I wonder how will this work against future anti radiation misilles like AARGM - they have also active milimeterwave radar to seek for vehicles and other radar platforms if they shut down their own radar

Dunno if it would work, but it popped into my head. Stick your SAM behind a large metal screen, with enough room to track and fire yourself. With any luck...the AARGM might lock onto the screen, thinking its the SAM, whislt the SAM can scuttle off....just a thought!

Originally posted by stumason
Dunno if it would work, but it popped into my head. Stick your SAM behind a large metal screen, with enough room to track and fire yourself. With any luck...the AARGM might lock onto the screen, thinking its the SAM, whislt the SAM can scuttle off....just a thought!

The only problem is you need to carry large metal screen(able to withstand the explosion by yourself.
However ther are possibilities to cheat even the most advanced systems of course. It is rumoured the Serbs used modified, stripped down microwave ovens to simulate radars for HARMs. Compare MW oven price with HARM - not the best result for USAF.


[edit on 24-4-2005 by longbow]

Well, no need to actually have to withstand the explosion, you could just leave it and run off with your SAM. The Rapier can be towed or SP, so could go and hide in the woods

The microwave ovens are a good idea. Seeing as RADAR is microwaves, you could fool an anti-radiation missile with one if you knew what you where doing.

Originally posted by stumason
Well, no need to actually have to withstand the explosion, you could just leave it and run off with your SAM. The Rapier can be towed or SP, so could go and hide in the woods

It could work, but you need to act VERY quickly. I cannot imagine some SAM doing that so fast. It would be fun to watch the SAM crew during the process, though.

[edit on 24-4-2005 by longbow]

No, not very realistic, but possible. It was the first thing that popped into my head when you mentioned the mm-length radar on the missile. Hide it behind something bigger, and you missile wont see it.

It would be funny to watch them scurry though! Not so fun if they didn't make it mind you........the rapier looks so nice, it would be a shame to destroy it....oh, and the crew of course....

I don't think it would be useless. Let's say you have such radar and misille with active radar seeker like Amraam. You don't need to know the accurate position, you can just guide the misille to the approximate position where the misille own radar starts the work. And be sure that no todays plane can be stealth if advanced misille radar is lets say 1km away.

You put a smile on my face ...

So can the Rapier detect AND SHOOT down a stealth plane or not?

and can you put that "hiding" a missile in english instead of "Im an engineer english" thanks

quote:
A high elevation guard beam automatically switches off the transmissions when the presence of an anti-radiation missile is detected.

They better turn it off and get to a new position, because current HARM missiles can remember the last place where the radar was even if it was turned off.

Originally posted by stumason

posted by Broadsword20068
you really have no clue as to what you are talking about.

Haha....I really think I do.

posted by Broadsword20068
"Oh, the F-117 can be easily tracked by yada yada.....stealth aircraft aren't that stealthy yada yada" and they haven't a clue as to what they're saying, and no one really does until an actual engineer of some type steps in and explains some things

Well....I have had an "actual" engineer step in and explain things. I have spoken to many Army techs (including my own father) that know this system inside out.

As stated above, Stealth isn't about being totally invisible to RADAR, but your ability to avoid it where possible and where not, to make yourself as inconspicuos as possible. There are radar out there that can track insects, let alone the RCS of a B2 or an F-117, but there use in an actual. working AA system is questionable.

If you had bothered to read the information I posted about Rapier (which you never do Broadsword, you pipe up with the "Big I Am" every time) then you will see that it has two seperate types of RADAR as well as an IR optical tracking system.

When the surveillance radar detects and acquires a target, the bearing data is downloaded to the tracking radar and the launcher, which then automatically align to the target bearing. The target is acquired on the optical tracking system. When the surveillance radar has confirmed that the target is hostile the missile is launched. The missile is guided towards the target at speed in excess of Mach 2.5 by passive infra-red line of sight and active command to radar line of sight.

This means that as long as the battery is given a heading and bearing for the incoming target, it can be guided home using an IR optical system (which is passive). The missile will hurtle towards it's target at Mach 2.5 without the pilot even being aware until it is too late.

posted by Broadsword20068
You are going to seriously take the words of JOURNALISTS on something as complicated as stealth aircraft?

Nope. I will, however, take the word of Army and RAF engineers and pilots. My family is chocka-block full of them.

posted by Broadsword20068
I am NOT saying the F-117 wasn't or isn't detectable, but to say it can be "easily detected and tracked" is, well, pure and utter ignorance.

There is a difference between being able tio track a target and actually use that data to target it. Go back and see the principles on how stealth works.

Yes, the planes have a lovely, low RCS, but that does not mean they are invisible by a long shot, you just need a higher frequency RADAR to see them.

There are RADARs out there that can pick up the seams on an aircrafts frame or the ridges in the canopy. There use in an AA system is still questionable, but they most certainly can detect "Stealth" aircraft, should one stray near. That is the limit on the High Frequency RADAR, the range. But I wont confuse you here with a discussion about that

Actually, you just made part of my point. Like you said, the flight path of an aircraft also deals with stealth. Also, "stealth" doesn't necessarily refer to an aircraft being completely undetectable.

But to say something can "easily" track or detect (and yeah I know there are differences with the radars) a stealth aircraft like the F-117 is ignorant.

BTW, feel free to explain about the radars. Don't give the 'ole, "But I won't confuse you here with a discussion about that."

Originally posted by 187onu
So can the Rapier detect AND SHOOT down a stealth plane or not?

It depends. It uses combined short range radar and IR/electroptical system. I think it can detect and shoot down F-22 at 15 km.
But I'm not so sure about the B-2, the B-2 exhaust are not visible from the surface and no one knows if the B-2 RAM skin can absorb high frequency radar waves or not.

Yeah, I'd say yes to a F-22 or F-117 but no to a B-2.

Those things are the dogs dangly's at the moment, and I doubt even the Yanks have anything that could bring one down (not that they would want to, but just illustrating a point)

We're getting somewhere .......

yea we need an explantion from the "engineer" and his family!

but wait, i must assume they use the same paint for the F117 and the B-2 since there is only one RAM paint, I mean it must be wierd to use 2 different paints for the same purpose!!!!

so if the F-117's paint is high frequency absorbant so must the B-2's paint be as well!

[edit on 24-4-2005 by 187onu]

[edit on 24-4-2005 by 187onu]

but wait, i must assume they use the same paint for the F117 and the B-2 since there is only one RAM paint, I mean it must be wierd to use 2 different paints for the same purpose!!!!

so if the F-117's paint is high frequency absorbant so must the B-2's paint be as well!

The F-117 had different RAM when it came out than the B-2, I don't know if they have the same type of RAM now. I think they use different types because the size of the aircraft its speed, engines and its specific missions might have something to do with it, for example the Raptor does not use the same RAM as the B-2.

yea we need an explantion from the "engineer" and his family!

If your referring to me, I never said I was an engineer.

As it happens, I am a Telecoms engineer and know a little about EM waves.

Its not rocket science to figure out that the higher frequency waves will pick out more detail, hence be more adept at picking up stealth aircraft, nor that the higher freq signal will have limited range, as we all now LW radio reaches much further. But with the lower frequency comes less resolution, hence you lose the ability to pick out such details as the seams in the aircraft or the cockpit.

I admit, I was being a little sarcastic at Broadsword, but only because he came on to start another pissing contest about who is better, despite the prior civil discussion about RADAR. He's done it before and no doubt he will do it again.

Yea i ment you, no dissrespect though!

check this out, how about we've got a low frequency radar with a very large range. It picks out a stealth plane but only triangulate's it near 30-50m! so now we just fire a missile at that area and when the missile comes closer to the airplane it will come to close and will detect its RCS right! and then the missile will do its own job!
So here we've detected a plane AND shot it down, this should/could work right???

The british Type-42 destroyer can track stealth aircraft as demonstrated by the BBC a few years back. It was fairly big news at the time.

Farnborough airport also tracked the american F-117 during an airshow and warned it away from the civil airspace... not to mention the rapier system on the ground also tracking it

check this out, how about we've got a low frequency radar with a very large range. It picks out a stealth plane but only triangulate's it near 30-50m! so now we just fire a missile at that area and when the missile comes closer to the airplane it will come to close and will detect its RCS right! and then the missile will do its own job!

Are you making up scenarios or are you playing pretend?

The British Type-42 destroyer can track stealth aircraft as demonstrated by the BBC a few years back. It was fairly big news at the time.

Which type of stealth airplane at what ranges and can it fire on the aircraft or does it just know the proximity of the aircraft. We all know that Stealth aircrafts at close ranges can be tracked with high frequency radar, so I just want to know the specifics.

Farrough airport also tracked the american F-117 during an airshow and warned it away from the civil airspace... not to mention the rapier system on the ground also tracking it

If the F-117 was flying low and near the Airport and if its transponder was on then the Airport radar would have picked it up. Do you think that when a B-2 is coming in for a landing that the U.S. Air base Radar does not know where it is?

Unless flying an actual mission or a training mission specifically designed to train on the stealth charactistics the F-117, B-2, and F-22 have little "reflectors" they put on to increase thier radar signature, that and they have certain areas such as antennas and refueling receptacles that can be put out or hidden depending on wither they want to be seen or not.

Originally posted by stumason

yea we need an explantion from the "engineer" and his family!

If your referring to me, I never said I was an engineer.

As it happens, I am a Telecoms engineer and know a little about EM waves.

Its not rocket science to figure out that the higher frequency waves will pick out more detail, hence be more adept at picking up stealth aircraft, nor that the higher freq signal will have limited range, as we all now LW radio reaches much further. But with the lower frequency comes less resolution, hence you lose the ability to pick out such details as the seams in the aircraft or the cockpit.

I admit, I was being a little sarcastic at Broadsword, but only because he came on to start another pissing contest about who is better, despite the prior civil discussion about RADAR. He's done it before and no doubt he will do it again.

Actually, it was you who started the pissing contest, just without saying so directly. If you say something isn't true, then you know someone is going to respond. I NEVER said ANYTHING about "who is better," I simply stated that what you said was ignorant.

What did I say that wasn't true?

Care to elaborate? I don't like being called a liar.

You said that the radar you were talking about could "easily" track (or detect, I forget) the F-117, which to me, to say something like that, shows ignorance, as no stealth aircraft can be "easily" tracked or detected unless it's pilots are pretty much idiots. I didn't say it is undetectable on anything, but you cannot "easily" detect and/or track any stealth aircraft.

They are called "stealth" for a reason, remember.