has passive radar made stealth jets like F35 obsolete?

[Stepan]

The F35 is an aircraft with very bad flight abilities and depends on its stealth technology.

In Russia we have a new form of radar, called passive radar. Its developed and build by ROSTEC and it uses radio transmitting centers’ TV and FM signals reflected by moving objects.

It appears it easily detects an F35. I wonder what value the F35 has, when it is so easily detecteble, since in evry situation the F35 is performing very bad in competition with our own aircaft models.

 

[Todjaeger]

No, no, and no.

Look at this specific post, as well as the threads linked within it.

Also, please read "A brief history of LO" which can be found here.

Also consider reading "The Radar Game," if you can get your hands on a copy.

As a side note, a system like is being described is not a 'passive radar' system, but is actually a ESM which is a bit different. There have been a number of systems which have been theorized with a similar description, some even having been tested. In a nutshell, such systems might be able to detect the presence of a LO object within the area of coverage. None have demonstrated any ability to provide targeting and/or useful track data. At best they might be able to provide a tripwire/detection capability to advise that something is within or near a certain area. Two major weaknesses which are very exploitable are the need for the LO object to be within the detection area/grid, and then the need for other assets to be tasked to directly investigate, with these investigating assets possibly unable to detect the LO object.

To rely upon signals broadcast from commercial sources (radio, television, etc.) reflected back from a LO object and then detected and processed by an ESM would require comprehensive plotting of the RF propagation from those broadcast sources. It would also likely require a fairly high density in terms of broadcast sources, as well as ESM receivers to detect anomalous RF reflections. Incidentally, these systems would basically need to be fixed since RF radiation can reflect from all sorts of things.

Where such systems really start breaking down in terms of effectiveness is that there are a number of LO standoff munitions which can be launched 100+ km from the target, which means attempting to ring a city or another high value strategic target with such a system is not going to feasibly permit either detection or engagement of a LO aircraft the an F-35 conducting a strike mission.

 

[Stepan]

No, no, and no.

Look at this specific post, as well as the threads linked within it.

Also, please read "A brief history of LO" which can be found here.

Also consider reading "The Radar Game," if you can get your hands on a copy.

As a side note, a system like is being described is not a 'passive radar' system, but is actually a ESM which is a bit different. There have been a number of systems which have been theorized with a similar description, some even having been tested. In a nutshell, such systems might be able to detect the presence of a LO object within the area of coverage. None have demonstrated any ability to provide targeting and/or useful track data. At best they might be able to provide a tripwire/detection capability to advise that something is within or near a certain area. Two major weaknesses which are very exploitable are the need for the LO object to be within the detection area/grid, and then the need for other assets to be tasked to directly investigate, with these investigating assets possibly unable to detect the LO object.

To rely upon signals broadcast from commercial sources (radio, television, etc.) reflected back from a LO object and then detected and processed by an ESM would require comprehensive plotting of the RF propagation from those broadcast sources. It would also likely require a fairly high density in terms of broadcast sources, as well as ESM receivers to detect anomalous RF reflections. Incidentally, these systems would basically need to be fixed since RF radiation can reflect from all sorts of things.

Where such systems really start breaking down in terms of effectiveness is that there are a number of LO standoff munitions which can be launched 100+ km from the target, which means attempting to ring a city or another high value strategic target with such a system is not going to feasibly permit either detection or engagement of a LO aircraft the an F-35 conducting a strike mission.

We just wonder in russian media, because USA wants to sell Germany F35 and send two F35 to the flight show in Berlin. ROSTEC was also present at the event and all F35 shows got cancelled. The jets did just stand there and did not fly. Germany as it looks now dismissed the F35 contract and wants build its own next gen jet together with France.

For us, it looked like the americas did fear a pr desaster when their jets fly and we show all visitors on monitors.

 

[Todjaeger]

We just wonder in russian media, because USA wants to sell Germany F35 and send two F35 to the flight show in Berlin. ROSTEC was also present at the event and all F35 shows got cancelled. The jets did just stand there and did not fly. Germany as it looks now dismissed the F35 contract and wants build its own next gen jet together with France.

For us, it looked like the americas did fear a pr desaster when their jets fly and we show all visitors on monitors.

People have been predicting for years that such systems would counter 'stealth' which is not a term actually used by industry or the armed forces btw. The people making such claims and predictions either ignore, or are ignorant of the very real limitations of such systems, as well as the histories of the nations which have such systems and the histories of the nations which are pursuing LO programmes (manned, unmanned, PGM, etc.)

The US, which has the greatest amount of experience designing, producing, and utilizing LO assets, has had ESM systems in use for decades, as well as experience with bi-static and over the horizon radar (OTHR) and are well aware of the capabilities and limitations of such systems.

By way of example, if such a system was really going to have the sort of impact that was claimed in the media, why would Russia have invested the resources it did to reduce the signature of the Su-57?

 

[John Fedup]

Your last sentence sums up reality. The Euros, Japan, and the Chinese have no interest in pi$$ing away billions on VLO technology if it does not work. Same applies to the US B-21 program, billions for something that doesn't work, in Russia's dreams.

 

[Boagrius]

It seems that the pop-culture concept of "stealth" as invisibility to radar has much to answer for in this space. It strikes me as a layman that VLO provides multiple layers of protection:

- At extended ranges the VLO platform (eg. F35) will be undetectable
- At closer ranges it may be detectable to certain sensors (eg. longer wavelength radars) but not "trackable" (ie. you only get a general idea of its location)
- Closer still it may be trackable but not "shootable" (you might be able to keep track of where it is and where it is going but the synergistic effect of VLO with defensive jamming etc. means you still can't get a weapon to hit it).
- Closer still you may be able to fire a weapon at it but your pK for that weapon will still be dramatically reduced compared to that of a non-VLO target
- Closer still you will finally be able to reliably shoot and kill the VLO platform. Problem is that the same VLO platform will be actively working to stay outside of this range, and in fact shoot/kill you from outside of it as well.

 

[ngatimozart]

Quantum radar is a new sensing technology that is currently being developed by various nations. It has the potential to negate any form of low observability and spoofing, because even the mere attempt to alter the signal will be detected by the originator due to the quantum entanglement. It also affects detection of submerged objects in a similar way.

A Review on Quantum Radar Technology and its Application in Defence Equipment (link is *pdf file)

 

[Stepan]

Your last sentence sums up reality. The Euros, Japan, and the Chinese have no interest in pi$$ing away billions on VLO technology if it does not work. Same applies to the US B-21 program, billions for something that doesn't work, in Russia's dreams.

From our point of view the west has a long history in pumping billions into obsolete stuff.

Best example was that the american F117 was easily traceable with old soviet radar systems. In 1999 Serbia shot one down and gave most of the wreckage to us and also to China.

The F35 is an aircraft with very bad flight performance, the moment it is detected, it doesnt stand a chance. For me it appears like a dead end in development.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Hi Stepan. I think I get what you're trying to say but for me to explain it would be somewhat off topic. And most of you know more about the F-35 and stealth technology than I do. But my impression is that the F-35 is brining about inefficiencies, not efficiencies. I mean there's a ton of data and I notice there's a change in the character of the data. A lot of it is so short it fits on one or two HUD screen. And somebody pointed out to me that it's probably military Twitter type things. What this illustrates is something more general that's going on, among especially graduate pilots. There's a tendency towards abbreviation, like my kids it's XBox Live chats with a couple of emojis signifying complex conversations and I noticed that they don't read as much as they did before video games. And they used to know what I meant when I used nursery rhyme references, now not so much.

One of the gurus of the F-35 (forgotten his name) said of the most recent technological advances said once that with contemporary advances we wont need multilateral/coalition forces in the future because we can do sorties very briefly. This is something that's not only happening, it's radically altered US foreign policy and military doctrine. And ground forces or all branches of the military are amalgamating right across the board, and there's much less focus on US interests and much more focus on what can be done very quickly and briefly and so on. There are even U.S "DoD risk assessments in a post primacy world" that may indicate a neurological change that is taking place as an effect of the reduction of the rapid stimulation and the kind of stimulus hunger that comes with restrictions on attention spans that come from the new technology.

I think the F-35 is a double edge sword in other words. The F-35 does present the possibility of greater military outputs but it can also reduce it. I don't know about you guys but when I read about the kill ratios of the A-4, A-10, F-16, F15 and now the F-35 you're going from something like thousands of kills to hundreds of loses, to now sometimes we can count it on our hands. I think that's kind of a dangerous phenomenon. As far as what the F-35 can do and those that seek to counter it, I think that it should cultivate the values of a nations thought and reflection.

 

[tonnyc]

Edit: hmm can't delete a post. Oh well, this edit will suffice.

 

[ngatimozart]

Just remember that LO is only one facet of the F-35 suite of tools. The sensing, data fusion and ability to securely disseminate and execute that data is far more important and valuable than LO.

 

[Todjaeger]

From our point of view the west has a long history in pumping billions into obsolete stuff.

Best example was that the american F117 was easily traceable with old soviet radar systems. In 1999 Serbia shot one down and gave most of the wreckage to us and also to China.

The F35 is an aircraft with very bad flight performance, the moment it is detected, it doesnt stand a chance. For me it appears like a dead end in development.

Umm, no. The links I provided previously included discussion about the single F-117 combat loss. Had "old Soviet radar systems" truly been able to easily detect and track the F-117, then one of two things would have happened. Either, the F-117 would have had more than just one combat loss, and/or the F-117 would have been retired much sooner than it was, which was ~9 years after the single combat loss.

Not to put too fine a point of it, but pretty much all of the claims regarding the F-35 performance which have been made in this thread have been debunked, often years ago. I would again strongly suggest reading the post I linked to, and then the threads linked within that post, as the content covers what has been raised here in some detail, and I (likely others too) do not feel inclined to repeat rebuttals I have already posted elsewhere.

On a related note to the suggestion that Western nations develop obsolete equipment, that to me sounds like propaganda. If that were truly the case, then why would Russia, China, and India be working to develop or expand/improve their respective advanced developments like LO aircraft, advanced datalinks, or advanced integrated sensing systems like AEW aircraft?

 

[Todjaeger]

Quantum radar is a new sensing technology that is currently being developed by various nations. It has the potential to negate any form of low observability and spoofing, because even the mere attempt to alter the signal will be detected by the originator due to the quantum entanglement. It also affects detection of submerged objects in a similar way.

A Review on Quantum Radar Technology and its Application in Defence Equipment (link is *pdf file)

The article looks interesting, but also mentions that the concept is at this point theoretical. Significant research would need to be completed to determine if an effective radar-like capability is practical. One thing which struck me is how problematic it would be to have a volume search radar system that could only emit a single photon at a time.

 

[ngatimozart]

The article looks interesting, but also mentions that the concept is at this point theoretical. Significant research would need to be completed to determine if an effective radar-like capability is practical. One thing which struck me is how problematic it would be to have a volume search radar system that could only emit a single photon at a time.

Yep but light moves as a wave as well as a particle, so I don't think that it would be an issue in the long run.

 

[ngatimozart]

The article looks interesting, but also mentions that the concept is at this point theoretical. Significant research would need to be completed to determine if an effective radar-like capability is practical. One thing which struck me is how problematic it would be to have a volume search radar system that could only emit a single photon at a time.

Yep but light moves as a wave as well as a particle, so I don't think that it would be an issue in the long run. Also we are only aware of the research that has been published in the openliterature. What the actual research achievements are, we have no way of knowing.

 

[ngatimozart]

The article looks interesting, but also mentions that the concept is at this point theoretical. Significant research would need to be completed to determine if an effective radar-like capability is practical. One thing which struck me is how problematic it would be to have a volume search radar system that could only emit a single photon at a time.

Yep but light moves as a wave as well as a particle, so I don't think that it would be an issue in the long run. Also we are only aware of the research that has been published in the open literature. What the actual research achievements are, we have no way of knowing.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yep but light moves as a wave as well as a particle, so I don't think that it would be an issue in the long run. Also we are only aware of the research that has been published in the open literature. What the actual research achievements are, we have no way of knowing.

RF radiation is like that as well moving as both a wave and a particle. Having said that, I do not think a single photon (of light, RF or other form of radiation) would be able to cover a 30 degree arc out to 200+ km, never mind the sort of 90 or 120 degree arcs required for all around coverage, with range to provide broad area detection without signal attenuation. The 'size' of a photon is basically it's wavelength btw so any broad area application is likely to require a number of photons to transmitted, with the system as described requiring twice as many photons in order to capture one-half of the entangled photons.

It would also likely require some work (theoretical and technical) to make sure that the only entangled photons captured had their counterparts transmitted.
Hence my thinking that a considerable amount of work would be required to develop a practical application.

 

[Stepan]

Umm, no. The links I provided previously included discussion about the single F-117 combat loss. Had "old Soviet radar systems" truly been able to easily detect and track the F-117, then one of two things would have happened. Either, the F-117 would have had more than just one combat loss, and/or the F-117 would have been retired much sooner than it was, which was ~9 years after the single combat loss.

Not to put too fine a point of it, but pretty much all of the claims regarding the F-35 performance which have been made in this thread have been debunked, often years ago. I would again strongly suggest reading the post I linked to, and then the threads linked within that post, as the content covers what has been raised here in some detail, and I (likely others too) do not feel inclined to repeat rebuttals I have already posted elsewhere.

On a related note to the suggestion that Western nations develop obsolete equipment, that to me sounds like propaganda. If that were truly the case, then why would Russia, China, and India be working to develop or expand/improve their respective advanced developments like LO aircraft, advanced datalinks, or advanced integrated sensing systems like AEW aircraft?

I disagree in that.

You must take into consideration, that after Vietnam war USA never was in a real war anymore. USA did not fight any enemy who would have the ability, training and equipment to even remotely strike back. Panama, Grenada or Iraq in most parts are extreem poor 3rd world countries.

Since our country takes a more buff stance against USA, we learned alot and what we learned made our confidence rise. Most of the western weapon designs depend on psychological effect. In Syria we have the ability to actively work with american designs and test them.

We jam american aircrafts and disturb their electronics over Syrian airspace and it obviously became bad enough that the americans started to complain.

Other nations found the low performance in the recent airstrikes on Syria very interesting. We were able to jam and intercept over 70% of the western fired rockets.

Most what we see appears overengineered.

 

[ngatimozart]

I disagree in that.

You must take into consideration, that after Vietnam war USA never was in a real war anymore. USA did not fight any enemy who would have the ability, training and equipment to even remotely strike back. Panama, Grenada or Iraq in most parts are extreem poor 3rd world countries.

Since our country takes a more buff stance against USA, we learned alot and what we learned made our confidence rise. Most of the western weapon designs depend on psychological effect. In Syria we have the ability to actively work with american designs and test them.

We jam american aircrafts and disturb their electronics over Syrian airspace and it obviously became bad enough that the americans started to complain.

Other nations found the low performance in the recent airstrikes on Syria very interesting. We were able to jam and intercept over 70% of the western fired rockets.

Most what we see appears overengineered.

We have a requirement that posters provide legitimate, reputable, verifiable sources for claims that they make. Some of the claims that you are making are quite disputable.

 

[Stepan]

We have a requirement that posters provide legitimate, reputable, verifiable sources for claims that they make. Some of the claims that you are making are quite disputable.

No, i can prove it:

Russia jams U.S. drones over Syria to stop airstrikes: Report

We jam US drones and aircrafts over Syria

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/russia-has-figured-out-how-jam-u-s-drones-syria-n863931

It looks like we jam the GPS signals.

As for the rocket strike against syrian targets, more than 70% of the rockets got jammed and intercepted

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...n-syria-were-intercepted-russia-idUSKBN1HL0AY

From 103 rockets, we shot down 71.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...yria-air-defences-shot-down-majority-missiles

The fact that so many rockets were launched but almost zero damage was done and no military installations were hit, underlines this.