UESA Thread

[Vault]

I can't detect you, you can't detect me. My missile won't work with you, and yours won't work with me. I can't jam you, and you can't jam me. How they'll even direct an intercept against a 5th generation fighter?! Unless some guy with cheap equipment crack it yet again, that's some interesting scenario to see.

 

Maybe I'm going too far, but I can't help but imagine it...

 

The USN is investing heavily into UESA technology. Check out the UESA radome on the USN's E-2D. Back in 2006 a LRIP of UESA's in the E-2D's radome were able to track low RCS targets (cruise missiles at very low altitude) over the horizon and send tracking data over a datalink and that was four years ago, UESA technology will be far more advanced now.

 

There's a picture of the E-2D's UESA radome here. http://www.aascworld.com/i_upload/programheritage/AASC_Radomes_0308.pdf

[GGTharos]

Still not good against VLO fighters.

 

Take your average F-16 - see at what range it'll detect that and conservatively take 1/10th of that range for detection of an F-22. Rather good odds are the F-22 has you in good firing prameters before you even see a hint of a blip on your own radar - including those of AWACS and mobile ground-based AESA/PESA arrays (L-Band, incidentally). With a detection range of under 50km for these, the F-22 will be tossing SDB's from outside detection range.

 

An F-35 will be detected farther out, but it can fly a lower altitude profile or have another F-35 run stand-off ECM for it. In general there really doesn't exist any publicaly known 'anti-stealth' radar, at least not to my knowledge.

 

The USN is investing heavily into UESA technology. Check out the UESA radome on the USN's E-2D. Back in 2006 a LRIP of UESA's in the E-2D's radome were able to track low RCS targets (cruise missiles at very low altitude) over the horizon and send tracking data over a datalink and that was four years ago, UESA technology will be far more advanced now.

 

There's a picture of the E-2D's UESA radome here. http://www.aascworld.com/i_upload/programheritage/AASC_Radomes_0308.pdf

[Vault]

Still not good against VLO fighters.

 

Take your average F-16 - see at what range it'll detect that and conservatively take 1/10th of that range for detection of an F-22. Rather good odds are the F-22 has you in good firing prameters before you even see a hint of a blip on your own radar - including those of AWACS and mobile ground-based AESA/PESA arrays (L-Band, incidentally). With a detection range of under 50km for these, the F-22 will be tossing SDB's from outside detection range.

 

An F-35 will be detected farther out, but it can fly a lower altitude profile or have another F-35 run stand-off ECM for it. In general there really doesn't exist any publicaly known 'anti-stealth' radar, at least not to my knowledge.

 

No offence GG but you could probably write everything you know about the USN's UESA on a grain of rice, information regarding UESA tech is hard to come by. Why have the USN fitted most of their E-2D's with UESA? why the need for a UHF radar that is purposely designed for high rate tracking of airbourne targets with a low RCS at long distance?. why is the E2-D's UESA designed so that tracking data of low RCS targets can be sent over a fighters datalink?. 5th gen technology is a direct threat to the USN's bigget assets, are you really naive enough to think that US scientists don't know how to beat their own technology?.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Vault

[GGTharos]

No offence GG but you could probably write everything you know about the USN's UESA on a grain of rice, information regarding UESA tech is hard to come by.

 

No offense, Vault, but there's no magic to radar. Computing detection ranges is not very hard if you know the RCS of your target, and detection range of a reference RCS. Yes, I could be wrong, but I think the odds are on my side.

 

Why have the USN fitted most of their E-2D's with UESA? why the need for a UHF radar that is purposely designed for high rate tracking of airbourne targets with a low RCS at long distance?. why is the E2-D's UESA designed so that tracking data of low RCS targets can be sent over a fighters datalink?. 5th gen technology is a direct threat to the USN's bigget assets, are you really naive enough to think that US scientists don't know how to beat their own technology?.

What's the biggest threat to the USN? Multiple, low observable (about 0.1-0.2m^2) supersonic anti-ship missiles, usually sea-skimming. Those are detectable farther than VLO aircraft, and having very fast update rate against these is a good thing. Further I imagine their onboard ECM (such as some of those missiles sport) will probably not work against a UHF-band radar. Edited March 9, 2010 by GGTharos

[Vault]

No offense, Vault, but there's no magic to radar. Computing detection ranges is not very hard if you know the RCS of your target, and detection range of a reference RCS. Yes, I could be wrong, but I think the odds are on my side.

 

Tell me at what range could the USN's UESA detect an F-22?.

 

What's the biggest threat to the USN? Multiple, low observable (about 0.1-0.2m^2) supersonic anti-ship missiles, usually sea-skimming. Those are detectable farther than VLO aircraft, and having very fast update rate against these is a good thing. Further I imagine their onboard ECM (such as some of those missiles sport) will probably not work against a UHF-band radar.

 

The E-2D's UESA is effective against ALL airbourne targets, not just cruise missiles or ASM. Hence why it's in the E-2D.

[Pilotasso]

Where do you read E-2D can track stealth fighters? Do you offer any substantiated theory to back this up?

[GGTharos]

Tell me at what range could the USN's UESA detect an F-22?

 

What, you want a guess? You realize UHF radars are not new, right? They've been used since the 50's ... my guess? 30nm vs an F-22.

 

 

The E-2D's UESA is effective against ALL airbourne targets, not just cruise missiles or ASM. Hence why it's in the E-2D.

 

So what? I have you an example of a difficult, low-observable target. What's your point?

This isn't the only thing the UESA is capable of; it can probably do SAR type maps and other fun things like tracking submarines if they dare poke something up above surface ... and they can do it FAST.

It gets better: One of the capabilities is Standard guidance standoff. I don't recall if it was already demonstrated or if it will be.

This isn't some sort of magical radar, and never will be.

 

The PAVE PAWS radar (UHF radar) is designed to detect the launch of a nuclear missile from 3000nm away. It would detect an F-22 between 180-200nm if it was flying high, but that radar has a 72' aperture and tremendous average power; IIRC it also uses ionosphere bouncing. AFAIK, the E-2D's radar neither has the same purpose nor uses the same techniques, and it is very unlikely that it comes anywhere close to matching PAVE PAWS power.

 

I can look at what materials I have and do a reasonable computation for you if you want me to do the math - I could probably give you a reasonable guess as to how far it would see an F-22 ... and I'm quite confident the F-22 would be in firing parameters before being detected.

 

Again, UHF radar is old news ... not new news. It has no inherent stealth-busting capability.

[Vault]

Pilot the USN have an LRIP UESA built by Raytheon and Lockheed installed inside the radome of select E-2D that can detect airbourne targets with a low RCS at ranges over the horizon. Google E-2D UESA. It's being touted as the next generation radar for EW aircraft.

[GGTharos]

The over the horizon thing is probably due to that frequency and ionosphere bouncing; after all the horizon from 37000 feet is what...250nm?

[Vault]

What, you want a guess? You realize UHF radars are not new, right? They've been used since the 50's ... my guess? 30nm vs an F-22.

 

E-2D's UESA UHF can track a low RCS target that's over the horizon, a decade ago a UHF based FCR didn't even exsist, this technology is very new. People guess when they don't know. You don't know the performance of the E-2D's UESA against the F-22, you can only guess.

 

 

So what? I have you an example of a difficult, low-observable target. What's your point?

This isn't the only thing the UESA is capable of; it can probably do SAR type maps and other fun things like tracking submarines if they dare poke something up above surface ... and they can do it FAST.

It gets better: One of the capabilities is Standard guidance standoff. I don't recall if it was already demonstrated or if it will be.

This isn't some sort of magical radar, and never will be.

 

The PAVE PAWS radar (UHF radar) is designed to detect the launch of a nuclear missile from 3000nm away. It would detect an F-22 between 180-200nm if it was flying high, but that radar has a 72' aperture and tremendous average power; IIRC it also uses ionosphere bouncing. AFAIK, the E-2D's radar neither has the same purpose nor uses the same techniques, and it is very unlikely that it comes anywhere close to matching PAVE PAWS power.

 

I can look at what materials I have and do a reasonable computation for you if you want me to do the math - I could probably give you a reasonable guess as to how far it would see an F-22 ... and I'm quite confident the F-22 would be in firing parameters before being detected.

 

Again, UHF radar is old news ... not new news. It has no inherent stealth-busting capability.

 

Quite confident?. You sound like you're reassuring yourself. The fact is you don't know what the performance figures of the E-2D's UESA is. The USN says it can detect low RCS airbourne targets at any altitude OTH. The fact the the E-2D's UESA can detect all airbourne threats as well as hand off high rate tracking data over a fighters datalink obviously means that the fighter recieving the tracking data over the datalink is being given a way of attacking a target with a low RCS without using his own radar! now why would you want to do that?.

[GGTharos]

Do you even know what 'low RCS' means in this case? It could easily be 1m^2 - that's low. You can go lower, naturally, to 'low RCS cruise missiles' with 0.2m^2 RCS.

 

Which shall we pick?

 

FYI, the MiG-31 can detect low rcs targets at any altitude as well, and that's one really powerful radar, although the poor thing IS X-band. ;)

 

PS: I have an educated (even if amateur) guess. What do you have?

[Vault]

Educated guess? you have no facts or figures of neither target RCS or UESA performance so it's very optimistic to even call it an educated guess, it's more like a stab in the dark.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/guess

 

Why would the USN E-2D's want the capability of handing off tracking data of LOW RCS target over a datalink?.

[GGTharos]

Is that a rethorical question? I think I answered it before you even asked it, but maybe I'm wrong :)

 

And really, you think it's that hard to make a reasonable guess at basic radar capability?

[EtherealN]

It is, since radars are magic. ;)

[Vault]

Sure you can have an educated guess but you don't know enough of the facts that are required to make an educated guess. If you have issues accepting that it's not my problem.

 

RCS detection of UESA is questionable, how low is low?. I have no figures. But why would the USN want the capability of detecting and handing off low RCS airbourne target data to fighters on a datalink?.

[GGTharos]

Sure you can have an educated guess but you don't know enough of the facts that are required to make an educated guess. If you have issues accepting that it's not my problem.

 

RCS detection of UESA is questionable, how low is low?. I have no figures. But why would the USN want the capability of detecting and handing off low RCS airbourne target data to fighters on a datalink?.

 

Low RCS cruise missile swarms? That's the obvious and quick answer - it is one of the biggest threats for the fleet. Another one is possibly not-so-low-RCS but beyond-the-horizon missiles launched by submarines. The sooner you pick those things up, the better. Fighters have a better time vectoring in to intercept such threats when warned early enough - but better yet, if the typical carriers (Su-24's, Su-30 variants, maybe Su-35's or even Rafales) can be detected early, so much the better. And you can certainly consider the last two low-rcs aircraft.

 

You probably won't see quite as many of those as you will missiles, though - just a guess.

[Pilotasso]

Pilot the USN have an LRIP UESA built by Raytheon and Lockheed installed inside the radome of select E-2D that can detect airbourne targets with a low RCS at ranges over the horizon. Google E-2D UESA. It's being touted as the next generation radar for EW aircraft.

 

I think if you interpret brochures without any BIAS you will realise that those low RCS objects account for the usual threats of anti ship and cruise missiles rather than stealth aircraft. There is nothing to back your claim up at all.

[Vault]

I think if you interpret brochures without any BIAS you will realise that those low RCS objects account for the usual threats of anti ship and cruise missiles rather than stealth aircraft. There is nothing to back your claim up at all.

 

Thank you for correcting me Dr. Pilotasso. Raytheon's senior UESA research and developement Engineer :smartass:. Lockheed and Raytheon claim UESA's high performance detection figures against low RCS targets at long distance, not me. They're also not my "internet brochures". Who are you and what qualifications do you have to claim otherwise?. You know nothing of UESA's performance but you're very quick to dismiss it. To implicate that the E-2D's UESA is only utilised against ASM and CM is bullshit, the E-2D's main role is AEW of ALL airbourne threats. ASM and CM have a very low RCS. If the information posted earlier in this thread about the more realistic RCS performance of 5th gen aircraft is true and they exceed the RCS of ASM and CM then the E-2D's UESA could detect a VLO fighter.

[GGTharos]

Other radars are advertized as having long range capability too against 'low RCS targets' ... with an RCS of 1-1.5m^2.

 

What are your qualifications? You aren't even trying here.

 

As for VLO performance, the figures posted are a misquote, and it's pretty easy to do the math on that one. You don't get 1/10th the detection range with 1/10th the RCS, and '1/10th range' is pretty much that VLO does, if not better.

[Pilotasso]

Thank you for correcting me Dr. Pilotasso. Raytheon's senior UESA research and developement Engineer :smartass:. Lockheed and Raytheon claim UESA's high performance detection figures against low RCS targets at long distance, not me. They're also not my "internet brochures". Who are you and what qualifications do you have to claim otherwise?. You know nothing of UESA's performance but you're very quick to dismiss it. To implicate that the E-2D's UESA is only utilised against ASM and CM is bullshit, the E-2D's main role is AEW of ALL airbourne threats. ASM and CM have a very low RCS. If the information posted earlier in this thread about the more realistic RCS performance of 5th gen aircraft is true and they exceed the RCS of ASM and CM then the E-2D's UESA could detect a VLO fighter.

 

 

I think it was just a question of semantics, and wouldnt need to correct anyone as long as the brochures were correctly interpreted. :P

[Vault]

I think it was just a question of semantics, and wouldnt need to correct anyone as long as the brochures were correctly interpreted.

 

And that's semantics for I don't know what I'm talking about so I'll get out of this one. I've interpreted everything correctly. Dr. Pilotasso stop reading brochures and read the white papers by Tim Farrell. Here's a basic insight into the E-2D's CEC and UESA and maybe you'll understand what you're actually talking about. http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/military/972.html

 

“The concept of CEC is to allow better tracking — not only detection but tracking — of low-observable, highly maneuverable objects, such as cruise missiles,”.

Cruise missiles are used as an example. The E-2D's UESA is also used for detecting and tracking LO airbourne targets and handing target data off over link-16 as the senior engineer states in the link above.

 

Other radars are advertized as having long range capability too against 'low RCS targets' ... with an RCS of 1-1.5m^2.

 

What are your qualifications? You aren't even trying here.

 

As for VLO performance, the figures posted are a misquote, and it's pretty easy to do the math on that one. You don't get 1/10th the detection range with 1/10th the RCS, and '1/10th range' is pretty much that VLO does, if not better.

 

GG you're having a hard time accepting the fact that you don't have access to the accurate classified information that is required to make a calculation on the E-2D's UESA's detection range against a LO aircraft. So don't expect people to take your guesses as gospel. Let's be honest you don't really know do you.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Vault

[GGTharos]

You're having a hard time accepting that UESA isn't magical. The math isn't the most straightforward, but you don't need to do a whole lot of it to realize that effectiveness against VLO targets can't be very good.

 

If we take a conservative estimate that an F-22 reduces detection range by 1/8 and then an optimistic estimate of that UESA radar detecting a 1m^2 target at 900km, then that Raptor is still going to get inside 120km of your AWACS before it is detected, it'll eat it, and then go back home, probably after eating the fighters that were assigned to escort said AWACS.

 

In case the math is still difficult, that Raptor will be in range to attack in about sixty seconds or less from detection. And that, again, is a pretty optimistic estimate of how far it will be detected.

 

GG you're having a hard time accepting the fact that you don't have access to the classified information that is required to make a calculation on the E-2D's UESA's detection range against a VLO aircraft. So don't expect people to take your guesses as gospel.

[zakobi]

/me is still waiting on info for the tandem seat version.

[Vault]

You're having a hard time accepting that UESA isn't magical. The math isn't the most straightforward, but you don't need to do a whole lot of it to realize that effectiveness against VLO targets can't be very good.

 

If we take a conservative estimate that an F-22 reduces detection range by 1/8 and then an optimistic estimate of that UESA radar detecting a 1m^2 target at 900km, then that Raptor is still going to get inside 120km of your AWACS before it is detected, it'll eat it, and then go back home, probably after eating the fighters that were assigned to escort said AWACS.

 

In case the math is still difficult, that Raptor will be in range to attack in about sixty seconds or less from detection. And that, again, is a pretty optimistic estimate of how far it will be detected.

 

You really are having a hard time accepting the FACT that you don't know do you lol;). The information you require is classified like it or not. GG with respect keep your "conservative guesses" to yourself. I ask for facts not guesses.

[Pilotasso]

your guessing yourslef, sorry. Where I see cruise missiles you see stealth aircraft. the 2 are eventualy completely different, but you seem to "know" it is based on "who-knows-what-data"...

Edited March 17, 2010 by Pilotasso