Anti Stealth Radar

[XEROX]

Where'd we put 'em? US to buy Stealth bomber detecting radar

By John Lettice
Published Thursday 20th May 2004 13:30 GMT


The one country that surely doesn't need to find out where Stealth bombers might be is buying a radar system that is claimed to be able to detect them. The USA is reported to be negotiating to buy a set of Vera radars from the Czechs, the quid pro quo being that a deal to sell them to China does not go ahead.

Vera is the successor to the Tamara radar system, which has been alleged to have been responsible for the loss of an F-117 in Kosovo. This was also the subject of a panic two years ago when it was suspected two systems were among the many fiendish toys that Saddam Hussein had acquired. As these appear not to have shown up in Iraq, we can presumably carry on panicking about who else has got them.

The rationale behind the current proposed US purchase is that the US wants to test the radar's effectiveness. But it is also reportedly concerned that China could use the system to detect US ships and aircraft off Taiwan. The Chinese deal was worth $55.5m, but the Czech government is now
expected cancel the export licence. Proprietors of suspect countries wishing to earn commission from future Vera sales to the US government should presumably contact Czech weapons company Thomas CZ, and remember to write a large cancellation fee into the contract.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/20/us_buys_vera_stealth/

[srirangan]

lol .. American dollar power at work.

[darklegent]

Which other countries can produce a radar of the same kind?

[srirangan]

The radars most prolly can't detect stealth aircrafts, US is buying them to just not take any chances.

[XEROX]

1. Radar that looks for gaps in the field

2. In theory Old soviet long-wave radars from 60's (like P-18) detect stealth aircraft quite well

3. Technology behind it is still very immature

[gf0012-aust]

1. Radar that looks for gaps in the field

2. In theory Old soviet long-wave radars from 60's (like P-18) detect stealth aircraft quite well

3. Technology behind it is still very immature

This is a bit old news. The US has known of 3 radar systems at least that have persistently picked up stealthy aircraft. Vera and 2 x Australian designed radar systems.

Hence why they are looking at Vera and why they have signed a technology sharing agreement to be part of future development of the 2 Austn systems.

The technology is only immature for those who haven't built systems that can do the job. :D:

[ashoaib]

lol, buying from others... why America dont make its own?

[gf0012-aust]

lol, buying from others... why America dont make its own?

You're assuming that they don't have their own capability. Thats a bit dangerous to assume. You buy systems to see if there is anything else that has been developed - or to see if you can recognise your own technology as part of the package.

When the Y2K crisis was on, the US emergency teams called in by the Russians to help stabilise the timeclocks discovered that they were using 1950's-60's US technology. From there they were able to establish who was the most likely source of the transfer, and they also knew the technology limitations.

To be blunt, thats a daft thing to say. At a military technology level the US makes most countries look like cavemen - that doesn't mean that they have all the technology and all the answers.

It's smart operating - not stupid. OTOH there are countries who pretend to have capability when everyone knows they don't. Better to be open than pretend and then look an idiot.

[ashoaib]

No I am not assuming that they dont have technology. Infact America is most advance country in defence technologies. I was just amazed why America is buying from others? now I understand why

[RealIndian]

Scientists create device to see invisible aircraft

From Kalyan Ray
DH News Service
NEW DELHI, July 28

Uniquely coating two glass slides with some chemicals, Indian scientists have come up with a memory storage device, which is capable of seeing "invisible" aircraft used in warfare and can be used in the heart of future target tracking devices.

After four years of diligent research, a team at National Physical Laboratory (NPL), here under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) have been able to develop the memory storage device which is superior to existing storage devices as it can store images up to one year. The NPL team got patents on the novel system in US, Japan, Germany UK and South Korea.

Using the NPL device, Instrumentation Research and Development Establishment (IRDE) a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) laboratory at Dehradun, is working to create an improved target-tracking equipment since the indigenous system is capable of seeing the invisible.

Many nations today use aircraft coated with a radar absorbing paint that make such planes invisible to the radar. "But our device converts invisible images into visible images making these planes visible.

It can see throughout the spectrum — from ultraviolet to visible to infrared range — which is an added advantage," NPL team leader Dr Ashok Biradar told Deccan Herald. The system identifies the planes within a fraction of a second.
On the civilian side, the device can be used for storing holographic images, Dr Biradar said, adding that the commercial potential of the application had not been explored so far. The device runs on one pencil battery and cheaper than semiconductor-based storage devices used in computers.

