A tidbit from Aereo.jor.br...
A new Chinese radar, presented at the International Exhibition of Aviation and Aerospace China, which ended on Sunday in Zhuhai, can locate the supposedly undetectable F-22 fighter jets from the United States, said a Taiwanese specialist.I don't know.
Su Guan-Chiun, the Taiwanese military journal International Defence editor, said in an article published today that the available information indicates that the new radar can detect stealth fifth-generation American fighters such as the F-22.
The new radar systems developed by China will help to resist the growing use of stealth aircraft from other countries and allow the Asian power to strengthen its defenses.
I'll wait to see what the boys over at Air Power Australia have to say about it. Oh and spare me. They have the best online documentation of Chinese threat aircraft, vehicles and radar I've seen on the internet. Yeah. I'll get their opinion and see if this is boasting or a real possibility.
I think most people have a misunderstanding of "stealth". All stealth aircraft are detectable, they have a lower radar return, not no radar return. Once someone goes "invisible plane", he's out of the ballpark.
ReplyDeleteStealth planes need to get a bit closer before you get the same information as a normal plane, but invisible it is not. If you took stealth ships as a guideline, the claimed radar reduction for them is about 50% so you need to get a bit closer and it'll look a bit smaller, but you can still see "something" there.
How could they possibly know this? When could they possibly have had one of these pointed at an F-22?
ReplyDeletesupposedly it happened during one of the F-22 deployments to the Pacific. it makes sense. i mean the Chinese did send a ship to our RIMPAC and F-22's were playing there. i would do it if i was them ... besides China has a track record of industrial espionage so i wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have detailed info on the plane.
DeleteOr just to use their new J-31 to test the radar capacities
ReplyDeleteL-band & UHF-band radar(even S-band) can detect stealth aircraft, but ain't precision enough for fire control,which means u can see stealth aircraft coming but can shoot at them. however, APY-9 on E-2D can detect & guide a missile(SM-2/6) to such aircraft, i doubt if this one can do the same on F22~
ReplyDeleteFunny thing about stealth is that it doesn't make a plane/ship/object "undetectable/invisible". This is a popular misnomer and it's due to PR trying to sell products to uninformed buyers.
ReplyDeleteStealth aircraft deflect radar(radio) waves away from the emission source so as to reduce the amount of returned energy.
Less Energy at the Emitter -> Smaller Radar Return
Physically some of those waves still find their way back to the source. Which is why the returns are "smaller". The idea here, is to get the return below the filtration level of the computer controlling the radar.
So if you're looking for a return the size of an aircraft and not looking for a bird, then the computer will filter out anything that's smaller than the aircraft so as not to clutter the screen with false positives.
However...
Something I frequently hear people say is that the F-22/35 have the radar returns the size of a small bird... Let's say that's true. (Although radar return is a function of LOS distance from the object to the radar emitter/receiver, power of the emitter, etc. etc.) Mind you, there are radars that can detect small artillery/motor shells in flight and interpret their trajectory to find the launch position or intercept (Iron Dome?).
Besides small birds don't fly at Mach 1 and at 30kft...
So any "smart" radar operator can adjust his filtration settings such that the computer delineates between "small,slow,low" objects and "small,fast,high" objects.
If you're getting a bird sized return...and it's flying above ~5,000 ft and moving above 350 knots....It's probably not a bird. You're tracking either a fast drone, a cruise missile, or a stealth aircraft based on it's behavior not just the size of its return.
Low bandwidths provide detection, but not enough resolution for guidance. You'd need a separate high band (higher resolution) radar or IR sensor to acquire the target and launch a missile. This is the idea behind the L-Band radars in the PAK-FA's leading edges. They simply tell the other sensors on the aircraft "where" to look for the target. Likewise, this Chinese (low band?) array could be accompanied by other (more common) high band arrays, ready to be directed.
Knowing is half the battle...simply detecting a stealth aircraft eliminates the advantage of the whole concept...even if you can't shoot it down. You know he's there and you can start your OODA Loop based on that info alone.
That secondary targeting ability is why all the new Russian birds have an IR detector/tracker dome right in front of the cockpit. L-wave gets the general location. IR then goes to work pinpointing the target for a lock.
DeleteOccultus
DeleteRight data wrong information
Radar isn't a constant, its a pulse, and quite a slow one at that.
You dont "see" a bird sized return move along a line, you see a bird sized object at point A, you see a bird sized object at point B a few seconds later, and you see a bird sized object at point C a few seconds after that.
How do you tell if you've seen three individual objects, or one object at three points? Sure, you can stop searching the sky, point your radar at one object and watch it, but which of the thousands, tens of thousands, of returns do you focus on?
Unless you happen to be a current or former radar operator?
"You don't "see" a bird sized return move along a line, you see a bird sized object at point A, you see a bird sized object at point B a few seconds later, and you see a bird sized object at point C a few seconds after that."
DeleteTrue, for a mechanically steered pulse radar with computers driven by basic transistor/semiconductor tech. With a modern phased array radar (AESA) with computation based on gallium arsenide MMIC not so much?
Modern radars use Pulse-Doppler, the best of CW and Pulse combined into one. I could send several pulses in short time intervals and create the illusion of a continuous wave("smooth moving" object on a radar screen) without the classic limitations of CW.(Beyond the scope of discussion.)
You still have the object's position...which means you have azimuth and can derive altitude. Is it above 5,000 ft? Since I know the position at A and B and the time between, I could derive the velocity or I can measure the Doppler shift on the return wave. Is it above 350 knots?
Either way, I still have the information I need.
"How do you tell if you've seen three individual objects, or one object at three points? Sure, you can stop searching the sky, point your radar at one object and watch it, but which of the thousands, tens of thousands, of returns do you focus on?"
Good question. Each AESA TRM (about 1900 on the APG-77) can be cycled individually and can scan multiple parts of the sky several times per second. These systems can simultaneously track multiple targets at once, and the computers already delineate clutter and false positives using PRF. It's quite remarkable and a "quantum leap" over mechanically steered arrays. There are limitations however.(Once again beyond the scope)
Not a past or present radar operator...
I do have a M.S. in Aerospace Engineering and am currently working in the field (aerospace defense) if that means anything.
However, you don't really need an engineering degree or military experience to make a well informed opinion. A physics textbook, an internet search for peer review, and maybe a chat with an old college professor over coffee can go a long way.
"Modern radars use Pulse-Doppler, the best of CW and Pulse combined into one. I could send several pulses in short time intervals and create the illusion of a continuous wave"
DeleteBut send them where?
My geometry is a little rusty but I'm pretty sure a half dome with a 500mile radius and 15miles high is a, well its a very large area.
I struggle to believe that a radar can scan that entire area quickly. Sure, this has 1900 scanners, which is 1900x quicker than doing it with one, but its still a big area. Every one of those 1900 scanners you take off the search to track a single target means it takes longer to search the sky.
"These systems can simultaneously track multiple targets at once, and the computers already delineate clutter and false positives using PRF."
The problem with that is a "stealth" anything is designed to look like clutter and be filtered out.
Thats what I dont see, I dont believe "stealth" is a magic bullet, as a corollary to that, I dont believe there is, or even can be, an "anti stealth" magic bullet.
"Stealth" platforms "look" smaller, which means Radar searching for them have to look at every return of that size, of which there are considerably more of than big returns. And every time you stop tracking those returns, well dont they just pop up as new possible contacts. Unless you rule them out as "clutter" which is rather risky, because what was clutter could now be a return.
Less return countered by more power, nothing magic either way.
Unless I've missed something magical.
why are you assuming that there will be only one of these radars in a given area? why are you assuming that they won't have an entire network of these things working together to cover and entire "sector" of the sky?
Deleteyou're in such a hurry to try and shit can ideas that you come off sounding either stupid beyond belief, arrogant beyond description or a dick. you choose.
Have you noticed that Air Power Australia has not updated its website since the 27th of January? Following the senate hearings in late 2013 Carlo Kopp's credibility took a substantial hammering. Worth looking into to.
ReplyDeletethe updating part seems irrelevant. the information on Chinese systems is still the best iv'e seen on the net. show me better that's open source. additionally Carlo is constantly writing and so is Peter. if you want to go by "public" opinion then i took the same "credibility" hit when i became aware of how the F-35 is raping the Marine Corps.
Deleteyour argument is invalid.
I wasn't aware I was having an argument Solomon. You are a feisty / touchy one aren't you. Nor was I denying the quality of Australian Air Powers information; just its completeness. Just bear in mind that Carlo Kopp has no greater access to secure or classified material than you or I have so the 'information' presented on his website (technical or otherwise) needs to be taken with a health dose of salt.
ReplyDeleteDuring a recent Australian Senate Committee hearing Mr Kopp's tried to testify into the capabilities of the F35 (and other aircraft) based purely on open source evidence. Sadly his credibility and that of his website took a hammering for that very reason, you cannot claim total knowledge of an aircraft and its capabilities when you do not have access to all the information (something he tried to do).
If you are feeling particularly bored have a look at the Hansard Records. It's all there.
why are guys so pussy these days. arguments are made in debates or in court. it doesn't mean hostility it means a differing point of view.
Deletei'm not touchy i'm adamant. you're attempting to character assassinate instead of viewing the site and doing a fair assessment of the information provided. i have done as i'm asking you to do and i use them as a source of reference. like my stuff on chinese armor? i'd say at least 90 percent of it comes from their site or else i check their site to verify it. j-20 stuff? they were first on it.
instead of debating the issue, you're attempting to state that an accomplished individual that you disagree with is somehow incompetent. amazingly enough you use his testimony in front of a senate committee as proof! do you know how many people get to testify infront of defense committee on technical subjects that aren't experts? thats right zero.
i'm done. i look forward to your reply.
Air Power Australia, some people on the net especially those in DefenseTalk forum think badly about the site , and most of them claiming they are involved in military/goverment so they have the "inside knowledge" on how bad the info in APA.. They would even ban forum posters who posted comments in defense of APA or mr Kopp..
ReplyDeletethat said, i agree with the assesment on APA's completness on informations related to russian/chinese weapon systems.. it is the most complete info on the net , summarized in readable format , taken from many sources.
personally i am more suspiciious on the massive hate campaign (even from those who claimed to be connected to australian defense) against mr Kopp.. it feels malicious and self serving i might say..
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete