It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US to buy Czech Stealth-Detecting radar

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   
To further my previous post on the previous page:

About 10 years ago the US was going to send over one of their B2 stealth bombers to take part in the Fanborough Airshow but the US refused to let us know that they were coming.

Our long range radar picked them up over the atlantic and we sent a brace of Tornados to escort them in. The Pilot of the B2 was spitting fire aparrently.

Apparently its not the radar waves them selves which detect the Stealths but the microwave radiation which is emitted with the waves on certain types of radar systems.

A scientist realised that these microwaves can pick up the atmospheric wake of the Stelths as they pass through like ripples in a pool of water. Just trace the ripples path back to the source and if there is no corrolating radar signature that means only one thing: Stealths.

Theoretically even power lines and mobile phone masts which give out similar radiation can be adapted to detect stealths basically turning the whole country into a giant radar dish. Neat eh. LOL

[Edited on 21-5-2004 by rustiswordz]




posted on May, 21 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   
There have been a ton of ATS posts on passive radar vs. low-observable technology, but the incident of the British Navy tracking stealth aircraft was what I was asking about earlier. If you have any links to sources they would be appreciated.

I don't think anyone can make a truly definitive statement about exactly what brought down the F-117 in Yugoslavia. I've read a dozen different theories, none with any supporting evidence. Anyone with anything to prove one way or another, please post it. I did, however, find out what happened to the wreckage. It is being held at the Belgrade Air Museum and its canopy is on display.

Remains of this aircraft are now in the Yugoslav Aeronautical museum. Canopy hood is shown on first floor, and rest of wreckage is there too but it is not available to the public.
-sites don't allow direct external links tp photos, sorry-
Museum Link
Photo Link - better resolution

Shame someone can't do a careful examination of the wreckage.



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 04:44 AM
link   
I was told by a US fighter pilot at Fanborough Airshow a couple of years after it happened. I just asked him and he poured scorn on the tatical planners saying they should have changed his routes daily and not relied on technology to protect the plane, he also said the stealth was not fool proof, it flew like a pig, poorly armed, awful viabillity. He pointed his finger at his f15 strike eagle behind him and he said. People can see this baby miles away, but so i can see them and make a fight of it is someone tries it on. A stealth you cant because part of its invisabillity is the fact it cant see its enemies because all its sensors are switched off to reduce its profile signature. In otherwords the plane is also deaf and dumb. Usless aircraft.

LOL



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 05:45 AM
link   

as quoted by rustiswordz
A stealth you cant because part of its invisabillity is the fact it cant see its enemies because all its sensors are switched off to reduce its profile signature. In otherwords the plane is also deaf and dumb. Usless aircraft.


Really?
Read this yet?
Leaders show off Raptor, Joint Strike Fighter at air show


They never get into dogfights, so it makes no difference, Secretary Roche said. The fact that (the Raptor) flies very high, very stealthy and at (Mach 1.6) without afterburner makes it very tough for anybody else to have a fire control solution. The F-15s, with very good radars, were not able to pick up and understand where the F/A-22s were, and the F/A-22 was looking at the F-15s all the time.



Seems the problem, as you have described and mentioned, is or has been rectified?




seekerof

[Edited on 22-5-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by rustiswordz
I was told by a US fighter pilot at Fanborough Airshow a couple of years after it happened. I just asked him and he poured scorn on the tatical planners saying they should have changed his routes daily and not relied on technology to protect the plane, he also said the stealth was not fool proof, it flew like a pig, poorly armed, awful viabillity. He pointed his finger at his f15 strike eagle behind him and he said. People can see this baby miles away, but so i can see them and make a fight of it is someone tries it on. A stealth you cant because part of its invisabillity is the fact it cant see its enemies because all its sensors are switched off to reduce its profile signature. In otherwords the plane is also deaf and dumb. Usless aircraft.

LOL

Yeah, you're right. An aircraft designed in the 1970's is deployed to the Persian Gulf in 1991 to attack Iraq, a nation who's capitol city protected by a modern highly-integrated air defense network consisting of more than 3,000 anti-aircraft guns and 60 surface-to-air missile batteries. It is the only bomber allowed to penetrate the airspace over the capitol, Baghdad. Although it accounts for only 2.5 percent of the total force of 1,900 fighters and bombers, it flies more than a 33% of the bombing runs on the first day of the war, 1,250 sorties throughout the conflict -with zero losses. To date, the F-117 has flown over 1,400 combat sorties with one aircraft lost (pilot recovered) in Yugoslavia in 1999. What a piece of garbage!