To prepare the storage device, two-glass plates were coated with a chemical called indium tin oxide. On the coated glass plate, a second coating by a polymer was given. A spacer is used to maintain a tiny gap between the two plates.
But what makes the entire system unique, is a grooving which the scientists were able to create on the polymer surface by controlling the polymer formation and manually rubbing the material.

“The uneven grooves and the thickness of the coating are the two vital components of the storage device. A slightly thicker coating than what is normally used leads to the memory effect while the grooves hold the images that can be seen on a display,” he explained.

For image conversion the optical storage system needs to be integrated with a chemical known as ferroelectric liquid crystal.
The problem area is lack of repeatability as the team has failed in repeating the particular pattern on the polymer by manually rubbing the surface in 90 per cent cases. But NPL is importing a machine that scientists feel will do away with the uncertainty by mechanically rubbing the surface in an orderly fashion.

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/july29/isee.htm

[india2020]

Darn...................our guys are good.good going india.So when are we inducting it? :smokingc:

[doggychow14]

how do u test stealth detecting radar if you don't have a stealth plane?

[dabrownguy]

Do we even need it yet? Wait for more research and then try it.

[ashoaib]

Yeah how can you test it without Stealth AC????
However its a great breakthrough fro india.

[srirangan]

Building a stealth plane isn't hard. Building a stealth fighter/bomber is hard.

[adsH]

ahh people please. BAE has a solution for Non Radar lockable WVR and almost WVR targets that its going to put on the F-35. the technology basically works on visually identifying targets through a specialized Visual acquisition device mounted on the lower front part of the AC.

[lalith prasad]

south africa had developed a stealth drone known as flowchart2 specifically for testing stealth characteristics and radar detection abilities,india can use them for testing heir radar.

[highsea]

I don't think this NPL device is for use in radar systems, it's a visual detection device. It's not going to see anything out of visual range.

It's usefulness would be in tracking objects that could not be locked on with radar. i.e. for targeting control in visual range only. It's basically a broad spectrum "window".

Not saying it has no uses, just not for radar.

-CM

[killbill2]

it's just a broad spectrum window that would replace IRST's most likely.Irrelevant since radar guided AAMs are always increasing ranges not to mention DEWS are proliferating. It's not really hard to build such a device, great for surveillance though.:hul

[adsH]

aren't all these stealth radars simply disposition based radars, anyone can accomplish that. It just takes time to integrate the individual components, ie the distributed components. I recon now days this can-be done with ease there's plenty of skill in the commercial industry, geographical Information system is a norm.
I believe you could augment a Stealth detection system in the current fleet of E2s and E3s all the components are there, they share Live data in real time, they all have GPS systems, it would be one heck of a project if accomplished.

[srev2004]

In the future stealth will not be half as important as speed. If you can fly really fast it doesn't matter whether the radar picks you up or not because they won't have time to react.

[tphuang]

stealth is still the most important factor. Mig-31 can fly at mach2.8, but would I take it over F-22 or F-35? Not a chance.

Just an idea, China seemed to have come up with something similar to Vera. Any opinion on this?

[Big-E]

In the future stealth will not be half as important as speed. If you can fly really fast it doesn't matter whether the radar picks you up or not because they won't have time to react.

With the advent of laser's ability to kill at the speed of light I find speed to be irrelevent.

[Big-E]

I think radar as a detection capability will be limited progressing further into the century. To detect stealth aircraft at ranges requires a more thermal approach. Aircraft seperate the air around them in order to commence flight. If one can detect the temperature change in the air using thermal imaging that does not happen under normal conditions one can detect objects in flight. This would be a space based system but the images can be programed into the software for fast recognition of possible targets IMO.

[Wild Weasel]

With the advent of laser's ability to kill at the speed of light I find speed to be irrelevent.

Not to mention the fact that hypersonic interceptors are also proliferating at the same pace as platforms and ordinance. Back in it's day, the only things that could shoot down the SR-71- were all the SAM's and AAM's that could be fired at it.
But high speed, and altitude can certainly complicate matters if time and distance are a factor.

But then again, there are also lasers.

[Schumacher]

stealth is still the most important factor. Mig-31 can fly at mach2.8, but would I take it over F-22 or F-35? Not a chance.

Just an idea, China seemed to have come up with something similar to Vera. Any opinion on this?

