ARH AAMs vs VLO Aircraft

[Boagrius]

Indeed, the nodes are of very high value in a battlesystem. Keep in mind though that engagements are not so much fighter vs. fighter events, but are actually systemic events. Disabling a hostile node could mean a fighter targets/shoots it down with an AAM, but it could also be targeted via cyberwarfare or the subject of EA. Nodes also are not just confined to airspace, but can be ground-based or aboard ships. I am also anticipating that nodes could start being (if they are not already...) spaceborne.

The value of a LO fighter (IMO) is that their presence has to be contemplated in both offensive and defensive capacities, as well as their potential to act as harvesters or ISR assets. In this respect, these aircraft could potentially start to take on some of the roles of the 'traditional' naval LO asset, the submarine.

An opposing force has to keep in mind that, just because they are not currently detecting LO fighters present, that does not mean none ARE present quietly collecting data and/or waiting for the right opportunity to strike.

As people can see, the potential range of variables which 5th Gen fighters can introduce into a battlesystem can be quite... intriguing.

Yes I can see what you mean. The landscape is certainly changing qualitatively in a multitude of ways. It's unfortunate that this fact seems to get lost on so many defence "experts"/writers/clickbait bloggers whose opinions nevertheless readily pervade the public domain. The archaic "platform vs platform" mentality still seems very widespread for the "average punter". I suppose it would require an uncommon level of inquiry/critical thinking to properly appreciate the current and emerging importance of a "systems vs systems" approach. F35 is a prime example to my mind.

 

[AegisFC]

The USAF is toying around with using a F-22/F-15 combo with the F-15 acting to forward data from F-22's to other units or allowing the F-22 to remain passive but still fully informed.

I normally dislike Foxtrot Alpha but this is decent summary.

Here’s The First Shot Of The F-15C Pod That Will Change How The Air Force Fights

 

[colay1]

Red Flag continues to focus on the integration of 5Gen, 4Gen, AWACS etc. to reap the benefits of a networked battlespace. Powerful capabilities enabled by advancing technology is driving change in roles and tactics.

5Gen act as battle managers at the tip of the spear, directing 4Gen aircraft to best effect. The former keep their missiles in reserve while alllowing legacy jets to expend munitions as missile mules. This enhances their effectiveness and survivability.

AWACS are tasked with providing a 360-deg overwatch and updating the 5Gens with the most current relevant intelligence which the latter incorporate into their tactical decisions.

 

[r3mu511]

R

...
I am quite curious about the extent of the "shrinkage" you're referring to (?) - for example a given missile can hardly be considered a "fire and forget" system if it still has to be semi-actively guided to within <5nm of the target in order to achieve a kill(??). That final distance is going to represent a tiny fraction of the weapon's overall travel time for a Mach 4+ BVR weapon. I can see this having significant operational implications in the A-A arena, especially when considering VLO 5th gen platforms pitted against 4-4.5 gen non-VLO opponents.

Granted, making an accurate assessment of the implications of the above hinges upon radar performance and RCS data that is not publically available, but I find it astonishing that it never seems to get mentioned in the public domain (particularly in relation to the F35). Just another very pivotal place in which VLO can disrupt the enemy kill chain I suppose.
...

Late reply but fwiw let's put some numbers to this... per norman friedman's "world naval weapon systems", the R-27R (semi-active seeker) can lock-on to a 3 m^2 target at 25 km, while the R-27AE (active seeker) can achieve lock on a 5 m^2 target at 20 km...

Now per the following article: www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20051125.aspx (can't post links yet so have to write them out this way)*, the F-35 is claimed to have an rcs equivalent to that of a golf ball sized metal sphere... thus a ~43 mm diameter metal sphere illuminated by a 3 cm wavelength (ie. x-band) incident RF wave would have an rcs of approx. ~0.0014 m^2 (see nasa doc "haystack & hax radar measurements of orbital debris" for approximations of object rcs w/ primary dimensions w/in the mie/resonance region)... this is pretty much in line w/ the claimed -30 dBsm (ie. 0.001 m^2) cited in this article: www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm ...

So given the above approx., rcs for an F-35, this would mean the R-27R (semi-active) terminal lock-on range would effectively now just be ~3.4 km (due to the fourth-root relationship of rcs to range)... similarly the R-27AE (active) terminal lock range would now be ~2.4 km... quite dramatic drops in terminal lock-on range showing the need for a much extended midcourse guidance phase (ins+uplink presumably)...

