Radars/Modern Radars...to detect future Stealth Fighters!!

[VelocuR]

In my observation, I urge that Pakistan should spend times on Stealth Radars/Anti-Radars to detect Stealth fighters, perhaps F-117 was shot down by Serbian S-125 Neva/Pechora(Soviet SAM) Missiles. Yes, we are so focus on JF-17, J-10B, maybe Stealth fighters. What about stealth radars?


Basically sending/receiving Radars which was no longer useful. Today some countries are currently using non-statics radars (receiverA, B, C) or bi-static radars.

Australia:

The Australian system works on a top down detection process. Officially it's range is circa 3500km's. Unofficially it's been reported that it was able to detect aircraft movements as far as Hong Kong, and intermittently it was usggested that it detected F-117's out of Bagdhad. LINK

Russian Anti Stealth Radar

Most important is advanced Radar capable to find jets before shooting down. Everything depending on Radars or you blind. What will Pakistan react ?

 

[Last Hope]

I agree with your point of view.
But, we have got the following problems:


1) Is Russia ready to sell this to us?
2) If not, then where will we find finance to develop one?

Regards.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Well we just need to finish 300 JF17 Thunders for now , and radars technology is being aquired gradually. May be with Turkish sniper pods as well as new missiles

The stealth detecting technology I believe is beyond our reach but we need to first modernize our airforce bring it at year 2000 levels out of the 90's clout .. and then we can look at next steps

Stealth planes are already suspectible once in visual sight

Our Radars research is developing but it can be better as we have immence resources (man power) if we really invest in that area

Just that economy is down due to war on crap excuse next doors and so we need to make best of what we have at present

 

[Chogy]

The engineers who created low RCS aircraft weren't dumb. I have no doubt that they'd have bombarded the model with every radar frequency known to man. Of course certain systems will work better than others.

The problem is this: Detecting them is one thing. Targeting them is another. ELF radars might be able to pick up intermittent hits, but low frequencies do not provide the resolution needed to steer a missile.

As frequencies rise, resolution and accuracy improve. But the higher frequencies are subject to issues like dust, clouds, smoke, water vapor.

Consider the human eye. It is a sort of radar using the frequencies of visual light, with the sun being the transmitter, and the eye, the receiver. We can get astounding resolution, but the light is completely absorbed by clouds or dust.

The typical X-band radar is right in the sweet spot. Good resolution, can target, can see through clouds and such, but that happens to be one of the frequencies the stealth designers looked at (hard) to eliminate.

So when you create a radar that works better than X-band, you'll typically give something up to make it work, and that is usually the ability to guide a missile with any accuracy.

 

[Tin Man]

The engineers who created low RCS aircraft weren't dumb. I have no doubt that they'd have bombarded the model with every radar frequency known to man. Of course certain systems will work better than others.

The problem is this: Detecting them is one thing. Targeting them is another. ELF radars might be able to pick up intermittent hits, but low frequencies do not provide the resolution needed to steer a missile.

As frequencies rise, resolution and accuracy improve. But the higher frequencies are subject to issues like dust, clouds, smoke, water vapor.

Consider the human eye. It is a sort of radar using the frequencies of visual light, with the sun being the transmitter, and the eye, the receiver. We can get astounding resolution, but the light is completely absorbed by clouds or dust.

The typical X-band radar is right in the sweet spot. Good resolution, can target, can see through clouds and such, but that happens to be one of the frequencies the stealth designers looked at (hard) to eliminate.

So when you create a radar that works better than X-band, you'll typically give something up to make it work, and that is usually the ability to guide a missile with any accuracy.

You shouldn't be too hasty to discount the possibiliy. The USAF unvieled a plan to retrofit the aging f-15 fleet in okinawa base with radar apparantly capable of detecting j-20. When the USAF says that one shouldnt be quick to discount the possibility as you would when the chinese says the same. Because when the chinese talk about retrofitting the j-10, its a wet dream. When the US says it; im more inclined to believe.

 

[conworldus]

You shouldn't be too hasty to discount the possibiliy. The USAF unvieled a plan to retrofit the aging f-15 fleet in okinawa base with radar apparantly capable of detecting j-20. When the USAF says that one shouldnt be quick to discount the possibility as you would when the chinese says the same. Because when the chinese talk about retrofitting the j-10, its a wet dream. When the US says it; im more inclined to believe.

Sure, how can non-white people possibly compete with white supreme engineers??? SARCASM

 

[gambit]

The engineers who created low RCS aircraft weren't dumb. I have no doubt that they'd have bombarded the model with every radar frequency known to man. Of course certain systems will work better than others.

That is correct. This was done even with the retired F-117

You shouldn't be too hasty to discount the possibiliy. The USAF unvieled a plan to retrofit the aging f-15 fleet in okinawa base with radar apparantly capable of detecting j-20. When the USAF says that one shouldnt be quick to discount the possibility as you would when the chinese says the same. Because when the chinese talk about retrofitting the j-10, its a wet dream. When the US says it; im more inclined to believe.

There are three assumptions here...

First...It is implied that the AESA upgrade is somehow some sort of 'response' to the J-20, or even the possibility of 'stealth' aircrafts from Russia and China. That is not true. The superior performance and benefits of AESA radar technology practically compelled US to make that upgrade independent of any potential threats, immediate or future. You can say that it was inevitable.

Second...It is implied that the J-20's RCS is in the same class as the F-22 or even the retired F-117. It is too early for that enthusiasm. If looks could kill, then the F-117's looks alone would have killed the program on paper. Instead, the F-117's true RCS remain a secret to this day.

Third...It is implied that an AESA system will detect, track, and target an F-117 class body. There are no guarantees for that. An AESA's greatest advantage is the superior beamforming capability over the classical concave dish or planar array. The beam is tighter hence offer greater target resolutions -- provided that the beam has a 'lock' on the target in the first place. But a sharper beam increases search time over any volume of the sky. Like the man said, there are trade-offs whenever there is a decision to emphasize one trait over others.

The greatest threat to an F-117 class body is the bi-static radar system. The video's translation has 'non static'. There is no such thing. Just about %99 of the world's radars are mono-static, meaning one antenna does the talking and listening. In the bi-static system, one antenna does the talking and a physically distinct one does the listening. An evolution of the bi-static setup is the multi-static setup but at its core, it is still a bi-static system...

Figure 1 is the 'big picture' explanation of what is a bi-static configuration even though there are multiple transmitters and receivers in the setup. The transmitter bounce a signal off the aircraft, a very small quantity of that signal returns to the transmitter's position but the much greater amount is deflected away from it. If there is a receiver to catch that larger quantity of EM signal, there is a bi-static radar.

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.

Figure 2 is where the details and the devil resides to make life complicated.

There is the bi-static triangle composed of the transmitter, the receiver, and the target. Inside this triangle are two smaller triangles. One triangle contains the 'Direct signal' and the 'Interfering signal' legs. The 'Direct signal' is the link of reference signal that the transmitter should (but not must) give to the receiver. The 'Interfering signal' is where the transmitter is hitting the receiver REGARDLESS of the target, if there is one. The receiver should know of the reference signal in order to compare and cancel out the 'Interfering signal'. The other triangle contains the target echoes and the 'Interfering signal'. If there is no reference signal, how is the receiver to know which one to cancel and which to process?

The problems for a bi-static system are obvious. Most obvious is structural, meaning that the system is not very mobile, if it can be made mobile with no loss of data integrity. In a multi-static setup, multiple views of the same target increases target resolution, even if the target is an F-117 class. But if there are multiple transmitters, then there should be multiple reference information for every receivers. This lead to the next obvious problem of how to create that link. Hard wired or over-the-air (OTA)? Hard wired mean increased structural complexity and immobility. Wireless leave the system vulnerable to jamming. What if the adversary blanket the entire region with inexpensive and expendable EM noise transmitter drones?

So while the bi-static radar is the greatest threat to 'stealth', it is hardly an easily applicable threat.

 

[Tin Man]

Sure, how can non-white people possibly compete with white supreme engineers??? SARCASM

no, its more like this -- i would rather believe the people who have been building and developing stealth technology for a decade rather than a new entrant in the feild. The chinese usually tend to blow things out of proportion mainly for propogada purposes. Not to mention the allegations that the j-20 is hardly an original chinese innovation.

 

[conworldus]

no, its more like this -- i would rather believe the people who have been building and developing stealth technology for a decade rather than a new entrant in the feild. The chinese usually tend to blow things out of proportion mainly for propogada purposes. Not to mention the allegations that the j-20 is hardly an original chinese innovation.

yeah yeah white people are better. I got it. We yellow people only do copying and propaganda blah blah. Whatever.

Technical discussion is fun, but saying what you said makes you an uneducated idiot.

 

[applesauce]

no, its more like this -- i would rather believe the people who have been building and developing stealth technology for a decade rather than a new entrant in the feild. The chinese usually tend to blow things out of proportion mainly for propogada purposes. Not to mention the allegations that the j-20 is hardly an original chinese innovation.

kindly provide some sources from the government(or official Chinese news) that blows things out of proportion. what has china claimed that turned out to be far less than what it is? other the other hand what has china claimed that turn out to be more than what they claimed.

 

[Chogy]

To expand on what Gambit said, "Stealth" is a stupid term. Much better is "Reduced radar cross-section."

Even the F-22 can be detected, but it is range dependent. The goal for stealth is to ensure that the detection range is short, and the radar seeking the stealthy platform will die before the detection takes place.

The proposed F-15 upgrades were on-track before the J-20 was revealed. With these improved radars, the detection range of a given RCS increases by some percentage, like 150% to 200%; more or less. So if the J-20 could be detected at 15 NM by an APG-63, an AESA upgrade might boost that to 30NM or more.

The notion isn't that these upgrades will turn the F-15 into a J-20 killer. The idea is to mix formations, have F-22 and F-15 working in concert. The F-15 can stand off and launch a missile even without detecting the J-20; it can get guidance via datalink from an F-22 that is closer. The F-22 conserves missiles, keeps it's doors closed. They work as a team.

 

[logic]

Typical Cat and mouse Game when it comes to radars and planes.

How advanced or how clever the US might be confronting a strong foe like china might not be as simple as blowing Afghanistan and Iraq to smitherines and boost how advanced your equipment is.

 

[Donatello]

To expand on what Gambit said, "Stealth" is a stupid term. Much better is "Reduced radar cross-section."

Even the F-22 can be detected, but it is range dependent. The goal for stealth is to ensure that the detection range is short, and the radar seeking the stealthy platform will die before the detection takes place.

The proposed F-15 upgrades were on-track before the J-20 was revealed. With these improved radars, the detection range of a given RCS increases by some percentage, like 150% to 200%; more or less. So if the J-20 could be detected at 15 NM by an APG-63, an AESA upgrade might boost that to 30NM or more.

The notion isn't that these upgrades will turn the F-15 into a J-20 killer. The idea is to mix formations, have F-22 and F-15 working in concert. The F-15 can stand off and launch a missile even without detecting the J-20; it can get guidance via datalink from an F-22 that is closer. The F-22 conserves missiles, keeps it's doors closed. They work as a team.

J-20 seems more of a strike aircraft than a combat aircraft, and right now they want a control over airspace leading to Taiwan.

I doubt if you can counter J-20 while it is in it's infancy, because we don't know what they have to counter the F-15s.

They are getting the J-10s and SU-27, with bigger radars they can play the same game that the US can play with F-22 and F-15s.

I think it's their form of deterrent, rather than a direct combat force........Case like Indians getting nukes to fight bigger and more powerful China, and then Pakistan getting nukes to fight a bigger and powerful India.

 

[Luftwaffe]

Because when the chinese talk about retrofitting the j-10, its a wet dream. When the US says it; im more inclined to believe.

Lets forget J-10 retrofitting, something is new but its out there its called J-20 it was once called "Wet Dream" by many like you but it turn out to be a reality have your say about it; J-10 is a piece of cake for Chinese brethrens it's no big deal.

Your logic is flawed or is it french are following you logic not to get into the field where US has outclassed everyone think about it it makes you look like a JackA..s when you said it.

Oh when it the first sale due for Rafale?