>>62898252
>Modern signal processing techniques make it significantly easier to achieve returns from moving objects even if they're small.
Modern signal processing will never overcome the inherent signal-to-noise ratio of your radar assembly, nor the background noise of the environment - especially for a target with a frontal RCS the size of a literal moth.
>even the old SPY-1 has a peak power on the order of 6x higher than S-300 long range surveillance radars
What radar? Tin Shield? And it's more like 110 times the power of Tin Shield, and shouldn't be extrapolated into Chinese figures unless you can actually prove it. Furthermore, show some actual testing with these systems to prove you figures correct.
>that could likely track LO aircraft at around 15-20 miles.
Cite your sources. No bullshit, "I assume" "I think" "well, if you add blue and subtract red, then multiply by rainbow I feel that.."
>Any kind of LO munition is going to be able to be spotted and tracked over this radar horizon range because by nature of how they work
By nature of how WHAT works? If your systems' signal-to-noise floor isn't extremely low, you are going to be chasing every bird flying thinking it's a target. You will have to prove to me China or Russia is capable of producing a radar system with an inherent extremely low signal-to-noise ratio need to use "modern signal processing", and on top of that, prove to me they have the modern signal processing software to utilize these mythical -10dB radar systems.
>it will have to be moving several hundred miles per hour in the scan regime of an extremely powerful radar.
It could be moving mach 5, and you would still never see it if your system and background are noisy.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/k/

Thread:

What the FUCK is the counter to LRASM? Like, seriously? How the fuck do you deal with:>Stealth cruise missile (from Locksneed so you know…

What the FUCK is the counter to LRASM? Like, seriously? How the fuck do you deal with:
>Stealth cruise missile (from Locksneed so you know…