---

As for why the prevalence of rf active or semi-active terminal homing vs. IR despite of the advances in rcs reduction, perhaps the effects of atmospheric wave propagation might be a factor...

Taking a look at a sample optical/IR transmittance graph (see: www.upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Atmospheric.transmittance.IR.jpg), and taking the optimistic value of an 80% transmittance over the ~1.8 km range, this results in an attenuation of approx. -0.54 dB per km for wavelengths w/in the permissive IR bands... this means a loss of radiated power from the IR source of ~12 % per km...

Now looking at the attenuation at RF wavelengths (see: www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a011642.pdf , p. 15 fig. 2) we can see that at x-band the attenuation is under -0.02 dB per km, or approx. a loss in radiated RF power of ~0.5 % per km...

Hence from the above, IR radiated losses are significantly higher over a given range as compared to RF radiated losses, and these are for clear weather effects...

Looking at the attenuation for clouds and rain show more pronounced losses for IR vs. RF wavelengths (see previous cited pdf, fig. S1 and S2): ie. fair weather cumulus cloud cover attenuation for IR at -90 dB/km, while for RF it is -0.05 to -0.1 dB/km... and for light rain (~5 mm/hr) IR attenuation is at -3 dB/km, whilst RF loss is at -0.1 dB/km...

Hence significantly greater losses for IR as compared to RF radiation in inclement weather...

So given the above for atmospheric propagation losses for IR vs. RF radiation, perhaps this is why we still see quite a number of applications utilizing RF homing terminal seekers in spite of the target rcs reductions achieved...

Mod Edit. Links added for ease of access.

 

[ngatimozart]

Welcome to DT r3mu511. I would suggest that you have a look at the rules and post an introduction in the introductions section.

 

[Boagrius]

R

Late reply but fwiw let's put some numbers to this...

...So given the above for atmospheric propagation losses for IR vs. RF radiation, perhaps this is why we still see quite a number of applications utilizing RF homing terminal seekers in spite of the target rcs reductions achieved...

Thanks for the reply r3mu511. Yes it strikes me that VLO could for all intents and purposes turn modern ARH missiles - functionally - into SARH missiles requiring offboard targeting updates for the overwhelming majority of their flight time.

Given the lead that the US has over the competition in VLO aircraft design, I suspect this is a problem that will affect "OPFOR" more than the west for the foreseeable future. The VLO properties of T.50, J20/31 et al. are an unknown to me at this point, but I doubt the Chinese or Russians are likely to bridge the "VLO gap" in their first attempt(s).

That said, given the amount of work going into things like cooperative engagement capability, one wonders whether the US and the west may be moving over to using offboard sensors to provide targeting data to BVR weapons like AMRAAM where and when possible. While an X-Band fighter radar might struggle to find a VLO target at extended range, perhaps sensor nodes using longer wavelengths (AWACS, surface vessels etc.) could be used to detect the likes of T.50, J20/31 and relay targeting information to the shooters via datalink, who could in turn feed that information to the missile for the entire flight. That way the shooter observes EMCON the entire time and would not need to maintain any particular orientation to the target while the missile is in flight. Hell, the "poor little ARH seekerhead" wouldn't need to go active at all and the target aircraft would get zero warning of the inbound missile from their RWR/ESM suite...

Just my 2c.

 

[r3mu511]

...
While an X-Band fighter radar might struggle to find a VLO target at extended range, perhaps sensor nodes using longer wavelengths (AWACS, surface vessels etc.) could be used to detect the likes of T.50, J20/31 and relay targeting information to the shooters via datalink, who could in turn feed that information to the missile for the entire flight. That way the shooter observes EMCON the entire time and would not need to maintain any particular orientation to the target while the missile is in flight. Hell, the "poor little ARH seekerhead" wouldn't need to go active at all...

Hi @Boagrius -- re. achieving terminal homing w/o using any inboard seeker on the weapon itself and instead relying on "offboard" netted sensors, I'ld speculate that the effective blast radius of the ordnance might require the offboard sensors to have an exceedingly high angular accuracy requiement...

For example, if the ordnance has (let's say) a 50m kill/blast radius, and the target is 100 km away from the offboard sensor, then the sensor must be accurate w/in ~0.03 deg (in azimuth and elevation) in order to get the ordnance close enough to the target...

If the target were instead 200km away from the offboard sensor, then the angular accuracy required of the sensor would then be ~0.014 deg... with these sort of angular accuracy reqts, I'm not aware of current systems w/c can achieve these performance criteria...

Angular resolution of the offboard sensor may also be a limiting factor for terminal homing use as the effective beamwidth would effect the ability of the offboard sensor to resolve against multiple targets, eg. if a sensor had a ~7 deg horizontal beamwidth (like for example the E-2C's aps-138/139/145 per Norman Friedman's "World naval weapon systems") then at a range of 100 km away, the beamwidth would cover an arc ~12 km wide, and if you had multiple targets w/in that arc the offboard sensor would not be able to resolve the arc width down to allow for terminal guidance of weapons to engage the targets concurrently... I'ld speculate one would thus have to engage the "outermost" targets along the arc width, and once eliminated engage the next targets w/c are now "outermost" w/in the arc width...

So fwiw, it might turn out that the angular accuracy and resolution of offboard sensors at range might be limiting factors for their use in the terminal phase guidance of weapons...

 

[Boagrius]

Hi @Boagrius -- re. achieving terminal homing w/o using any inboard seeker on the weapon itself and instead relying on "offboard" netted sensors, I'ld speculate that the effective blast radius of the ordnance might require the offboard sensors to have an exceedingly high angular accuracy requiement...

For example, if the ordnance has (let's say) a 50m kill/blast radius, and the target is 100 km away from the offboard sensor, then the sensor must be accurate w/in ~0.03 deg (in azimuth and elevation) in order to get the ordnance close enough to the target...

If the target were instead 200km away from the offboard sensor, then the angular accuracy required of the sensor would then be ~0.014 deg... with these sort of angular accuracy reqts, I'm not aware of current systems w/c can achieve these performance criteria...

Angular resolution of the offboard sensor may also be a limiting factor for terminal homing use as the effective beamwidth would effect the ability of the offboard sensor to resolve against multiple targets, eg. if a sensor had a ~7 deg horizontal beamwidth (like for example the E-2C's aps-138/139/145 per Norman Friedman's "World naval weapon systems") then at a range of 100 km away, the beamwidth would cover an arc ~12 km wide, and if you had multiple targets w/in that arc the offboard sensor would not be able to resolve the arc width down to allow for terminal guidance of weapons to engage the targets concurrently... I'ld speculate one would thus have to engage the "outermost" targets along the arc width, and once eliminated engage the next targets w/c are now "outermost" w/in the arc width...

So fwiw, it might turn out that the angular accuracy and resolution of offboard sensors at range might be limiting factors for their use in the terminal phase guidance of weapons...

Indeed, which would bring me back to my earlier confusion as to the reliance on radar as the primary/lone terminal guidance method for current and future BVR weapons in the west (ok so AMRAAM has HOJ but how reliable is that against a maneuvering fighter?). That said I don't consider myself terribly knowledgeable about the current state of terminal guidance technology (I imagine much of it is classified anyway), but the potential emergence of widespread VLO aircraft does raise some interesting questions for the future of air warfare.

 

[CB90]

Indeed, which would bring me back to my earlier confusion as to the reliance on radar as the primary/lone terminal guidance method for current and future BVR weapons in the west (ok so AMRAAM has HOJ but how reliable is that against a maneuvering fighter?). That said I don't consider myself terribly knowledgeable about the current state of terminal guidance technology (I imagine much of it is classified anyway), but the potential emergence of widespread VLO aircraft does raise some interesting questions for the future of air warfare.

The French have had IR BVR missiles for a while.

One of the SM-2 variants has a terminal IR seeker mode.

The latest model Sidewinder development was to stretch range into BVR territory (though not really a "MR" missile even then), and was specifically due to those terminal guidance concerns on AIM-120D.

With AMRAAM, I suspect the problem is the lack of space on the missile to simply insert another guidance option, at least not without major redesign. F-22/F-35 missile bay constraints is another problem.

HOJ's problem isn't so much its accuracy. It's that against VLO, the jammer either isn't on, or it's a more sophisticated kind of jamming (ie not brute force, overwhelm signal to noise ratio, kind of attack). So either there's nothing for it to track on because the jammer isn't active, the source of the jamming isn't the target, or the missile doesn't even realize it's been jammed.

Not really sure where the rest of the West intends to go next. One solution might be to follow the Japanese and develop an AESA seeker for a follow on to AMRAAM. They've already entered a partnership with the UK on Meteor.

 

[colay1]

Trust the Israelis to get ahead in the game. The Stunner Missile will be a formidable system featuring a multi-pulse rocket motor, multiple sensors package, datalinking, etc. which would complement the F-35 quite nicely.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...-missile-evaluation-for-israeli-f-35s-395276/.

 

[Boagrius]

Trust the Israelis to get ahead in the game. The Stunner Missile will be a formidable system featuring a multi-pulse rocket motor, multiple sensors package, datalinking, etc. which would complement the F-35 quite nicely.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...-missile-evaluation-for-israeli-f-35s-395276/.

I hear you on that.

The French have had IR BVR missiles for a while.

One of the SM-2 variants has a terminal IR seeker mode.

The latest model Sidewinder development was to stretch range into BVR territory (though not really a "MR" missile even then), and was specifically due to those terminal guidance concerns on AIM-120D.

With AMRAAM, I suspect the problem is the lack of space on the missile to simply insert another guidance option, at least not without major redesign. F-22/F-35 missile bay constraints is another problem.

HOJ's problem isn't so much its accuracy. It's that against VLO, the jammer either isn't on, or it's a more sophisticated kind of jamming (ie not brute force, overwhelm signal to noise ratio, kind of attack). So either there's nothing for it to track on because the jammer isn't active, the source of the jamming isn't the target, or the missile doesn't even realize it's been jammed.

Granted, nevertheless the US are sticking with the AMRAAM for the time being, with T3 being the only program that seems likely to produce a potential successor in the foreseeable future..? (still RF based)

Are there ways around the resolution problems associated with using longer radar wavelengths for terminal guidance? Perhaps beam sharpening for example? I can't imagine an AESA seekerhead alone would solve the problem of terminal guidance against a target that is LO in the X-band. I imagine the Ruskies and Chinese must be working away feverishly on the problem given the emerging prevalence of X-band optimised VLO jets in western airforces (F35 mainly)... Perhaps the US are/have been too...

 

[r3mu511]

...
Are there ways around the resolution problems associated with using longer radar wavelengths for terminal guidance? Perhaps beam sharpening for example?
...

Hi @Boagrius -- since you mention in a previous post that the context of this thread is future air-to-air engagements and you mention above "beam sharpening", by w/c I take to mean you are referring to doppler beam sharpening and hence it's application in radar imaging (SAR/synthetic aperture radar), then as a future possibility and assuming sufficient processing capability, offboard sensor synthetic imaging might allow for terminal guidance of weapons.

This paper looks at DBS assisted SAR terminal guidance (though it is an air-to-ground weapon, uses ka-band, and is a weapon mounted seeker): "www . mathworks . com /tagteam/12917_AIAAGNCv5.pdf", while this paper looks at a2a ISAR (though it is x-band): "www . normalesup . org /~cantallo/eusar2010_airtoair.pdf", so a future system might be able to combine the techniques and in effect use air-to-air ISAR for terminal guidance.

Re. using longer wavelengths for the synthetic imaging: down-range resolution is mainly dependent on effective pulse width (ie. taking into consideration any pulse compression used), and while cross-range resolution (ie. angular resolution) is directly proportional to the wavelength, it is also inversely proportional to the relative velocity b/w sensor and target, imaging integration period, and imaging squint angle (ref: P.Tait "Introduction to radar target recognition", p.150); so a future offboard sensor synthetic imaging system w/ enough processing power might be able to achieve a down-range and cross-range resolution that can place the weapon w/in the required blast/kill radius of a target.

In effect it might be like a future offboard system doing command-guidance of a weapon via synthetic RF imaging for a2a engagements, well fwiw all speculatively as possibilities for the future.

 

[gf0012-aust]

so a future offboard sensor synthetic imaging system w/ enough processing power might be able to achieve a down-range and cross-range resolution that can place the weapon w/in the required blast/kill radius of a target.

In effect it might be like a future offboard system doing command-guidance of a weapon via synthetic RF imaging for a2a engagements, well fwiw all speculatively as possibilities for the future.

thats fundamentally happening now
distributed mobile modes are acting as range and array extenders.

ACTUV, Tern, Ghostswimmer and a couple of others have conops which embrace the capability in future iterations

 

[Boagrius]

thats fundamentally happening now
distributed mobile modes are acting as range and array extenders.

ACTUV, Tern, Ghostswimmer and a couple of others have conops which embrace the capability in future iterations

That's fascinating. Hence the emphasis on VLO platforms like F35 and F22 as ISR nodes, rather than mere weapons delivery vehicles...

