Greenland

[Gatordev]

Yay for 1.06 as an old SAR guy, but 1.82 (or 1.85) is probably garbage, if it's referring to ESM. We deleted it from NAWDC's mind on the HSM/HSC side 7 years ago. RF horizon is geometric limit, it doesn't matter if you're active or passive, one-way or round-trip. RF horizon is the same for a given frequency and path/environment.

Okay, technically I had a fourth number, but I wasn't sure if it was releasable. I was taught 1.5, though other than in the sim, there was never a practicable way to test it in the real world because there was always some sort of ducting going on.

 

[UMichfly]

This latest threadjack feels like it should be a conversation with you guys' therapists regarding MPRA/HSL induced Stockholm Syndrome...

 

[IKE]

Okay, technically I had a fourth number, but I wasn't sure if it was releasable. I was taught 1.5, though other than in the sim, there was never a practicable way to test it in the real world because there was always some sort of ducting going on.

It comes from an unclass/releasable pub out of Mugu or China Lake decades ago. 1.85 comes from 1.5×1.23. I think 1.5 was an old rule of thumb for low-freq ESM vs. high-freq, power-limited radars. The real answer is always more complicated, and IMO, it's always better to have less information than false information.

 

[Brett327]

It comes from an unclass/releasable pub out of Mugu or China Lake decades ago. 1.85 comes from 1.5×1.23. I think 1.5 was an old rule of thumb for low-freq ESM vs. high-freq, power-limited radars. The real answer is always more complicated, and IMO, it's always better to have less information than false information.

The real question is whether anyone in the history of Naval Aviation has ever used those numbers to make a tactically significant decision. I suspect not.