Radar versus Stealth: Passive Radar and the Future of U.S. Military Power

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

RedParadize 10/16/2009 4:13:16 PM

"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.

"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."

LOL that a funny way to see a problem. But i think i see your point: USA wont be outnumbered anywhere soon.
Not until the F-16 and F-15 are retired. after that, it will depend on how many F-22, F-35 and F-18E/F are around. And of cource how many J-10 J-11 SU-27/30... China will have.

Quote Reply

RedParadize 10/16/2009 4:30:39 PM

Ya Integrated warfare is very important. And how good stealth plane can be incorporate in it is a mystery for me. Its a challenge, but i am sure USAF have work on that since the start of the raptor program. There is many way to communicate without sacrificing too much stealth. with directional emition or other.

Quote Reply

warpig 10/16/2009 5:16:19 PM

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.

Quote Reply

Hamilcar 10/16/2009 5:28:24 PM

Warpig:

" 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.

About "Being significantly outnumbered is not really a problem." well...

Being significantly outnumbered greatly reduce the number of option you have (tactically and strategically). Its also mean that you cant do major operation without exposing some of your strategic assets (airfield, ship etc...). Think about German superior equipment and training in ww2.

Hamilcar:

Basically, what you are saying is thats not possible to get the speed of a target using Passive or active MMW, UHF or VHF ?

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.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 10/16/2009 6:33:34 PM

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 .

Quote Reply

RedParadize 10/16/2009 7:34:23 PM

Quote the artice from NDU:

"Most of LO technique are desinged to defeat the Xband, which uses centimeter wavelenght. VHF and UHF band Radar however, uses centimeter wavelenght. In general, the RCS of an aircraft increases as wavelenght of the illuminating radar increases. Furthermore, when the radar wavelenght is in the same order of magnitude as the aircraft or part of it, the radar wave and the aircraft resonate, which significaly increase the RCS of the aircraft. IT is the physics of longer wavelenght and resonance that enable VHF and UHF radar to detect stealth aircraft. Poor resolution in angle and range, however, has historicaly prevented radar from providing accurate targeting and fire control.

Since the gulf war, the russian defence radar industry has put considerable effort into digitizing its VHF and UHF radar systems to improve counterstealth capacity... ...as the Nebo surface vehicle unit, which is a VHF adaptative electronically steered array radar, likely present signifiant counterstealth capability"

to Warpig

I don't really want to debate about the version of SPOON REST it was... modified or not. but the article does talk about how Serbia did attack from a cover stance and won a tactical advantage. with is not bad if you look how outnumbered they where.

My point is more about the possibility of detecting stealth technology used on the raptor and Lightning II. thought the use of a digitalized VHF/UHF or MMW.

If I go back to my original statement, my point was that you don't need to have a loud and clear signal to intercept a stealth plane. It only need to be accurate enough to fire a IR missile within its detection range.

to Hamilcar

Outch! thats painfull!!

As far as i know VHF/UHF have a short range for a land based radar. WW2 VHF/UHF Radar could pick the german plane at 240km. and ya you could find the path of the plane, without doppler effect cause it didnt exist at that point. But the doppler effect affect everything from the sound to the light so i guess it does affect the VHF/UHF. To be honest, i didnt understant what was your point.

to bluewings12

your statement sound perfecly right to me.

Quote Reply

warpig 10/16/2009 7:51:08 PM

My point is more about the possibility of detecting stealth technology used on the raptor and Lightning II. thought the use of a digitalized VHF/UHF or MMW.

Regarding the Serbs, that's exactly what I said about them. The limited degree of success (primarily in just staying alive) was due to their crafty tactics and use of what they had available to them.

The whole idea of lobbing missiles nearby isn't going to accomplish much of anything other than wasting your missiles. I suggest that--given the known existence of LO aircraft for over 20 years, the existence of IR guidance systems for SAMs for over 30 years, and the roughly similar problem of engaging aircraft in intense electronic warfare jamming environments for over 40 years--then if it was a useful technique to lob IR missiles nearby to where you think the enemy aircraft might be, there would already be medium and long range SAMs that use IR guidance, and yet there are none.