My only query is what happens if and when OPFOR sensor nodes/networks develop to the point that the likes of F35 and F22 can be detected, tracked and fired upon at operationally meaningful ranges? I know VLO is not a static quality but one would imagine their particular "stealth" shaping (at least) would have a "use by" date?

Perhaps the synergistic relationship between a VLO radar signature (even if it is X-band optimised rather than wide-band) and the support provided by EW/EA assets like the Growler must provide a certain level of "future proofing" for both types?

 

[gf0012-aust]

That's fascinating. Hence the emphasis on VLO platforms like F35 and F22 as ISR nodes, rather than mere weapons delivery vehicles...

My only query is what happens if and when OPFOR sensor nodes/networks develop to the point that the likes of F35 and F22 can be detected, tracked and fired upon at operationally meaningful ranges? I know VLO is not a static quality but one would imagine their particular "stealth" shaping (at least) would have a "use by" date?

Perhaps the synergistic relationship between a VLO radar signature (even if it is X-band optimised rather than wide-band) and the support provided by EW/EA assets like the Growler must provide a certain level of "future proofing" for both types?

the detection/suppression/management construct is "alive" - which is why the comment that comes back about stealth being obsolete is nonsense. VLO and signal/signature management has been evolving since 1912 and in real terms from the time of 2nd generation manned jet age. ie the first entry into deliberate management of incoming signals and outgoing reflection happened in the late 50's.

VLO is now in its 5th discrete "manned" generation - this is separate to the conversation around 1-5th generation fighters.
VLO is in its 6th discrete unmanned generation - again, separate from the conversation around UAS developments

people are getting excited at the potential of UAS as unmanned shooters (blame the media and the hype around "drones") But the bigger picture is how each platform in the comms sphere acts as a node in its own right - and by association extends the sensor footprint. in effect, every asset that is eyed and eared up is part of a broader operating picture array - even though some will be unintended contributors

as for stealth "shaping" - every wave guide will necessitate a counter management opportunity to be considered - so x band today, Z1 band tomorrow etc.... what is getting ignored is that the emphasis used to be on managing the shape of the platform, eg chines, iridium laminated cockpit, canted rear seat support, shock humps over the inlets, S bend inlets, faceted service access points, wing edges matched to wave length etc... now a lot of the supportive signal and signature management is digital, and if its digital its able to be upgraded on the fly

as a bad analogy - all of the worlds submarine cables are now fibre optic - but over the last 25 years from the time the first subsea FO cable was laid - the speeds have gone up exponentially - the speed has changed due to advances in computing power and more affective algorithms - ie the speeds have been managed at the software interconnects - none of the subsea cabling has needed to be replaced to meet the new speeds.

the sensor/signal/signature management paradigms are also under the same development model.

when people get hung up about and get excited by the "death of steath" they are way behind the development and comprehension 8 ball. it was never a fixed dynamic, never a fixed construct and there never was a magic bullet - just as VLO itself was never going to stay a magic bullet as a single development construct

 

[Boagrius]

the detection/suppression/management construct is "alive" - which is why the comment that comes back about stealth being obsolete is nonsense. VLO and signal/signature management has been evolving since 1912 and in real terms from the time of 2nd generation manned jet age. ie the first entry into deliberate management of incoming signals and outgoing reflection happened in the late 50's.

VLO is now in its 5th discrete "manned" generation - this is separate to the conversation around 1-5th generation fighters.
VLO is in its 6th discrete unmanned generation - again, separate from the conversation around UAS developments

people are getting excited at the potential of UAS as unmanned shooters (blame the media and the hype around "drones") But the bigger picture is how each platform in the comms sphere acts as a node in its own right - and by association extends the sensor footprint. in effect, every asset that is eyed and eared up is part of a broader operating picture array - even though some will be unintended contributors

as for stealth "shaping" - every wave guide will necessitate a counter management opportunity to be considered - so x band today, Z1 band tomorrow etc.... what is getting ignored is that the emphasis used to be on managing the shape of the platform, eg chines, iridium laminated cockpit, canted rear seat support, shock humps over the inlets, S bend inlets, faceted service access points, wing edges matched to wave length etc... now a lot of the supportive signal and signature management is digital, and if its digital its able to be upgraded on the fly

as a bad analogy - all of the worlds submarine cables are now fibre optic - but over the last 25 years from the time the first subsea FO cable was laid - the speeds have gone up exponentially - the speed has changed due to advances in computing power and more affective algorithms - ie the speeds have been managed at the software interconnects - none of the subsea cabling has needed to be replaced to meet the new speeds.

the sensor/signal/signature management paradigms are also under the same development model.

when people get hung up about and get excited by the "death of steath" they are way behind the development and comprehension 8 ball. it was never a fixed dynamic, never a fixed construct and there never was a magic bullet - just as VLO itself was never going to stay a magic bullet as a single development construct

Right, so for a layman like yours truly it sounds as though what I was saying earlier is likely the case - namely that while the VLO shaping of an F35 or F22 may be fixed, the supporting EW technologies (and VLO sig management techniques like RAM coatings) are not, which should ensure their "improveability" and hence survivability for the foreseeable future?

