So how true is this statement

[countto10]

From a supposedly factual website:

 

http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/rb56.en.html

 

The use of stealth technology to reduce radar cross section increases the survivability and decreases the target detection of military aircraft. But the stealth technology depends of the used radar transmitters frequency and has none effect against VHF- radars like P-12 or P-18, both used by serbian air defense units during the Kosovo war.

[Aginor]

Ehhh... no, not like that.

I'll explain a bit of that later (or maybe someone else does)

 

EDIT: Ok, that post sounded really rude in my own ears, so here's at least one thing to look at to see how that statement is at least inaccurate:

There are lots of techniques used for stealth. One of it is to reduce the RCS by just making the aircraft flatter so more waves just don't hit it. How should a change in frequency affect that?

 

And of course everything depends on the energy you put into it, and on the distance. I can see the F-22 on the oldest radars if it is placed on the runway twenty meters in front of them.

So you just can't put it that simple.

If you claim that certain types of radar are "better" against stealth technology, you have to tell us how that was measured. At what distance and so on.

 

Also judging by the fact that serbian air defences did not really shoot down lots of stealth aircraft it is not very likely they had something that makes stealth useless.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Aginor

[countto10]

Actually no mono-static radar is likely to be able to see anything at 20m, as it would be within the blind range.

[Aginor]

Ok, here I am again.

 

EDIT: @countto10: Yeah, I know, I admit I was exaggerating a bit. :D

 

While it seems to be true that VHF and UHF radars have some advantages in detecting stealthy airplanes compared to other radars this is not a "nananana, your stealth is useless now"-advantage but more of a bit of mitigation of the stealth effect. So stealthy airplanes are still detected much later than non-stealthy ones, but it may be possible to detect them BVR (that would be cool for those using the radars because at the moment you can't even lock on some planes although you can already detect them optically).

The problem with those radars is IIRC that they are huge, so you can't include them in airplanes. You would basically fly GCI again, like in the 70s and 80s. Also those big stationary radars are easy targets naturally.

 

Concerning the Serbian stuff: There are different stories about that, I'm still not sure which one is true. I think the most plausible is that the Serbs could target the F-117 when its bomb bay door was open, which increases the RCS seen from below dramatically (basically like the Klingon warbird decloaking to fire). So they didn't "beat stealth" there but had their SAM site placed well so they could lock on while it fired and was not stealthy at that moment.

 

And of course there are other possibilities to "beat stealth".

- detect heat, jet engines are hot (the F-117 engineers knew that and the design took that into account, but then it was impossible to go supersonic. The F-22 and F-35 trade that advantage in for supersonic flight, so they have much higher IR signatures)

- detect sound. A supersonic fighter can hardly fly unnoticed because it is frikkin' loud.

- just open your eyes, they are not invisible. Some planes can be seen visually before you spot them on the radar. Aim optically. I admit it might be too late then. So no magical anti-stealth trick here either.

[winz]

The problem with those radars is IIRC that they are huge, so you can't include them in airplanes. You would basically fly GCI again, like in the 70s and 80s. Also those big stationary radars are easy targets naturally.

That's one of problems. The other is that their accuracy is crap. That's why those bands are used for EWR (were you don't need pinpoint accuracy) and fire control radars use much shorter wavelengths.

[159th_Falcon]

While where on the subject of stealth, hearth the following somewhere and it sounds plausible.

 

Apparently, the French now use a different kind of radar that instead of relying on the radar waves being reflected by an object.

They depend on radar waves being reflected by the atmoshpere, then when an stealth plane fly's trough, this reflection gets disturbed and can be measured.

 

Guess it works similar to finding objects by looking for deviations in the earth's magnetic field.

(used in anti submarine warfare i believe)

 

Anyone knows if the above is actually true or just a theory?

[countto10]

I've not heard about that but there is research into nano-skin that conducts and re-emits incident EM waves elsewhere.

 

Not too similar to magnetic anomaly detection though, which I think is what you were getting at. Shame the MRA4 was stillborn all the same.

[EtherealN]

While where on the subject of stealth, hearth the following somewhere and it sounds plausible.

 

Apparently, the French now use a different kind of radar that instead of relying on the radar waves being reflected by an object.

They depend on radar waves being reflected by the atmoshpere, then when an stealth plane fly's trough, this reflection gets disturbed and can be measured.

 

Guess it works similar to finding objects by looking for deviations in the earth's magnetic field.

(used in anti submarine warfare i believe)

 

Anyone knows if the above is actually true or just a theory?

 

Sounds a bit too much like the old claim that to detect an Ohio class submarine you don't look for the sound of the submarine, you look for the "hole" in the water that has no sound.

 

Worse, if you emit in wavelengths where air is opaque, you are talking basicaly about a weather radar. So now sort through clouds, rain, etcetera and - even worse - the "hole" made by the jet is absolutely tiny, while the reflectivity of air is also extremely tiny. I count it as extremely unlikely that it would be possible to get any kind of resolution for that. Theoretically possible I think, but definitely a "needle in a haystack".

 

(As an aside, submarines have for decades used demagnetized hulls and other measures to eliminate electromagnetic signatures. You can catch an old Whiskey class sub like that, yeah, but a modern one... Perhaps, but it's far far from easy. The best way remains to detect the turbulence of the water after the screw(s), something that cannot be eliminated - though it can be minimized through good design of the screw.)

[sobek]

Well there is the thing about the ionosphere reflecting certain (low) wavelengths. It still seems impractical though.

[159th_Falcon]

Well then, i guess we can call this one;

 

 

.

:D:D