China does seem to put extra effort into developing techs that the US tried to stop them from acquiring, at least the high profile ones.
US stopped the Phalcon sale to China & China seemed to have come up with its own AWACS ahead of expectations. Now we see this Vera type radar from China after the high profile US buy out of the Czechs to prevent China from getting it.
It must be a political decisions at a high level on China's part to fast track these projects. Let's hope the system works & not just a propaganda.

[Big-E]

Let's hope the system works & not just a propaganda.

hmmmm... this is just my opinion of course but if they had a decent AWACs don't you think they would have settled on a design by now. Just the fact that they have so many variations tells me that they aren't having much suscess to date.

[TheDefender]

Here is a link for Vera radar my be this can help. They have planed the radar in an empty old tin couldn't they find any thing else

http://www.era.cz/en/pss-vera-e.shtml

another link this one is good showing the radar mounted

http://www.army.cz/scripts/detail.php?id=6159

The Vera radar consists of three sets and they must be making a triangle which would be covering 450km of area.The radar must be looking for gaps in the air spaces.

[mmmbop]

So does this radar really works?how about Kolchuga?

[Wild Weasel]

These radars may have been effective at detecting F-117 level stealth, but I doubt that it would be capable of detecting the much stealthier B-2, and F/A-22 aircraft.
Any advantage that these radar systems could have provided has probably been compromised for quite some time. I suspect that they would also be quite susceptable to stand-off jamming, and other ECM "spoofing" techniques.

Other devices developed in the Eastern-block, such as GPS "jammers", have also been introduced in the hopes to avoid airstrikes, and were proven to be completely ineffectual when put to the test in actual conflict.

[DoC_FouALieR]

And even if they are capable of detecting the most stealthier aircraft, they are just early warning radars. They can be override or at least the detection can be delayed by choosing another approach way/by using terrain masking for the mission.
And after all I think that's not the true question. If the ennemy radars onboard aircrafts or SAM systems cannot achieve a lock on a stealth aircraft like the B2 or F-22, the use of a EWR like the Vera is doubtful.
I think too that the capability in air combat to engage the ennemy before he can engage us is the most important, no matter we are detected or not.

[Wild Weasel]

And even if they are capable of detecting the most stealthier aircraft, they are just early warning radars. They can be override or at least the detection can be delayed by choosing another approach way/by using terrain masking for the mission.
And after all I think that's not the true question. If the ennemy radars onboard aircrafts or SAM systems cannot achieve a lock on a stealth aircraft like the B2 or F-22, the use of a EWR like the Vera is doubtful.
I think too that the capability in air combat to engage the ennemy before he can engage us is the most important, no matter we are detected or not.

I doubt highly that the system would even be destroyed by the aircraft it was meant to defend against. It's quite likely that the antenna would be destroyed by stand-off range strike weapons, such as TLAMs, CALCMs, JASSM-ER, Affordable Weapons, etc. etc.

There's no need to risk a billion dollar aircraft with crew, when you can minimise your losses by safely poking the OPFORs eyes out first.

[DoC_FouALieR]

I doubt highly that the system would even be destroyed by the aircraft it was meant to defend against. It's quite likely that the antenna would be destroyed by stand-off range strike weapons, such as TLAMs, CALCMs, JASSM-ER, Affordable Weapons, etc. etc.
And I totally agree. I was not inducing that this radar shall be destroyed by an attack aircraft, I was just highlighting the fact that such a system would not seriously impair the ability of stealth aircrafts to do their job in the enemy battlespace...

[Wild Weasel]

And I totally agree. I was not inducing that this radar shall be destroyed by an attack aircraft, I was just highlighting the fact that such a system would not seriously impair the ability of stealth aircrafts to do their job in the enemy battlespace...

I wasn't doubting you. Just emphasizing your point.

[swerve]

I think radar as a detection capability will be limited progressing further into the century. To detect stealth aircraft at ranges requires a more thermal approach.

Detection of stealthy - in the sense of low RCS - aircraft at long range isn't the really difficult bit. JORN does it very well, for example. However, JORN is of no value for aiming missiles at, e.g., an F-22, as it can't give anything like a sufficiently precise location, & the minimum range is considerable. Detecting aircraft with low RCS at short distances is also not such a big deal: IR & electrooptical sensors can do it. However, a stealthy aircraft with a LPI radar might send a missile to kill you without coming within range of your IR or EO sensors.

Stealth is very valuable at medium ranges, i.e. the ranges at which BVR air-air combat takes place. There are ways round it, e.g. bistatic radar, but they all present technological & operational challenges, & at best reduce its value, rather than negate it. So far.

[killbill2]

^^ Exactly true. radar guided missiles and standoff weapons will keep them safe. By the way Ir detection of a stealth aircraft is already difficult.:cool:

[TrangleC]

More dangerous for stealth aircraft than this passive "EM-pollution" radars will be the other kind of anti-stealth radar. The one that doesn't search for the aircraft itself, but for the air turbulences it causes instead. Somewhat like a super sensitive and acurate weather radar.
There is no hiding from that, because every aircraft, nomatter how stealthy it is, disturbes the air and causes turbulences. And since the already existing stealth fighter's and bomber's aerodynamics are compromised by the stealth requirements, they are producing even stronger turbulences than other, normal aircraft of the same size.

[killbill2]

More dangerous for stealth aircraft than this passive "EM-pollution" radars will be the other kind of anti-stealth radar. The one that doesn't search for the aircraft itself, but for the air turbulences it causes instead. Somewhat like a super sensitive and acurate weather radar.
There is no hiding from that, because every aircraft, nomatter how stealthy it is, disturbes the air and causes turbulences. And since the already existing stealth fighter's and bomber's aerodynamics are compromised by the stealth requirements, they are producing even stronger turbulences than other, normal aircraft of the same size.
Actually some aircraft in the US inventory are very stealthy and very aerodynamic at the same time.

By optimizing the aerodynamics of the stealth plane, the for the eye invisible turbulence trail in the air, can be kept to a minimum. This way it becomes harder for the very special laser equipment to detect the trail and trace it back all the way to the plane which created it.
http://www.f-22raptor.com/st_getstealthy.php

It should be noted int he future stealth aircraft wil fly at higher altitudes whre there's less air thus resulting in less turbulence. Plus things like this are not real time info. For example a shallow sub moving at 30mph wil cause disturbances at the surface of the water which can be picked up by satellites. However it can only indicate that a submaine has apssed and not good enough for fire control. Now consider looking for the turbulence of an AC that keeps turbulence to a minimum and supercruises at Mach 1.7, and now you;re looking at a whole new ball game.:) Radars can be jammed and destroyed and lasers can be degraded by bad weather which can be artifically manipulated and blinded with other lasers(think free elctron lasers).

[TrangleC]

It should be noted int he future stealth aircraft wil fly at higher altitudes whre there's less air thus resulting in less turbulence. Plus things like this are not real time info. For example a shallow sub moving at 30mph wil cause disturbances at the surface of the water which can be picked up by satellites. However it can only indicate that a submaine has apssed and not good enough for fire control. Now consider looking for the turbulence of an AC that keeps turbulence to a minimum and supercruises at Mach 1.7, and now you;re looking at a whole new ball game.:) Radars can be jammed and destroyed and lasers can be degraded by bad weather which can be artifically manipulated and blinded with other lasers(think free elctron lasers).
The turbulences are still the strongest right behind the aircraft, so a fire controll system just would have to aim a little in front of what it sees.
No matter how aerodynamic a plane is, it just HAS to disturb the air, because that's what the wings are there for and without doing that there would be no flying.
The difference to seeing water moved by a submarine is that this turbulence has to reach the surface to be detected, while the turbulence of the air is detected in realtime, because it's still radar rays with the speed of light that detect it.
So there really is no hiding from that. Unless you could build a plane that doesn't move the air... leaves you with some kind of space shuttle that flies outside of the atmosphere, but the problem with that is that you can't make such a vessel stealthy in the normal way, because the anti-radar coating can't survive the heat of reentering the atmosphere and you can't build a heat shield that reflects heat but absorbs other EM energy like radar rays. (Don't forget that infrared rays aka. heat energy and radar rays are just the same, only different in frequency.)

So that only leaves you with a space shuttle that reenters the atmospere slow enough not to need a heat shield and that would have it's problems too. Besides the fact that the bombs or missles it would fire towards the earth still would have the problem that they would need to be heat proove and stealthy and still fast enough to reach the target, at the same time.

Solving not just an engineering- but also a physical problem of that proportion might take long enough till there are other ways to detect flying vessels that make that solution obsolete again.

I'd rather expect that there might be a revival of oldfashioned ways to increase the survivability of a attack aircraft, like super low alitute flight or just refraining towards higher and higher speeds, wheich will remain a futile attemt because it will always be easier to build a super fast intercepting missle than building the super fast aircraft.

