercises like Rafale and F-22, the ROEs are made as close to real scenarios as possible.

As one IAF pilot pointed out about the exercises with the US, the exercises only stop at actually shooting at each other, but ROEs were as close to the real thing as possible.

Of course, there will be some restrictions for safety reasons, for example, the Rafale never exceeded 9G even though it can perform at 11G, but it's going to be as close to the real thing as possible or there is no real learning experience.

You can have tightly scripted exercise with your closest allies, but a country like France isn't one of your closest allies.



What if those are not edited videos and pictures?



Once the UN finds some in Iraq, let me know.

But why are you so worried about the UN? It is the US that claimed WMDs, so where's the proof?



Lol. You think some LPI modes will stop Spectra. The modes that became operational in your air force in the 2000s were countered by the French in the 90s through the Carbone Demonstrator program.

You have no clue about the Rafale's EW capabilities, that's why it's easy for you to dismiss them. But the Americans have no equivalent to the Spectra even today.

Here's a fun conversation:
-----------------------------------------------
Me: Rafale doesn't have to rely on a threat library alone.

Indian pro (15 years a fighter pilot, high rank, highly trained in EW from ships, fighter jets and dedicated EW aircraft): (in reply to me) yes, as it can record it on the spot and create a cancellation signal. but in case of lpI radar, the signal is not continuous nor repetative.

French pro (ran ASW programs, nuclear weapons programs, nuclear missiles, GALILEO and many more): (in reply to Indian pro about LPI) Doesn't matter it's the signal itself that we modify and send back, it takes no time, just the time to change the phase: the modification to apply is prepared but we apply it to the signal itself to gain time.

Indian pro: Bro, I am sure its not somekind of cocktail shaker where you have ice and other ingredients ready and just need to add the main drink to shake and serve.

French pro: Preparation can be done independant of the signal because it depend of the model of own plane (known by spectra), position of the plane, course of the plane, position of the ennemy radar. All these parameters evolve slowly compare to the time scale of the signal...

Me: Do you even sample the signal?

French pro: It can be done in parallel for the library. The library in SPECTRA is primarily used to identify threats, not real-time processing.

Me: No, I mean doesn't AC require sampling?

French pro: no

Indian pro: (in reply to "Do you even sample the signal?") Spectra can't something like a mirror. it will have a time gap between the signal falling on it and the signal sent out.

French pro: (quoting Indian pro) 5.83 10^-11 second

Indian pro: and that time is too small to generate a completely new signal. How much time do you think it will take for the system to let electricity pass thru its own circuit to create a new signal from the time it receives one to the time it transmits.

French pro: but it's not a completly new signal.
The distance traveled by the signal in the electronics must be less than 1.75 cm but it is the same antenna which receives and emits and all is already prepared, it is only necessary to add the attenuations already calculated.
-----------------------------------------------

So you can keep talking of irrelevant stuff, it doesn't matter. But that conversation there is a good enough hint for what Spectra does.

Sounds far fetched for some of the reasons I mentioned. All an aesa has to do is scramble and send out random combinations, even if spectra detects and identifies the next pulse will be different and the process of playing catch up starts over again. Meanwhile apg-77/81 get plenty of return from rafales unstealthy airframe and don't need to emit a lot of chirps in the first place. Never heard of active cancellation being able to deal with any generation of aesa radar it sounds like it was designed for older radars.

 

[randomradio]

Sounds far fetched for some of the reasons I mentioned. All an aesa has to do is scramble and send out random combinations, even if spectra detects and identifies the next pulse will be different and the process of playing catch up starts over again. Meanwhile apg-77/81 get plenty of return from rafales unstealthy airframe and don't need to emit a lot of chirps in the first place. Never heard of active cancellation being able to deal with any generation of aesa radar it sounds like it was designed for older radars.

It was designed to deal with AESA radars.

 

[gambit]

Yeah, yeah, all ROEs are never in America's favour. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I said no such thing. Not even by implication. Too bad your ignorance and arrogance prevented you from understanding.

There are many reasons why an exercise may be rigged in favor of one over the other.

When I was on the F-111 and stationed at RAF Upper Heyford, F-111s from RAFs Upper Heyford and Lakenheath were often cast in the role of an adversary. We were allowed to regenerate as much as we like while the defenders were not so allowed. Eventually, we overwhelmed the defenders. Even in the middle of the exercise, referees have the authority to control how much we can regenerate and at what rate. So sometimes it took US longer than other exercises to 'win'. The benefits were indisputable. The F-111s had opportunities to fly in various scenarios that involved different terrain, weather, and defenses. The defenders had the chance to test their abilities to utmost.

F-111s were popular because we can present a threat that no one else in NATO can simulate. As a threat, Soviet engineer Adolf Tolkachev confirmed the F-111 were practically unbeatable, hence, at every arms reduction talk, the Soviet always demand the F-111 be withdrawn from England bases. Of course, we always told the Soviets to STFU.

So yes, you are ignorant.

*yawn* Ah, yes, videos and photos are not good enough when it goes against the US. But then, let's throw common sense aside and forget that the French are more trustworthy than the Americans.

Common sense have that the French is automatically more trustworthy than US? Now that is a sign of desperation.

Again, show me proof of WMDs in Iraq. Screw the UN, the UN did not want war. The US wanted war, and the war was based on lies. So show your way out of it there. As usual, strawman arguments. Your own judges have declared there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Does not matter if the UN wanted war or not. The issue is the definition of 'WMD' according to the UN's own standards. Funny that you cannot find it.

Well, you are in for a surprise then.

Remember I once told you that the Rafale doesn't require a threat library to react automatically. He agreed with me, while you didn't. The reason: The US is decades behind the French in EW. So you are the one with stupid questions. Sensible people do not resort to strawman arguments. He obviously has his reasons why not to pursue the subject.

PS: The Indian pro now runs a company that's designing a 5th gen aircraft (he designed it himself actually), and 2 helicopters, along with an infantry jet pack. So he has his reasons why he can't discuss about everything under the sun. And he obviously knows a lot more than you considering dealing with military secrets is his day job.

Nothing you said is provable. NOTHING. Your 'Indian pro' is just as nebulous as Santa Clause. But hey, NORAD tracks Santa every yr for the kids, that means Santa is real, right?

We can dispense with any threat library that SPECRAT use or does not use. The issue is what kind of sampling does SPECRAT MUST DO. You cannot explain/defend how SPECRAT counter LPI because you do not know how LPI works. You got nothing but shit on how SPECRAT works at all. All the 'French pro' has to say is 'secret' in French and authomagically he is 'trustworthy'.

It was designed to deal with AESA radars.

Not all AESA are the same. Right now, any university can build its own AESA in the lab, but that does not mean it would be combat capable. F-22's and F-35's AESA WILL defeat SPECRAT and SPECRAT would not even know it until -- KA-BLOOEY goes the Raffle.

 

[randomradio]

I said no such thing. Not even by implication. Too bad your ignorance and arrogance prevented you from understanding.

There are many reasons why an exercise may be rigged in favor of one over the other.

When I was on the F-111 and stationed at RAF Upper Heyford, F-111s from RAFs Upper Heyford and Lakenheath were often cast in the role of an adversary. We were allowed to regenerate as much as we like while the defenders were not so allowed. Eventually, we overwhelmed the defenders. Even in the middle of the exercise, referees have the authority to control how much we can regenerate and at what rate. So sometimes it took US longer than other exercises to 'win'. The benefits were indisputable. The F-111s had opportunities to fly in various scenarios that involved different terrain, weather, and defenses. The defenders had the chance to test their abilities to utmost.

F-111s were popular because we can present a threat that no one else in NATO can simulate. As a threat, Soviet engineer Adolf Tolkachev confirmed the F-111 were practically unbeatable, hence, at every arms reduction talk, the Soviet always demand the F-111 be withdrawn from England bases. Of course, we always told the Soviets to STFU.

So yes, you are ignorant.

Jeez, man. This is what I mean by you using strawman arguments. You bring in LFE ROE into what is just a dog fight. In dog fights, there are altitude, manoeuvrability and speed restrictions apart from weapons employment, like guns only. And when aircraft are similar, there is very little difference.

I am not ignorant about ROEs, and I understand the need to have restrictive ROEs. But in the Rafale and F-22 dog fight, or any other similar dog fights, the main idea is to keep it as real as possible.

The problem is you are linking irrelevant stuff into this, as usual. Typical strawman arguments.

Common sense have that the French is automatically more trustworthy than US? Now that is a sign of desperation.

Most definitely. The French keep a very tight lid on everything. And when they say something, it's typically true. When it's bad they try to hide it. When it's good they show off. Since information is controlled, we know that what comes out is pretty solid. For example, when the Dassault CEO said the Rafale is superior to the F-22 in the French senate, you can take it as being trustworthy.

Whereas the US is a canary. We already see the F-35 circus openly played in the media. So all the good and bad is out in the open, and people are just shitting everywhere based on vested interests. So there is no way to filter out reliable info out of all that filth.

Does not matter if the UN wanted war or not. The issue is the definition of 'WMD' according to the UN's own standards. Funny that you cannot find it.

Dude, I make it a point not to answer to your strawman attacks. Simply because it has nothing to do with the discussion in the first place.

Nothing you said is provable. NOTHING. Your 'Indian pro' is just as nebulous as Santa Clause. But hey, NORAD tracks Santa every yr for the kids, that means Santa is real, right?

We can dispense with any threat library that SPECRAT use or does not use. The issue is what kind of sampling does SPECRAT MUST DO. You cannot explain/defend how SPECRAT counter LPI because you do not know how LPI works.

It's you who do not understand in what conditions LPI works against Spectra. AC against LPI has little to do with frequency hopping or short bursts and purely dependent on location of the threat radar. Spectra can localise a target within 0.1deg, which is good enough to maintain stealth. So even if the Rafale cannot detect the F-22 using radar, it's killing all the X band signals around it anyway. It doesn't matter how short the burst is or if there is no continuity in the signal, because Spectra doesn't sample the threat signal. Pushing the amplitude of the threat signal below background noise also does nothing. If it's X band, it's dead.

Even if 1 radar releases 100 unique signals in a second, Spectra will simply treat it as 100 unique signals from 100 unique radars all located in just one place. So LPI doesn't defeat Spectra. The only real way to defeat ACT is by saturating it.

Spectra has no need to know the characteristics of the threat signal.

You got nothing but shit on how SPECRAT works at all. All the 'French pro' has to say is 'secret' in French and authomagically he is 'trustworthy'.

The French are trustworthy based on information they themselves release in public.

If a high ranking French official, the VP of Dassault, says the Rafale's frontal RCS is that of a sparrow, then the Rafale's frontal RCS is that of a sparrow. It's good enough.

You guys are too slow anyway.
https://breakingdefense.com/2011/09/french-pilots-over-libya-decline-us-intel-clearance-just-too-sl/

Ever had it tested in the field against say another airforce in an exercise?

Yep, against the IAF jets in Garuda V. It works.

 

[SME11B]

Jeez, man. This is what I mean by you using strawman arguments. You bring in LFE ROE into what is just a dog fight. In dog fights, there are altitude, manoeuvrability and speed restrictions apart from weapons employment, like guns only. And when aircraft are similar, there is very little difference.

I am not ignorant about ROEs, and I understand the need to have restrictive ROEs. But in the Rafale and F-22 dog fight, or any other similar dog fights, the main idea is to keep it as real as possible.

The problem is you are linking irrelevant stuff into this, as usual. Typical strawman arguments.



Most definitely. The French keep a very tight lid on everything. And when they say something, it's typically true. When it's bad they try to hide it. When it's good they show off. Since information is controlled, we know that what comes out is pretty solid. For example, when the Dassault CEO said the Rafale is superior to the F-22 in the French senate, you can take it as being trustworthy.
I guess the rafale being the most capable fighter in the world will be you and a few frenchmen's little secret. For some reason the rest of the worlds experts just haven't caught on. What with so few sales of rafales.
Whereas the US is a canary. We already see the F-35 circus openly played in the media. So all the good and bad is out in the open, and people are just shitting everywhere based on vested interests. So there is no way to filter out reliable info out of all that filth.

Because the media is known to never lie and be experts in military affairs.

Dude, I make it a point not to answer to your strawman attacks. Simply because it has nothing to do with the discussion in the first place.



It's you who do not understand in what conditions LPI works against Spectra. AC against LPI has little to do with frequency hopping or short bursts and purely dependent on location of the threat radar. Spectra can localise a target within 0.1deg, which is good enough to maintain stealth. So even if the Rafale cannot detect the F-22 using radar, it's killing all the X band signals around it anyway. It doesn't matter how short the burst is or if there is no continuity in the signal, because Spectra doesn't sample the threat signal. Pushing the amplitude of the threat signal below background noise also does nothing. If it's X band, it's dead.

Even if 1 radar releases 100 unique signals in a second, Spectra will simply treat it as 100 unique signals from 100 unique radars all located in just one place. So LPI doesn't defeat Spectra. The only real way to defeat ACT is by saturating it.

Spectra has no need to know the characteristics of the threat signal.

If it doesn't know the characteristics of a signal how can it copy it? If it doesn't copy it and sends out some genaric x band signal it will not cancel out lpi aesa. Even if it had the rcs of a sparrow (which it doesn't) It just gives that all up trying to jam every x band signal, rafale isn't the only one with ESM and aim-120 has a home on jam mode.


The French are trustworthy based on information they themselves release in public.

If a high ranking French official, the VP of Dassault, says the Rafale's frontal RCS is that of a sparrow, then the Rafale's frontal RCS is that of a sparrow. It's good enough.

You guys are too slow anyway.
https://breakingdefense.com/2011/09/french-pilots-over-libya-decline-us-intel-clearance-just-too-sl/



Yep, against the IAF jets in Garuda V. It works.