it 's about internet skills my dear if u had taken the pain to browse the net u could have also got it but u didnt.
F22's ALR -94 has passivley detection of range around 200-250 nmi which can be easily see in wiki also ok i qoute from another forum
Let me point out what you missed in the quote you posted.
A target which is using radar to search for the F-22 or other friendly aircraft can be detected, tracked and identified by the ALR-94 long before its radar can see anything, at ranges of 250 nm or more. As the range closes, but still above 100 nm, the APG-77 can be cued by the ALR-94 to search for other aircraft in the hostile flight. The system uses techniques such as cued tracking: since the track file, updated by the ALR-94, can tell the radar where to look, it can detect and track the target with a very narrow beam, measuring as little as 2[degrees] by 2[degrees] in azimuth and elevation. One engineer calls it "a laser beam, not a searchlight. We want to use our resources on the high-value targets. We don't track targets that are too far away to be a threat."
Do you see the ones in red? Do you understand what they mean?
Do you even realize this capability was achieved in the mid 90s?
Do you realize this capability has been in existence for even longer and has been in use before as well?
Do you know that 250nm is previous generation technology?
No you don't because you don't know anything.
This article was written in 2000 which means this technology has been in existence for at least 10 years or more.
Try 500NM on F-35. Rafale has also gone beyond that simple distance of 200Km with a simple software upgrade.
From the forum you posted. It is funny how the Rafale's figure is
upto 200Km
+. But of course you won't get it.
Let them make up their minds first. If it is really
upto 200Km or 200Km+, which actually means anything.
Do you know that it's been over 2 decades since we have had Tranquil and Tarang and we still don't know anything about these?
that s the problem with u,U dont take the pain to find the correct info from the web which i do.
read this image & save it if u want u may need it as refference for future.
Your attempt is cute. Did you forget what I had posted?
Let me refresh your memory.
How do you know IR shots have been successful? Not even a single BVR IR shot has been recorded till date.
Good, now that you know what I am talking about why don't you check your pictures again for a BVR shot using IR seekers?
The answer is : There are none. Do you know why? That's because during the whole time only Russians had a proper IR seeker mated to a BVR and they never used it. MICA IR came two decades later.
Its not about how do i know ,its about facts which says itself which u dont wanna accept .IR guided missiles are most succesful missiles in history & would
also remain in future .
That's why you should read what the other person posts first. You shouldn't get too excited and jump to conclusions. Little kids do that a lot.
If they were never fired in the first place, then how can the be more successful than EM missiles.
kindly keep those garbage links to yourselfs i dont need it . NOW WTF has home on jam got to with passive cueing of missiles with EW suite(RWR).Do u
think i am retard that u can fool me???
That garbage link has more information than you can digest. But it will at least tell you what the big boys know. I never called you a retard, but it seems I may have to come to that conclusion anyway. I am not fooling you anyway, it seems somethings are merely difficult for you to grasp.
now WTF is this related to cueing of bvraams /AGM with EW suite (RWR) HUH???????
That's why I said you are ignorant. You don't know how to relate one thing with the other. The reason why I told you to read the Pdf I posted.
You merely believe a radar is different from a RWR and HOJ because the words are different. For big boys like me there is little to no difference between a radar, RWR, seekers, transmitters and receivers and how HOJ is achieved using a combination of these things.
I agree that the aircraft chosen does everything it promises, but, the thing is YOU don't know what it does and that's the only difference.