There will never be the perfect, invincible weapon. The chances of inventing something like that are decreasing drastically since there are very clever and well educated young engineers all over the world.
I have worked in China for a year and i was amazed about what they are already doing in the civil electronic sector. Virtually every little shithole company there already uses the most modern electronic stuff and with their economic growth it can't take a long time till this development reaches the military hardware too.
Also Russia is on the way up again, economically and thus also technologically. Adding the fast increasing number of all the other sources for new war-toys like that small chzechish company that developed the new kind of radar that is the main topic of this thread, and it is pretty clear that the next decades might get quite chaotic and certainly less dominated by a invulnerable western (or rather US-) warmachine as many people seem to believe.

Either the stealth technology will become obsolete by new radar technology or by the fact that all the people you could use it against, are able to retaliate with nuclear bombs, or it's dominance will decrease due to the fact that many military powers use it, or all of it together will happen.

[killbill2]

The turbulences are still the strongest right behind the aircraft, so a fire controll system just would have to aim a little in front of what it sees.
No matter how aerodynamic a plane is, it just HAS to disturb the air, because that's what the wings are there for and without doing that there would be no flying.
The difference to seeing water moved by a submarine is that this turbulence has to reach the surface to be detected, while the turbulence of the air is detected in realtime, because it's still radar rays with the speed of light that detect it.
So there really is no hiding from that. Unless you could build a plane that doesn't move the air... leaves you with some kind of space shuttle that flies outside of the atmosphere, but the problem with that is that you can't make such a vessel stealthy in the normal way, because the anti-radar coating can't survive the heat of reentering the atmosphere and you can't build a heat shield that reflects heat but absorbs other EM energy like radar rays. (Don't forget that infrared rays aka. heat energy and radar rays are just the same, only different in frequency.)

So that only leaves you with a space shuttle that reenters the atmospere slow enough not to need a heat shield and that would have it's problems too. Besides the fact that the bombs or missles it would fire towards the earth still would have the problem that they would need to be heat proove and stealthy and still fast enough to reach the target, at the same time.

Solving not just an engineering- but also a physical problem of that proportion might take long enough till there are other ways to detect flying vessels that make that solution obsolete again.

I'd rather expect that there might be a revival of oldfashioned ways to increase the survivability of a attack aircraft, like super low alitute flight or just refraining towards higher and higher speeds, wheich will remain a futile attemt because it will always be easier to build a super fast intercepting missle than building the super fast aircraft.

There will never be the perfect, invincible weapon. The chances of inventing something like that are decreasing drastically since there are very clever and well educated young engineers all over the world.
I have worked in China for a year and i was amazed about what they are already doing in the civil electronic sector. Virtually every little shithole company there already uses the most modern electronic stuff and with their economic growth it can't take a long time till this development reaches the military hardware too.
Also Russia is on the way up again, economically and thus also technologically. Adding the fast increasing number of all the other sources for new war-toys like that small chzechish company that developed the new kind of radar that is the main topic of this thread, and it is pretty clear that the next decades might get quite chaotic and certainly less dominated by a invulnerable western (or rather US-) warmachine as many people seem to believe.

Either the stealth technology will become obsolete by new radar technology or by the fact that all the people you could use it against, are able to retaliate with nuclear bombs, or it's dominance will decrease due to the fact that many military powers use it, or all of it together will happen.


Yes i get what you're saying there but curently it's difficult to sense the little turbulence some planes do produce. By the time it gets to that aerodynamics should improve to reduce turbulence and aircraft such as next gen UCAV's should be able to fly faster and higher. hypersonic flight has already been demonstrated long ago with a manned plane and so has high altiude so you'll have something in the future to tackle the problem. Foreign bases will be reduced as time goes on. So all we have to do right now is just wait and see.

For reasons not yet de-classified, the B-2 charges its leading edge to a very high electrical potential difference from its exhaust stream. It has been suggested (by Jane's Defence) that it augments the B-2's low thrust main engines. It is also a well known phenomenon that an ionised gas (plasma) will scatter a radar beam far more effectively than a solid surface of any conceivable shape. This could be the purpose of the high voltage leading edge. Another possibility is that it is for the purpose of reducing drag, since the leading edge of the B-2 might then move through a partial vacuum of ionised air which may be ionised and repelled by the high voltage. In any case, it is however true that Northrop engineers conducted wind tunnel tests using high voltage on a testbed wing leading edge to reduce supersonic drag as far back as 1968. These tests were with a view to breaking up the airflow ahead of the wing using electrical forces in order to soften a sonic boom. How this applies (if indeed it does at all) to the B-2 after an interval of many years is uncertain. The B-2 is (officially) a subsonic vehicle, so there would appear to be no immediate link, however tantalising the connection. Though intriguing, the true nature of this feature will probably not be known to the public for some very considerable time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit

There might be way to reduce turbulence by this more research into plasma and electricity although I'm not sure. So until then we will just have to wait and see how things unfold.Should be noted the Raptor barely uses RAM for stealth. Also lasers can be attentuated by poor weather(which is now possible to manipulate,farmers make rain when they want to with special chemicals). Radars to see air need a higher frequency and would need to be more sensitive,so there is always the opportunity of ECM and weather manipulation to obscure the radar/laser. Stealth/anti stealth works both ways and it's not one side. they're still aircraft and could use countermeasures just like all other aircraft and weapons platform. The goal of stealth is to make the aircraft more surviveable not necessarily make it undetectable.

[Todjaeger]

Does anyone know if the RF based JORN and SECAR arrays will be able to provide general telemetry data for the Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft?

-Todjaeger

[srijan16]

first of all you don't need a stealth aircraft to test how good your radar tracks stealthy targets. you can basically try to locate a small UAV from a distance, the power of radar is determined by how much of microwave is reflected by the target, so a target with high RCS reflects more wave than the target with lower RCS.
I do not completely believe in the fact that F-117 was actually shot down by modified Sa-3 or Sa-4 missile. The images of the downed F-117 clearly show bullet holes around the canopy. I have no doubt that it was brought down by Anti Aircraft Artillary. If it was Tor M1 or Buk M1 then that would have been a different story. The Serbians were just trying to use Sa-3 and the corresponding radar system as a threat so that the Nato would stop their bombing runs.

[Aussie Digger]

first of all you don't need a stealth aircraft to test how good your radar tracks stealthy targets. you can basically try to locate a small UAV from a distance, the power of radar is determined by how much of microwave is reflected by the target, so a target with high RCS reflects more wave than the target with lower RCS.
I do not completely believe in the fact that F-117 was actually shot down by modified Sa-3 or Sa-4 missile. The images of the downed F-117 clearly show bullet holes around the canopy. I have no doubt that it was brought down by Anti Aircraft Artillary. If it was Tor M1 or Buk M1 then that would have been a different story. The Serbians were just trying to use Sa-3 and the corresponding radar system as a threat so that the Nato would stop their bombing runs.

It was bought down by AA and missiles fired over open sights. The F-117 was NOT brought down because it's "stealth failed" and a radar guided missile was able to target and hit it, but rather through poor planning and sloppy operational practices on the part of the American's and dodgy intell officers on the part of the French, equating to the Serbian Army discovering EXACTLY where the F-117 was going to be flying and when.

The end result was a lot of ordnance fired into the path of the F-117 at the right time and place. Guess what? They got lucky...

That shoot down is as much proof that "stealth" has been compromised or is somehow obsolete as the infamous "airex" where the IAF "won" decivisely over the USAF.

Both are sheer nonsense and a little bit of research even on this site alone can show to anybody actually wishing to know, the truth or some of it of these matters...

[Investigator]

[Comments deleted.

[gf0012-aust]

This site does not have access to confindential information. Researching a open posting forum for the truth about anything secret is showing a conceit. Who here actually knows how the gunners shot down the F-117?

The debriefings on the shoot down are open source. They're referenced.

Hands up who would risk imprisonment to provide sensitive military data to anyone with a dial up connection? Anyone? Same goes for the sinking a carrier thread. Be honest - we just don't know.

None of us. But you don't let comments that are a vehicle of a sleight of hand get by either....

As for the Carrier thread. There is a clear paucity of critical detail being provided.
Some of the solutions touted are rubbish, because they ignore what we already know can be scraped together from open source material and which requires a forensic effort rather than an aspirational comment about future capability. But if people choose to believe in some of the popular solutions then that is their right.

The beauty of the internet is that the typical response is, "if you can't counter my argument with detail thats available on the internet and able to be validated - then you're speaking rubbish" Blind freddy knows that this is cute.

eg One of the things that got up my goat with the press in Australia was that they sprayed the Collins as much as they could. Nobody in RAN could respond and nobody in ASC could either. So the myths took on a life of their own. Now what do I believe, do I believe the people I meet at UDT conferences who have been involved with the improvement program? do I ignore blackshoes who wargamed against them? do I ignore the company I used to work for that developed the signature management solutions? (I could stand up and rabbit on why I know that the Kilo is a relative bucket compared to other regional assets based on my own exp, but there's no point as how do I validate the detail? I'm not going to send my resume off to everyone). Do I ignore the snippets that appear in industry publications such as the Naval Sub League? The general public are fundamentally clueless, even the shadow defence minister called HMAS Manoora a "battleship"

But, the prev sources and commentary? None of the latter are on the internet. I sure as heck know what I base my judgement on.

There is a however a need to refer to sources within reason - and the fact that there is detailed info from the USAF, within industry rated material from publications like JED (Journal of Electronic Defence), or even from the AOC (ex Electronic Warfare Operators Assoc).

You can work out pretty quickly if people actually know what they're on about, or if they're trying it on. Anyone can quote articles, but sooner or later the traffic shows whether they actually understand what they're talking about or whether its just a hobby. (and there's room for hobbyists etc... but I'm creating a point of difference)

[merocaine]

It was bought down by AA and missiles fired over open sights. The F-117 was NOT brought down because it's "stealth failed" and a radar guided missile was able to target and hit it, but rather through poor planning and sloppy operational practices on the part of the American's and dodgy intell officers on the part of the French, equating to the Serbian Army discovering EXACTLY where the F-117 was going to be flying and when.

I've never come across any french officers being implicated, do you have links, I've read a lot of theories on the shoot down but not that one:confused:

[satcom]

Hi, Can the Thales HA 100 Passive Air Surveillance Radar detect Stealth Aircraft's B-2 F-22?. I found this on Defense Technology International October. Hears a link
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti1007/index.php?startpage=32

Thanks

[robsta83]

I've never come across any french officers being implicated, do you have links, I've read a lot of theories on the shoot down but not that one:confused:

It's mainly Forum scuttle but if you google search it a bit there is a lot about it seems to be nothing solid though, but I remember hearing about it in popular press of the time.

[Grand Danois]

This is the guy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1706341.stm

The F-117 shootdown was apparently the combined result of sloppy mission planning and box-kill tactics of the Serbs. Filling the sky with missiles. The bullet holes in the fuselage are from militia pelting the wreck with gunfire.

[Grand Danois]

Hi, Can the Thales HA 100 Passive Air Surveillance Radar detect Stealth Aircraft's B-2 F-22?. I found this on Defense Technology International October. Hears a link
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti1007/index.php?startpage=32

Thanks

Actually quite clever systems. Somewhat limited by range and resolution. Wonder how they stand up to stand off power jamming, since they need to create a reference image to work. If that ref image changes, then how much do you detect?

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/10644.pdf

[Aussie Digger]

This site does not have access to confindential information. Researching a open posting forum for the truth about anything secret is showing a conceit. Who here actually knows how the gunners shot down the F-117?

Hands up who would risk imprisonment to provide sensitive military data to anyone with a dial up connection? Anyone? Same goes for the sinking a carrier thread. Be honest - we just don't know.

Everything I said above is available through open sourced material if you care to put the effort in.

Perhaps you should be honest, YOU just don't know.

[merocaine]

This is the guy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1706341.stm


Cheers

Interesting, seems he was handing over secrets before the conflict, nothing about the F117 shoot down though.

I did find this though

Heneghan, Tom. "Alleged NATO Spy Gave Key Info to Serbs -- Media." Reuters, 4 Nov. 1998.

"Le Monde and Europe 1 radio [on 4 November 1998] quoted a secret report by the DST counter-intelligence agency saying Major Pierre Bunel divulged a 25-page plan for possible NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia.... [The DST report] also said Bunel admitted to meeting [a] Yugoslav agent four times between July and October 1998 and answering questions about the number of NATO aircraft earmarked for strikes, the targets and dates chosen, France's position on the strikes and the possibility of a ground force deployment in Kosovo."

Dickey, Christopher, and Rod Nordland. "A Spy in the Ranks." Newsweek, 16 Nov. 1998. [http://www.newsweek.com]

French Maj. Pierre-Henri Bunel has been charged with spying on NATO for the Serbs. He is accused of having "given Belgrade top-secret information that included the targets for potential airstrikes at the height of the Kosovo crisis" in October 1998.

de Quetteville, Harry. "French Entente with Belgrade May Have Been Too Cordiale." Electronic Telegraph, 10 Mar. 2000. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk]

On 9 March 2000, "a spokesman at the French military headquarters denied allegations of a pro-Serb bias which have resurfaced following the claims of a spy in NATO during the Kosovo campaign.... But the doubts which predate the Bunel [French Maj. Pierre-Henri Bunel, who leaked NATO secrets to the Serbs in 1997-1998] case have persisted.... Louise Arbour, former head of the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, made those doubts clear in December 1997 by criticising France's record of arresting Serbs."



http://intellit.muskingum.edu/france_folder/francenatospy.html




I'd say it was good tactics and intel work in the immediate run up to the shootdown, rather than any information passed on the previous year.
I havent seen any linkage between the shootdown and the French traitor.
Seems they knew about him in nov 1998, surely operational planning would have changed before the conflict in light of the leak?

[shamsi]

Very Interesting Read till now. I am surprised to see that you some of you get personal so fast...regardless, interesting information.

The stealth radar is quite an interesting topic in countries that feel they could be at the receiving end of Stealth on slought. There is strong interest in both LPI systems, and systems that could detect low RCS systems with high BSR/PSR.

The problem is not just stealth aircraft, rather the rising tide of low observable UAVs.

There is much debate on the downing of the F-117, and among the propaganda, and deception, one really doesn't know. Stealth isnt really invisible to radar, rather, the Blip to scan ratio is so low that its almost impossible to track the targets.

Some VHF and HF radar builders are claiming that they can see the low observable aircrafts, and the marketing campaigns of ELINT/DF triangulation sensors are also strong (most of these aircraft are network centric, so the emissions can be tracked). I am sure that many radars are able to track the stealth aircraft, but most of them become victim of SEAD before the bombers come in.


Evasion versus detection is a continuously evolving field, and what Skunk works came up with 15 years ago, some are now able to track (just detection is meaningless).

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

[Aussie Digger]

So open sourced information is beyond reproach? If it was in someone's interest to lie to claim that it wasn't their technology's fault then do YOU discount the possibility they would do so?

Of course not. Particularly as someone who deals with "secret" level information on a daily basis.

Maybe skepticism is only for those who don't believe only that which they want to believe. "The US has the best technology and everyone else is useless" - please!.

They must. It's the main choice for the NZ Government...

[swerve]

It was bought down by AA and missiles fired over open sights. The F-117 was NOT brought down because it's "stealth failed" and a radar guided missile was able to target and hit it, but rather through poor planning and sloppy operational practices on the part of the American's and dodgy intell officers on the part of the French, equating to the Serbian Army discovering EXACTLY where the F-117 was going to be flying and when.
...

Are you really saying that that detailed mission planning for the war, down to exact routes for F-117 flights had been done prior to October 1998, which was when Bunel gave the Serbs documents, that Bunel had access to information at that level (not alleged by the prosecutors), had handed over documents giving that level of detail (not alleged by the prosecutors), & that despite him being arrested at the beginning of November 1998 & confessing immediately, the exact routes planned before that date were used over 4 months later?

Come on, pull the other one! You know that's nonsense!

[rjmaz1]

If a long wavelength radar such as JORN can detect a stealth aircraft at long range, and a short wavelength radar can detect a stealth aircraft at very short range then shouldn't a medium wavelength radar be able to detect an aircraft at medium range and provide some accuracy of a short wavelength radar?

I dont see why this wouldn't work.. It would be much more useful than JORN.

JORN could detect an aircraft somewhere in a 100 square mile area that is 1000 miles away JORN then passes the information to a medium wavelength radar that detects the aircrafts basic direction within a 10 square mile area 500 miles away.

The medium wavelength radar then sends the estimated location to the Wedgetail and fighter escorts.

Could work well.. We just need something to fit inbetween the JORN and Short wavelength radar.

[gf0012-aust]

then sends the estimated location to the Wedgetail and fighter escorts.

Could work well.. We just need something to fit inbetween the JORN and Short wavelength radar.


DSTO/ADF trialled such a system for about 8 years and terminated the funding a few years back. It was trialled in one of our most sensitive and busiest traffic areas

It showed no "performance benefits to cost" over existing sensing capability.