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

[SRBM2]

From what I read, YOU are the ignorant one, friend. That VHF or 'long wavelengths' arguments have been debunked a long time ago. None of the smart people on this forum take that seriously anymore. But if you want to debate, I think that with 18yrs of aviation experience, in and out of the USAF, I can provide the readers some entertainment in debunking you. So pick a subject.


In principles of radar operations -- none.

VHF is the only accurate band width to detect LO objects, nothing can be debunked since it was proven several times by russian radars that VLO/LO aircrafts can be tracked with it. Lang wave band waves have higher probabily to get reflected without being absorbed or scattered without reception, but i am not surpised that some fanboy who believes in PRopaganda crap spewed out by Lockheed Martin of 0.0001m² RCS believes in the crap he actually reads at some non credible sources.

 

[SRBM2]

It is not a claim, it is an astute observation after extensive research. And I find the choice of your words quite amusing especially since the US stealth Helos have no known history of being tracked by radars. I, then, wonder what prompted you to be so factual, and 'authoritative' on the subject.





You might wanna read up more on the US stealth technology. Stealth does not only consist of physical attributes, it is a combination of them along with electronic countermeasures etc., that protect the vehicle from detection. I was once reading up an account of an F-15/F-16 pilot who was up against the F-22 and he said that even though he could physically see the jet in front of him, his radar could not see or target it. That is the power of electronic countermeasures.

Actually, I am hoping that you understand that stealth does not mean that the vehicle is absolutely hidden from radars, what it actually means is that at the operational range of the Jet to engage the threat, the stealth vehicle is of such low RCS, due to physical + electronic features, that it is 'hidden' from the radars up to a certain point.

That is complete easy, US does not operate any stealth helicopters, RAH-66 canceled and it didn't reach anywhere near lower RCS than 2m² and UH-60 does not exist to claim so, no operation took place and if you really gonna go and claim this crap of Propaganda of "Osama bin Laden Operation" how developed the UH-60 stealth helicopter is that was only set up as leaving some evidence behind that Osama Operation suppossedly took place, but sure such a developed and advanced stealth helicopter that needed to be destroyed and only footage of tailrotor was published but nothing else...you believe every crap the US regime is spewing. No mission, the base was rebuild in US, no helicopter and no OBL.

Wrong, Stealth is a clear definition made by Petr Ufimtsev, Stealth aircraft is an aircraft that uses technologies to physically lower the RCS meaning shape based on mathematical calculations to scatter incoming radar waves to avoid reflecting radar waves to the transmitter and the coating of surface with RAM paintings that is stealth, Active or Passive ECM is not stealth that is just EW and will not make you stealth it is the complete opposite, by using ECM you only alert any aircraft or ground based radar in the area because using ECM means you expose your position and any ground based radar with RFI can quickly track you down by having far higher power for their radars than an aircraft can ever get. You really should learn terminology and technology before talking about it.

And that is PR bullshit again, direct visual contact means automatically a lockon from any weapon or radar especially when the jet is on 6 of the Raptor. I read this bs, seeing the engine intakes when flying on 6 of F-22 and that PR crap of not getting lock on, believe what you want that only lowers your credibility even capable of using your brain, when the radar can obviously has direct visual on engines and therefor metal, not to mention that PESA/AESA radars can already track VLO aircrafts at 60-150km depending on trajectory of target, not to mention IRST.

 

[45'22']

What about calling PAK-FA an F-22 killer ??

When pakfa comes......we will discuss that....

In the current scenario.....nothing beats raptor

 

[SRBM2]

When pakfa comes......we will discuss that....

In the current scenario.....nothing beats raptor

When it manages to come out of hangar or not to suffocate its own pilots...

 

[j20blackdragon]

I'm going to post an Aviation Week article that is relevant to the discussion here.

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

Commentary: Do Russian Radar Developments Challenge Stealth?

Bill Sweetman | AWIN First

Sep 13, 2013

Even when stealth technology was deadly secret and the F-117A did not officially exist, there was counter-stealth radar.

Textbooks told us radar cross-section (RCS) was frequency dependent, and tended to become increasingly so as the target shape grew more complicated. If the radar wavelength is of the same magnitude as prominent features of the target, the signal is scattered by a resonant mechanism that is unimpressed by cunning shaping or materials magic. In the 1980s, many older Russian systems operated in the VHF band, with wavelengths in the 1-2-meter range, which is about the same as the chord of a fighter’s tail surfaces and wingtips.

But, as I wrote in 1987:

“The price of increasing wavelength . . . is that the antenna has to grow in proportion to the wavelength in order to maintain a narrow beam and adequate resolution. The ‘mobile’ Soviet VHF radars are cumbersome, and early-warning radars such as Tall King (P-14) are large fixed structures and provide coverage of only one sector. Despite the size of their antennae, they are not accurate enough to manage a complete engagement.”

The Pentagon’s then-stealth technology director, Paul Kaminski, commissioned an aggressive Red Team in the very early 1980s that had both recognized the threat from VHF radars and discerned that it could be mitigated by artful mission planning. The Red Team’s work led to the development of the computer-driven route planner that F-117 pilots, fond of a vampish TV horror-movie hostess, nicknamed Elvira.

The same assessments applied when the requirements for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) were written in the mid-1990s. There are no signs that the raw RCS of the F-22 or JSF is much smaller than that of the F-117. The goals were to improve aircraft performance and maintainability, neither of which (to put it very mildly, indeed) was the F-117’s long suit. If you want a very low RCS in VHF, you need to lose the tails, which is why the B-2 is a flying wing.

It wasn’t hard for the Russians to assess the JSF’s stealth performance. By 1995, everyone knew that shape was the major driver of RCS, with materials being used to control local scattering phenomena. As the JSF’s target service entry date arrived, so did the Russian answer, and it was on display at the MAKS air show, held in Moscow in August.

The 55Zh6ME radar complex addresses many of the limitations of the old VHF radars. Although you see three radars—stepping down from VHF (metric) to L-band (decametric) and S-band (centimetric)—the Russians call them modules of an integrated radar system. Each unit is fitted with the Orientir satellite-navigation system, which provides a very accurate location and north reference. That should make it possible to provide sensor fusion—ensuring that when two or more of the radar units detect a target, it will show up as one in the control center.

The VHF part of the system (see photo) has a P-14-sized, 30-meter-wide antenna, but it folds onto an 8 x 8 truck. The antenna has an active, electronically scanned array, so if it gets a hit on a faint target, the array can dwell on it as the antenna rotates (or swings back and forth for a sector search). At the same time, it will cue its L-band and S-band sisters to focus on the target area like searchlight beams.

Some commentators will look at the Russian brochures, note that the reference ranges are against targets with an RCS of one square meter and observe that stealth aircraft have a far smaller RCS, which they do—in centimetric bands. Giving what was probably the least provocative answer under the circumstances, a Russian engineer notes that the Chinese DF-15 short-range ballistic missile has a 0.002 m2 RCS in X-band, but is a very non-stealthy 0.6 m2 in VHF.

Two exhibitors at MAKS were showing passive RF tracking systems. They are intended to exploit active emissions from the target but do not discriminate. Scattered energy from a radar will work just as well. The U.S. Air Force does have a modern facility for testing such bistatic radar signatures, but it was commissioned after the JSF was designed.

The Russian approach has its weaknesses. An Aegis on wheels makes a valuable, conspicuous and soft target when working. The claimed 15-min. set-up and strike-down time is ambitious, and the system has to have a fighter-like price tag. There is also no reason that a low-RCS target can’t use jamming, either onboard or offboard.

It would be reassuring to know that the stealth technology upon which the Pentagon plans to base air dominance for the next few decades has been thoroughly, recently and aggressively Red-Teamed against multiband AESAs and passive systems. If it has, nothing has been said about it.

There may be a universe where it is smart to give your adversaries (or their armorer) 25 years’ notice of exactly how you plan to render their defenses obsolete. We just don’t live there.

Commentary: Do Russian Radar Developments Challenge Stealth? | Defense content from Aviation Week

 

[Mughal-Prince]

When pakfa comes......we will discuss that....

In the current scenario.....nothing beats raptor

Neither J-20 is on the roll so keep them both out of this thread.

 

[Malik Alashter]

In principles of radar operations -- none.

Can you please elaborate if they are almost the same why every ac has RWR if they are not that effective I'm confused.

 

[Yeti]

This is what the China man said when I bought a 'made in china' cheap watch he said it will last a decade but the cheap copy lasted only 2 years

On a serious note most of the details regarding the Raptor is classified and we can only speculate and have information which is given to us but none that is not given to the joe public so how would China know it's secrets?

 

[gambit]

VHF is the only accurate band width to detect LO objects, nothing can be debunked since it was proven several times by russian radars that VLO/LO aircrafts can be tracked with it. Lang wave band waves have higher probabily to get reflected without being absorbed or scattered without reception,...

Do you really think (deluded) that you brought on anything new ?

Here is my explanation on why 'long wavelengths' radar are not as effective as Russian/Chinese propaganda would like gullibles to believe...

Fundamentals of Stealth Design & Concepts of RCS Reduction | Page 3

No one is denying that the A/B/C (HF/VHF/UHF) bands can better detect 'stealth' than the higher freqs/bands. But against an F-117 class body ? That 'stealth' body had better stand still for those long wavelengths to work. Against an F-117 class body that is moving, or maneuvering with the terrain ? Forget it, pal. You have better luck getting a date with Adriana Lima.

And please do not bring up that single F-117 loss over Yugoslavia. NATO flew over thirty THOUSANDS sorties over Yugoslavia, including 60 B-2 sorties from the US, and NATO lost only two aircrafts: one F-16 and one F-117.

...but i am not surpised that some fanboy who believes in PRopaganda crap spewed out by Lockheed Martin of 0.0001m² RCS believes in the crap he actually reads at some non credible sources.

You think calling me a 'fanboy' is going to offend me ? People here know I am a fanboy. But unlike you, I have military and technical experience in this subject. What do you have ? Can you even tell the difference between a hammer and a screwdriver ?

 

[gambit]

Wrong, Stealth is a clear definition made by Petr Ufimtsev,...

Not true. When Ufimtsev formalized his math for reflections off surfaces, he never had anything about aviation in mind. His book was never any sort of a 'cookbook' on how to design a radar low observable body. If it was, the Soviet military would have made it secret and Ufimtsev worked on designing such an aircraft. Instead, the Soviet government considered his work to be militarily worthless and allowed him to publish it. Back then, the design of the microwave oven would have been more secret and dangerous than Ufimtsev's math. Ufimtsev was allowed to publish his math just like any other Western academic publishing his/her work in the interest of science. Then a Lockheed engineer got his hands on it. The rest is history.

I have Ufimtsev's textbook on my shelf. You do not know what you are talking about.

 

[atatwolf]

And yesterday the chinese times claimed that the j20 can beat the raptor

That gives us enough information about the radar system.

In reality J20 is no match for F-35 or Raptor. Chinese can claim to be a paper tiger but god forbid if a conflict brakes out they will be embarrassed by the enemy forces.

The same happened to the Kurds in Iraq and Syria. They claimed to be a modern army with 300k fighters ready to take on Iraqi army and even threatened Turkey. Then a small terrorist organization arrises called ISIS and beats both KRG, PKK and YPG. Without US air support they would all be dead. Unfortunately for China nobody will be there so save their day.

 

[SRBM2]

Do you really think (deluded) that you brought on anything new ?

Here is my explanation on why 'long wavelengths' radar are not as effective as Russian/Chinese propaganda would like gullibles to believe...

Fundamentals of Stealth Design & Concepts of RCS Reduction | Page 3

No one is denying that the A/B/C (HF/VHF/UHF) bands can better detect 'stealth' than the higher freqs/bands. But against an F-117 class body ? That 'stealth' body had better stand still for those long wavelengths to work. Against an F-117 class body that is moving, or maneuvering with the terrain ? Forget it, pal. You have better luck getting a date with Adriana Lima.

And please do not bring up that single F-117 loss over Yugoslavia. NATO flew over thirty THOUSANDS sorties over Yugoslavia, including 60 B-2 sorties from the US, and NATO lost only two aircrafts: one F-16 and one F-117.


You think calling me a 'fanboy' is going to offend me ? People here know I am a fanboy. But unlike you, I have military and technical experience in this subject. What do you have ? Can you even tell the difference between a hammer and a screwdriver ?

Ohh yes bombing some banana republics that have no Air Defense and you think it is a proven technology to be completley stealth and unlockable? Good joke, 3 F-117 have been destroyed, 1 MiG-29 and another SAM kill and the US denied all three unfortunatley one crashed on Serbian soil otherwise today non of those crappy planes would be officially destroyed. Not to mention that those "Stealth" jets were escorted by F-15 and EW aircrafts that provided ECM area around "stealth" aircrafts that the old and unhandled SAMs in Iraq wouldn't even have a chance to lockon.

VHF is highly reliable to track LO/VLO aircrafts and will paint them and the funny thing is you call that russian propaganda while believing physically not possible nonsense like Lockheed Martins propaganda lies of 0.00001m² RCS which is impossible to achieve, both come just beneath 1m² and not lower than 0.005m² and that only under optimal conditions in best agnles in labors not in real life.

Not true. When Ufimtsev formalized his math for reflections off surfaces, he never had anything about aviation in mind. His book was never any sort of a 'cookbook' on how to design a radar low observable body. If it was, the Soviet military would have made it secret and Ufimtsev worked on designing such an aircraft. Instead, the Soviet government considered his work to be militarily worthless and allowed him to publish it. Back then, the design of the microwave oven would have been more secret and dangerous than Ufimtsev's math. Ufimtsev was allowed to publish his math just like any other Western academic publishing his/her work in the interest of science. Then a Lockheed engineer got his hands on it. The rest is history.

I have Ufimtsev's textbook on my shelf. You do not know what you are talking about.

Of course only mumbling of an ami fanboy who has no clue and tries to discredit Petr Ufimtsevs work, without this russian fellow US would not have a single stealth aircraft today, the US tried for years to achieve a stealth aircraft but was working on a dead end route untill Petr Ufimtsev came, his mathematical work was used on every existing stealth object be it F-117,F-22,B-2 or Zumwalt or any other stealth object. Russians were not interested because such shapes are not really aerodynamic and didn't believe that such an object would even fly, russians also could have developed ERA in WW2, but some of the generals said they will not equip their tanks with Dynamit and 2 decades later it was done.

No Petr Ufimtsev no Stealth technology, it was his work and you little ami fanboy hates to see russians being the technology holder of it.

That gives us enough information about the radar system.

In reality J20 is no match for F-35 or Raptor. Chinese can claim to be a paper tiger but god forbid if a conflict brakes out they will be embarrassed by the enemy forces.

The same happened to the Kurds in Iraq and Syria. They claimed to be a modern army with 300k fighters ready to take on Iraqi army and even threatened Turkey. Then a small terrorist organization arrises called ISIS and beats both KRG, PKK and YPG. Without US air support they would all be dead. Unfortunately for China nobody will be there so save their day.

Yes the F-35 when that crap thing starts to work call back, same as for Raptor when it starts to kill enemies and not own pilots then you can claim that something is the best, so far no 5th gen fighter has even anywhere near combat ready and operational status then any 4.5th Gen Fighter, they are without doubt till this date dominating untill the 5th Gen fighter become operational, but they all have to many disease and bugs that make them useless.

 

[Lure]

That gives us enough information about the radar system.

In reality J20 is no match for F-35 or Raptor. Chinese can claim to be a paper tiger but god forbid if a conflict brakes out they will be embarrassed by the enemy forces.

The same happened to the Kurds in Iraq and Syria. They claimed to be a modern army with 300k fighters ready to take on Iraqi army and even threatened Turkey. Then a small terrorist organization arrises called ISIS and beats both KRG, PKK and YPG. Without US air support they would all be dead. Unfortunately for China nobody will be there so save their day.

True, they are a relatively new player in defense industry and lack experience in some issues like quality control.

False, they are definitely not a paper tiger. They are the only country that can really counter balance US hegemony in the World. No country can claim such a position right now including Russia. Russia can mess with US in it's own territory/geography but does not have the global network like back in the Cold War.

Economy is the foundation of the success, after that the science comes, after that the military comes.

 

[420canada]

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

Which is a idiotic and ignorant way of thinking. Never underestimate your enemies.

 

[Lure]

Gambit stop your BS here now, you know nothing about stealth and you Sh!t to much BS here. I wonder why the world stupid Indian here really believe in you. Now I really know you gambit and those idiot Indian are one Match of world donkey.

Just ignore him, like I did. He is too partizan for me.