Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Radar

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   
I wasn't lying nor elaborating. The HF radar on the Rapier can track a Stealth.




posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Sure it can, under the correct circumstances. I just got bugged by the "easily" was all. Same as the F-117 can be undetectable as well, under the right circumstances.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   
I wasn't making up any senarios westy! I was just checking if it might work, run it by you people, you know!



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

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.



Details could not be revealed thanks to non-disclosure agreement with the US. When the BBC asked the MOD for details all they got was "a modern stealth aircraft was tracked by a type-42 as it approached the UK from the US".

Now considering that an F-117 does not have the range to fly across the atlantic that leaves just the stealth bombers... which incidentaly are also based in the UK.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I wasn't lying nor elaborating. The HF radar on the Rapier can track a Stealth.


This statement is completely true and completely untrue.

First, any radar can track a stealth target, givent he proper range and power output. An F-117 flying with a few kilometers of an advanced Rapier is likely to get lit up. But thats why they don't do that. What makes that statement untrue is the implication that the Rapier can effectively track stealth targets, as it was designed, which it cannot.

I happen to have practical, first-hand experience in the field of CLO technology, I can tell you that the Rapier system cannot reliably track 1st or 2nd generation stealth aircraft, except at non-usefull minimal ranges. The system's most dangerous feature is it's capability to operate in a passive-optical mode, and suddenly turn on its powerful J-band radar and shoot a quick volley after aquiring and tracking a target first by optical means.

I know of no foreign radar systems that are currently fielded and operational that can effectively detect and track 1st generation stealth aircraft, as advertised. I know of 2 US systems that can, but they themselves are not yet fielded as of this time.

It is only a matter of time before radar technology will overcome 1st generation stealth, but it has not yet happened. And it certainly hasn't happened, as much as our British friends may wish it, via a missile system design that primarily designed for LOS engagements and is something like 30 years old....



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I would be happy if you tell us which US systems will be able to track, detect and shoot 1st generation stealth?!

what is so special/different about 1st generation stealth anyway?



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
Now considering that an F-117 does not have the range to fly across the atlantic that leaves just the stealth bombers... which incidentaly are also based in the UK.


How do you think the F-117 gets to the Middle East, for example? Ever aheard about airial refueling?



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   

what is so special/different about 1st generation stealth anyway?


First generation stealth is based on angles and RAM and some heat reduction measures.
2nd generation is based on composite materials, shape better RAM, electronic emission reduction, stealthier radar, heat signature reduction and various other things. The F-117 is first generation stealth, the B-2 or F/A-22 are 2nd generation I think. 2nd generation is better in terms of RCS reduciton and stealth.


[edit on 25-4-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
Now considering that an F-117 does not have the range to fly across the atlantic that leaves just the stealth bombers... which incidentaly are also based in the UK.


This statement is 100% wrong.

First of all, the F-117 can be flown to any place in the world via mid air refueling.

Secondly, the B-2 is NOT based out of the UK. It is based out of the US.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Actually, I believe the F-117 is second generation stealth. The B-1B is first generation. It's got a very small RCS for it's size.

I've read B-1 is first gen, F-117 is second, B-2 third. I've heard the F-22 described as both 4th and 5th.

I think any decent radar would get a F-117 at the right angle. If it's turning and banking so you get it's bottom perpendicular you're going to track it.

I haven't seen it mentioned yet but the Aegis DDG's have stealth characteristics for radar and sonar. It's not terribly effective, but DD(x) should be much more so.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   
The B-1 wasn't very stealthy when it came out it had that ugly spine thingy, but isn't the B-2 more stealthy than the Raptor? I though the latest generation was more advanced than the previous.?



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
The B-1B and to a lesser extent the SR-71 could be described as "Generation 0" with regards to stealth. In both of these aircraft, rudimentary RAM was applied to the surfaces, especially on the wing leading edges and in the vicinity of the engine intakes. Also, attention was paid to reducing the output of emitters and RF these aircraft produced. However, these measures were simply designed to provide an extra degree of survivability, as both systems were designed to deeply penetrate into hostile territory. But they were not designed as outright "stealth" systems, which infers a "total system approach" to the concept of signature reduction.

The F-117 and other classified aircraft and ALCM programs are 1st Generation, as they employed the classical "facet" shaping the the original "Hopeless Diamond" algorithms provided. More attention was paid to IR reduction, better RAM was used, and the use of RF emitters was reduced to an absolute minimum.

The B-2 and F/A-22 are 2nd Generation, as they use all these features, but they also build on them. Instead of faceted shaping, better RF signature reduction is acheived via blended shaping. The RAM used is dramatically better than in the F-117, and lessons learned in IR controls have been applied to create a nearly invisible IR signature (in the case of the B-2). Attention has been paid to acoustical controls, and the radars necessary for these aircraft all operate on LPI principles.

3rd Generation stealth will most likely involve all of the above, plus such technologies as visual stealth, advanced AI and CNA capabilities, directed energy weaponry (both laser and HPM), and expanded C4I capabilities. I would not be surprised, also, to see an aircraft that has a sub-orbital capability, although I admit that is probably at least 15-20 years away.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu
..."low frequency" radars which operate under 2Ghz and can detect everything ...
but it can only pinpoint the aircraft within 30-50m (or feet)...

Then there is "Tamara" which can detect a stealth plane's "e-missions" ...

The UK has a radar system that can detect a stealth plane...

Intergurl where you at?

187onu,

You are basically correct in your assumptions.
Low freq radar can detect the presense of LO aircraft but accuracy is very much an issue.

The Tamara tracks "e-missions" but once again as you stated LO/VLO aircraft tactics and even design keep these emissions in check.

As for the UK having a system that can detect a stealth plane, there is no question about the ability to detect a LO aircraft, although it is not as easy as everyone tries to make it.

I think that input from "PeanutButterJellyTime" and "Pyros" has been very good in this thread.


Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
A big part of the success of stealth is the flightpath the aircraft take. They do their best to skirt around the air defences. At close range the stealth aircraft are detectable and they fly their missions to stay out of that range.

This is very true, the secret to a stealthy ingress into enemy territory is not just electronic countermeasures, Radar Absorbent Structure (RAS) and Radar Absorbent Materials (RAM), it is also tactics. You don't fly a stealth aircraft directly over an enemy air defense radar system, you go around the affected airspace, as the range at which a LO aircraft is detectable is greatly reduced from that of a conventional aircraft.

It may be beneficial to provide a little information on LO and CLO systems to hopefully bring some clarity to this discussion.

Theoretical Counter Low Observable radar:

CLO radar units include over-the-horizon backscatter radars (Australian Jindalee system), carrierless radar, bistatic and multistatic radars.

Stealth techniques include the use of active cancellation, radar absorbent structure or shaping (RAS) and radar absorbent materials (RAM) to reduce the RCS of an object.

Theoretically, multistatic radar systems have advantages against targets employing at 2 of these forms of RCS reduction.

Active cancellation transmits an out of phase radar signal that cancels out its own radar echo. However, the location of passive bistatic receivers can not be discerned by electronic sensors, so the active cancellation transmitter has no direction to transmit.

RAS deflects the radar energy in directions away from the signal source - however, a bistatic receiver can monitor the reflections since the antennas are in remote locations from the signal source.

The Downside of CLO systems:

Target detection, even at very low Signal to Clutter Ratios (down to –100 dB) is currently possible, however target tracking using these low frequency systems is in theory possible but technically improbable due to among other things a lack of processing power.
In the future theoretical tracking of LO targets could be accomplished by 3-dimensional positioning and using either triangulation or hyperbolic (or both) target location strategies.

A variety of Radar, ELINT/SIGINT systems tout that they are "anti-stealth":

Low Frequency Radar:

One example of a low frequency anti-stealth radar is the Russian 55Zh6.1, which is a ground-based, 1-meter wave, circular scanner. This low-freq radar can detect early generation stealth technology aircraft with "detect" being the key word.

With long wave / low freq radar there are 2 major points that should be brought up:

1. Detecting the presence of a stealthy air vehicle and accurately tracking it for a fire control computer are 2 very different things, as tracking and lock-up only occur using higher freq radar.

2. There is a lot of noise in these lower frequencies and it is very difficult to detect beyond a few miles.


Passive Radar & PCL (Passive Coherent Location) Systems:

The Ukranian Topaz "Kolchuga", the Czech "Kopac", "Ramona" and "Tamara MCS-93" systems as well as the Russian "VERA-E" and "BORAP" systems are all examples of "passive radar" which isn't really a radar at all but a listening device.
These systems listen for electronic signals generated by passing aircraft. It is important to also note that the Russian military considers the "Kolchuga", "Kopac", "Ramona" and "Tamara" out of date systems, the VERA system is something you will want to pay attention to in the future.

Systems such as the UK's Celldar and Lockheed's Silent Sentry are good examples of PCL technology. Celldar as the name implies uses cell phone frequencies to detect aircraft and Silent Sentry uses broadcast television and FM radio frequencies. China and Russia have both been working on similar systems.
The frequencies monitored in these systems are relatively low (long wavelengths) and can theoretically detect stealthy air vehicles but again there are issues with actually tracking the target for a fire control unit.

Multi-Static Radar:
These systems have one transmitter and 2 or more receivers located in different locations, this can defeat stealth based on structural design (shape). The premise behind RAS (Radar absorbent structure) is that the radar signals are deflected in directions other than back to the source. The multi-static radar systems have recievers placed in carefully calculated locations in order to pick up the signals that are reflected away from the source.
It bears mentioning that the more effective Passive and PCL systems are bistatic or multistatic systems, in that they have multiple listening points.

Final thoughts...
If you walk away from this thread and learn only one thing, please let it be that there is a big difference between detecting a stealthy LO aircraft and directing fire-control computers to a specific point in the airspace in question.

Natalie~

[edit on 26-4-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
The Ukranian Topaz "Kolchuga", the Czech "Kopac", "Ramona" and "Tamara MCS-93" systems as well as the Russian "VERA-E" and "BORAP" systems are all examples of "passive radar" which isn't really a radar at all but a listening device.
These systems listen for electronic signals generated by passing aircraft. It is important to also note that the Russian military considers the "Kolchuga", "Kopac", "Ramona" and "Tamara" out of date systems, the VERA system is something you will want to pay attention to in the future.


VERA is not russian, it's czech made too...



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
Now considering that an F-117 does not have the range to fly across the atlantic that leaves just the stealth bombers... which incidentaly are also based in the UK.

The B-2's Main Operating Base is at Whiteman AFB, MO - However, the B-2 Spirit's do frequently drop in for visits at UK bases.



Originally posted by WestPoint23
The B-1 wasn't very stealthy when it came out it had that ugly spine thingy...

It may not be stealthy as compared to an F-117 or a B-2 but it did make extensive use of RAM and in fact the RCS is approximately 1/4 that of a B-52. A rather large improvement.

Natalie~



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
VERA is not russian, it's czech made too...

You are right - I stand corrected.

Natalie~



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Yee Intergurl has joined
!!

allright, let me skip to the real question, DO ANY OF YOU KNOW OF ANY SYSTEM THAT CAN SHOOT DOWN A STEALTH PLANE (at a well distance of course) wether its 1sd, 2nd or 3nd generation stealth?



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
What does AESA and PESA stand for? What is the difference between them?



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu
DO ANY OF YOU KNOW OF ANY SYSTEM THAT CAN SHOOT DOWN A STEALTH PLANE (at a well distance of course) wether its 1sd, 2nd or 3nd generation stealth?

Any of the passive multistatic systems I listed could help a SAM unit get off a lucky shot or perhaps even a tactically skillful shot.

The tactically skillful "luck shot" is what is assumed to have brought down the F-117 in Kosovo.

The Russians who were in the loop on NATO sorties being flown apparently slipped the Serbians some flight path information, the F-117 flew the same route every night for at least 3 consecutive nights. ( BBC: "Spy 'betrayed' stealth fighter")

(The following is my opinion based on conversations with individuals who were in the theater of operations during the time in question.)

The Serbs had by their own admission prior information on the flight path of the stealth fighter, so when the aircraft made it's bombing run and the bombay doors were open, the high frequency monostatic air defense radar lit up the F-117. This cued the trap that had been laid, a "SAMbush" as the Serbs so eloquently called it.

The Serbs turned on a passive radar system they had setup along the aircraft's preplanned flight path. When the passive unit detected the stealth fighter the Serbs fired salvos of SA-6's into the suspected flight path. This is a standard tactic in a high ECM environment when radar is defeated but enemy assets are known to be in the vicinity. The effort paid off and the F-117 came down relatively level and inverted.

That said, I still have not answered your question 187onu...
Is there a single system that can detect, track and shoot down a stealth aircraft from 30-50 miles away? I would not know of such a system that is currently operational in anyone's inventory... but then I just work with UAV's.

Natalie~



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   
AESA = Active Electronically-scanned array

I therefore assume that...

PESA = Passive Electronically-scanned array






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join