I will now repeat what I posted earlier in the other thread, so it is included here:

warpig 10/16/2009 12:25:22 PM

link...
or link... target=_blank>link

While there certainly are technical threats to LO, that article significantly exaggerates the degree/timeliness of the threat. LO will be critical to our continued success and will remain a huge force multiplier for decades to come. If we just stood still in our capabilities, then yes, eventually networks around the world will eventually develop counters to our advantage due to LO, but we aren't. Passive covert radar has plenty of hurdles to leap before it will become part of a system that can put missiles on LO targets, and it along with the IADS it would be a part of still have their own vulnerabilities that we can exploit/attack, too. Like warfare throughout history, no single technology can remain dominant forever, but the end is not yet in sight for our current brand of dominant technology.

Quote Reply

Hamilcar 10/16/2009 7:51:37 PM

to Hamilcar

Outch! thats painfull!!

Signal smear across the wavelength was my point. A b;lob detector at long range does you no targeting good. You need that direct return on a known bearing with the speed component extracted from the signal.

to bluewings12

your statement sound perfecly right to me.

It wasn't. If you understand what a scalar and a vector is, you'll understand why it was not accurate. What works for a chaser missile that pursues a radiating target at very close range, does not work at all for long range air search radar. Example: in the case of infrared chaser missiles the very atmosphere acts as an insulator and contrast masker for a distant aircraft. If it is signal managed on top of that, then the IR or RH (radar) missile is useless at any but gun ranges. That is the whole purpose of such signal management, (low observable) whether X or L band, or IR..

Quote Reply

RedParadize 10/16/2009 11:49:43 PM

I don't like to comment what other say cause its always ends up in a pointless spiral. but here i don't really have the choice:

to Hamilcar

"Signal smear across the wavelength was my point. A b;lob detector at long range does you no targeting good. You need that direct return on a known bearing with the speed component extracted from the signal."

"Signal smear across the wavelength was my point"

well... are you talking about doppler effect here? cause thats not very clear.

A b;lob detector at long range does you no targeting good. You need that direct return on a known bearing with the speed component extracted from the signal.

First, blob detection algorithm have little to do with radar processing technique, its only a way to find specific pattern like boxs corner... but i think you are talking about resolution here... and ya at long range you have less resolution. About the direct return part... well ya the RETURN must be direct... like for all radar! About speed you need 2 ping with old traditional scanning radar and only 1 with doppler one.

About what bluewings12 said:

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 ...

I said:

your statement sound perfectly right to me

Your answer was:

Well, first, i didn't said it was accurate, and i don't think bluewings12 really wanted to be accurate. He didn't talk about any specific positioning or range. His statement is, tell me if i am wrong, is that knowing the average position of a plane doesn't mean that you can have a missile look and track on it. And thats not in contradiction with what you say above. By adding:"Then , there are ECMs ..." bluewings12 probably mean that, in regard of my scenario, even if you succeed to bring a IR missile close enoughs to look the raptor, he will still have his ECM. and thats also true.

Again, It was very difficult to follow you. If you don't mind I will comment it:

It wasn't. If you understand what a scalar and a vector is, you'll understand why it was not accurate.

Unless scalar and vector have a very specifice meaning in Radar technology, I understand what is a Scalar and a vector value. But here, you could simply use power of emission, direction, speed etc... even if its "less" accurate, its much more easy to understand, specially when many scalar/vector value are involve in the detection process.

Quote Reply

RedParadize 10/17/2009 2:34:47 AM

To Warpig

You said:

"While there certainly are technical threats to LO, that article significantly exaggerates the degree/timeliness of the threat. LO will be critical to our continued success and will remain a huge force multiplier for decades to come. If we just stood still in our capabilities, then yes, eventually networks around the world will eventually develop counters to our advantage due to LO, but we aren't. Passive covert radar has plenty of hurdles to leap before it will become part of a system that can put missiles on LO targets, and it along with the IADS it would be a part of still have their own vulnerabilities that we can exploit/attack, too. Like warfare throughout history, no single technology can remain dominant forever, but the end is not yet in sight for our current brand of dominant technology."

I agree that LO will still be a significant advantage,MMW will never have the range of a equaly advanced X-band Radar. Even if a Highly efficient passive MMW is developed at a cheap enough prize to fit it on older platform. At that point, i wont be surprise if it still give a theoric advantage of 1v3* in favor of the Raptor. Raptor is a very capable fighter even without LO. About the F-35, well i don't know, whe will know more in the few year to come.

Raptor worth its weight in gold. Wait, in fact, it cost even morethen its own weight in gold! maybe whe should rename it the flying goldbar? lol men... I realy wonder how much the next generation of fighter will cost...

*theoric advantage of 1v3: in 3 successive 1v1 ageist SU-27, excluding strategic or tactical superiority. Ya, its a guess and future is uncertain!

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT