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

[Spade]

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.

That is why I think system like HAARP is best suited. Since they look at the shadow rather than reflection....

 

[SRBM2]

Still can't believe people acting and thinking that "stealth" is some modus and calling something stealth does not mean it is invisible it is actully the entire opposite.

The shape is to scatter radar waves and "Stealth" are scattering radar waves only from one source away meaning they are only good against single targets who are not cooperating with each other or have limitation in radar power like other jets, but stealth is absolutley useless against VHF band radars working in IADS. The aircraft scatters due to its shape the radar waves from one Radar but another recieves it and it becomes spotted immidiatley. The key word is IADS and after Russia, China is 2nd best.

 

[45'22']

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.

China’s J-20 can beat F-22, Global Times claims unconvincingly | idrw.org

China's J-20 can beat F-22, Global Times claims unconvincingly｜Politics｜News｜WantChinaTimes.com

China claims J-20 superior to F-22 | global aviation report

 

[Genesis]

China’s J-20 can beat F-22, Global Times claims unconvincingly | idrw.org

China's J-20 can beat F-22, Global Times claims unconvincingly｜Politics｜News｜WantChinaTimes.com

China claims J-20 superior to F-22 | global aviation report

China times, a Taiwan news paper, they don't represent the Chinese interests, since everyone like to put them in the enemy category for us, why believe what they said about us.

WantChinaTimes really.....


Global Times said nothing of the sort about F-22, look at the wording of it, Global Times would never use certain words that they are using, because they, for better or worse is official, more or less, and thus at least in regards to the naming conventions would use Chinese rather than American.


I have never once posted things like this on India, because there's no way for me to verify it, but it's not a problem for you is it.

 

[gambit]

Still can't believe people acting and thinking that "stealth" is some modus and calling something stealth does not mean it is invisible it is actully the entire opposite.

The shape is to scatter radar waves and "Stealth" are scattering radar waves only from one source away meaning they are only good against single targets who are not cooperating with each other or have limitation in radar power like other jets, but stealth is absolutley useless against VHF band radars working in IADS. The aircraft scatters due to its shape the radar waves from one Radar but another recieves it and it becomes spotted immidiatley. The key word is IADS and after Russia, China is 2nd best.

You talk as if that subject have not been discussed here before. Clue for you: It has. And I presented enough technical explanations and sources to say how ineffective such systems can be.

That is why I think system like HAARP is best suited. Since they look at the shadow rather than reflection....

I have said before that a multi-static radar system is the greatest threat to the F-22 and others like it. However, such a system is cumbersome and not very mobile, making it detectable by countermeasures and the 'stealth' attacker can navigate around such systems.

 

[sms]

You talk as if that subject have not been discussed here before. Clue for you: It has. And I presented enough technical explanations and sources to say how ineffective such systems can be.

I have said before that a multi-static radar system is the greatest threat to the F-22 and others like it. However, such a system is cumbersome and not very mobile, making it detectable by countermeasures and the 'stealth' attacker can navigate around such systems.

I do think it will be easy to fool. What if the attacking aircraft switch off it's radar and relay on data provided by AWAC flying few hundred KM behind it. This system will be fooled and will show wrong info about agrresser.

 

[Spade]

You talk as if that subject have not been discussed here before. Clue for you: It has. And I presented enough technical explanations and sources to say how ineffective such systems can be.


I have said before that a multi-static radar system is the greatest threat to the F-22 and others like it. However, such a system is cumbersome and not very mobile, making it detectable by countermeasures and the 'stealth' attacker can navigate around such systems.

If only countries can make a network around their borders...

 

[Beidou2020]

F-22?

Rachel Maddow proved it was as useless as the other 'stealth' plane that the Serbians shot down

 

[45'22']

China times, a Taiwan news paper, they don't represent the Chinese interests, since everyone like to put them in the enemy category for us, why believe what they said about us.

WantChinaTimes really.....


Global Times said nothing of the sort about F-22, look at the wording of it, Global Times would never use certain words that they are using, because they, for better or worse is official, more or less, and thus at least in regards to the naming conventions would use Chinese rather than American.


I have never once posted things like this on India, because there's no way for me to verify it, but it's not a problem for you is it.

Chill bro
I got the news from a credible site so I posted it
And I tried to dig the original global times article but unfortunately that was a failed attempt so I won't be able to comment on the wordings

And you should shoot the msg not the messenger.....
No offence meant

 

[gambit]

I do think it will be easy to fool. What if the attacking aircraft switch off it's radar and relay on data provided by AWAC flying few hundred KM behind it. This system will be fooled and will show wrong info about agrresser.

The foundation for a multi-static setup is the basic bi-static radar setup.

What you have is one transmitter and one off site, or non-local area, receiver. In the above illustration, what you see is the ideal bi-static triangle where B get the best in terms of quantity and quality of reflections off the target.

IEEE Xplore Abstract










-
Bistatic radar noncooperative illumination synchronization techniques

Synchronization techniques used in the Bistatic Alerting and Cueing (BAC) program are examined. Particular attention is given to illuminator search, target search synchronization, RF synchronization, PRF (pulse repetition frequency) synchronization, range gate synchronization, and solution of the bistatic triangle. All of the synchronization techniques have been implemented and tested during the two-and-a-half years of field-test demonstration of the BAC system. It is concluded that feasibility testing produced excellent results

Anything lesser/greater than the ideal 90 degree bounce, then we begins to see data degradation and the more the target is shaped to be low radar observable, the greater the rate of decay.

So entered the multi-static setup where there are multiple transmitters and receivers. The more sophisticated systems will have each station to be switchable, meaning one station can be either transmitter or receiver, depending on software integration that coordinate the operations of all stations. The more complex the network, the greater the availability of that ideal 90 deg bounce off the target, whether that target is 'stealthy' or not. As long as the target is inside the network's coverage area, no matter how fast or violent the maneuvers, that target is going to produce that ideal 90 deg bounce one time or another between two or more stations. It does not matter if the target is actively transmitting its own radar or not.

This is why I said many times before that the bi-static radar is the greatest threat to 'stealth'. Not long wavelengths like the Russians and the Chinese would like to deceive people to sell shitty radars. But the major problem with the bi-static setup is limited mobility, which lead back to the standard mono-static setup so common today, which then returns the advantage to 'stealth'.

 

[Oldman1]

F-22?

Rachel Maddow proved it was as useless as the other 'stealth' plane that the Serbians shot down

Funny that Russia and China especially are making such aircraft that you deemed as useless.

 

[gambit]

Funny that Russia and China especially are making such aircraft that you deemed as useless.

We are talking about 'Chinese physics' here, buddy. The J-20 will be literally invisible in all spectrum.

 

[420canada]

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.

Lmao china just dose not cut it for you eh?

 

[Steakhouse]

Lmao china just dose not cut it for you eh?

He a Vietnamese with us citizenship, of course anything relate to China he will down play China capacity.

 

[Brainsucker]

I'm surprise that Diplomat use Want China Times as it's resource. So, Want China Times has leveling up and become a credible source of China military news?

But let us considered that DWL002 is not the solution of American Mighty Stealth Fighter. I don't think that it is a solution either. I prefer to call DWL002 as a progress.