Anti Stealth Radar

[gf0012-aust]

It is only a matter of time before anti-stealth radar is as common as regular radar, thankfully the USAF has recognized this.

The US has certainly recognised it -

1) because there is no such thing as stealth in a single iterative capability
2) because stealth - or more correctly, VLO signature management varies across platforms because its based on the threat context that the given platform needs to conduct itself against. Thats why every manned generation of VLO aircraft has utilised different technologies and capabilities to deal with different threats - because they were all designed to deal with different threat capabilities

this notion that stealth is a single construct is nonsense, and we have discussed it to death, we're not going to travel the same road and do a lazarus on concepts and constructs that have been more than dealt with in the past

The F-22 and F/A-35 both are very capable aircraft even when not taking into account there stealth features. The next generation of Stealth bombers will likely be agile and/or very fast aircraft.

based on what evidence? the reason why the west took the turn to make VLO assets less focused on speed is because high speed in itself is a signature "tell" Its why western VLO/LO cruise missiles are generally subsonic - as opposed to high speed solutions which trigger sensors all over the place

the agility is about sensor management - its not about aerodynamics. The capability footprint is not about handling - its about signature and sensor management as part of a cohort of capability in which the platforms sensor and systems suite acts in concert with other force enablers.

people seem to think that stealth (a ridiculous term) is about single platform capability - it never has been - and its certainly not now

It is interesting to note that when it comes to B-2s, SOP is to fly the aircraft like its not even a stealth aircraft, Low level penetration. Unless of coarse you are flying over a country with little to no air defense capability in which case it doesn't matter.

Again, where are the CONOPS for VLO in the public domain? Hint - They're NOT. There is a reason why low level NOE penetration is practiced

You make some very very fundamental mistakes in the scenarios that you claim exist for VLO /LO platforms. You seem to be oblivious of basic mechanical construct issues such as the fact that an aircraft flying at altitude has a far greater (significantly greater) detection opportunity and that it opens itself up to a greater range of sensors.

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that a VLO penetration is a systems enabled event - its not a platform event, and that means that the sanitisation of the route has minimal involvement from the asset itself.

VLO strikes are cohort events, they are specifically planned to the threat - they are not single aspect events which involve a platform behaving because they have a widget that makes them magical.

VLO is about spectrum and signal management - its never ever been about some magical goo that can be universally applied to an aircraft (be it electronically or physically applied) so as to enter "reds" air space and through the wonders of single order science inflict violence upon the enemy.

there is no such thing as a radar capability which will render "stealth" obsolete.

there is an earlier post on here which goes into the history of VLO/LO/"stealth" - being familiar with it might be useful as it counters a lot of the rubbish thats trotted out as fact about "stealth"

there are a number of people in here who have dealt with signature management and sensor management capabilities, there are a number of people in here who have direct experience - and although they will not go into detail about actual capabilities, they are more than likely to step in and counter some of the guff presented as fact and an absolute.

seeing "stealth" as a single construct able to be countered by some magical sensor suite ignores the reality and complexity of how systems work - and ignores the reality of how manned and unmanned publicly released platforms have evolved and why they've evolved.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Agree on that aspect finally after 3 years. It is very likely that if the Serbians knew the exact flight path of F-117s because NATO military planners were careless enough to use same bombing path day in and day out so Serbians modified their radar in such a way so that the microwaves were focused in on a particular direction in the sky then may be they did track down nighthawk as a tiny dot on their screen and fired their SA-3 at that target. F-117s flying without no ECMs cause there was no need to, combined with its slow speed then would be a very easy prey for SA-3 Goa.

It was allegedly 2x SA-3 missiles, one which exploded very close and one which impacted directly on the left wing of the F-117 aircraft which bought it down. No-one can say for certain, not even the pilot, what hit the aircraft though. The pilot in his radio chatter, literally seconds before "impact" reports seeing a large amount of AAA fire in that area. There is a distinct possibility that NO missile actually hit him, but rather AAA did...

Or maybe they fired those SA-3's into a particular bit of airspace at a particular bit of time and they got REALLY lucky? They certainly weren't able to do it again, not even that exact night, given that there WERE 4x F-117 Nighthawks flying in a mission package, when one was lost.

If you search around on line, you can find the radio chatter of the pilot that WAS shot down. He was not the slightest bit worried about being "painted" by radar in the immediate few moments prior to being shot down and none of the other pilots were EITHER.

None of the other 3 aircraft was hit by ANYTHING during this mission or any others.

Add all this together, with the FACT that this was the ONLY F-117 ever "shot down" under any circumstances and believe what you will. Personally I believe the Serbs got unbelievably lucky one night because they were never able to replicate their feat.

 

[My2Cents]

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.

The short wavelength radar can detect a stealth aircraft at very short range because the aircraft has gotten close enough to give a detectible return. Stealth does not make an aircraft invisible to radar just hard to see. It is like a man in camouflage against a matching background, if you get close enough the minor discrepancies become obvious enough that you start seeing an outline. Short wavelength radar are used in aircraft because it requires a smaller antenna for a given resolution.

Medium wavelength radar does not perform any better against stealth aircraft than short wavelength radar. Medium wavelength radar is typical of most air surveillance radars.

Long wavelength OTHRs like JORN work because they can use wavelengths that can exploit the resonance frequency of a major dimension of the aircraft, either length or wingspan, instead of reflection. Each aircraft design will have its characteristic frequencies, and a frequency good for detecting B-2s will probably not detect an F-35, and vis versa. These radars also use ionospheric bounce to look down on the largest aspect of the aircraft instead of edge on, but this also means that there is a minimum range of several hundred kilometers. The long wavelength requires huge, immobile, transmitting and receiving arrays several miles on a side.

 

[IronsightSniper]

I should note that one of the best ways to detect stealth air craft isn't by Radars at all, but by IRSTs.

But on topic long wave radars are great against Stealth fighter types, but the bigger they are the smaller they get (I think, I'm paraphrasing this from Carlo Kopp.)

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm paraphrasing this from Carlo Kopp.)

There's a lesson in there somewhere.......

 

[IronsightSniper]

He's a good man and the least I can do is trust his radar analysis :|

 

[Bonza]

Carlo Kopp is a fool who produces only lies and spite. Don't rely on anything he (and by extension Air Power Australia) produces. Or do, it's your choice - but consider the fact that a) he claims to be Australia's foremost radar expert yet holds zero clearance levels that would enable him to see accurate information on the systems he discusses, b) his response to claims contrary to his own by credible sources, including serving military personnel, the DSTO, DMO etc is to attack their credibility and integrity (not the actions of a man who has the facts on his side), and c) he was personally involved in an AIR-6000 proposal that was knocked back in favour of the F-35 decision, and thus has a vested personal interest in lobbying against the results of said decision.

APA skew data and mix and match facts to suit their story, their mudslinging tactics are deplorable and their outlook on air combat is one-dimensional, gladiatorial and simplistic.

Basically I wouldn't trust him to look after my keys, let alone provide accurate information on systems he's not cleared to know about and which he has a vendetta against. So if you're going to read his material please, please consider the above points. A few years ago, a more impressionable Bonza was almost taken in by his nonsense, until I was put straight by those with far greater knowledge (and a better grip on reality) than he will ever have. I hate to see people go down the same route.

Sorry for the off-topic response but I really do feel quite strongly about this and I don't want people having the wool pulled over their eyes. APA is an exercise in self-serving deceit and should be treated as such.

 

[maxwell]

Ground based vertical radar

As deployed by aircraft stealth is largely designed to ensure electromagnetic radar pulses are not reflected back toward the receiver. The F22 has this capacity “all around” while the F35 largely has this capacity “from the front”. Almost all ground or sea based radar pulses together with most airborne radars come at the target horizontally or at an angle close to the horizontal where stealth technology works best. But what if radar pulses came from above or below – stealth impact of stealth technology would be mitigated.
By bouncing their pulse of the atmosphere long range over the horizon radar provides such capacity – its impact is limited however because of other technical constraints associated with such radar. However what about radar from below? No matter how stealthy an aircraft design is, it presents an ideal radar target from below given the large flat surface of the wings.
Would it not be possible to create a upward focussed ground based radar “net” based on cheap small radar each powerful enough to send their pulses 10km and receive echoes. I am thinking of something small, the size of handheld police traffic speed radar for example. Spread these devices in a grid pattern over the ground in and around a prospective target and network them say by wireless to a control system that could track a target aircraft as it flew above the network. The denser the grid pattern, and thus the greater number of radar devices, the more accurate would be the information which could be used to guide air defences.
Does such radar exist? Would it work?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Would it not be possible to create a upward focussed ground based radar “net” based on cheap small radar each powerful enough to send their pulses 10km and receive echoes. I am thinking of something small, the size of handheld police traffic speed radar for example. Spread these devices in a grid pattern over the ground in and around a prospective target and network them say by wireless to a control system that could track a target aircraft as it flew above the network. The denser the grid pattern, and thus the greater number of radar devices, the more accurate would be the information which could be used to guide air defences.
Does such radar exist? Would it work?

china has been putting such a system in place that is based on work done by the US and Aust Civil Aviation authority. They have adapted a commercial system and basically made a military one out of it. in effect it acts as a validator and adjunct IFF system .

It's also a similar version of a system used to track maritime assets used in australia.

 

[Armoredpriapism]

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

It's important to know what your enemy knows. If these radars start getting exported to every warlord around the globe then nations with fifth-gen aircraft will want to know how to get around them. Simply making one for themselves wouldn't help the Americans unless they were afraid they were going to bomb themselves.