And it is completely blind, too. All is has for navigation are forward-looking infrared (FLIR), downward-looking infrared (DLIR), inertial and GPS guidance systems, plus a full suite of threat-radar detection equipment. (this is the stuff we DO know about, i.e. declassified)

How many F-15's were lost to AAA in the Gulf War? I think that would be two.
The F-15 is a fantastic airframe, but it is not a low-observable bomber capable of penetrating integrated air defenses without support. I am sure some pilot at an airshow has a different opinion, and I am sure he is an excellent "Eagle-driver." I also bet you could find any number of "Nighthawk-drivers" who would beg to differ.

Does stealth technology make up for bad tactics and mission planning? Of course not. Even a layman such as I knows that. Planners who let the advantages of low-observable aircraft be lost thanks to predictible flightplans, etc. should be "called onto the carpet," especially if it puts pilots at risk. Does stealth make planes invisible or invulnerable? Again, no, but why WOULDN'T you include the feature if you had the means?

...and I am talking about 1970's tech. Where do you think the B-2/F-22/JSF fall into the mix?

To sort of get back on topic, how about that single F-117 loss? Maybe we should do a little investigating into how it was possibly tracked. If only we could get our hands on a radar similar to what was used in Kosovo to test its capabilities. Perhaps we could even hamper a potential adversary's attempts to obtain it, too. Hmmm, that almost sounds like a plan.

[sources]
F-117a "Nighthawk"
Airforce Technology - F-117A NIGHTHAWK STEALTH FIGHTER
Global Security - F-117A Nighthawk
FAS- F-117A Nighthawk
Air Force Link - F-117A NIGHTHAWK

Vera/Tamara Radar
ERA Products - Vera Passive radar
Tamara anti-stealth radar
Government decides against sale of Vera radar to China

[Edited on 22-5-2004 by Spectre]



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 06:14 AM
link   
i never said anything about JSF or F22 did i: no

Anyway id like to see those babies in action. Hooah! As you said, the F117 is 1970's vintage. The new JSF and raptors are current 21st century state-of aircraft.

I think it would be a little different if they were the ones attacking, simply because they have the abillity to bomb from thousands of feet up as well as being invisible. The F117 that was shot down was well within AA guns and small arms range. Modern f22 and jsf wont have to get that low, ever. LOL

[Edited on 22-5-2004 by rustiswordz]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Passive Radar, can detect ANY aircraft with a radar in it, Even the Stealth Bomber/Fighters and this Aurora which has been discussed thousands of times on this forum



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Passive Radar, can detect ANY aircraft


I would make that claim as I dont know the capabilities of every aircraft, however, consider this, at what range and with what accuracy? Another member already brought up this question and hushed. Its easy and great to say “I can detect stealth” yet you do not publicize the fine print.

Also passive radar systems that use multiple transmitters and receivers are interdependent on one another, take one out and there goes you passive radar net.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
You're dealing with a couple of different stealth technologies here and you're confusing the issues.

The faceted stealth (Gen 2) of the F-117 and have blue were not designed to make the aircraft invisible to radar, but rather to make it difficult specifically for high-frequency Soviet-bloc fire-control and targeting radars to find it and lock-on. Low-frequency and wide-band EW and search radars can detect the F-117, which is why the first strike of Desert Storm was an Apache attack against Iraqi wide-band early warning radars, to kick-down-the-door for the F-117's.

In the intervening years, the Iraqis developed new fire-control systems that linked traditional high-frequency targeting radars and low-frequency emitters. That technology was designed to defeat the stealth fighter, and it was that technology and insight which the Iraqis sold to Milosevic.

The B-2 uses a constant curvature (Gen 3) stealth over a faceted interior structure and is considered a wider-aspect stealth that is supposed to degrade the return across all frequencies. From certain oblique angles, and depending on the material condition of the RAM and the weather, the B-2 can be detected, but it requires a good eye and a general heads-up on the direction of approach.

The YF-23 and F-22A use a combination of faceting and curvature, along with advanced materials (Gen 4), as does the slightly more advanced design of the JSF (Gen 4.5). Although some angles provide return spikes, they are narrower than the B-2 and less likely to result in sufficient contact for an intercept.

