What's new

The U.S. Navy’s Next Hawkeye Plane Can Detect Stealth Fighters

Naif al Hilali

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
324
Reaction score
24
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
War Is Boring
We go to war so you don’t have to
19 hrs ago
1*QSPG33s6qosubmWvo9dRtQ.jpeg

E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes. Northrop Grumman photo
The U.S. Navy’s Next Hawkeye Plane Can Detect Stealth Fighters
Specifically, the next generation of Russian and Chinese fighters

by DAVE MAJUMDAR

Earlier this month, the first Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft equipped with aerial refueling capability made its first flight.

The ability to receive fuel addresses one of the few shortcomings of the new airborne surveillance plane, which acts as the airborne eyes and ears of a U.S. Navy carrier strike group.

Indeed, the E-2D is the centerpiece of the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air — or NIFC-CA — battle network, which will eventually allow every platform in the strike group to seamlessly act as either a sensor or shooter.

“The Northrop Grumman aerial refueling team continues to put outstanding effort into bringing this much-needed capability to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and our warfighters who rely on it,” said Capt. Keith Hash, Naval Air Systems Command’s program manager for the E-2/C-2 Airborne Tactical Data System Program Office.



The addition of the aerial refueling capability will allow the E-2D to provide longer on-station times at greater ranges, extending its mission.

According to Northrop Grumman, the new upgrade includes the probe and associated piping, electrical and lighting upgrades and “long endurance seats that will enhance field of view in the cockpit and reduce fatigue over longer missions.”

The E-2D’s aerial refueling capability has under development since 2013, when the Navy awarded Northrop Grumman an engineering, manufacturing and development contract. Testing — which will include three modified aircraft — will continue through 2018. The Navy expects to start a production cut-in in 2018 and start retrofits that year.

1*BykIhu8_uGXPL1aEuDrzzw.jpeg

E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. Northrop Grumman photo
The E-2D is a particularly important asset for the U.S. Navy because of its state-of-the-art radar — as Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, then the Navy’s director of air warfare, described the concept in detail to me and my good friend Sam LaGrone at the U.S. Naval Institute just before Christmas in 2013.

The E-2D is the Navy’s primary means of defending against low-observable cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and enemy aircraft. And, indeed, given the capabilities of its UHF-band radar, the E-2D may be the Navy’s trump card against future Russian and Chinese stealth aircraft.

The E-2D’s Lockheed Martin AN/APY-9 UHF-band radar is the central feature of the Advanced Hawkeye.

Both friend and foe alike have touted UHF radars as an effective countermeasure to stealth technology. One early public example of that is a paper prepared by Arend Westra that appeared in the National Defense University’s Joint Forces Quarterly academic journal in the fourth-quarter issue of 2009.

Buy ‘Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War’
“It is the physics of longer wavelength and resonance that enables VHF and UHF radar to detect stealth aircraft,” Westra wrote in his article, titled “Radar vs. Stealth.”

UHF-band radars operate at frequencies between 300 MHz and one GHz, which results in wavelengths that are between 10 centimeters and one meter long. Typically, due to the physical characteristics of fighter-sized stealth aircraft, they must be optimized to defeat higher frequencies in the Ka, Ku, X, C and parts of the S-bands.

There is a resonance effect that occurs when a feature on an aircraft — such as a tail-fin tip — is less than eight times the size of a particular frequency wavelength. That omnidirectional resonance effect produces a “step change” in an aircraft’s radar cross-section.

Effectively, what that means is that small stealth aircraft that do not have the size or weight allowances for two feet or more of radar absorbent material coatings on every surface are forced to make trades as to which frequency bands they are optimized for.

1*xRyc259PgDtsneg9OSDriQ.jpeg

E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. Northrop Grumman photo
That would include aircraft like the Chengdu J-20, Shenyang J-31, Sukhoi PAK-FA and, indeed, the United States’ own Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and tri-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Only very large stealth aircraft without protruding empennage surfaces — like the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit or the forthcoming Long Range Strike Bomber — can meet the requirement for geometrical optics regime scattering.

Effectively, that means the E-2D’s AN/APY-9 radar can see stealth aircraft like the J-20 or J-31.

Pentagon and industry officials concede that low-frequency radars operating in the VHF and UHF bands can detect and even track low-observable aircraft — that’s just physics. But conventional wisdom has always held that such systems cannot generate a “weapons-quality” track — or in other words, are unable to guide a missile onto a target.

“Poor resolution in angle and range … has historically prevented these radars from providing accurate targeting and fire control,” Westra wrote.

However, electronic scanning and new signal processing techniques have mitigated those shortcomings to an extent. And there are other techniques in development, such as linking multiple low-frequency radars via high-speed data links, which might enable those radars to generate weapons-quality tracks. But industry officials say those technologies are not ready for prime time.

Yet it is possible that the U.S. Navy and Lockheed may have already solved the problem. The service openly talks about the E-2D’s role as the central node of its NIFC-CA battle network to defeat enemy air and missile threats. Under the NIFC-CA “From the Air” construct, the APY-9 radar would act as a sensor to cue Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles for Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets fighters via the Link-16 data link.


Moreover, the APY-9 would also act as a sensor to guide Raytheon Standard SM-6 missiles launched from Aegis cruisers and destroyers against targets located beyond the ships’ SPY-1 radars’ horizon via the Cooperative Engagement Capability data link under the NIFC-CA “From the Sea” construct.

In fact, the Navy has demonstrated live-fire NIFC-CA missile shots using the E-2D’s radar to guide SM-6 missiles against over-the-horizon shots — which by definition means the APY-9 is generating a weapons quality track.

All of that means that the E-2D — paired with F/A-18E/Fs, F-35Cs or an Aegis cruiser — is the perfect weapon to defeat enemy stealth fighters like the J-20 or J-31. Thus, extending the E-2D mission radius and time of station just helps the Advanced Hawkeye become an even more effective weapon.

This article originally appeared at The National Interest.
 
Have I not -- for the past few yrs on this forum -- said that the US have effectively defeated 'stealth' ?

And please, do not bring up the other long wavelengths systems produced and hawked to the gullible by the Russians and the Chinese. The operating freq is one half of the equation. We have the other half. They do not.
 
USA has this, USA has that! @gambit what Vietnam has? It reminds me of the Chinese story of Fox and tiger. FYI, China is now developing quantum radar to target Stealthy fighter. Means all those F22 and F35 could be thrown into russbish bin if quantum radar put in place. There is nothing USA could be arrogant about in the next decades. Your age is done.
Quantum radar ? China is not the first. We were. Like about 10yrs ago.

https://www.wired.com/2008/05/lockheeds-spook/

China WILL encounter the same technical issues. But I will give you credit that you are smart enough to know better that you used the word 'if'.

The difference is that we will be able to deploy the new radar system sooner. For what the article gave, the new system is not based on quantum physics technology, but on vastly improved version of the current radar technology.

The clue is here...

Pentagon and industry officials concede that low-frequency radars operating in the VHF and UHF bands can detect and even track low-observable aircraft — that’s just physics. But conventional wisdom has always held that such systems cannot generate a “weapons-quality” track — or in other words, are unable to guide a missile onto a target.

“Poor resolution in angle and range … has historically prevented these radars from providing accurate targeting and fire control,” Westra wrote.

However, electronic scanning and new signal processing techniques have mitigated those shortcomings to an extent.
And there are other techniques in development, such as linking multiple low-frequency radars via high-speed data links, which might enable those radars to generate weapons-quality tracks.
Note the highlighted.

The new radar data processing techniques probably will not produce X-band quality weapons track, but WILL be good enough that the AMRAAM's own radar will fill in the rest.

These are the critical target resolutions...

- Altitude
- Speed
- Heading
- Aspect angle

The article gave us several clues on how the US, as I have stated on this forum for past several yrs, effectively defeated 'stealth'.

Here is one clue...

There is a resonance effect that occurs when a feature on an aircraft — such as a tail-fin tip — is less than eight times the size of a particular frequency wavelength. That omnidirectional resonance effect produces a “step change” in an aircraft’s radar cross-section.

Only very large stealth aircraft without protruding empennage surfaces — like the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit or the forthcoming Long Range Strike Bomber — can meet the requirement for geometrical optics regime scattering.
Note the highlighted.

In designing a low radar observable body, there must be controls of several items.

Control of...

- Quantity of radiators
- Array of radiators
- Modes of radiation

The more protruding structures there are and the greater their protrusion into the radar stream, the greater the effects of that geometrical optics regime scattering.

The J-20 have eight major flight controls structures. They are pairs of: canards, wings, vertical stabilators, and underside fixed directional control fins.

This is how a radar sees any structure...

airliner_rcs_01.jpg


...As a cluster of voltage spikes where each spike is produced by a protruding structure. The greater the protrusion, and how that structure is viewed by the seeking radar, the greater the contribution to the overall cross section (RCS). There is no mystery on why the vertical stab structure on the airliner is so large.

The greater the quantity of voltage spikes, as produced by the quantity of structures, the greater the ease of creating a unique radar signature. That mean a jet without canards would have an EM signature different than a jet without canards. And a jet like the all-wing B-2 would be the most difficult to generate such a signature.

The AN/APY-9 is deployed. China's experimental quantum radar remains a possibility, admitted by your own 'if'. And it will remain experimental for many more yrs.

The J-20 is Dead On Arrival (DOA).

As time goes by and more of this new radar is revealed, I will attempt to explain the basic principles of radar detection that supports this new radar.
 
@gambit wait and see. China will make the quantum radar operational. USA is good, China is not dumb either. China also is a leading country produce decent DESA in the world, especially on AWACS. Recently China is making breakthrough in Quantum study: the university of Science and technology of China made 10 photon entanglement happened, USA can't do it yet.
 
@gambit wait and see. China will make the quantum radar operational. USA is good, China is not dumb either. China also is a leading country produce decent DESA in the world, especially on AWACS. Recently China is making breakthrough in Quantum study: the university of Science and technology of China made 10 photon entanglement happened, USA can't do it yet.
Why the statement 'Perception is reality' ? Even Einstein admitted that reality is merely an illusion.

An 'illusion' is a belief about something and unfortunately, that belief is most likely wrong.

On the military front, there are no illusions about what the US military have accomplished. When you have nothing concrete, you must rely on perception and faith. Right now, YOU are peddling on perception, faith, and hope that your audience will generate their own illusions about what China can do. Again, on the military front.
 
Why the statement 'Perception is reality' ? Even Einstein admitted that reality is merely an illusion.

An 'illusion' is a belief about something and unfortunately, that belief is most likely wrong.

On the military front, there are no illusions about what the US military have accomplished. When you have nothing concrete, you must rely on perception and faith. Right now, YOU are peddling on perception, faith, and hope that your audience will generate their own illusions about what China can do. Again, on the military front.
Why try so hard to demean China? After so many years as you said lightening year tech edge USA have against China, China is still alive and getting better? If keep underestimate China, USA have to pay in someday. You even failed defeat north Vietnam back to 1970s, not to mention China today. Time to wake up.
 
Quantum radar ? China is not the first. We were. Like about 10yrs ago.

https://www.wired.com/2008/05/lockheeds-spook/

China WILL encounter the same technical issues. But I will give you credit that you are smart enough to know better that you used the word 'if'.

The difference is that we will be able to deploy the new radar system sooner. For what the article gave, the new system is not based on quantum physics technology, but on vastly improved version of the current radar technology.

The clue is here...


Note the highlighted.

The new radar data processing techniques probably will not produce X-band quality weapons track, but WILL be good enough that the AMRAAM's own radar will fill in the rest.

These are the critical target resolutions...

- Altitude
- Speed
- Heading
- Aspect angle

The article gave us several clues on how the US, as I have stated on this forum for past several yrs, effectively defeated 'stealth'.

Here is one clue...


Note the highlighted.

In designing a low radar observable body, there must be controls of several items.

Control of...

- Quantity of radiators
- Array of radiators
- Modes of radiation

The more protruding structures there are and the greater their protrusion into the radar stream, the greater the effects of that geometrical optics regime scattering.

The J-20 have eight major flight controls structures. They are pairs of: canards, wings, vertical stabilators, and underside fixed directional control fins.

This is how a radar sees any structure...

airliner_rcs_01.jpg


...As a cluster of voltage spikes where each spike is produced by a protruding structure. The greater the protrusion, and how that structure is viewed by the seeking radar, the greater the contribution to the overall cross section (RCS). There is no mystery on why the vertical stab structure on the airliner is so large.

The greater the quantity of voltage spikes, as produced by the quantity of structures, the greater the ease of creating a unique radar signature. That mean a jet without canards would have an EM signature different than a jet without canards. And a jet like the all-wing B-2 would be the most difficult to generate such a signature.

The AN/APY-9 is deployed. China's experimental quantum radar remains a possibility, admitted by your own 'if'. And it will remain experimental for many more yrs.

The J-20 is Dead On Arrival (DOA).

As time goes by and more of this new radar is revealed, I will attempt to explain the basic principles of radar detection that supports this new radar.
Noah Shachtman Security
  • Date of Publication: 03.08.07. 03.08.07
  • Time of Publication: 11:12 am. 11:12 am
Lockheed’s Spooky Radar

Defense giant Lockheed Martin is applying Einstein’s "spooky action at a distance" to a far-out concept for a "quantum radar" that would be a (forgive the pun) quantum leap over current radar technology. The company filed a patent on the idea in Europe, according to this article in the U.K. Guardian:

radar.jpg


The company has designed and patented a scanner based on the principle of quantum entanglement – a far out concept, even by the weird standards of the quantum world. It says the device could penetrate any type of defence, to identify hidden weapons and roadside bombs from hundreds of miles away.

Quantum entanglement says that two particles can be joined so that whatever happens to one must also happen to its partner, however far apart they are.

Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance". Lockheed Martin prefers: "Quantum radar is capable of providing information about targets that cannot be provided using classical radar systems."

