stationary taget indicator mode radar

[Migow]

hi in this document it is state that STI in longbow radar block 1?(ah64) is crap, unreliable, in war:cry:

 

false alarm , wrong identification...

 

MTI work well:)

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA450526

 

is it the same for f16 radar f15 etc

 

in IRL is STI crap?:noexpression:

[GGTharos]

When the target is not moving you have to use other means to try and differenciate it from clutter, and those means may not be as reliable. MTI is a lot more reliable: Something moved, so you know there's something there.

 

With STI your narrow speular reflection might be a Main Battle Tank, or it could just be an outhouse made of aluminium sheet.

[GGTharos]

I just read the document. It really doesn't tell you anything that you shouldn't expect from a radar:

 

It's STI capability is marred with false contacts. This is a problem with all radars, but the STI mode presents a lot more false contacts than other modes. This is expected probably because of my above explanation.

 

Radar performance in urban terrain: There is almost no way that any radar would function well within such an environment. The amount of clutter is simply too much.

 

There are a number of possible solutions and one that might appear obvious is to just give the radar a lot more processing power so it can work better within the limitations imposed on it by physics.

[Migow]

thx for answer so it's almost the same with radar multimode cm as mm in STI?

so only SAR is useful when flir and ccd cant be used

 

that mean enemy tactic should put smoke and stay static in high clutter environement against radar and other sensor

Edited October 12, 2011 by Fifou265

[GGTharos]

Yes, should be same in both frequencies, but with specific exceptions: For some frequencies, the clutter does not reflect as much radar energy, so the radar may appear to work better. But take it to different terrain, and it's worse.

 

Generally I think despite the problems with the radar, apaches can still attack without much problem. The radar is very useful for general reconaissance of at least moving vehicles, as well as attacking them.

 

By this time, a lot of the problems with STI may have been addressed - this we will not know for some time. :)

[Migow]

Yes, should be same in both frequencies, but with specific exceptions: For some frequencies, the clutter does not reflect as much radar energy, so the radar may appear to work better. But take it to different terrain, and it's worse.

 

Generally I think despite the problems with the radar, apaches can still attack without much problem. The radar is very useful for general reconaissance of at least moving vehicles, as well as attacking them.

 

By this time, a lot of the problems with STI may have been addressed - this we will not know for some time. :)

 

they say mti work well

 

but sti 3/4 say it's crap , in irak they use laser hellfire not rf because of sti :megalol:

[Migow]

• Eighty percent found the system effective or very effective against moving

columns of vehicles.

• Two-thirds found it effective or very effective under adverse weather

conditions.

However:

• Sixty percent of pilots found the fire control radar performance worse in Iraq

than in training/gunnery.

• Half disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that the fire control

radar helped perform the mission.

• Sixty percent found the false alarms (mostly for stationary targets) excessive.

• Nearly half found the fire control radar unsatisfactory or very unsatisfactory

in open terrain.

• A smaller set used the fire control radar in urban terrain, and almost all found

it very unsatisfactory.

• More than half of operators lacked confidence in the fire control radar for

target-acquisition accuracy.

• The radar was primarily used to fire the semiactive-laser-guided Hellfire

missile, not the RF Hellfire.

• The electro-optical/infrared-based Target Acquisition and Designation

System was the primary target acquisition sensor for the RF Hellfire missile,

rather than the fire control radar designed for this role.

• There were numerous false SA-8 targets.

[Migow]

i am sure STI in bms work too well

does su 24m have STI mode and is it reliable : i'm sure not:megalol:

[Migow]

i 'm happy the ka 50 is less useless if STI is unreliable :)

[GGTharos]

No, they use laser hellfire because the more expensive RF hellfire was not necessary :)

 

they say mti work well

 

but sti 3/4 say it's crap , in irak they use laser hellfire not rf because of sti :megalol:

[GGTharos]

Sensors in most simulations work too well. When was the last time you saw a false radar contant or false RWR contact in one of your simulations? :D

 

i am sure STI in bms work too well

does su 24m have STI mode and is it reliable : i'm sure not:megalol:

[Migow]

Sensors in most simulations work too well. When was the last time you saw a false radar contant or false RWR contact in one of your simulations? :D

that why they should model them

before i read the doc about sti unreliable STI , i thought it was used every time ands reliable, now no wonder why in serbia NATO could hardly spot sam (even with Elint ,optic recon)

[Migow]

"Further, emerging

Rules of Engagement were unlikely to permit radar engagement, particularly of stationary

targets, without some visual or infrared confirmation. We reported that the Longbow fire

control radar approach to stationary target engagement would only rarely be useful: The

forward-looking infrared was a better sensor for stationary targets, and it could cue the

RF Hellfire missile more accurately than the fire control radar in the stationary target

case.1"

and i thought STI was useful :megalol:

Edited October 12, 2011 by Fifou265

[GGTharos]

Of course it is useful. Don't confuse ROE with a sensor. ROE may require you to ID any target before attacking it - in Afganistan for example you might expect ROE to be strict to avoid causing civilian casualties. Your parked target could be someone's car or truck.

[Migow]

Of course it is useful. Don't confuse ROE with a sensor. ROE may require you to ID any target before attacking it - in Afganistan for example you might expect ROE to be strict to avoid causing civilian casualties. Your parked target could be someone's car or truck.

it has to be confused, it make it useless even if roe are free weapon will

many attack would be useless(on wrong target false alarm or FF) with expensive weapon

[GGTharos]

No, it doesn't have to be confused. These are two different things, period. They stated for stationary targets using the IR sensor is better - that's all fine, and it's actually expected.

 

As for ROE, that's a different deal. It isn't just about wasting weapons on false targets. If you're in a high pressure environment, you're not going to sit there and try to ID targets - you'll waste some of the weapons if you have to. It's better than not shooting at all.

[OutOnTheOP]

Fifou, I'm not sure why you seem so amused by the realization that sensors have limitations, and I'm even more confused that you seem to think this makes a sensor absolutely worthless, or that somehow having the radar now makes Longbow inferior to KA50.

 

The fact is, the Longbow Apache HAS the radar. It ALSO has the IIR and CCD devices of the "standard" Apache. Regardless of how useful the radar may or may not be, it IS an additional capacity. The IIR and CCD devices may be more useful for target identification and/or terminal munitions guidance. This does not change the fact that WITH the radar, the Longbow has capability for obscurant penetrating wide-area search that cannot be provided by the IIR and CCD devices. So the radar might not be ideal, but if provides the capability for firing through battlefield obscurants like smoke, fog, or dust. Without the radar, you wouldn't be able to see or shoot ANYTHING. With it, you can. So there's a benefit right there.

 

I am also amused by the notion of an enemy sitting stationary for extended periods of time, dumping out smoke for hours on end. I do not think you have any notion of how logistically unrealistic this is, or the amount of smoke pots that would be neccesary to blanket a large enough area. Unless you covered literally square kilometers in dense smoke, you might as well just be announcing "there are enemy troops here". Sure, it might protect them from the Apache's point target weapons systems, but it'll make it really easy to call in area-fire weapons (such as DPICM artillery) to kill everything. And by the way, as you seem to believe that forcing an army to "waste" expensive munitions is a victory, I should note that M483A1 DPICM shells cost considerably less than a Hellfire to begin with.

 

It should also be noted that IIR and CCD is like looking through a soda straw; your field of view is extremely limited. So you have to be looking in the right place to find anything. Radar may only be "effective" against moving targets, BUT it will search a wide sector (360* for longbow, I believe) and automatically categorize those targets. It should ALSO be noted that "moving" does not always mean "driving". Individual moving components might trigger a doppler signature the radar would pick up; this includes traversing turrets or weapons, rotating radar antennae, potentially even the cooling fans of an idling engine.

 

Even if it has issues with spotting stationary targets, if the presence of longbow radars on the battlefield obliges your enemy to stop moving their vehicles, it has ALREADY provided an invaluable battlefield effect: the radar has pinned down every combatant in the area, without ever firing a shot! The longbow radar is optimized for use against moving vehicles, and it's optimized so for a reason. Moving vehicles are dangerous vehicles. Stationary ones aren't contributing anything to the enemy's war effort

 

Lastly, even if the longbow radar gives lots of false positives, since it is a wide area search sensor, it provides a useful "queing" capability; that is to say, it alerts the pilot (or more realistically, gunner) to a POTENTIAL target that should be queried with the IIR or CCD to determine if it is or is not a real target. I have no doubt that this provides faster target acquisition than solely using the relatively narrow field of view of the IIR/CCD sensors. The difficulties the radar may have with target identification can be worked around. You seem to think the pilot/ gunner has to choose only ONE sensor with which to spot, identify, and engage a target, and stick with that one sensor. This is not the case. Even tank gunners habitually use multiple sensors in an engagement: often using IIR (with it's superior concealment-defeating capability) to spot potential targets, and then switch to optical sights (with their superior image resolution) to identify and engage.

 

But, as I mentioned, either way, no matter the limitations of the radar, it DOES provide additional capabilities

Edited October 15, 2011 by OutOnTheOP

[Migow]

Fifou, I'm not sure why you seem so amused by the realization that sensors have limitations, and I'm even more confused that you seem to think this makes a sensor absolutely worthless, or that somehow having the radar now makes Longbow inferior to KA50.

 

The fact is, the Longbow Apache HAS the radar. It ALSO has the IIR and CCD devices of the "standard" Apache. Regardless of how useful the radar may or may not be, it IS an additional capacity. The IIR and CCD devices may be more useful for target identification and/or terminal munitions guidance. This does not change the fact that WITH the radar, the Longbow has capability for obscurant penetrating wide-area search that cannot be provided by the IIR and CCD devices. So the radar might not be ideal, but if provides the capability for firing through battlefield obscurants like smoke, fog, or dust. Without the radar, you wouldn't be able to see or shoot ANYTHING. With it, you can. So there's a benefit right there.

 

I am also amused by the notion of an enemy sitting stationary for extended periods of time, dumping out smoke for hours on end. I do not think you have any notion of how logistically unrealistic this is, or the amount of smoke pots that would be neccesary to blanket a large enough area. Unless you covered literally square kilometers in dense smoke, you might as well just be announcing "there are enemy troops here". Sure, it might protect them from the Apache's point target weapons systems, but it'll make it really easy to call in area-fire weapons (such as DPICM artillery) to kill everything. And by the way, as you seem to believe that forcing an army to "waste" expensive munitions is a victory, I should note that M483A1 DPICM shells cost considerably less than a Hellfire to begin with.

 

It should also be noted that IIR and CCD is like looking through a soda straw; your field of view is extremely limited. So you have to be looking in the right place to find anything. Radar may only be "effective" against moving targets, BUT it will search a wide sector (360* for longbow, I believe) and automatically categorize those targets. It should ALSO be noted that "moving" does not always mean "driving". Individual moving components might trigger a doppler signature the radar would pick up; this includes traversing turrets or weapons, rotating radar antennae, potentially even the cooling fans of an idling engine.

 

Even if it has issues with spotting stationary targets, if the presence of longbow radars on the battlefield obliges your enemy to stop moving their vehicles, it has ALREADY provided an invaluable battlefield effect: the radar has pinned down every combatant in the area, without ever firing a shot! The longbow radar is optimized for use against moving vehicles, and it's optimized so for a reason. Moving vehicles are dangerous vehicles. Stationary ones aren't contributing anything to the enemy's war effort

 

Lastly, even if the longbow radar gives lots of false positives, since it is a wide area search sensor, it provides a useful "queing" capability; that is to say, it alerts the pilot (or more realistically, gunner) to a POTENTIAL target that should be queried with the IIR or CCD to determine if it is or is not a real target. I have no doubt that this provides faster target acquisition than solely using the relatively narrow field of view of the IIR/CCD sensors. The difficulties the radar may have with target identification can be worked around. You seem to think the pilot/ gunner has to choose only ONE sensor with which to spot, identify, and engage a target, and stick with that one sensor. This is not the case. Even tank gunners habitually use multiple sensors in an engagement: often using IIR (with it's superior concealment-defeating capability) to spot potential targets, and then switch to optical sights (with their superior image resolution) to identify and engage.

 

But, as I mentioned, either way, no matter the limitations of the radar, it DOES provide additional capabilities

hi,i never stated ka50 > ah64D i stated ka50 is less useless than i thought because of STI

 

-> who said that you have to use only one sensor...)

 

as if i don't have the knowledge about what you said... it is even written in the doc ...

 

the ah64D against stationary target can't be used without optics

that a serious drawback , the helo must expose himself ....

that make RFhellfire useless (plus there more expensive)

maybe there are useful if target is identified before it use smoke obscurant

the longbow was made so they should not use optic and would not be exposed to enemy fire .it can only work with moving target

 

->"I have no doubt that this provides faster target acquisition than solely using the relatively narrow field of view of the IIR/CCD sensors"

they said they don't use STI , they use flir instead especially in high clutter urban zone . they dont have faster target acquisition because of false alarm.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Fifou265

[OutOnTheOP]

And I maintain that you're comparing apples and orangatans. The radar gives additional capabilities; it takes away nothing. Show me another attack helicopter that can locate and engage targets through battlefield obscurants. And the "reports of how they do things in Iraq" argument is old and fallacious. It's just like all the folks arguing that the A-10 will be used for high-altitude JDAM delivery from now on just because that's how they're used in Afghanistan, where there are A) no tanks, and B) no high-altitude SAM or interceptors to worry about. I've BEEN to Iraq. I'll be the first to tell you that techniques and procedures used there are not a good representation of what would be used in a no-shit real high-intensity conflict (what most of the world refers to as a good ol' fashioned war).

[Frostiken]

Sensors in most simulations work too well. When was the last time you saw a false radar contant or false RWR contact in one of your simulations? :D

I'd like that :) I've been wondering for a while why the RWR doesn't ping radar returns from civil airports... RWR systems are finicky and due to their intense sensitivity, one of the ways they commonly fail is induced interference within the system itself it translates as false nails or spikes.

[Migow]

And I maintain that you're comparing apples and orangatans. The radar gives additional capabilities; it takes away nothing. Show me another attack helicopter that can locate and engage targets through battlefield obscurants. And the "reports of how they do things in Iraq" argument is old and fallacious. It's just like all the folks arguing that the A-10 will be used for high-altitude JDAM delivery from now on just because that's how they're used in Afghanistan, where there are A) no tanks, and B) no high-altitude SAM or interceptors to worry about. I've BEEN to Iraq. I'll be the first to tell you that techniques and procedures used there are not a good representation of what would be used in a no-shit real high-intensity conflict (what most of the world refers to as a good ol' fashioned war).

 

pilot can't confirm if it's true target throught battle obscurants in STI (i 'm not talking about MTI)

 

"And the "reports of how they do things in Iraq" argument is old and fallacious"

source?

the doc i link is made about ah64d pilot opinion

are you a a ah64d pilot?

"been in irak" is not argument (about radar)(you tell thing contrary to what ah64d pilot say)

a ah64d pilot is an argument

the doc i provide is true source

you talk about high intensity conflict but it doesn't matter the radar won't work better

(as the doc say) in high clutter(city,forest,mountain) the radar is not reliable against stationnary target they have to use optic instead.

 

"I'll be the first to tell you that techniques and procedures used there are not a good representation of what would be used in a no-shit real high-intensity conflict "

->well we will all be nuke before doing something :D

Edited November 9, 2011 by Fifou265

[OutOnTheOP]

Straw man. The article you posted is about STI in a very particular operating environment. Just because it includes pilot's opinions about the use of STI in that particular environment, does not mean they would not use it in other operating environments.

 

Clearly you do not understand that the point of my parable is that I have conducted operations in a related field in Iraq, and am therefore in a position to tell you that the tactics used in Iraq by any given branch of service are not representative of the tactics they would use in a different operating environtment. For example, in Iraq you never see AH64s using standoff hover battle positions; instead they use relatively high altitude swooping attacks at very short ranges. You would never see that on a conventional battlefield.

 

No, I am not an AH64 pilot. However, I do work in a job where understanding the application of high-resolution radar is critical; and I have had plenty of opportunity to use MMW radar before.

 

Really? So any conventional conflict these days will automatically go nuclear? Tell that to Korea, Vietnam, subsaharan Africa (for the past 50 years), Iran and Iraq (three times!), Israel and all it's neighbors, and the former Yugoslavia.

 

I seem to recall other pundits claiming nukes made tanks obsolete back in the '50s. Wasn't any more true then than it is now.

[Migow]

Straw man. The article you posted is about STI in a very particular operating environment. Just because it includes pilot's opinions about the use of STI in that particular environment, does not mean they would not use it in other operating environments.

 

Clearly you do not understand that the point of my parable is that I have conducted operations in a related field in Iraq, and am therefore in a position to tell you that the tactics used in Iraq by any given branch of service are not representative of the tactics they would use in a different operating environtment. For example, in Iraq you never see AH64s using standoff hover battle positions; instead they use relatively high altitude swooping attacks at very short ranges. You would never see that on a conventional battlefield.

 

No, I am not an AH64 pilot. However, I do work in a job where understanding the application of high-resolution radar is critical; and I have had plenty of opportunity to use MMW radar before.

 

Really? So any conventional conflict these days will automatically go nuclear? Tell that to Korea, Vietnam, subsaharan Africa (for the past 50 years), Iran and Iraq (three times!), Israel and all it's neighbors, and the former Yugoslavia.

 

I seem to recall other pundits claiming nukes made tanks obsolete back in the '50s. Wasn't any more true then than it is now.

have you read the doc?

the doc say in most environment different from where the radar has been tested in almost was useless (in STI not MTI) because of algorithm they have to be adapted but it seems almost impossible to implement: every zone is different ,target have random orientation ,turret too etc.

 

yeah your right irak is different from conventional war. it 's counter -insurgency after 40 day of "war" in 2003.so not the same procedure.

 

i though your talking about war against great state (ex: usa vs china russia etc.) not against little state with obsolete weapons.

 

"Just because it includes pilot's opinions about the use of STI in that particular environment, does not mean they would not use it in other operating environments"

that's high clutter environment it's almost everywhere.and enemy will use that ex: serbia

you don't have read the doc they say it was only usable where it has been tested .

i don't know if it has been corrected in block 3 and even if it is possible?

it's a trouble for every radar has to deal with stationary target

Edited November 11, 2011 by Fifou265