Russia lifts ban on delivering missile-defence system to Iran

a reply to: mSparks43

And the EM has to reach a receiver, and see behind objects. If the receiver is blocked by something, like a mountain, it can't get to a receiver to be processed. You can't build a picture without some kind of signal reaching a receiver. You might see the wake, but you're not going to see the ship itself.

You also can't fire a missile using passive radar, so it's a moot point. The targeting portion of the radar has to be able to see the target. And it can't do that if something is blocking it.

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: Zaphod58

you are talking about active radar systems like the Americans and British use.

the s300 is a passive multi receiver system and has no such limitations.

Actually the British invented passive radar in like 1930s i know it was before the war. It really isnt anything new like you seem to think it is. I guess ill explain how passive systems work since you seem clueless. You set it up in an area Say the s300 it likes Fm signals so it looks for anything producing FM signals local radio station for example.Now once you have your signal sources mapped if you receive one from another location than it is most likely from something causing the signal to reflect back, Several problems here though there is no guarantee if a plane does come in to range that it will reflect back to the passive radar. Thats why you want alot of sources and why his is only moderately effective. To get around this drawback Russia will put active radars near by at specific angles to make sure the passive radar can get the signal.Or have two set for active and 1 for passive basically hiding like a mouse trap pilot comes in sees to active sites blows them up and s300 fires. Again sucke to be a sam operator. Your buddies die so you can get 1 shot. And with missile accuracies odds are miss. Even the best missile systems miss more than they hit. This is why for example iron dome there will b several units all launching 2 missiles at 1 target most will miss.

a reply to: mSparks43

i suggest you look at this thread on the f-22. it can out turn a s-300 apparently. www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: yuppa

All fighters can out turn a missile. The missile advantage is speed, and its small size. You have to time the turn perfectly to dodge it. Too early and it can cut inside your turn. Too late and you'll turn in its kill envelope.

a reply to: dragonridr
nope. it was tesla in 1917.

first russian versions located the rf from aircraft engines.

it seems talking about the new versions is too secret for ats. we can go encrypted if anyone actually wants to talk about it.

Window.

a reply to: FlyingFox

opened.

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: dragonridr
nope. it was tesla in 1917.

first russian versions located the rf from aircraft engines.

it seems talking about the new versions is too secret for ats. we can go encrypted if anyone actually wants to talk about it.

Well I hope your right than the S300 is a joke detecting radio signals from the engine huh. Why wouldn't they do that from I don't know there radio??Or its radar which is what i think you mean. Tell you what yes the S300 is unbeatable there is no way an airforce can defeat Russia's super weopon. Wow US just might as well give up never mind the fact that they spent billions on defeating SAMs and oh the training. And let's just remeber the Russian super weopon can see through hills and I think can even track Santa and his reindeer.

a reply to: dragonridr

->first russian versions of their radar systems in the early 1920s.

not sure what I can and can't say now. guess I broke the rules on export regulations.
I'll go with
s300 does not use rf reflected from the plane - except maybe the missiles in last mile.
s300 does not rely on rf emitted from the plane.

F35 JSF Stealth or How the West was Lost.flv
www.youtube.com...

1942 radar can see every stealth aircraft on the market today
www.youtube.com...

Yeah, you're right stealth is stupid. The US should just disband its air force now since it's useless. There's no point in even trying against Russian systems since they're the best in the world.

a reply to: Zaphod58

stealth is good for keeping you off the radar of old aircraft.

and helping sales of Russian sam and aircraft systems.

I'm sure Russia appreciates the trillion dollars or so the american and aus population have spent on promoting their equipment.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Yeah, you're right stealth is stupid. The US should just disband its air force now since it's useless. There's no point in even trying against Russian systems since they're the best in the world.

you know the sad thing here? the s series of sams cant touch the tris period yet. we could break these out but what would russia do then? their nukes will be useless since they can turn them off. sam with the sams. they can turn them off too.

a reply to: mSparks43

Go to the physics.

Stealth aircraft technology requires, as a counter, by laws of physics:

a) increased radar power
b) longer wavelength

If you use (a) then that means your ground station has to transmit at higher power, requiring more expensive equipment, larger antennae. Which means that the location of the ground station can be determined at a longer distance. Which means.....

If you use (b) then that means that the location, speed and heading of the aircraft can be determined less reliably, as well as potentially losing information about the type of aircraft. In a war situation you might just know "hey there is something out there" but that may mean nothing, you know from watching CNN that there will be tons of stuff 'out there'. Is it a $1B LRS-B? Or is it a drone? or a cruise missile? Or a civilian aircraft? Or absolutely nothing? And lower frequency is closer to radio and hence easier to scramble and deceive with ECM transmitters.

And what is long-wavelength going to do for you against ground clutter? BASSPLYR's flying triangle was barely a few hundred feet above the boulevard in Los Angeles.

In Britain 1941, the question wasn't significant: scramble fighters if there is anything flying to Britain. In Britain 1944 the response was: scramble ground crews to help the wounded when you see stuff flying to you. Modern times it's hardly that simple.

And also, typically doing interferometery with long-wavelength radar also requires it to be transmitting more continuously and at high powers, which thus means.....

Simple physics: ground air defense stations have the advantage of being able to put on more power with a bigger antenna. They also have the huge disadvantage in a war of not fighting while moving around at 600 mph thus making their most important capability, active radar, also their most important vulnerability.

originally posted by: dragonridr

Tell you what yes the S300 is unbeatable

it's not unbeatable, but the U.S. govt and Israel repeatedly told Russia, do not sell the S-300 system to Iran

a reply to: mbkennel

last posts I made explaining passive radar in simple terms got deleted.

it's also explained a few times in this thread.

neither a or b apply.
they operate in the entire frequency range from vlf to teraband or whatever that one around the uv is called.
all you need is more sensitive recievers. crazy good math. and high processing power.
and the entire battlefield becomes a mirrored room.

with no Justin pictures anywhere.

which is exactly what the Russians have done in the last 30 years.

->Is it a $1B LRS-B? Or is it a drone? or a cruise missile? Or a civilian aircraft

easy to tell the difference. once you "zoom" on a moving target each has a really easily identifiable signature.

civilian aircraft throw out tons of rf
drones have a slow speed and little air displacement
cruise missiles have a high speed and unique IR signature.
stealth has no active signature and high air displacement.

and wow.

few hundred dollars now for an rf spectrum analyser.

wasn't long ago they were like 200k

been a long time since I played with that stuff. almost tempted to go shopping.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Yeah, you're right stealth is stupid. The US should just disband its air force now since it's useless. There's no point in even trying against Russian systems since they're the best in the world.

There is nothing stupid about stealth tech.

but here is the thing : you make a move , we make a move .

you make stealth tech , we make VHF and X band stealth-detecting radars . we make PESA and AESA .

so no hard feelings when F-35s start dropping like flies outta sky . and no hard feelings either when they bomb the shizzam outta our forces .

a reply to: haman10

that's a very polite way of puting it.
Americans can barely even make stealth aircraft for themselves. and have nothing to offer in the aa space.

whereas China and India are both buying in big to both stealth aircraft and anti aircraft systems from Russia. with other countries locking their doors to American forces with the left overs.

it seems American influence on the world stage has already reached its terminal phase.

how can you police the world when no one takes your attack capabilities seriously. and you get beaten into a pulp by a few uneducated Muslims armed with russian tech from 60 years ago.