European patent number EP1750145 describes "radar systems and methods using entangled quantum particles". It says such a device could "visualise useful target details through background and/or camouflaging clutter, through plasma shrouds around hypersonic air vehicles, through the layers of concealment hiding underground facilities, [and find] IEDs [improvised explosive devices], mines and other threats – all while operating from an airborne platform". It could also be mounted on a satellite.

Some physicists are already scratching their head over this, but the idea may not be as far-fetched as it sounds. The quantum radar seems to follow — at least in theory — in the footsteps of quantum computing, which is also still a ways away from being built. Like the theoretical quantum radar, a quantum computer would be a leap ahead because it "hold(s) the possibility of solving what computer science calls ‘NP-complete’ problems, the problems that are impossible or nearly impossible to calculate on a classical computer," according to this recent piece in Wired.

I looked up the Lockheed patent, which was filed last month in Europe (I couldn’t find an equivalent filing here in the U.S.). The patent is probably only understandable to those of you infatuated with Schrodinger’s cat, but the basic description is here:

Embodiments of systems and methods for radar systems using entangled quantum particles, referred to as quantum radar, are disclosed herein. Entangled beams allow the absorption spectrum and the resolution limit of quantum radar systems to be selected independently of one another. Thus, while classical radar systems must compromise between range and resolution, quantum radar systems can simultaneously achieve the low attenuation/high range associated with a long wave length and the high resolution associated with a short wave length.

The inventor listed on the patent is Edward Allen, who, surprise, surprise, belongs to Lockheed’s super-secret R&D unit, Skunk Works.

Like in the U.S., my understanding is that European patents don’t require you to be able to build a working device. In the U.S., an invention can be "prophetic," meaning you can theorize inventions not yet built. So, in the case of Lockheed, I suspect it doesn’t much matter to them whether they think the quantum radar will work or not — if it’s theoretically possible, it’s worth it to own the idea.

Sharon Weinberger

---------

Sharon Weinberger Security
  • Date of Publication: 05.22.08. 05.22.08
  • Time of Publication: 9:32 am. 9:32 am
Lockheed’s ‘Spooky Radar’ Gets U.S. Patent

A year ago, we wrote about Lockheed Martin’s "spooky radar," a theoretical technology that uses quantum entanglement and Einstein’s concept of "spooky action at a distance" for a radar with radically advanced capabilities. The radar concept, thought up by scientists at Lockheed’s Skunk Works, became public when Lockheed filed a patent application in Europe. Well, this week, Lockheed was granted a patent in the United States for its spooky radar, which "can simultaneously achieve the low attenuation/high range associated with a long wave length and the high resolution associated with a short wave length."

So, what’s the big deal? As the patent states, a quantum radar could defeat stealth aircraft, spot camouflaged objects and more:

The ability to propagate radar signals at frequencies that are independent of the resolution frequency may allow quantum radar system 100 to attain near zero attenuation rates in the atmosphere, and greatly diminished attenuation rates in other media including foliage, building materials, earthen layers, etc. Quantum radar system 100, thus, can be adapted to visualize useful target details through background and/or camouflaging clutter, through plasma shrouds around hypersonic air vehicles, through the layers of concealment hiding underground facilities, IEDs, mines, and other threats–all while operating from an airborne platform or other suitable platform. Quantum radar system 100 may also improve the performance of advanced image processing and pattern recognition systems, as well as defeat most RF signature management systems when the propagation frequency is tuned to the resonant wave length of the target.

This is a fascinating concept, but it appears to be mostly conceptual at the moment; I suspect the quantum radar could be even further away than quantum computers.
 
Why try so hard to demean China? After so many years as you said lightening year tech edge USA have against China, China is still alive and getting better? If keep underestimate China, USA have to pay in someday. You even failed defeat north Vietnam back to 1970s, not to mention China today. Time to wake up.
I think the debate here started with someone taking exception to a factual statement (see your "USA has this, USA has that!"). There are actually no demeaning remarks in the above posts.
 
I think the debate here started with someone taking exception to a factual statement (see your "USA has this, USA has that!"). There are actually no demeaning remarks in the above posts.
If you guys hate China that much, come and get it. Don't be keyboard warriors.

I think the debate here started with someone taking exception to a factual statement (see your "USA has this, USA has that!"). There are actually no demeaning remarks in the above posts.
If you guys hate China that much, come and get it. Don't be keyboard warriors.
 
If you guys hate China that much, come and get it. Don't be keyboard warriors.


If you guys hate China that much, come and get it. Don't be keyboard warriors.
This idea that I or Gambit hates Chinese is misplaced and all in your head.

Are you seriously challenging us to a a game of fistycuffs? :sarcastic:
Misconduct-image-4.jpg


Or, are you seriously calling for war in the real world? :unsure:

The remark to which Gambit responded was clearly deleted by a mod. That should tell you something. :rolleyes1:
 
What's so funny. China and USA sure have a fight in the future. It's unavoidable.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom