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

[randomradio]

Does not matter if I am 'unhappy' with your claim or not. What matter is that you back up your claim.

Lol. I already told you, common sense says, if the Raptor is so good and it still couldn't kill the Rafale, then it's obvious the ROE favoured the Rafale. Why is this so hard to get?

Holy shit...!!! Now we are definitely into 'Indian physics' territory. The cellphone itself is moving at pedestrian speed, therefore, the EM signals that go from tower to tower to satellites must be moving at the same pedestrian speed, therefore, SPECRAT can differentiate these signals from an AESA LPI radar signal.

Folks...There is no arguing against this.

What crap. Again, you are just making shit up and insinuating I said it.

The Rafale can easily track a source. All the towers are fixed, so once Spectra localises the source, and figures out the source isn't moving, it's not going to identify it as a fighter aircraft. It's as simple as that.

So SPECRAT can counter without creating a countermeasure signal.

Nothing is being created.

More 'Indian physics'. Your fellow Indians on this forum are hanging their heads in shame, pal.

Real physics.

I doubt you know how a waveguide works.

https://www.electronics-notes.com/a...rs-transmission-lines/waveguide-junctions.php

What design? Aperture size? Length? Material? Which end is inlet/outlet? SPECRAT as claimed by you is supposed to radiate in any direction, so explain to the forum how many waveguides can a pod of X-Y-Z dimensions that can accommodate 360 deg coverage.

This I have to see.

As I said, none of those I listed are possibly used in Spectra. All I did is show proof that phase shifting is possible without using sampling.

Give it a rest. You tried to pass off military electronics as something 'exotic' like in the movies. Now you got caught with your ignorance pants down your ankles.

All I see is you making excuses. You are confusing easily available electronics with exotic electronics. There are electronics that the US wouldn't give ToT to for license production, those are exotic electronics.

in theory you could make exotic semiconductors. I doubt Russia has the ability to make them.

In USA there is more emphasis in general on cost, reliability and supply chain. That means a lot of systems are COTS. During the cold war products for the military drove innovation in civilian sector. After the cold war ended it is the other way around.

To say the Russian commercial semiconductor sector is less sophisticated than their Western counterparts is an understatement

India uses COTS processors using Silicon, while also makes Gallium processors for strategic purposes. And these Gallium processors, they are more or less the same as the COTS processors, but are exotic in the sense not anybody can simply walk into a shop and buy it.

Most of these processors are based on Western designs anyway. So there is no such thing as the Russians not having the ability to make them.

 

[ssethii]

An aircraft size LRU cannot possibly process thousands of signals at a given time. Forget about thousand signals even separating few signals at particular frequencies might take a few seconds or so. Fourier is a b***h

 

[nahtanbob]

India uses COTS processors using Silicon, while also makes Gallium processors for strategic purposes. And these Gallium processors, they are more or less the same as the COTS processors, but are exotic in the sense not anybody can simply walk into a shop and buy it.

Most of these processors are based on Western designs anyway. So there is no such thing as the Russians not having the ability to make them.

Where are the Russians going to make them ? What equipment are the Russians going to use ?
There is a reason India uses COTS processors.

 

[gambit]

Lol. I already told you, common sense says, if the Raptor is so good and it still couldn't kill the Rafale, then it's obvious the ROE favoured the Rafale. Why is this so hard to get?

Base on my USAF yrs, I know better than taking anyone's 'common sense' and 'obvious' at face value. So for this case, either you produce the ROE, or STFU on what/how you think happened. Am not saying the F-22 was favored, or the Raffle was favored. The intention of the ROE is for learning and improvement, not for ignorant fanboys to make baseless speculations.

What crap. Again, you are just making shit up and insinuating I said it.

I made nothing up. Here are YOUR words...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/russ...realistic-numbers.589471/page-7#post-10993166

Cellphones are typically moving at the speed of a walking person or in a car or a high speed train, while satellites are hurtling through space at high speed. Fighter planes are not flying slower than all terrestrial vehicles and not more than mach 2. Spectra can follow the source based on quickly they displace.

Essentially, you said that SPECRAT discriminate via signal velocity and background clutter signals have different velocities due to the velocities of their sources. This is 'Indian physics'.

The Rafale can easily track a source. All the towers are fixed, so once Spectra localises the source, and figures out the source isn't moving, it's not going to identify it as a fighter aircraft. It's as simple as that.

In the middle of the ocean, what cell phone towers or any kind of physical signal relay stations? Or are we supposed to believe that the Raffle with SPECRAT can fight only over land because of 'Indian physics' limitations?

The problem with YOU is not because you are a fanboy. Nothing wrong with being a fanboy. I am a fanboy, as we all are on this forum. The problem is your arrogance. Compounded worse with your lack of experience in the areas you foolishly entered and spout your nonsense.

Signal analyses are real time and on location and SPECRAT is no different. The initial signal alert is direction. If the signal source is mobile, that determination is based on the Doppler component, not by determining the source's physical location(s). The Doppler component is a two-way calculation, even if one side is stationary. If both sides are mobile, such as the receiver and emitter are airborne, then the Doppler calculations gets more complex.

https://www.testandmeasurementtips.com/doppler-effect-em-cellular-phones/

If the source and observer are moving apart, the frequency will be lower than if they are stationary.

If source and observer are moving toward one another, the frequency will be higher.

Any kind of localization are confined only to direction, not the signal's actual physical structure like a ground based tower or an aircraft. The red/blue shifts are what tells the analysis that the transmission source is mobile.

A - The transmitter is fixed like a ground based tower. Receiver is an aircraft.

B - The transmitter is airborne. Receiver is also airborne.

In either case, for the sake of simplicity, the red/blue shifts RATE would double for B. The receiver is always bombarded with various EM sources, so we determine of ONE transmission source is mobile or not by comparing the many Doppler shifts in the area.

Just in case you think am making up the idea that the Doppler shifts are used in EW...

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/ew-radar-handbook/doppler-shift.htm

For a closing relative velocity:
* Wave is compressed
* Frequency is increased

For an opening relative velocity:
* Wave is stretched
* Frequency is decreased

So just on direction finding alone, I already have a better understanding of SPECRAT than you do.

So based on my personal experience, it is my opinion that SPECRAT is NO GOOD against the F-22's and F-35's AESA constant LPI transmissions because SPECRAT cannot distinguish these signals out of background noise.

No need to address the rest of your post.

 

[randomradio]

Where are the Russians going to make them ? What equipment are the Russians going to use ?
There is a reason India uses COTS processors.

The Russians have their own fab plants. So does India.

And no, we don't use COTS only. We also have fab plants that make custom designed processors.

In fact we plan to stop using COTS tech.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/drdo...-in-indian-missiles-strategic-systems.385931/

 

[randomradio]

Base on my USAF yrs, I know better than taking anyone's 'common sense' and 'obvious' at face value. So for this case, either you produce the ROE, or STFU on what/how you think happened. Am not saying the F-22 was favored, or the Raffle was favored. The intention of the ROE is for learning and improvement, not for ignorant fanboys to make baseless speculations.

I made nothing up. Here are YOUR words...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/russ...realistic-numbers.589471/page-7#post-10993166

Essentially, you said that SPECRAT discriminate via signal velocity and background clutter signals have different velocities due to the velocities of their sources. This is 'Indian physics'.

You should read very carefully:
Cellphones are
satellites are
Fighter planes are

Nowhere did I say, "Cellphones signals are" "satellites signals are" "Fighter plane signals are"

It's you who comes up with BS I never said.
"The cellphone itself is moving at pedestrian speed, therefore, the EM signals that go from tower to tower to satellites must be moving at the same pedestrian speed, therefore,"

Rafale can differentiate between whether the signal came off a moving cellphone or a fixed cellphone tower. Primarily because cellphones can be moved while towers don't move. Not to mention, cellphone towers work with higher power ratings.

In the middle of the ocean, what cell phone towers or any kind of physical signal relay stations? Or are we supposed to believe that the Raffle with SPECRAT can fight only over land because of 'Indian physics' limitations?

It's you who decided Rafale can't fight over oceans. Not me.

The problem with YOU is not because you are a fanboy. Nothing wrong with being a fanboy. I am a fanboy, as we all are on this forum. The problem is your arrogance. Compounded worse with your lack of experience in the areas you foolishly entered and spout your nonsense.