I just wonder how far away we are from the day when x-band optimised VLO shaping will need to give way to something else - one hopes that day will occur after the arrival of things like F(X) and F/A-(XX). The nay-sayers would have us believe that this point is either nigh or upon us, but you seem to suggest it is still quite a ways off yet...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Right, so for a layman like yours truly it sounds as though what I was saying earlier is likely the case - namely that while the VLO shaping of an F35 or F22 may be fixed, the supporting EW technologies (and VLO sig management techniques like RAM coatings) are not, which should ensure their "improveability" and hence survivability for the foreseeable future?

I just wonder how far away we are from the day when x-band optimised VLO shaping will need to give way to something else - one hopes that day will occur after the arrival of things like F(X) and F/A-(XX). The nay-sayers would have us believe that this point is either nigh or upon us, but you seem to suggest it is still quite a ways off yet...

fundamentally yes, we haven't really even hit the capability of active management of the platform - what we do at the moment is that we actively manage the environment - there is a subtle but distinct difference.

at the risk of flogging the horse beyond recovery, when all your "objects" within the track management operating picture are all eyed and eared up - even if its discretionary to only specific nodes, then that operating picture ball (not just the bubble) brings in a whole new definition and appreciation of managing the noise transmitted, received and detected within that sphere.

"Stealth" isn't dead. VLO platforms won't die, they will evolve as the environment ebbs and flows in its own point in time sophistication level

for me its not about one door closing and another opening - signals and signature management is a complex beast where there are no clear gates to open or close.

its kind of similar to labels applied to 4th, 5th and 6th generation combat aircraft - there is a blurring of capability even though those platforms have common tech features.

there is no binary transition - hence why a lot of combat systems are evolutionary, its why you have block releases etc....

 

[r3mu511]

thats fundamentally happening now
distributed mobile modes are acting as range and array extenders.

ACTUV, Tern, Ghostswimmer and a couple of others have conops which embrace the capability in future iterations

When you said "that is happening now" are you referring to usage of longer wavelength radar imaging offboard sensors for terminal guidance? Because that was the context of the discussion in my post above.

If you are referring to netted sensors, then yes it is happening now. But what was being referred to in the subdiscussion w/ @Boagrius was specifically long wavelength RF imaging for terminal guidance being used by the netted sensor.

...
what is getting ignored is that the emphasis used to be on managing the shape of the platform, eg chines, iridium laminated cockpit, canted rear seat support, shock humps over the inlets, S bend inlets, faceted service access points, wing edges matched to wave length etc... now a lot of the supportive signal and signature management is digital, and if its digital its able to be upgraded on the fly
...

In the context of rcs reduction, when you said that the "signature management is digital" do you mean active RF emissions w/c via destructive interference attenuate the reflected RF energy off of an irradiated object (as opposed to just ECM)? Do you have a link/url for this, it would make for some good reading for me. Thanks!

 

[gf0012-aust]

When you said "that is happening now" are you referring to usage of longer wavelength radar imaging offboard sensors for terminal guidance? Because that was the context of the discussion in my post above.

yes. actively being tested

Iwhat was being referred to in the subdiscussion w/ @Boagrius was specifically long wavelength RF imaging for terminal guidance being used by the netted sensor.

yes. actively being tested

In the context of rcs reduction, when you said that the "signature management is digital" do you mean active RF emissions w/c via destructive interference attenuate the reflected RF energy off of an irradiated object (as opposed to just ECM)? Do you have a link/url for this, it would make for some good reading for me. Thanks!

not sure if its public domain - but I can think of 3 countries testing this principle
no public links, but if you're an "old crow" then you will know where to look

 

[r3mu511]

(Talking wrt long wavelength RF imaging for terminal guidance)

yes. actively being tested

Hi @gf0012-aust -- Is it ok for you to name what that system is w/c is being tested for long wavelength RF imaging terminal guidance? Would you also know what freq band they're using? Thanks.