The drawback that passive radar exponents have not explained and cannot overcome, due to physics, is how do you establish a fire solution track at long range with no positive signal return from a target. Looking for moving holes in the sky is a nice theory, but the ECM answer is that you can make lots of fake holes  This has been done for DECADES. Which "blob" is the real one, and why does it skip around in the sky?

 

 

It depend on the wavelength you use. VHF/UHF are not adapted for target acquisition/fire solution, but Millimeter wave Radar are.  Even if MMW are not currently used for anti-aircraft purpose, but its not a completely new technology, they are already operational on A-64 Apache Longbow/Hellfire system. The F-22 and F-35 have created a huge demand for a X-band radar alternative. I wont be surprise if a MMW radar are adapted for AA duty in a near future.

 

If you want to stick with existing technology, lets go back to the Active VHF/UHF radar. They still could fit in a "low cost" procedure, like a integrated step by step targeting system:

 

Digitalized VHF/UHF can be use for long range detection. VHF/UHF cant really fit on a fighter, so it would have to be surface based or AWAC mounted. Then you rely the position and direction to fighters/SAMs battery. Fighters/SAMs battery lunch a missile on a preprogrammed path (or course corrected) until the missile pick the stealth plane with its own Radar/IR. 

 

The good thing about this system is you only need new AWACs/surface antenna and software update. But it is not likely to achieve a high kill ratio. it cant really be effective unless you ave numeric advantage proprtional to the kill ratio.

 

Dont missunderstand me, I dont say stealth tech is useless. but with the astronomic price tag that come with it I am afraid United States wont have the numeric advantage agaist many potential enemy. And numeric advantage have been the key of victroy since greek area.

 

Not only is that not likely to achieve a high kill ratio, it is likely to achieve essentially no kill ratio.  And as for numerical advantage, there are few scenarios where the US force alone (not counting the inevitable allied forces, too) does not actually outnumber the enemy.  About the only threat that even has a chance to outnumber a US/allied force is China, and even then basically only over China itself.  Being significantly outnumbered is not really a problem.

 

humm actuary this article state it is possible. Could you explain me where they are wrong?

 

"  Not only is that not likely to achieve a high kill ratio, it is likely to achieve essentially no kill ratio.  And as for numerical advantage, there are few scenarios where the US force alone (not counting the inevitable allied forces, too) does not actually outnumber the enemy.  About the only threat that even has a chance to outnumber a US/allied force is China, and even then basically only over China itself.  Being significantly outnumbered is not really a problem. "

 

Its a bit optimistic if you ask me.

 

For the "no kill ratio" part:

The Serbian shot down a f-117 using a primitive but similar method. Missile used was locally modified SA-3. and thats a old design (1963). They where lucky, no doubt about that. But the technique could be refined and achieve a decent hit probability.

 

 

Essentially nothing about the Serbian shoot-down of the F-117 is like anything in the article.  The Serbs were outstanding at staying hidden (and thus alive), at taking furtive peeks around themselves electronically and then scooting away to a new location, and at only attempting an actual engagement when tthe US/Allied aircraft was practically on top of the SAM battalion to maximize Pk and minimize their own exposure, and then they ran and hid right after shooting.  It was a great way to preserve their assets and always maintain the hint of a possible threat at all times that they just might get lucky once or twice and catch someone off-guard.  It worked, and they managed to catch one F-117 and a couple other Allied aircraft off-guard over the course of the 79days of the air campaign, while the Allies bombed Serbia to pieces.  The shoot-down didn't have anything to do with modifying any hardware at all, it was all about tactics and employment of the systems they had available to them.

 

Being significantly outnumbered is not really a problem for the reason I explained:  we won't be significantly outnumbered.  If we are not significantly outnumbered, then there can not be any problem from being significantly outnumbered.

 

I think that I would not make an overestimation when I say that the largest part that gives a really indepth look at this topic are not covered.

 

There are a lot possibilities for dealing with stealth aircraft, all well within capabilities of potential opponents, in my opinion. Why else do you think I'm sounding like a broken record when I say the F22 has to be combined with EW aircraft?

 

On it's own the F22's chances are not that good in my opinion.

 

 

 

"According to NATO Commander Wesley Clark and other NATO generals, Serbian air defenses detected F-117s by operating their radars on unusually long wavelengths, making them visible to radar for brief periods.

 

Reportedly, several SA-3s were launched from approximately 8 miles out, one of which detonated near the F-117A, forcing the pilot to eject. Though still classified, it is believed that the F-117 has no radar warning indicator, so the pilot's first indication of an incoming missile was likely seeing its flame. At this distance and combined speed the pilot had about six seconds to react before impact. According to an interview, Zoltán Dani kept most of his missile sites intact by frequently moving them, and had spotters looking for F-117s and other NATO aircraft. He oversaw the modification of his targeting radar to improve its detection.^[40]"

 

link

Like anything from Wikipedia it must not be see like a fact. but still.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117_Nighthawk">link" target="_blank">link

 

 

SPOON REST already is a VHF radar, so there is no need to "modify it to operate on unusually long wavelengths."

 

All the LO of an F-117 is not going to save you when the enemy is sitting there ready-to-fire when they catch you at the right angle and only 10miles away, and shoot.

 

Warpig:

Because you can't get a doppler a change of frequency rate if you don't have a signal bearing  or signal return that measures speed of the target in a moving three body problem using occultation or background contrast imaging techniques. The standard radar technique is to get a signal return off the object target come back directly on the bearing of the transmitter and use the change in frequency as TIMED by a clock at the transmitter receiver to establish speed. That with a indicated motion of signal across a field of view, gives you a vector which over time gives you the track definite enough to establish a predict lead at range so that you can engage.

 

The frequencies you cite are short-ranged or extremely short-ranged to the extent that you can't use separate transmitter receiver setups and you can't ignore signal dispersion and degradation as a function of that signal bearing return. 

 

 That is a plain language explanation.

My 2 cents .

There is a noticeable difference in between tracking a VLO aircraft on radar and the capability of an EM missile seeker to get a lock and a track on the same VLO fighter . 

Then , there are ECMs ...

 

Cheers .