Super radar detecting US stealth plane
- Thread starter Aegis
- Start date
- Status
Learn some manners.
Actually. I'm the one who is sick of your BS. You make sweeping and empirical statements about systems and capabilities that you obviously have no knowledge about. At times you quote material out of context. Knowledge is not just about the books you read - its about comprehending how things actually work in the real world.
The idea is to ask, look and learn. Don't pretend to be something that you aren't. If you don't know, then ask rather than make statements which are patently incorrect.
BTW, seeing that I am a Mod, I guess you'll have to involve me. Or have you not noticed the colour of my handle??
Admin Text deleted.
It was more than a suggestion. The fact that you haven't worked that out is a pity.
Take a week off and come back when you develop some maturity and learn that the sum knowledge of your expertise should be managed a little more discretely.
It was more than a suggestion. The fact that you haven't worked that out is a pity.
Take a week off and come back when you develop some maturity and learn that the sum knowledge of your expertise should be managed a little more discretely.
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder, if Kolchuga radar system is so good, could it be adopted for shipboard use? Then the B-2s may be detected & engaged while crossing the ocean!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/kolchuga.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/kolchuga.htm
Kolchuga can't detect B-2s. It relies on detecting emissions from aircraft, and a B-2 in stealth mode will not be emitting.
There are some wild claims that Kolchuga can detect stealth aircraft from EM interference as they pass through the atmosphere, but AFAIK this is regarded as highly unlikely.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
EMCON, (emissions control) is a huge factor in an aircraft remaining a "low observable" (or stealth if you like) platform.
Hence why the US is having such great difficulty including data-links on it's "stealth" aircraft. By their very nature, data-links are just as much "transmitters" as they are "receivers" and thus vulnerable to detection, but without them or "receive only" as is the case with the F-22 the "network centric" warfare model becomes rather difficult to implement...
Thinking they gone to such fantastic lengths to make the B-2 as "stealthy" as it is and then have them actively transmitting in radio frequencies for anyone to listen to is ridiculous...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Two comments come to mind. Firstly, that it is somewhat surprising (and disappointing) that Global Security would include the Kolchuga sysem, as well as its claimed detection ranges and "stealth" detection, yet gloss over the systems limitations. Namely, that it can only detect emitting aircraft, and as such, more properly would be considered an ESM than a radar system.
The other comment is that it is apparent that some posters still do not understand how some processes and systems are utilized or otherwise work. Radio triangulation is nothing new, having been done back in WWII, nearly 70 years ago. The other is how "stealth" systems are utilized. LO/VLO technologies were developed to make it more difficult for an active searcher to detect an aircraft by re-directing or absorbing the returning signal. By the same token, it would make no sense to not also mitigate emissions coming from the "stealth" aircraft itself, since there were already passive systems in place for detecting EM and IR signals.
I would suggest doing a search to see if "The Radar Game" or something similar to it is still available.
-Cheers
Global Security is generally a not very reliable cite. For example they list numbers of equipment in service that are often nothing more then guesswork. They actually included the bogus article from the Jerusalem Post about Iran buying 250 Su-30MKs, in their entry about the aircraft.
On a related note, and to bring this back to the original topic, is it possible to construct large strategic RLS stations (similar to the missile defense ones in terms of size and power) that are essentially regular air defense radars? Then datalink them to your IADS and use them to feed data on the detected LO planes to the rest of the units?
On a related note, and to bring this back to the original topic, is it possible to construct large strategic RLS stations (similar to the missile defense ones in terms of size and power) that are essentially regular air defense radars? Then datalink them to your IADS and use them to feed data on the detected LO planes to the rest of the units?
Yes, and one example is the US entering into a partnership with Aust last year to look at further development of JORN into an overall ADS concept.
Didn't the huge radar near Krasnoyarsk was just that?
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/soviet/daryal_radar.gif
How about visual/optical detection of B-2s in daytime? If they are to fly from the CONUS to their targets for striking at night, some of the transit will be done in daytime. Also, a few years ago I read an article about ultrasonic detection of meteors entering the athmosphere- can a high flying bomber be detected in this way?
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/soviet/daryal_radar.gif
What happened to that project?
That article was published on 29 February 2000. Does anyone else possess this ability?
How about visual/optical detection of B-2s in daytime? If they are to fly from the CONUS to their targets for striking at night, some of the transit will be done in daytime. Also, a few years ago I read an article about ultrasonic detection of meteors entering the athmosphere- can a high flying bomber be detected in this way?
Not JORN technology but similar systems exist.
Nobody is going to be going into detail about this subject.
Western ASW aircraft have had wavelength "goo" applied for decades - so why wouldn't a LO aircraft specifically designed to penetrate complex space in a nuclear war not be similarly bedecked?
a hypersonic meteor travelling through deep space on a predictable orbit is not the same as a subsonic jet designed for discrete entry and evasive action. Intelligent flight vs predictable inanimate flight.
It's like saying that a Lada is a Patria FV just because they both have wheels.
Book link
It's a free download, just register to download the book or read online without any registration (it's only 59 pages).
Go forth and get educated
Cheers
For those of you who are interested in reading Rebecca Grants "The Radar Game - Understanding Stealth and Aircraft Survivability" (Published 1998; ISBN: 1892799006).
It's a free download, just register to download the book or read online without any registration (it's only 59 pages).
Go forth and get educated
Cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
You MIGHT have noticed that today's stealth aircraft are NOT all that "sharp edged and angular"... Things have changed since the F-117 was brought into service...