*yawn*

Signal analyses are real time and on location and SPECRAT is no different. The initial signal alert is direction. If the signal source is mobile, that determination is based on the Doppler component, not by determining the source's physical location(s). The Doppler component is a two-way calculation, even if one side is stationary. If both sides are mobile, such as the receiver and emitter are airborne, then the Doppler calculations gets more complex.

https://www.testandmeasurementtips.com/doppler-effect-em-cellular-phones/

Any kind of localization are confined only to direction, not the signal's actual physical structure like a ground based tower or an aircraft. The red/blue shifts are what tells the analysis that the transmission source is mobile.

Sorry, mate. You can keep your 90s level stuff to yourself. Rafale's passive localisation capability comes with weapons track quality. Rafale can destroy a fighter jet with passive localisation capabilities alone. 0.1degrees up to 200Km for direction finding and you get a lot more, like speed and distance, with cooperative techniques with other Rafales.

So based on my personal experience, it is my opinion that SPECRAT is NO GOOD against the F-22's and F-35's AESA constant LPI transmissions because SPECRAT cannot distinguish these signals out of background noise.

Again, do you know that the 90s was nearly 30 years ago?

Nope, again, Spectra works well against LPI. This is because Rafale knows whether a source is moving or not, along with its bearing, speed and distance. As I said, weapons quality track with passive detection.

The Rafale here tracks a target 48NM behind it using passive techniques. Since the target is at Rafale's six, the radar is unavailable. And the green colour indicates the Rafale is ready to fire a MICA at the target.

 

[ptldM3]

@randomradio @nahtanbob @gambit



I work in the semiconductor industry. We have military contacts and civillian. we have old technology like 200k and 300k+ technology, with the older technology being the most popular because of maturity. We produce a variety of line yields and the newer 'exotic' stuff is usually special ordered that anyone can buy but you have to have the money.

As for having state of the art equipment to produce state of the art microchips, that....is bullshit. We have new and old 'tools'. Essential they all do the same thing, photo, etch, diffusion, implant, chemical baths, etc vary on what the 'recipes' are. Quite literally a specific chip has special recipes, temperature, chemical baths, etc.

 

[nahtanbob]

@randomradio @nahtanbob @gambit



I work in the semiconductor industry. We have military contacts and civillian. we have old technology like 200k and 300k+ technology, with the older technology being the most popular because of maturity. We produce a variety of line yields and the newer 'exotic' stuff is usually special ordered that anyone can buy but you have to have the money.

As for having state of the art equipment to produce state of the art microchips, that....is bullshit. We have new and old 'tools'. Essential they all do the same thing, photo, etch, diffusion, implant, chemical baths, etc vary on what the 'recipes' are. Quite literally a specific chip has special recipes, temperature, chemical baths, etc.

I am not knowledgeable about the Russian semiconductor industry. I am using Russian backwardness on AWACS as a red flag. AWACS is a classic example of heavy duty signal processing on an aircraft. It needs to be done by heavily specialized computing hardware. There are constraints on size and power consumption. Russian AWACS technology has been poor. There are two possible reasons - 1. Russians have not been able to design signal processing algorithms 2. Russians can figure out the algorithms but cannot implement it because they lack the high speed signal processing computers

 

[gambit]

You should read very carefully:
Cellphones are
satellites are
Fighter planes are

Nowhere did I say, "Cellphones signals are" "satellites signals are" "Fighter plane signals are"

Correct. You did not used the word 'signals' because if you did, you would have been correct in explaining how to discriminate signals.

It's you who comes up with BS I never said.
"The cellphone itself is moving at pedestrian speed, therefore, the EM signals that go from tower to tower to satellites must be moving at the same pedestrian speed, therefore,"

I did not say you said that. I was using that as a consequence to your flawed explanation of how SPECRAT could have discriminate signals.

Rafale can differentiate between whether the signal came off a moving cellphone or a fixed cellphone tower. Primarily because cellphones can be moved while towers don't move. Not to mention, cellphone towers work with higher power ratings.

You are making the same error that ended up with you being wrong on how SPECRAT could perform signal discrimination. You ignored the source I showed you because you did not understand it, and that lack of understanding revealed your lack of technical education, which would have involved logical thought process.

Nope, again, Spectra works well against LPI. This is because Rafale knows whether a source is moving or not, along with its bearing, speed and distance. As I said, weapons quality track with passive detection.

You are in no position to 'say' anything. As it turned out, you understand less about SPECRAT's purported operations than I do, and you claimed to know a 'French pro' who does.

SPECRAT is NO GOOD against the F-22's and F-35's constant LPI signals because SPECRAT cannot discriminate these signals from background.

Imagine this pulse chain came from the F-22's AESA LPI transmission...

Each pulse is unique and amplitude is the same as background noise.

In order for any ECM to create a countermeasure signal...

1. That ECM system must discriminate EACH pulse from background.

2. Then compare each pulse's Doppler component against the Doppler components of other signals such as from TV, cell phones, or simple radios.

3. Then the ECM must isolate these pulses into an amplifier.

4. Then a countermeasure signal can be created PER PULSE that is out of phase.

This is assuming condition 1 is possible in the first place, which is dubious at best, where SPECRAT must lower its discriminator threshold to essentially zero which I say would overwhelm the system.

Do you even know why I clearly used signal examples like cell phones, TV, and radios? Because each TYPE of these signals is unique. An AESA LPI pulse chain can be masked inside each type. If SPECRAT is active at this noise level, SPECRAT would be transmitting ALL THE TIME, giving the Raffle away to the point where radar is not even needed. The problem for SPECRAT is compounded by the fact that an LPI pulse chain can be IRREGULAR between pulses. Conventional radar pulses requires consistent pulse intervals. AESA LPI signals can be anything the software allows.

SPECRAT is useless against US and eventually, even our 4th gen fighters will be AESA LPI capable.

 

[SME11B]

You should read very carefully:
Cellphones are
satellites are
Fighter planes are

Nowhere did I say, "Cellphones signals are" "satellites signals are" "Fighter plane signals are"

It's you who comes up with BS I never said.
"The cellphone itself is moving at pedestrian speed, therefore, the EM signals that go from tower to tower to satellites must be moving at the same pedestrian speed, therefore,"

Rafale can differentiate between whether the signal came off a moving cellphone or a fixed cellphone tower. Primarily because cellphones can be moved while towers don't move. Not to mention, cellphone towers work with higher power ratings.



It's you who decided Rafale can't fight over oceans. Not me.



*yawn*



Sorry, mate. You can keep your 90s level stuff to yourself. Rafale's passive localisation capability comes with weapons track quality. Rafale can destroy a fighter jet with passive localisation capabilities alone. 0.1degrees up to 200Km for direction finding and you get a lot more, like speed and distance, with cooperative techniques with other Rafales.



Again, do you know that the 90s was nearly 30 years ago?

Nope, again, Spectra works well against LPI. This is because Rafale knows whether a source is moving or not, along with its bearing, speed and distance. As I said, weapons quality track with passive detection.

The Rafale here tracks a target 48NM behind it using passive techniques. Since the target is at Rafale's six, the radar is unavailable. And the green colour indicates the Rafale is ready to fire a MICA at the target.

That image even if real doesn't prove all the crazy things you said, any fighter can do that but all the active cancellation and the passive God sensor you describe is not supported by any evidence.

 

[ptldM3]

I am not knowledgeable about the Russian semiconductor industry. I am using Russian backwardness on AWACS as a red flag. AWACS is a classic example of heavy duty signal processing on an aircraft. It needs to be done by heavily specialized computing hardware. There are constraints on size and power consumption. Russian AWACS technology has been poor. There are two possible reasons - 1. Russians have not been able to design signal processing algorithms 2. Russians can figure out the algorithms but cannot implement it because they lack the high speed signal processing computers

Nonsense, you would never know how good or poor Russian AWACS are since they don't publish anything. As for microchips, there is no one stopping anyone from buying foreign systems especially through third part vendors.

 

[nahtanbob]

Nonsense, you would never know how good or poor Russian AWACS are since they don't publish anything. As for microchips, there is no one stopping anyone from buying foreign systems especially through third part vendors.

Russians are in the business of making money selling weapons. If their AWACS was any good someone would have bought them. Both China and India went for the Israeli Phalcon over Russian AWACS. Of course China Phalcon deal was blocked by USA.

You can purchase microchips through 3rd party vendors. You are vulnerable to sanctions from foreign countries

 

[randomradio]

Correct. You did not used the word 'signals' because if you did, you would have been correct in explaining how to discriminate signals.


I did not say you said that. I was using that as a consequence to your flawed explanation of how SPECRAT could have discriminate signals.


You are making the same error that ended up with you being wrong on how SPECRAT could perform signal discrimination. You ignored the source I showed you because you did not understand it, and that lack of understanding revealed your lack of technical education, which would have involved logical thought process.


You are in no position to 'say' anything. As it turned out, you understand less about SPECRAT's purported operations than I do, and you claimed to know a 'French pro' who does.

SPECRAT is NO GOOD against the F-22's and F-35's constant LPI signals because SPECRAT cannot discriminate these signals from background.

Imagine this pulse chain came from the F-22's AESA LPI transmission...

Each pulse is unique and amplitude is the same as background noise.

In order for any ECM to create a countermeasure signal...

1. That ECM system must discriminate EACH pulse from background.

2. Then compare each pulse's Doppler component against the Doppler components of other signals such as from TV, cell phones, or simple radios.

3. Then the ECM must isolate these pulses into an amplifier.

4. Then a countermeasure signal can be created PER PULSE that is out of phase.

This is assuming condition 1 is possible in the first place, which is dubious at best, where SPECRAT must lower its discriminator threshold to essentially zero which I say would overwhelm the system.

Do you even know why I clearly used signal examples like cell phones, TV, and radios? Because each TYPE of these signals is unique. An AESA LPI pulse chain can be masked inside each type. If SPECRAT is active at this noise level, SPECRAT would be transmitting ALL THE TIME, giving the Raffle away to the point where radar is not even needed. The problem for SPECRAT is compounded by the fact that an LPI pulse chain can be IRREGULAR between pulses. Conventional radar pulses requires consistent pulse intervals. AESA LPI signals can be anything the software allows.

SPECRAT is useless against US and eventually, even our 4th gen fighters will be AESA LPI capable.

As I said *yawn*, none of these are a problem as long as the source is localised.

And no, when Spectra is transmitting, it is destroying signals, so nothing's reaching the threat radar which will give the Rafale away. If technology has reached a point where every single signal can be cancelled, then Spectra would do it.

And it's funny you haven't addressed this:

How does Spectra know the distance, bearing and potentially even speed of the target without using its radar or even the FSO?

I am not knowledgeable about the Russian semiconductor industry. I am using Russian backwardness on AWACS as a red flag. AWACS is a classic example of heavy duty signal processing on an aircraft. It needs to be done by heavily specialized computing hardware. There are constraints on size and power consumption. Russian AWACS technology has been poor. There are two possible reasons - 1. Russians have not been able to design signal processing algorithms 2. Russians can figure out the algorithms but cannot implement it because they lack the high speed signal processing computers

Nobody knows much about Russian AWACS.

The current A-100 the Russians are currently testing uses far superior hardware than on American AWACS. So they do not have problems with signal processing.

Russians are in the business of making money selling weapons. If their AWACS was any good someone would have bought them. Both China and India went for the Israeli Phalcon over Russian AWACS. Of course China Phalcon deal was blocked by USA.

You can purchase microchips through 3rd party vendors. You are vulnerable to sanctions from foreign countries

The Russians did not put up their AWACS for sale. Both countries have tried acquiring them and failed.

 

[gambit]

As I said *yawn*, none of these are a problem as long as the source is localised.

You used the word 'localised' without a clue of what it really means.

And no, when Spectra is transmitting, it is destroying signals, so nothing's reaching the threat radar which will give the Rafale away.

This is where you are wrong.

If SPECRAT's operation is continuous, not every signal supposedly 'destroyed' will be the same to each other. Basically, at the background noise level, SPECRAT will be transmitting all over the spectrum, destroying every signal found from TV to cosmic background radiation. I doubt even Thales is willing to go this far. This is essentially 'Indian physics'.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Nobody knows much about Russian AWACS.

The current A-100 the Russians are currently testing uses far superior hardware than on American AWACS. So they do not have problems with signal processing.

That's right. A-100 is a beast. Not only is it AESA, it is essentially a giant ELINT platform.