Radar

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
thanks for answering at least
. Your a great "asset" if you dont mind me calling you this
!

Btw, Intergurl, what about my theory about the low freq radar that can detect a plane within an area of 30-50m. Just simple fire a missile at that area and when the missile is close, the missile ITSELF can detect the plane because it will enter the plane's RCS or rather to close! (You know what I mean
).
just like in Kosavo (simular)!

Can you go any deeper about the VERA system, I wasn't able to find alot of info!








[edit on 26-4-2005 by 187onu]

[edit on 26-4-2005 by 187onu]

[edit on 26-4-2005 by 187onu]




posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu
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?


Well, you would have to be talking about a system comprised of multiple components, each contributing to the ultimate goal of destroying a LO air-breathing threat. You need:

1. A surveillance sensor (presumably radar) with sufficient power and sensitivity to detect and localize an LO target, at a respectable distance.

2. A fire control that can accept a target that has been "handed off" by the surveillance system. This FC system must also have the ability to track and possibly illuminate the LO target sufficiently well enough to allow a SAM or AAM to get to the right intercept point. Or, the FC system must be completely integrated with the surveillance system, so the the unit operates in concert, perhaps even sharing the same signal processor, receiver, transmitter, and maybe even the same antenna.

3. A weapon that has a LO capability, presumably by having superior signal processing, robust ECCM, and maybe even "unique" seeker technology.

Now, I can only think of one system that has all these elements............and I can proudly say that it is a US Navy system.



[edit on 26-4-2005 by Pyros]



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by COWlan
What does AESA and PESA stand for? What is the difference between them?

AESA - Active electronically scanned Array:
Individual elements are spaced half a wavelength apart, which means there are a lot of elements when the wavelength is approximately 1 inch. These individual elements are backed by solid state Transmit/Recieve modules, are scanned electronically and control the amplitude and phase of every element.

PESA - Passive electronically scanned Array:
These are the same as the AESA with the exception that it has passive phase shifters on every element and it utilizes an order of magnitude fewer Transmit/Recieve modules.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Does that navy system have a name?

Intergurl can you reply to my last post?
thank you



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu
...what about my theory about the low freq radar that can detect a plane within an area of 30-50m. Just simple fire a missile at that area and when the missile is close, the missile ITSELF can detect the plane because it will enter the plane's RCS or rather to close!

The first part of what you describe is exactly what it is believed that the Serbs did. The second half of your idea is a bit problematic.
The missiles' onboard radar would have to be a high frequency unit in order to pinpoint to location of the aircraft, but high frequency is what the LO aircraft is designed to be all but invisible to.


Can you go any deeper about the VERA system, I wasn't able to find alot of info!

What do you want to know?
I'm amazed that you can't find anything on the web about it...
Oh well, hopefully our Czech friends won't mind but here goes:
The VERA is a mobile ELINT and Passive Surveillance System developed to locate, identify and track air, ground and naval targets.
It operates in 0.1-1 GHz, 1-18 GHz, and 18-40 GHz selected bands ranges. It has a field of view of 120° but can be expanded to 360°, it has a range of 280 miles and is supposed to be able to simultaneously track 200 targets.

Below is a screen shot of the VERA's tracking GUI.



Hope that helps.


Natalie~


[edited to add screen shot]

[edit on 26-4-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
OKAY, OKAY, OKAY!!! First of all, lets all get rid of the term "stealth." Instead, lets call it low-observability since no aircraft is totally immune to detection.

Second...being stealthy does not mean, being able to fly over the Kremlin, Beiijing, or a Type 42 destroyer and not get shot down. What it means, is that, through the use of various tactics, having the ability to EVADE detection. Meaning, it can still be detected, but the attackers window of attack is substantially minimized.

It is probably quite easy to shoot down an aircraft like the F/A-22 or B-2, if the aircraft flies within the reduced kill envelope of a SAM or radar. However, the aircraft receive electronic info which allows them to avoid that envelope and conduct their mission within certain parameters. An F/A-22 supercruising at 40,000ft can launch a ground attack from many miles away.

Also, as technology is advanced, the US continues to develop more advanced stealth. The F-117 is the oldest of the aircraft in the stealth arsenal. The US obviously realizes that radars/etc will reach parity with the current technology, maybe that's why they are moving towards more lethal unmanned air vehicles which will not risk human life and are not as restricted by human physiological constraints.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I’m guessing a UAV like the X-45 covered with ram and equipped with other stealth features would be much harder to detect than a normal size stealth bombe or fighter? I only say this because of the X-45’s shape and its relative small size.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I’m guessing a UAV like the X-45 covered with ram and equipped with other stealth features would be much harder to detect than a normal size stealth bombe or fighter? I only say this because of the X-45’s shape and its relative small size.

With apologies to "beretboy22", Yes, the X-45 is extremely "stealthy".



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Yea I found that website too, but it didn't tell me HOW it will detect and possible shoot the plane down. that is ectually what I ment?!




The missiles' onboard radar would have to be a high frequency unit in order to pinpoint to location of the aircraft, but high frequency is what the LO aircraft is designed to be all but invisible to.


isn't that what we want? in order to shoot it down?

Im probably wrong here vs. Intergurl but
...
oh and can you check out "Airplane jammers" as well for me? thanks (its a couple threats down from the "aircraft projects"!

[edit on 26-4-2005 by 187onu]



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
The RCS is the size that an object appears to be on a radar display. It's said the B-2 has the RCS of an object the size of a bumble bee. That's why it's hard to detect. The RCS and range of a radar aren't related since one is the property of an object and the second is the property of a radar system.


So you only have to filter out the bumble bee's that fly at speeds and altitude of aircraft?



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Not that simple you might not even pick up the bumble bee depending on where the B-2 is.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Ahh yes, the X-45 is one of the new technologies I was eluding to. Stealth is truly amazing due to the new tactics that can be employed. Just think of how dangerous a flight of F/A-22s will be. You might detect one, but a non-emitting plane with it's missles being guided through datalink from a "scout" plane might engage you without warning.



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Well, Intelgurl, PeanutButterJelly, and Pyros, you are all great assets to this site.

You all provide so much knowledge. There is just so much to learn too!! Technology is getting so advanced, I swear, I hope the world never ends through war or anything anytime soon, there is too much knowledge!!!

Hey, BTW, I am just wondering, but what degree field should one pursue if they want to design radars professionally?? Electrical engineering, I am guessing? I don't know jack about them right now, but I find radars very interesting.

[edit on 27-4-2005 by Broadsword20068]



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Hey, BTW, I am just wondering, but what degree field should one pursue if they want to design radars professionally?? Electrical engineering, I am guessing? I don't know jack about them right now, but I find radars very interesting.

Yes, Electrical Engineering as a major is where you want to begin.



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   
^^^
Electrical Engg. indeed..
In India we have elec engg. split into branches like pure electronics, electronics and telecom etc..

But radar is a part of my course curriculum in the final (4th) year of engg.

I am a electronics engg. myself..



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I just read intelgurls post on CLOs and PCLs..
Very simple and easy to understand..
I shall add a few techie babbles too..

The reason why LF radars are better suited to stealth detection are that LF waves dissapate much slower that HF waves..
In HF everything happens very fast, and hence is prone to quick loss of wave power..
And if LFs radar are boosted with more transmitting power, they're longevity increases in more..

As for intelgurl's note on LF interference due to similr freq. noise sources.. I am confused..

IMO most environmental/industrial/cosmic sources of noise are in the HF/VHF/UHF/EHF range..

THe only problems with LF radars that I can see are v high power requirements and large antennae sizes..
THe min. size and antenna can be to faithfully receive a particular frequency is 1/4th the size of the incoming wavelength...

My solution to stealth is somewhat raw as of now..
Im thinking..
Have airborne radar UAVs which patrol the region of supected penetration while actively broadcasting omni directional pulses so as to form a complete envelope in that region..
Just populate the region with so many drones that there are multiple envelope overlaps throughout the sensitive region...
Couple this with well placed PCLs..
Then the stealth aircraft will have to know the patrol paths of these drones to break through the radar envelope...

AS for bringing the aircraft down, communicate with drones and ground based radars to determine last known position(s) and then correspondingly extarpolate all possible flight path(s)..
Finally direct SAMs to fire spreads at those flight paths while continuously updating new detections from drones/ground stations..

All very elaborate and expensive..
also very optimistic..
Maybe one can refine the raw concept described above..

And intelgirl, are the UCAVs (X-45 and beyond) preprogrammed with AI controlled flight paths/missions or remote controlled from the ground??!
And does keeping such info classified if deemed necessary include misinformation campaigns?..



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
The X-45 is designed to complete the mission all in its own, all the pilot monitoring it on the ground has to do is click a button to get it started and it does the rest on its own. The Pilot on the ground can intervene if something is going wrong but it is made to operate on its own.



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Now, I can only think of one system that has all these elements............and I can proudly say that it is a US Navy system.


I've been biting my tongue since the beginning of this thread. It's really starting to hurt!

Daedalus3

That sounds like a decent idea on paper, but in the modern battlespace there will be so much ECM that communications between all the drones and the passive radars will be spotty at best, and most likely will be cut off completely. Not only that, but you're talking about integrating massive processing power to receive all those input sources and attempt to arrange them into a usable picture of the battlespace.

That's the problem I see with using multiple passive radars to try and triangulate a target also. The jamming would be so severe that communications between the radars would be virtually non-existent, and if they did communicate you'd most likely need a bunker or other hard target to house the computers that analyze the data from the radars and correlate all the tracks. That building would be such a target they might as well paint a bullseye on top of it.

[edit on 27-4-2005 by PeanutButterJellyTime]



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
^^^
Electrical Engg. indeed..
In India we have elec engg. split into branches like pure electronics, electronics and telecom etc..

But radar is a part of my course curriculum in the final (4th) year of engg.

I am a electronics engg. myself..


I C; in America here, we have electrical engineering and electrical engineering technology, which is a little different. The electrical engineering is very extensive, everything from electrical power distribution to consumer electronics, and so forth. The electrical engineering technologist is the guy/gal who tests the equipment. A pure engineer is more concerned with theory and design, whereas the technologist would get the product (say a radar) and test it and write up various technical reports on it for the engineers.

A technologist, however, is not a technician.



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
could we please go back to the topic? thank everybody






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join