does chaff still work against modern radar?
>>64706163Are you dumb? It literally physically blocks radar waves.
>>64706163>>64706287No it doesn't. Modern radars can differentiate between static signature and moving one. Le Pulse Doppler.You gots to notch as well.
>>64706305good for the bloody radarwhat about the missile?
>>64706305LOLNothing about an aircraft dispensing chaff is static, moron. Literally nothing.Secondly, blocking a pulse for even a split-second is effective as fuck for wrecking a radar guided weapons lock. There are ZERO filters for physical energy reflection, midwit. And a chaff dispenser blows out a giant MOVING cloud of intentionally LOUD moving metal, behind which every combat pilot on planet Earth instantly alters their course.Now go mind your mommy, peewee. Or she won't make your nuggies for dinner.
>>64706370Should I explain to you closure rate filtering?
>>64706370>which one is the target>the signature that maintains its size and shape radar return and course changing direction at only 6G>the huge cloud of radar return that suddenly materializes and decelerates at like 20G after which it just hangs around slowly dropping by gravityhmm, big think.
>>64706163No
>>64706163the missile just needs a guidance counselor and some pep-talk.
>>64706378Brown hands.
>>64706527Uneducated nigger.
>>64706370>Nothing about an aircraft dispensing chaff is static, moron. Literally nothing. lol>blocking a pulse for even a split-second is effective as fuck for wrecking a radar guided weapons lock. lmao >There are ZERO filters for physical energy reflection, midwit. xd
>>64706163The laws of electromagnetism haven't fundamentally changed in the last fifty years, so things that blocked radio waves then are still going to block them now.
>>64706368:(
>>64706527Drastic case of Dunning-Kruger.
>>64706163To some extent but it's much harder nowadays. Radars get pretty accurate data these days and it doesn't take all that much processing power to ask how fast the chaff is moving towards/away from you and what its angular velocity is, and compare that to the track of the target you're looking for. Now if you combine that with jamming, then you're more likely to succeed, then add some angle deception jamming and some range deception jamming and the uncertainty of your velocity and position and now the radar is much more likely to get fooled by chaff.
Reading what everyone is saying, I think we are conflating two arguments here.1. If a missile encounters chaff between itself and the plane, it's LOS is literally blocked. Pic and post >>64706287 related.2. Does ground radar that is not directly blocked confuse chaff for plane? Much more complicated, agree that the answer is no, which is why there are decoys (towed and drone)
>>64706730 (me)Won't let me delete post and I changed my phrasing halfway through that last sentence>Now if you combine that with jamming, then you're more likely to succeed; add some angle deception jamming and some range deception jamming and now the uncertainty of your velocity and position means the radar is much more likely to get fooled by chaff.
>>64706368The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.You would be confused too.
>>64706754You're never going to get enough chaff between you and the radar to eclipse your return for more than a split second. That's not even a consideration. Aircraft only have them to easily deal with obsolete radars trying to lock. They also have some limited utility while jamming, apparently some jammers reflect the jamming signal off the chaff so that it looks to be coming from different directions
>>64706878I think we are still talking about different things. I am talking about missile that's pitbull / actively tracking and using the same tactic as flares; drop chaff and actively maneuver. This breaks lock for a second and the missile is now travelling in a different direction than you.
>>64706536>should i explain to youBrown hands.
>>64706878>>64706896If you are talking about a ground-based radar or AWACS datalinking a missile to you before it goes active - yea, chaff isn't going to do shit, you better dive son.
>>64706896The chaff is deposited behind the airplaneThe missile is tracking the airplane from a side angle because the airplane is not simply flying straight.
>>64706896The missile has inertial guidance and they can actively scan for targets, especially these days what with AESA seekers becoming more commonplace. Unless you time it perfectly, the seeker will probably re-acquire.
>>64706378LOLYou can't filter a literally blinding pulse return, peewee. The pass-through attenuation renders any useful information below the noise floor of the Rx front-end. And for the rest of the grade-school dumbasses in this thread, a chaff deployment is repeated over and over during defensive maneuver until the aircraft threat Rx indicates coverage. The chaff cloud during a deployment quickly grows to the size of a fucking city block while maintaining effective attenuation.If the shit didn't work, we wouldn't waste the money equipping aircraft and ships with it, dimwits.
>>64706163Only if you can evade for long enough to out-manouver missile. Bleeding edge systems run literal 3d flight simulators that will calculate probability of all possible future flight paths and steer the missile where it can intercept most of them.At some point the systems will get so smart and interceptors so maneuverable a firing solution will contain any possible target path with 100% intercept. At that point the only solution would be similar system onboard calculating path where you're 100% outside of missile range or hard-kill counter measures.
>>64706896>drop chaff and actively maneuver. This breaks lock for a secondAckthually you put the missile on your 3-9 line and pump chaff. By travelling perpendicular to the seeker you defeat Doppler filtering.>>64707430When going terminal the missile has limited energy budget for maneuvers. If the radar re-acquires and has to turn to continue pursuit the missile slows down and that increases your chance of survival. Obviously you should actually fly outside of gimbal limit and make sure it can't reacquire but if it were to happen just turning a lead pursuit into a pure or lag pursuit can defeat a missile kinetically.
>>64707484>Bleeding edge systems run literal 3d flight simulators that will calculate probability of all possible future flight pathsThat makes no fucking sense.You simply have to measure target acceleration and you can adjust to any maneuver without relying on predictions.
>>64707565No but if you loose the sight of the target you need to simulate the most likely position of the target so you can calculate the optimal trajectory.Doesn't require a very complicated program. Could probably run on 8-bit.
>>64707537The re-acquire will happen very quickly if you maneuver, the seeker can pretty easily tell if it's a valid target or not when it sees the chaff cloud come to a grinding halt while a different signature is busy pulling 9 gs, right back into view of the seeker, which is gonna have a pretty decent gimbal limit and your chaff cloud is not gonna obscure that large of an area unless it's like right in front of the seeker. Sure you could potentially defeat a missile at max kinematic range that way, not saying it can't be done, but if the missile has any range left it'll still bite you. Also modern seekers use more advanced spectral and track-based methods than just doppler filtering, we can fit a ton of processing power into a smartphone, even with ruggedized equipment we can fit a lot more electronics on modern seekers.
>>64706305software differentiation doesn't change the objective, physical effect of chaff even if it becomes ineffectivewhat anon said is correct even if his conclusion from that isn't
>>64707537>Ackthually you puthe missile...Yeah. No, dimwit. You put the radar threat in the post. If it happens to be a radar seeker, then yes. Otherwise, not so much.
>>64706163To answer your real question: dispensed chaff slightly increases detection times, which is real good if you're the US right now. It's real bad if you're not because it won't only be radar, it'll be the analysed composite signals of multiple insturments by man and machine. Only if it's bare chaff against bare radar of any kind from a single non-networked source (brown people places), can it do it's job.
