Oh-oh. I didnt realised before what most important USSR interceptors were without internal guns back then. This could possible prove one thing: human mistakes just the same in all countries...Well, that was just "in". The Soviet Union, in the late 60s, operated:
with internal guns
1000 MiG-17 -> fighter (initial: 1952)
350 MiG-19 -> fighter (initial: 1955)
200 Yak-25 -> interceptor (initial: 1955)
without internal guns
750 Su-9 -> interceptor (initial: 1959)
350 Yak-28 -> interceptor (initial: 1960)
150 Tu-28 -> interceptor (initial: 1963)
400 Su-15 -> interceptor (initial: 1967)
Notice something?
---
Numbers: CRS US/Soviet Military Balance, Statistical Trends, 1970-1980; stats for 1970
Super radar detecting US stealth plane
- Thread starter Aegis
- Start date
- Status
Thats the point I was trying to make. In the US case they have had some close calls
Vanevaar Bush and Gen Spaatz (USAAF) both pushed to disband the USN as they were of the view that Strategic Bombing and nuke carriage made ships obsolete. AF General Curtis Le May certainly would have done his best to follow through if the USN hadn't had people like Rickover to push hard.
Kruschev went through similar problems in the fact that the head of the Strategic Rocket Forces and the head of Frontal Aviation also thought that Airpower would dominate and that as a continental power, they didn't need a Navy.
Stupidity is universal
No, Russia says they have the ability to, and Israel has a system just like it. Let me see if i can find the link on it.
Dr. Renato
New Member
Need to talk to Radar or Sonar expert
I have discovered a new class of impulse-equivalent waveforms with very low correlation sidelobes. Basically, I have a solution and am looking for a problem. Any ideas?
I have discovered a new class of impulse-equivalent waveforms with very low correlation sidelobes. Basically, I have a solution and am looking for a problem. Any ideas?
This is just an observation but if there is a super radar that can detect stealth aircraft it sohlud be able to detect santa. OH THATS RIGHT SORRY KIDS SANTA DOESN'T exist, the same with super radars that detect stealth. Stealth isn't stealth as nevidimka put it, it should be faintly detectable.
The best way I see a radar detecting a "faintly detectable" aircraft is to have two measuring points, (ok im taking the B2 as an example it has the radar signature of a pidgeon.) now it should work like a modern speed camera on the first sweep it detects the pidgeon like signature and in the next sweep at another point on the B2's course it times how long it took to reach that point and it its going at the speed of sound its obviously not a pidgeon, then allocate a more detailed radar inspection of that perticular section to make sure it isn't just interference then send up fighters if it still registers as the signal of a pidgeon or shoot it down with missiles if its detected the bomber
(hope you guys understood that)
The best way I see a radar detecting a "faintly detectable" aircraft is to have two measuring points, (ok im taking the B2 as an example it has the radar signature of a pidgeon.) now it should work like a modern speed camera on the first sweep it detects the pidgeon like signature and in the next sweep at another point on the B2's course it times how long it took to reach that point and it its going at the speed of sound its obviously not a pidgeon, then allocate a more detailed radar inspection of that perticular section to make sure it isn't just interference then send up fighters if it still registers as the signal of a pidgeon or shoot it down with missiles if its detected the bomber
(hope you guys understood that)
That is exactly how Radars have operated since world war 2 and will probally continue to do so.
Just to point out here, the B-2 doesnt travel at the speed of sound, still faster than a bird though.
Also your assuming you'd be able to detect a B-2 in the first place, and then get a second track enough to detect a course and speed. If thats the case you mines well go ahead and fire a SAM at it cause you know where it is.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
LO means low observability and true LO aircraft don't only feature radar cross section reduction measures, but infra-red reduction measures, electronic emissions reduction measures and perhaps other spectrum measures (UV etc) as well.
Hence it is properly described as LO...
Its got nothing to do with an opthamalogical event. LO is the industry terminology as it refers to sensing and harvesting capabilities through various interrogation medium.
No aircraft even the B-2 is completely invisible, 'stealth' aircraft are designed to be undetectable and reduce their radar cross sections accordingly, but no matter how hard they try no aircraft is completely invisible to radar and i was saying that the B-2 is quoted with having the RCS of a pigeon and with modern technology and networking (assuming that this is a defending country with multiple networked radar systems) it is even easier to detect aircraft, having a broad range capability able to detect these threats for example the Australian JORN detects the faint signal which is done automatically by the radar by a preprogrammed command, hands it to a Wedge tail aircraft. to track, using all of its MESA power which lights up the target, where there is a Wedegtail there are hopefully fighters to inspect the area to destroy the target.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The situation as I understand it is somewhat more complex that this. As AD explained, LO can (and in later generations/models) also include other sensing methods like IR, EMCON. The LO (or VLO) part comes into play in that the sensing system be it radar, IR, ESM etc does not detect a sufficiently large source of whatever (radar/microwaves, thermal etc) to overcome what has been deemed 'clutter' or natural phenomenon. A LO aircraft will still have some sort of radar and thermal signature, but the idea behind the operations methods and technology is to have the signatures small enough so that they escape notice. By way of example, due to the methods of operation as well as the frequencies used, a weather radar is intended to gather meteorological by detecting particles in air like the water vapour in clouds, dust and so on. By tuning in to such small items which are very common in the air, there are vastly more radar returns to a weather radar system than an air search radar for the same given area. Also, by focusing on such small returns, a weather radar is much more likely to detect a LO overhead via radar, but such detection is not likely to be useful since the weather radar and operator would be hard pressed to determine what are clouds and what is the LO aircraft. What is needed is sophisticated algorithms to process the information about the radar returns to determine what is valueable information on ships, vehicles, aircraft... and what is not needed like flocks of birds in flight, terrain features or atmospheric conditions.
