You have a very shallow knowledge of how radar jamming works in the
years after World War II. What you describe is pretty much first
chapter "ECM 101," and has nothing to do with methods in current use.

Well,can you tell me which,past,current or projected,ECM/ESM sytem analyses
forward scatterers?
None.period.
Every ECM effort requires the knowledge of emitter signal properties,Modern ECM
equipment could analyse intercepted backscatterer radar signal in real time and
activate counter measures.

In case of backscatterers, the signal that you must intercept and analyse for
ECM purposes is the signal that hostile radar emits,but in case of multistatics
it is NOT the signal that you must intercept and analyse,in other words you
must intercept and analyse forward scatterer for effective jamming which is
,altough theoretically possible,very diffucult in real life.
Even if you intercepted the forward scatetered signal you have to deal always
with the signals with diferent polarizations,even if the signal originates from
the same emitter.(Thats how some multistatics track the targets even before a
binary detection!)

Nope. You're assuming again.


I am not assuming anything,simply put multistatics are much more than eye
catches or something aganist stealth platforms,their detection and tracking
methods have nothing in common with familiar back scatterers....against large,
obvious targets that aren't fighting back. The

"celldar" systems have some extremely big caveats, like "can't handle
targets below a certain size."

Sure,for example less than an insect size.

But they know what they're looking for, and are using *very* directional
antennas to do so.


Multistatic antennas are very directional too and they know what they are
looking too.

xactly the oposite problem with celldar.


See above.

ep. Handwaving. Like I said.

Then I wonder why Air Force dodges all requests for a realistic demonstration
involving Their showboats vs. US Multi static system.
Such a demonstration would settle this dispute for good.