As for the "Passive Radar" what you're actually discussing is electronic signals intercept. With a sufficiently sensitive receiver capable of picking up a wide range of the EM band, any electromagnetic or radio-frequency emission is detectable - radar, radio, data links, etc. The probability of detection is directly related to the strength of signal, duration and directionality. Now days, with the advent of AESA radars, narrow-band communications and burst data links, the probability of electronic intercept, using current technology, is shrinking. A favorite new trick of the F-22A community is to fly a four-ship with a 10 mile spread between the two pairs; the rearward pair uses their radar to take snapshots, while the totally silent front spread, via data link, creates a firing solution and launches AMRAAMs against the bandits.

So far, that tactic has been very successful in F-22 vs F-15 engagements, although there is some doubt about the utility, given USAF ROE's since Korea and the fact that the F-22 has a huge visual signature, arguably lower maneuverability relative to the Su-37 and exhibited some nasty tendencies when departing controlled flight during the EMD phase.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mustang_dvs
So far, that tactic has been very successful in F-22 vs F-15 engagements, although there is some doubt about the utility, given USAF ROE's since Korea and the fact that the F-22 has a huge visual signature, arguably lower maneuverability relative to the Su-37 and exhibited some nasty tendencies when departing controlled flight during the EMD phase.


Could you elaborate on this a bit more please?



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 06:37 AM
link   
The Russian radar and SAM, s-300psu2 shot down the f-117.

China doesn't need these radars, because a US traitor sold them the b2 concepts and documents (remember? was on the news a few months back).



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by mustang_dvs
So far, that tactic has been very successful in F-22 vs F-15 engagements, although there is some doubt about the utility, given USAF ROE's since Korea and the fact that the F-22 has a huge visual signature, arguably lower maneuverability relative to the Su-37 and exhibited some nasty tendencies when departing controlled flight during the EMD phase.


Could you elaborate on this a bit more please?


Which part?

U.S. rules of engagement since Korea have required visual identification of hostile aircraft before weapons are launched. This entirely negates the F-22A's incredible BVR abilities. Unless we have a "total war" against an adversary similar to us, the ROE's are likely to remain in place.

The F-22A is huge. It's easier to visually acquire than an F-15, because it's bigger than the Eagle.

The Su-37 doesn't have the stealth or the sensor fusion of the F-22A, but in close, it's 'tri-planar' control surfaces, the 360° 3-D thrust vectoring and it's helmet-mounted targeting and over-the-shoulder missile launch capability appear to give it an advantage in a dogfight. (Which the USAF disputes, but offers no evidence.) Now, this doesn't take into account the effect of pilot training, which should tip the playing field to the U.S. advantage.

Lastly, during envelope expansion and procedures development at Edwards AFB, the F-22A demonstrated a tendency to tailslide into a tumbling leaf stall, when stall conditions (high-Alpha, low velocity) exist.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak
The Russian radar and SAM, s-300psu2 shot down the f-117.

China doesn't need these radars, because a US traitor sold them the b2 concepts and documents (remember? was on the news a few months back).


And that guy was supposed to be of Indian(East) origin..


hmm.. this visual confirmation ROE sounds very interesting..
It negates any BVR capability now doesn't it?



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

hmm.. this visual confirmation ROE sounds very interesting..


Actually ROE can be changed at will, did US pilots have to visually see Iraqi fighters in 91 to engage them?



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Something is wrong with the priority spending plan.

We can out bid China on stealth detection radar, but can not afford to armor the vehicles our troops are relying upon?!


And nothing is wrong, nothing at all...


AMEN. Another example of over reaction from the bean counters and politicians. We need some change and in a big way in this country. Vote for me...I will consult ATS daily like I do for what you guys want changed...


[edit on 8/3/06 by OneGodJesus]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
No vote for me, I will establish an american empire over the world....


Anyway, some Radar can dectek the f-117, cause its outdated



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

hmm.. this visual confirmation ROE sounds very interesting..

Actually ROE can be changed at will, did US pilots have to visually see Iraqi fighters in 91 to engage them?


ROE authority rests with the NCA, which can then delegate decisions to regional CINCs/combatant commanders, who can delegate the decisions further down the chain. The ultimate shoot-no-shoot decision rests with the shooter, but the policy that decides whether that shot was appropriate is generally decided by Flag or General Officers.


www.globalsecurity.org...
Although [Adm. Stan] Arthur and [Gen. Chuck] Horner had agreed to open some areas for less restrictive BVR ROE, some officers below Horner resisted. They were concerned that less restrictive BVR ROE would lead to fratricides and were not aggressive about implementing Horner’s agreement. One officer stated aircraft strike sorties were scheduled, to some degree, to prevent less restrictive BVR ROE implementation. Most of the USAF officers on the JFACC staff truly believed the less restrictive BVR ROE was unnecessary and increased the risk for coalition aircraft. This belief, in the end, led to some passive and some subtle resistance to a more liberal BVR ROE.


If AWACS could confirm that all coalition aircraft were outside of the target cone and the fighters could confirm non-friendly status utilizing two target validation methods, BVR engagment was permitted during Desert Storm.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Yeah the National Command Authority (NCA) consists of the President and the Secretary of Defense. Also the US has taken steps to ensure that friendly aircraft can be identified, via transponders. Even the top brass will tell you that the whole point of the Raptor is first look, shoot, and kill, they wouldn't then turn around and restrict it to visual range engagements.

And the article you mentioned was referring to the inability of Navy fighters in 91 to have up to date friend-or-foe identification systems. Further complicating this problem is the fact that USAf fighters would be flying in from the north and Navy fighters would be coming up form the south.

From provided link. Emphasis added by me.


The US Navy wanted to extend their normal BVR ROE over much of the Gulf Theater. However, General Horner (CENTAF Commander and JFACC) and his staff were concerned about possible air-to-air fratricides. Many Coalition aircraft would be operating north of the Saudi Arabian/Kuwait border continually when the war began. Further complicating the problem was the employment of stealth aircraft. To avoid shooting friendly aircraft, Horner introduced stringent BVR ROEs. These ROEs required friendly fighters to make two types of independent verifications that detected/suspected bogeys were indeed bandits before air-to-air ordnance could be expended. Navy aircraft, however, did not have the on-board capability to accomplish this task. The F-14’s could interrogate the Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) transponders, but did not have more advanced electronic identification features. The F/A-18 had the advanced electronic features, but could not interrogate the IFF. Most USAF fighters, on the other hand, had both capabilities on their aircraft, thereby ensuring a high degree of confidence and an advantage over the Navy aircraft in firing Beyond Visual Range (BVR).

On BVR ROE, Horner stated, "Long before the war started, we concluded we couldn’t live with unrestricted BVR because of the Stealth at night, primarily. And we also concluded it wasn’t required because the Iraqi’s weren’t going to pose that big a threat. We were going to take out their command and control and then we were going to shoot them down. So, the decision was one of practicality, not one of doctrine."
Corder commented,
Our rule was you had to have two separate, independent, physics-based ways of identifying the guy as hostile before you could shoot him. The problem is, the F-14 and the F-18 have only one way you can do it. Of course, the F-15 has several ways you can do it. My perception was the Navy thought the reason we were insisting on two independent means of verification was because we were going to take this opportunity to wrest the Top Gun medal away from these guys (emphasis added). It was a manhood thing.


Now I don’t want to quote the whole thing, but I recommend reading section 3, it goes into detail why the Navy had these problems. It basically revolved around the F-14 and at the time its older electrons suite, by the way the F-14 is no longer flying active combat missions. And this is 2006, steps have been taken to ensure that all aircraft, no matte the branch have the same quality identification systems.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Well, WestPoint, you're correct in that the analysis I linked to discussed the fact that the F-14 used an analog RF IFF and the F/A-18 used a digital system. (The F-14 IFF systems were upgraded with the introduction of the DFCS, Bombcat and LANTRIN upgrades to the Tomcat fleet.)

The underlying issue was that the Air Component Commander, Horner, has instituted a system whereby at least two independent methods of target validation were required prior to BVR engagement by any and all coalition aircraft operating in the PGTO. The Navy's aircraft only had one method.

Just about any aviator will tell you that, even today, IFF is woefully unreliable, system failures abounded in Vietnam, Desert Shield/Storm, Allied Force, OSW/ONW (which resulted in an F-15C downing a UH-60), and still are plagued by problems. The major challenge has been to develop long range passive identification systems that can differentiate between friendlies and hostiles using similar hardware -- the Mirage F1 saw service on both sides, during Desert Storm, and a number of the newer members of NATO are still operating Soviet-bloc hardware, as are the Indians.

While the F-22A may be able to reliably differentiate between hostiles and friendlies based on electronic emissions and radar scans, most 4th Gen fighters lack the sensor sensitivity for reliable discrimination, even with assistance from AWACS. (Supposedly, the Paul Revere/E-10 systems are capable of long-range ID, but there's some doubt as to whether those sensors will ever see operational use.)

BVR engagement will almost always present a headache for commanders, especially when battlespace dominance is unclear. The only clearcut BVR ROE is when pushing into airspace that is undoubtedly in enemy hands, e.g. everything in front of you is Red Air, everything behind you is Blue.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join