SDsc0rch Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (funny how the internet works huh - you have to cite "sources" - the other side dangles out a lure that they would believe you if only you had "sources" ----- when in reality, they have their belief and they wouldn't change their mind regardless of who you are, what your experience is, or if you cited "sources") i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Capn kamikaze Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Yeah, I feel the same way, I don't need no stinking third party sources on this subject, I know the subject.
Santi871 Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 The second post in this thread says 20ft.... Yeah that could have been possible in real life but it's not modeled ingame. (funny how the internet works huh - you have to cite "sources" - the other side dangles out a lure that they would believe you if only you had "sources" ----- when in reality, they have their belief and they wouldn't change their mind regardless of who you are, what your experience is, or if you cited "sources") Yeah that's 100% validated from when I said "I'd be inclined to believe you if you could provide any source for that." My point is, with the amount of money and research that goes into radars, it's safe to assume they would attempt to reduce or eliminate any unintended effect (like backlobes), so I'd be careful when comparing it to more common things where having a backlobe isn't a big deal. That's why I ask for sources, because it's difficult to believe they wouldn't do anything possible to reduce unintended emissions (which they do in AESAs). Yeah' date=' I feel the same way, I don't need no stinking third party sources on this subject, I know the subject.[/quote'] I'm sure.
Capn kamikaze Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Give it up, you're wrong, and you're just making yourself look foolish now.
Capn kamikaze Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 My point is, with the amount of money and research that goes into radars, it's safe to assume they would attempt to reduce or eliminate any unintended effect (like backlobes), so I'd be careful when comparing it to more common things where having a backlobe isn't a big deal. That's why I ask for sources, because it's difficult to believe they wouldn't do anything possible to reduce unintended emissions (which they do in AESAs). You can spend as much money as you like but at 20ft, or even at 100ft, and I'm still being conservative there, you're going to get lobes powerful enough to trip the very sensitive RWR rx's.
Santi871 Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 You can spend as much money as you like but at 20ft' date=' or even at 100ft, and I'm still being conservative there, you're going to get lobes powerful enough to trip the very sensitive RWR rx's.[/quote'] Again, you are your own source. I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying I don't trust that coming from someone who just said they take no input - I literally said I would believe you if you could provide a source :) You're claiming I'm wrong, and I'm not claiming you're wrong (note that we even agreed above). You keep making statements without providing any hard data other than "I know the subject and I ain't taking no sources". And I'm not interested in that, so have a nice day/night. Hopefully the rest of the forum will enjoy the vast amount of knowledge you hold from your personal experience.
Capn kamikaze Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Yeah, that's for the own aircraft, where the radar is. There are RWR antennas all over combat aircraft, the furthest usually on the tail, typically more than 20ft away, and pointing backwards, and they'd still need to stop listening when the radar went active.
0xDEADBEEF Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Santi I understand your interest in sources, but I understand why he does not feel like providing any. That wozld feel like doing university homework, as this is indeed RF basics and physics you cant overcome by multimillion $ research. It was also very well discussed in the su27 missiles thread, why RF Simulations are not more complex than rather simple LOS calculations in DCS.
Santi871 Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Santi I understand your interest in sources, but I understand why he does not feel like providing any. That wozld feel like doing university homework, as this is indeed RF basics and physics you cant overcome by multimillion $ research. It was also very well discussed in the su27 missiles thread, why RF Simulations are not more complex than rather simple LOS calculations in DCS. Research in this field is actually a thing, and it has been for a while. https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/237202 http://www.google.com/patents/US7876256 http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/623072.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_probability_of_intercept_radar Constructing a radar so as to emit minimal side and back lobes may also reduce the probability of interception when it is not pointing at the radar warning receiver. However, when the radar is sweeping a large volume of space for targets, it is likely that the main lobe will repeatedly be pointing at the RWR. Modern phased-array radars not only control their side lobes, they also use very thin, fast-moving beams of energy in complicated search patterns. This technique may be enough to confuse the RWR so it does not recognize the radar as a threat, even if the signal itself is detected. In addition to stealth considerations, reducing side and back lobes is desirable as it makes the radar more difficult to characterise. This can increase the difficulty in determining which type it is (concealing information about the carrying platform) and make it much harder to jam.
Capn kamikaze Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 They won't be talking about such short distances as 20ft!
Bushmanni Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Again, you are your own source. I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying I don't trust that coming from someone who just said they take no input - I literally said I would believe you if you could provide a source :) Antenna characteristics is basic stuff. The only source for that would be RF basics textbook. DCS Finland: Suomalainen DCS yhteisö -- Finnish DCS community -------------------------------------------------- SF Squadron
Recommended Posts