What's new

How Effective Is China's New Anti-Stealth Radar System, Really?

How Effective Is China's New Anti-Stealth Radar System, Really?

Chinese sources claim that the DWL002 passive radar system will render the F-22 and F-35 “obsolete.”

According to recent reports in the Chinese media, China is betting that its new DWL002 passive detection radar system will grant its armed forces a massive boost in countering the United States’ advanced stealth fighters. According to a report in Defense News, Chinese sources claim that the radar will render systems like the advanced F-22 fighter and the upcoming F-35 “obsolete” — a strong claim to be sure.

The DWL002 came to light in recent years and has been pitched by Chinese sources repeatedly as a credible counter to conventional stealth military aviation. The DWL002 is an emitter locating system (ELS) which partially iterates on innovations found in older Russian designs, including the KRTP Tamara series and ERA Vera-E. The DWL002 is a more advanced ELS compared to China’s YLC-20 system (which is itself based on the KRTP-91 Tamara). The United States and other Western European countries have abandoned the use and development of passive-detection radar systems, citing poor accuracy. China and Russia continue to use the systems. The DWL002 itself will have a likely range of around 400-500 kilometers and is comprised of three stations that operate in tandem, placed kilometers apart. According to Defense News, the DWL002′s range would allow it “cover all of Taiwan and the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, but [it] is not within range of U.S. military bases on Okinawa. Nor can it reach the Philippines.”

The DWL002, if it lives up to its touted capabilities, would severely hamper stealth fighter-based attempts at establishing aerial control over Chinese territory provided Chinese air defense systems are operational. Anti-stealth radar technology would play an important role in allowing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to effectively counter parts of the United States AirSea Battle operational concept, for example. Part of the effectiveness of AirSea Battle relies on the U.S. Air Force and Navy deploying long-range stealth-based air platforms. With the DWL002 ESL, Chinese air defense systems would be significantly more effective at detecting hostile stealth aircraft. Another feature of the DWL002 that has drawn some attention from the Chinese media — notably the Global Times, according to WantChinaTimes – is its ability to track aircraft without notifying pilots that they have been detected by radar. Furthermore, according toVassily Kashin, senior research fellow at the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a Moscow-based think tank, the DWL002′s capabilities are not being exaggerated and pose a serious threat to stealth platforms.

Other sources are less convinced of the DWL002′s actual capabilities. According to a technical report byAir Power Australia, an independent defense think tank, the key innovation that sets the DWL002 apart from its other ELS predecessors is its use of “paired primary wideband apertures, displaced in elevation.” Based on the report, this seems to be extent of the DWL002′s capacity to impress. That report further emphasizes the DWL002′s height-finding capabilities more so than its explicit anti-stealth capabilities. The Air Power Australia report is widely skeptical of claims that the DWL002 and other variants on Soviet-era passive detection systems are technically capable of what is often touted, i.e. China hasn’t “solved” anti-stealth just yet. In general, however, passive detection radar systems will likely benefit from the increasingly signal-heavy nature of U.S. military aviation technologies — the systems work by constantly listening for and detecting electronic emissions. U.S. fighters — especially the upcoming F-35 — could have incoming and outgoing signal traffic detected by this system (although the more data-heavy Multi Function Advanced Datalink runs only when the aircraft is in low observable stealth mode).

Overall, the DWL002 is likely less of a threat to contemporary U.S. stealth aviation than recent reports would suggest. In the meantime, it should be noted that China isn’t putting all its eggs in the anti-stealth technology basket. In addition to defensive investments in anti-stealth, China has long been proactive about developing its own stealth aircraft. Recently, a full-scale model of China’s Shenyang J-31 stealth multirole fighter appeared on a PLAN carrier mock-up, prompting speculation that China is looking to deploy its own stealth jets at sea. Additionally, the Chengdu-20, a stealth air superiority fighter, is also under development and is expected to be operational later this decade.

-------------------------

Pakistan needs anti-stealth systems like these, especially after that abbottabad stealth helicopter infiltration fiasco.
 
As effective as the Chinese would like to believe. It is all in the mind. And yes, Pakistan should spend her hard earned money on this Chinese system.
 
As effective as the Chinese would like to believe. It is all in the mind. And yes, Pakistan should spend her hard earned money on this Chinese system.
Sometimes I wonder what chinese are actually hiding under the tag of classified :D:D he he just curiosity
 
And yesterday the chinese times claimed that the j20 can beat the raptor
 
No passive system can have true stealth detection capability, atleast for the time being. May be if someone develops a system like HAARP. Russians reportedly have something like this, kind of look down radars, but I am not sure.
 
As effective as the Chinese would like to believe. It is all in the mind. And yes, Pakistan should spend her hard earned money on this Chinese system.
Have you read the report?

I did, I'm not going to talk specifics with you, for one thing it's not my field of expertise, but I will ask you what do you think of a report that quotes an opinion piece, who quotes an "official" report.

You keep saying we believe everything, but every wantchinatimes, and what ever other crap that comes up we collectively shun it, there might be a few trolls here and there, but America is not short on those are you.



And yesterday the chinese times claimed that the j20 can beat the raptor
link, I ask not because I don't trust you, but I feel I know what you are talking about and it's from a new that's hell bent on trolling us. Every authority on the matter in Chinese military circles, never once said J-20 can beat F-22. I know cause I watch those shows and read their work.
 
Have you read the report?

I did, I'm not going to talk specifics with you, for one thing it's not my field of expertise, but I will ask you what do you think of a report that quotes an opinion piece, who quotes an "official" report.

You keep saying we believe everything, but every wantchinatimes, and what ever other crap that comes up we collectively shun it, there might be a few trolls here and there, but America is not short on those are you.




link, I ask not because I don't trust you, but I feel I know what you are talking about and it's from a new that's hell bent on trolling us. Every authority on the matter in Chinese military circles, never once said J-20 can beat F-22. I know cause I watch those shows and read their work.
Haters will always be hater. Jealousy is in their mind. Rise of China is a irk in their path.
 
The United States and other Western European countries have abandoned the use and development of passive-detection radar systems, citing poor accuracy. China and Russia continue to use the systems. The DWL002 itself will have a likely range of around 400-500 kilometers and is comprised of three stations that operate in tandem, placed kilometers apart. According to Defense News, the DWL002′s range would allow it “cover all of Taiwan and the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, but [it] is not within range of U.S. military bases on Okinawa. Nor can it reach the Philippines.”

Source: How Effective Is China's New Anti-Stealth Radar System, Really?
Radar is a two-parts process: transmission and reception. That mean there is no such animal as a 'passive radar' system.

In a conventional radar system, both parts belongs to a user, meaning he control the transmissions and the reception. He know his transmissions' characteristics, from pulse to frequency to direction aimed. In a passive reception system, the transmission part is not under his ownership/authority, but it must exists for the entire process to work. So in order for a passive reception system to detect something, there has to be active transmissions somewhere from someone.

In theory, those transmissions could come from any sources such as TV or cell phones. If those signals bounces off an object, whether that object is a balloon or an aircraft, then theory says we should be able to process those reflections to produce a radar readout. But precisely because we do not have ownership/authority of those signals, the search for coherent and consistent reference signals to compare against the reflections became problematic. Under laboratory conditions, the theory worked very well, but if the target is deliberately shaped to be low radar observable, plus the fact that TV, radio, cell phones, and cosmic background radiation signals are inconsistent and unreliable due to many factors, many of them atmospheric in nature, the data processing to produce a radar readout is far far less than what the theory said we should have.

If the US either abandoned or shelved the project, it is because of financial reasons, not that the technical hurdles cannot be beaten. But it will take many more yrs and money before a passive reception system can be as reliable and precise as the conventional method.

The PLA and Pakistan are free to spend their money as they see fit.
 
Radar is a two-parts process: transmission and reception. That mean there is no such animal as a 'passive radar' system.

In a conventional radar system, both parts belongs to a user, meaning he control the transmissions and the reception. He know his transmissions' characteristics, from pulse to frequency to direction aimed. In a passive reception system, the transmission part is not under his ownership/authority, but it must exists for the entire process to work. So in order for a passive reception system to detect something, there has to be active transmissions somewhere from someone.

In theory, those transmissions could come from any sources such as TV or cell phones. If those signals bounces off an object, whether that object is a balloon or an aircraft, then theory says we should be able to process those reflections to produce a radar readout. But precisely because we do not have ownership/authority of those signals, the search for coherent and consistent reference signals to compare against the reflections became problematic. Under laboratory conditions, the theory worked very well, but if the target is deliberately shaped to be low radar observable, plus the fact that TV, radio, cell phones, and cosmic background radiation signals are inconsistent and unreliable due to many factors, many of them atmospheric in nature, the data processing to produce a radar readout is far far less than what the theory said we should have.

If the US either abandoned or shelved the project, it is because of financial reasons, not that the technical hurdles cannot be beaten. But it will take many more yrs and money before a passive reception system can be as reliable and precise as the conventional method.

The PLA and Pakistan are free to spend their money as they see fit.
Can there be a super sensitive sensor that can detect the EM emissions from the aircraft electronics and triangulate it?
 
F-22 is naked,that's how effective the radar system in question is。
 
Can there be a super sensitive sensor that can detect the EM emissions from the aircraft electronics and triangulate it?
In order to triangulate, there must be multiple sensors in different locations and better yet -- altitudes. The issue is not sensitivity because if we can detect cosmic background radiation (CBR), we can detect practically any signals that may come off the F-22. But that is what the F-22 is designed for -- to blend in with 'garbage' signals like CBR.
 
china shouldn't need to waste money on anti stealth radar, because the f22 stealth prove it not stealth and f35 grounded couldn't fly at all. Maybe it also not stealth. lol
 

Back
Top Bottom