Simply boosting the emitting power of a radar system does not mean the ability to negate stealth.
As for having a networked array of RF emitters, receivers and processors can help increase the likelihood of detection via radar vs some methods of LO like when the radar return is sent in a direction away from the T/R module. In these cases, a linked receiver in a different location relative to the emitter might not be effected. However, this would most likely be restricted to providing a detection capability and not provide sufficient data to allow targeting via SAM, AAM or AAA in a network environment. Rather, it could potentially act as an alarm to alert observers that there is a LO aircraft in the area and provide a general location, course and speed.
-Cheers
This is why I was saying send fighters or maybe in the future satellites to inspect these areas visually for targets. Alternately you could put an array of specialized mixed sensor bundles including those you mentioned above hanging from small airships that correct themselves to stay in a fixed position or patrol around an area.
In terms of power I was not referring to the power used in the beam to investigate, I was referring to use it as to scan around the predicted course of the suspected bomber.
I now have a question with regards to radars, ok can digital radar (AESA/PESA) change its search method eg Doppler effect etc. If this is possible (it sounds impossible to me) couldn't you just switch modes to a weather radar?
Actually it could be more than sufficient to target it with SAM's. A Stealth aircraft radar return on the front hemisphire is the lowest towards the sending T/R module, however the return in direction away from the sender will be larger. If 2 or more receiver stations in a networked environment can receive this higher return signals n combine their data, they would be able to fairly pinpoint the location of the aircraft n track it successfully to target it with SAM's.
oh btw I looked into the JORN Radar more and I found that it is not a traditional GBR it is actually a weather radar (Ionospheric), well so to speak, the B-2 and F-117 are designed with flat botoms so as not to be detected by radar pointing up but the JORN wqorks the opposite by shooting the radar up and then bouncing of the ionosphere having a more likely chance of detecting a stealth Aircraft.
I saw a website but i dont know the address that claimed that they had done testing with an F117 and the aircraft were detected.
I saw a website but i dont know the address that claimed that they had done testing with an F117 and the aircraft were detected.
Its pretty much common knowledge that JORN has detected LO aircraft and systems.
In the late 1980's we were able to track a land rover sized test vehicle driving across the north western australian top end...
Some of the general discussion in here about JORN and/or how other LO aircraft detection can be achieved is completely out of whack btw.
Yeah I just read the rest of the thread I apologise, but really if everyone (all the mojor players) have stealth radars what is the point of developing stealth characteristics? I understand it if you factored it into your design as a secondary goal but as a primary goal now that seems stupid to me.
You need to read the short history lesson on LO aircraft within the body of this thread again then.
Its because LO characteristics are evolutionary.
In real terms, the F-117 is regarded as obsolete. (and yet its only 25 years old).
eg, every modern LO design constructed since the advent of computers
has exploited an observability advantage by using different concepts, materials and/or system vulnerabilities.
LO is not a fixed technology. eg, LO manned aircraft in modern terms are already on their 4th production generation, unmanned LO aircraft are already on their 5th or arguably 6th generational design. The classified development platforms are on their 4th (known) iteration.
Just as LO platforms exploit vulnerabilities in detection systems, and detection systems employ counter solutions, so will LO platforms exploit another detection vulnerability.
A cursory look at the history of technology development shows a continuing darwinian cycle until the next generational tipping point is reached.
Any notion that LO aircraft are going to be obsolete ignores the reality that every detection system or package developed was circumvented.
Technology as such tends to be a mobius strip in a lot of respects
Well, one generational type of LO technology developed in the mid 80's remained viable right up until that technology became less viable due to advances in detection systems. (ie, retirement set for 2008)
However, one must also look at the fact that in a twenty year period the US for example actually had 3 different types of manned LO platform in production - and all use different types of exploitation. Not all systems can detect all 3 over a given detection layer/range. Each therefore still has an exploiting advantage within a threat layer.
Its incredibly naive (and somewhat ignorant in my view) when discussion is centred around "stealth" as though its a divisible and singularly identifiable technology stream that can be countered with "x" detection system. In fact it usually demonstrates to me a spectacular failure in comprehending the concept of LO at all.
I find it interesting that american LO advancements (or stealth amongst the more exuberant posters) has been derided and yet there is no shortage of countries undergoing their own revolution in military capability who have LO programs underway.
The same silly type of riposte has been used when discussing the death of the aircraft carrier (and yet the UK, France, Russia, China and India all have new generation conventional combat aircraft carriers in development, and there are any number of countries that have expeditionary carriers under development for their own procurement cycles). Similarly the death of the tank has been parlayed about ever since the germans developed high calibre centre fire rifles in WW1.
Technology evolves - that's the cogent lesson
No... It's believed Australia and Russia are developing such Anti-Stealth Radars
- Status