As to visual/optical detection, stand on a beach and look out at the sea some time. The horizon is about 7 kilometers at most.
Radar and optical viewing systems are limited by the curvature of the Earth. End of story.
The ONLY way to increase the range at which ANY of these systems can detect ANYTHING is to raise them into the air.
That is why you see ground based radar systems mounted on masts, why sea-borne radars are mounted high up on the superstructures of the vessels they are attached to and why you see airborne radar systems increasing in popularity.
If you thing that visual or optical means are superior to radar then ask yourself how many large surveillance aircraft do you see with large telescopes attached to them, as opposed to large surveillance aircraft with large radars attached to them?
HF radars are a slight exception to the rule. They work by bouncing energy in specific frequencies off the ionosphere. However due to various factors they are NOT accurate enough to target an aircraft. Knowing a B-2 is in the air is irrelevent if you don't know where it is and can't vector an aircraft or missile to intercept it and even less useful if the B-2 can launch it's weapons before any interceptor (missile or otherwise) gets within range anyway...
HF "over the horizon" radars cannot accurately detect a platform, nor target it. They might be able to detect a "stealth aircraft" under favourable conditions at extended ranges, but that's it. They can't provide the data needed to cue a weapon. At best they are useful for alerting defenders to the presence of an intruder and directing other assets into a relatively large area to conduct more specific searches.
Everything is a trade off and Countries are NOT investing heavily in LO technology because it IS easy to defeat...
Awesome. Thank you.For those of you who are interested in reading Rebecca Grants "The Radar Game - Understanding Stealth and Aircraft Survivability" (Published 1998; ISBN: 1892799006).
It's a free download, just register to download the book or read online without any registration (it's only 59 pages).
Go forth and get educated
Cheers
Well, that Israeli raid on Syria used EW to defeat their AD, and the B-2s seem to have their own organic problems - we discussed 2 recent crashes on another tread. If the USAF can do the same EW coup, why keep those maintenance intensive B-2s? The B-1B can carry more at greater speed!
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Yes, but what form(s) of EW did Israel use against Syria in support of the raid? Also, what detection systems did Syria have to defend their borders and the objective of the raid?
My impression from reading the Aviation Weekly article that came out following the raid, was that a good deal of the EW was ground, as opposed to aircraft-based.
Now, I doubt anyone who has real information behind the raid would post it, given security concerns. Having said that, as a hypothetical exercise, would people consider it likely that cyberwarfare was used by Israel to disrupt Syrian C4ISR systems? From reading various things, it was my understanding that at least some of the Syrian phone switch/exchanges which would have relayed data from radar arrays to monitoring stations came under computer attack. Assuming this is correct, I would consider the methods used to overcome much of Syria's IADS more a result of good use of intelligence resources, as opposed to particular pieces of EW kit.
As for the use of such methods vs. a B-2 or other LO/VLO system, it would very much depend on the target and timeframe. I would expect that Israel has spent a good deal of time and resources learning about Syria's various systems, particularly since they share a common border and have a history of hostilities. Other countries and systems might prove to be less accessable, or vulnerable to such attacks.
-Cheers
Quite contrary to what you have said there's been a lot research and development in optical detection. I have seen the retirement of F-14 documentary in the History channel where they showed some F-14 carrying zoom lens and it can watch a fighter size target at 300 KM away. I have seen another docu where F-15 (I think) were practicing bombing raids over Nevada and their cameras can read the license plate number of passing by cars at above 10,000ft.
Also, your example of horizon being viewable at only 7 KM only applies to low flying aircraft. Even then the aircraft will have to fly at least 30 to 40 ft above sea level and that should give another 10 KM (approximately) of viewable space. A fully loaded aircraft cannot fly that low, especially when it is carrying dumb bombs weighing couple of 100 KG to couple of 100 kg. The heavier the bomb the higher the aircraft have to fly.
The British Rapier system (spelling ?) uses the optical search and track with the help of laser..... I think as Stealth becomes more and more a threat more people would invest in the optical search and track on top of aircrafts as a cheaper alternative.
Also, your example of horizon being viewable at only 7 KM only applies to low flying aircraft. Even then the aircraft will have to fly at least 30 to 40 ft above sea level and that should give another 10 KM (approximately) of viewable space. A fully loaded aircraft cannot fly that low, especially when it is carrying dumb bombs weighing couple of 100 KG to couple of 100 kg. The heavier the bomb the higher the aircraft have to fly.
The British Rapier system (spelling ?) uses the optical search and track with the help of laser..... I think as Stealth becomes more and more a threat more people would invest in the optical search and track on top of aircrafts as a cheaper alternative.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Yes, the F-14 did have a camera system, though IIRC the range was around 50 miles. A pilot with good eyesight could potentially see farther under good conditions.
One issue with optical search/track systems is the difficulties such systems have in handling area volume searches. Imagine trying to cover the same volume of space one normally views using both eyes, when spotting through a rifle scope. That is similar to the situation one would face using optical search methods.
Another issue is that short of using a laser rangefinder or similar, a passive optical system does not provide the same degree of information (like range and velocity) that a radar sytem could provide. Additional systems would need to be used in concert to provide targeting quality data.
Current optical systems just do not have the same combination of area volume search capabilities, as well as targeting data collection, that radar systems have. While optical or EO systems are improving, I expect that they will continue to be used in addition to/support of, rather than in place of radar systems.
Also, here is a good site to use to determine things like visual and radar horizons.
-Cheers
- Status