PAF Developing VHF Radar ( source MODP)

[Pyara9]

The technology is old ... it belongs to 70s and was no longer in use ... these radars are inaccurate and of low resolution and provide a general idea of the location of aircrafts (including both conventional and stealthy aircrafts) ... they are easy to develop and are based on well-known technologies so it is better to manufacture them at home ...

Now where is the catch? The catch is with the use of fast computing microprocessors Russians and Chinese has found out a way to process the inaccurate signal through algorithims and placing multiple radars to give you position of stealthy aircrafts accurate enough to target it ...

So if Pakistan is trying to build this radar just know if there is any stealthy plane in our airspace and then scramble the jets for further investigation then we dont need any external help but if we really need a stealth detection radar then we might not be able to do at our own with current experience in avionics ...

Thanks for the enlightenment mcuh appreciated.

 

[gambit]

Just because the current 'stealth' design/methodology is vulnerable to one band of the EM spectrum, it does not mean the end of 'stealth'. Being low radar observable does not give license to be careless about the EM threat, particularly in the Targeting and most Tracking freqs.

If you take the standard X-band targeting radar and point it at a STATIONARY F-22 or F-117 sitting a few klicks away, after a few minutes, you will get a scope display. How ? Because the target is STATIONARY. The 'stealth' target always produces return echoes, but what make it 'stealthy' is because those return signals are inconsistent over time, so the radar do not have sufficient statistical data to produce that scope display. But if the F-22 is STATIONARY, the radar will have that consistency over time of those weak return signals. That is why 'stealth' platforms still plans their missions carefully to avoid as much EM activities as possible. Their 'stealthy' planforms is for when they cannot avoid radar beams and they will know when they are being 'painted'.

This is why the Russians and the Chinese are going full frontal assaults on their customers about the ability of long wavelengths as 'anti-stealth'. They do not want you to focus on TACTICS that 'stealth' pilots -- like US -- developed. It is not our tactics to fly steady state for your VHF radars to paint us, but that is what the Russians and the Chinese want you to believe, that we would be so focused on X-bands that we will ignore the RWR warning on the other bands. And so far, the sales brochures works.

 

[CriticalThought]

Just because the current 'stealth' design/methodology is vulnerable to one band of the EM spectrum, it does not mean the end of 'stealth'. Being low radar observable does not give license to be careless about the EM threat, particularly in the Targeting and most Tracking freqs.

If you take the standard X-band targeting radar and point it at a STATIONARY F-22 or F-117 sitting a few klicks away, after a few minutes, you will get a scope display. How ? Because the target is STATIONARY. The 'stealth' target always produces return echoes, but what make it 'stealthy' is because those return signals are inconsistent over time, so the radar do not have sufficient statistical data to produce that scope display. But if the F-22 is STATIONARY, the radar will have that consistency over time of those weak return signals. That is why 'stealth' platforms still plans their missions carefully to avoid as much EM activities as possible. Their 'stealthy' planforms is for when they cannot avoid radar beams and they will know when they are being 'painted'.

This is why the Russians and the Chinese are going full frontal assaults on their customers about the ability of long wavelengths as 'anti-stealth'. They do not want you to focus on TACTICS that 'stealth' pilots -- like US -- developed. It is not our tactics to fly steady state for your VHF radars to paint us, but that is what the Russians and the Chinese want you to believe, that we would be so focused on X-bands that we will ignore the RWR warning on the other bands. And so far, the sales brochures works.

Not only that, but active cancellation would also be easier in that frequency range.

 

[War Thunder]

We already had a leased VERA.
It's being worked on and being modified/upgraded...

 

[gambit]

Not only that, but active cancellation would also be easier in that frequency range.

Depends on the method. France is bullish on SPECTRA, which is 'signals-counter-signals' method. For what I know, the US is not heading in that direction. We are working on active cancellation at the skin level, meaning the impinging radar signal will be absorbed and cancelled internally.

 

[The Accountant]

Just because the current 'stealth' design/methodology is vulnerable to one band of the EM spectrum, it does not mean the end of 'stealth'. Being low radar observable does not give license to be careless about the EM threat, particularly in the Targeting and most Tracking freqs.

If you take the standard X-band targeting radar and point it at a STATIONARY F-22 or F-117 sitting a few klicks away, after a few minutes, you will get a scope display. How ? Because the target is STATIONARY. The 'stealth' target always produces return echoes, but what make it 'stealthy' is because those return signals are inconsistent over time, so the radar do not have sufficient statistical data to produce that scope display. But if the F-22 is STATIONARY, the radar will have that consistency over time of those weak return signals. That is why 'stealth' platforms still plans their missions carefully to avoid as much EM activities as possible. Their 'stealthy' planforms is for when they cannot avoid radar beams and they will know when they are being 'painted'.

This is why the Russians and the Chinese are going full frontal assaults on their customers about the ability of long wavelengths as 'anti-stealth'. They do not want you to focus on TACTICS that 'stealth' pilots -- like US -- developed. It is not our tactics to fly steady state for your VHF radars to paint us, but that is what the Russians and the Chinese want you to believe, that we would be so focused on X-bands that we will ignore the RWR warning on the other bands. And so far, the sales brochures works.

I 100% agree with you, Stealth is always a relative term, even if detectable, is the deduction is accurate enough to target the aircraft and what range,

Let it put this way, right now small airforces like PAF are totally blind to these type of stealthy aircraft, having a modern VHF radar (I am assuming that it has a capability of boosting the signals through digital processing) is a welcome addition in comparison to no capability ... In simple words, the capability to do not know anything about the capability to know atleast that our airspace is invaded is always a welcome addition ... Having said this, the capability to target F22 by these radars is a dream, the only way I see it is possible by a high-end fifth generation aircraft who itself is low observable and will have the capability to come close enough to engage F22 ... However, such a capability is yet to be seen ...

Not only that, but active cancellation would also be easier in that frequency range.

The active cancellation means giving away half of the stealth as it means the radar of F22 will be transmitting the same signal as that of the host radar and will be vulnerable to other RWRs ...

 

[CriticalThought]

The active cancellation means giving away half of the stealth as it means the radar of F22 will be transmitting the same signal as that of the host radar and will be vulnerable to other RWRs ...

That is the whole point of active cancellation. The transmitted signal, theoretically, completely cancels the incoming signal, the result being no signal at all.

Depends on the method. France is bullish on SPECTRA, which is 'signals-counter-signals' method. For what I know, the US is not heading in that direction. We are working on active cancellation at the skin level, meaning the impinging radar signal will be absorbed and cancelled internally.

But without some type of active cancellation, current stealth platforms are susceptible to detection and tracking by use of MIMO processing. I don't see how they can evade multiple, redundant radars from multiple directions.

 

[LeGenD]

Ok guys so vhf use's low frequency as a radar. So a L Band radar would be a low Low Frequency Radar. Which can detect stealth.

The interesting thing is Pakistan already has LBand rardar, which can detect stealth. Thanks to our American friends.

So yes we are ready for stealthy Fighters.

It's Called..
AN/FPS 117 or the transport version an/tps 77

In other words yes the idiots solds us a radar that can detect a stealth fighter before they made the stealth fighter haha. Enjoy your radarr.

We are not ready for stealthy fighters.

VHF radar constellation can facilitate in spotting a stealthy aircraft but accuracy is not good and "kill chain" unlikely to complete on time. This is WW2 era tech.

These radar constellations are suitable for "early warning" roles mostly. Purpose is to alert manned AA batteries, just like in WW2.

Active radar systems were developed to provide a lock on the Jet so that a missile could be guided towards it. Stealthy aircraft are designed to evade this kind of threat in particular.

IRST is a much better method to see a stealthy aircraft but its detection radius and range is limited. And if the stealthy aircraft see you first (F-35 and F-22 will), you are toast anyways

 

[The Accountant]

That is the whole point of active cancellation. The transmitted signal, theoretically, completely cancels the incoming signal, the result being no signal at all.



But without some type of active cancellation, current stealth platforms are susceptible to detection and tracking by use of MIMO processing. I don't see how they can evade multiple, redundant radars from multiple directions.

But this active cancellation is to be of exact opposite frequency to cancel the incoming frequency, in reality achieving this is really difficult and if you fail to cancel the incoming waves it means you are announcing your arrival ... Anyways this is all subjective and theoritical ,,, practically as of now there is no complete answere to stealth aircraft unless you own one ...

 

[CriticalThought]

But this active cancellation is to be of exact opposite frequency to cancel the incoming frequency, in reality achieving this is really difficult and if you fail to cancel the incoming waves it means you are announcing your arrival ... Anyways this is all subjective and theoritical ,,, practically as of now there is no complete answere to stealth aircraft unless you own one ...

The people who own meaningful active cancellation, the Thales and Raytheons of the world, are not giving too much information. But if you see people paying top money for it, there must be something there. The signal doesn't need to be completely canceled. They just need to ensure that the returning signal is out of the receiver's frequency range.

 

[gambit]

That is the whole point of active cancellation. The transmitted signal, theoretically, completely cancels the incoming signal, the result being no signal at all.

Actually, the result is ambiguity. The analogy is seeing something in a fog. You saw something, but the fog makes it difficult for positive identification.

But without some type of active cancellation, current stealth platforms are susceptible to detection and tracking by use of MIMO processing. I don't see how they can evade multiple, redundant radars from multiple directions.

No radar net is gap free. We know this from experience as each element risks contaminating the others. The best solution is for each element to transmit only when the others are silent. The timing should be in milliseconds of each other.

The first vulnerability is that each element must be in constant contact with each other to synchronize their statuses, from being stationary to being mobile, and if freq agility is used, which element is transmitting with what freq/pulse characteristics. The other elements must, or should, know in order to discriminate the return echoes that matches from background.

The second vulnerability is whether the attacker employs EW and with today's UAV technology, there is no telling what a country like the US can deploy.

The third vulnerability is the physical destruction/degradation of one or more elements.

I explained on this forum all of this yrs ago. Long wavelengths, VERA, and multi-static are not the 'anti-stealth' solutions as the Russians and the Chinese made their products out to be.

The multi-static configuration, which is actually two or more bi-static configurations, is the greatest threat to 'stealth' and even that can be challenged.

 

[The Accountant]

High tech stuff

LOL summarized it well... I guess high tech stuff is to display this in 4K

 

[Kompromat]

Its weird how everyone ignored the "Design and Development of a Midget Submarine".

 

[Mahmood-ur-Rehman]

Why not buy from Russia?

Why from Russia if you can develop?

 

[Shiji]

"Executive bulletproof brief cade shield"
That should silence the ones that say that the SSG pers behind the Chief carries a Nuclear Detonater
Hint: Left side