Chief scientist told China's anti-stealth radar identify F-22 flying 450km away

[antonius123]

Idiot, read the OP after cleaning your spectacles..it clearly mentions that it can track, lock and guide the missiles to the stealth target... so what part you don't understand?

He mean in BVR combat among the fighters.

 

[LKJ86]

The F22's usually fly with external fuel tanks or Luneburg lenses to mask their RCS.

View attachment 528576

View attachment 528577

China knows the difference, as we have J-20.

 

[khanasifm]

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23846/china-anti-stealth-radars-detect-f-22/


https://www.defensenews.com/global/.../chinas-anti-stealth-radar-comes-to-fruition/

 

[gambit]

Hi,

Thank you for your post---.

I have always been a believer that it would be cheaper to build a radar than can track the stealth aircraft or build a missile that can take down stealth aircraft---.

The Serbians gave the world a glimpse of their stealth radar detection equipment when they downed the F117 aircraft---.

Radar is a defensive weapon. A 'low radar observable' aka 'stealth' platform is an offensive weapon. What happened over Yugoslavia was luck, not technical acumen.

In any sport, the rules are well known to all players, as such, there are limits to tactics you can create. Take being out of bounds, for example. All players are restricted to a set area of competition real estate, from tennis to football to boxing. In football, you are not allowed to use your hands. In tennis, you must use specifically specified and designed hand tools called 'rackets'. In boxing, you are not allowed to use your legs as striking members. The list of restrictions goes on and on.

That is not the norm in wars. Asymmetric warfare is often bandied in this forum with the users barely know what that phrase mean, how to know when to use it, and how to actually use it. But asymmetric warfare is the perfect example of what happens in wars when people thinks they know what an enemy can do and will do, and the enemy does something else. It works both ways. You may have an 'anti-stealth' radar but as an attacker, I may have an asymmetric tactic that will negate your technical advantages. There are no rules that says I have to reveal those tactics to you. On the other hand, a radar system is bound by the laws of physics that no one, not even Russians and Chinese, can violate.

You cannot violate the laws of physics, but you can violate conventional norms of warfare.

So from that perspective, do YOU really think that out in the hills of Nevada, the US have not trained in the scenario that someone may have an 'anti-stealth' radar? That the F-22s were not burdened with reflectors and still tasked to penetrate 'enemy' airspace? We trained to penetrate enemy airspace before 'stealth', so what make you think we have not trained the same way with 'stealth'?

On the ground, you can have guerrilla warfare. In the air, you cannot. The environment and technical issues involved do not allow such a formation of combatants -- a guerrilla air force.

It means that in the air, you will always have the typical 'force vs force' meetings. Same with air defense. Only states can sponsor and produce an air defense network. Guerrilla fighters cannot. That means in a ground vs air scenario, asymmetric warfare favors 'stealth' platforms because ground forces are not as mobile as air forces.

We know the laws of physics as well, if not better, than anyone else. On the other hand, no one knows warfare like we do.

Do you what RCS is?

I do. Do you?

Just how would they have bombed Beijing by now if they could have?

We do not need to bomb Beijing for real. And we do not care to let them know we 'bombed' Beijing in practice.

If u can see it you can kill it.
If you can track it in peacetime what will happen during war time...suddenly it will change?

We ALLOWED tracking of the F-22 in peacetime. Let that sink in...

Radar cross-section is a measure of how detectable an object is by radar. A larger RCS indicates that an object is more easily detected. An object reflects a limited amount of radar energy back to the source

Do not tell me you knew what the RCS of F-22 is ? Even if Chinese knew it they will keep their mouths shut

A radar cross section (RCS) is a FICTITIOUS valuation of a body under radar bombardment.

If you do not understand the context of the word 'fictitious' here, do not worry, neither does our anti-US friend. And if he does not understand, then he does NOT have the full measure of understanding the concept in the first place. Let him stew in that ignorance for a while.

China knows the difference, as we have J-20.

No, you do not know the difference.

 

[jhungary]

And we come back at the same thing, OVER and OVER again.

First of all, if China really do know how to detect stealth, chances are they will NOT come out with a presentation and broadcast it publicly like this. I mean if we do know some capability your enemy have, would you stupid enough to broadcast it so your enemy can change/improve or whatever on it? No

Second of all, there are no way anyone other than people who fly that F-22 or people in high power in LM would know the true capability in war. Having operated a Radar and GPS myself I can tell you that, whatever you see on a screen is something, YOU WILL NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS UNTIL YOU SAW IT OR HAVE IT VERIFY.

So report like this, I probably will not even ask you to treat it with a grain of salt. I will probably just discard it as rubbish.

 

[Trango Towers]

Radar is a defensive weapon. A 'low radar observable' aka 'stealth' platform is an offensive weapon. What happened over Yugoslavia was luck, not technical acumen.

In any sport, the rules are well known to all players, as such, there are limits to tactics you can create. Take being out of bounds, for example. All players are restricted to a set area of competition real estate, from tennis to football to boxing. In football, you are not allowed to use your hands. In tennis, you must use specifically specified and designed hand tools called 'rackets'. In boxing, you are not allowed to use your legs as striking members. The list of restrictions goes on and on.

That is not the norm in wars. Asymmetric warfare is often bandied in this forum with the users barely know what that phrase mean, how to know when to use it, and how to actually use it. But asymmetric warfare is the perfect example of what happens in wars when people thinks they know what an enemy can do and will do, and the enemy does something else. It works both ways. You may have an 'anti-stealth' radar but as an attacker, I may have an asymmetric tactic that will negate your technical advantages. There are no rules that says I have to reveal those tactics to you. On the other hand, a radar system is bound by the laws of physics that no one, not even Russians and Chinese, can violate.

You cannot violate the laws of physics, but you can violate conventional norms of warfare.

So from that perspective, do YOU really think that out in the hills of Nevada, the US have not trained in the scenario that someone may have an 'anti-stealth' radar? That the F-22s were not burdened with reflectors and still tasked to penetrate 'enemy' airspace? We trained to penetrate enemy airspace before 'stealth', so what make you think we have not trained the same way with 'stealth'?

On the ground, you can have guerrilla warfare. In the air, you cannot. The environment and technical issues involved do not allow such a formation of combatants -- a guerrilla air force.

It means that in the air, you will always have the typical 'force vs force' meetings. Same with air defense. Only states can sponsor and produce an air defense network. Guerrilla fighters cannot. That means in a ground vs air scenario, asymmetric warfare favors 'stealth' platforms because ground forces are not as mobile as air forces.

We know the laws of physics as well, if not better, than anyone else. On the other hand, no one knows warfare like we do.


I do. Do you?


We do not need to bomb Beijing for real. And we do not care to let them know we 'bombed' Beijing in practice.


We ALLOWED tracking of the F-22 in peacetime. Let that sink in...


A radar cross section (RCS) is a FICTITIOUS valuation of a body under radar bombardment.

If you do not understand the context of the word 'fictitious' here, do not worry, neither does our anti-US friend. And if he does not understand, then he does NOT have the full measure of understanding the concept in the first place. Let him stew in that ignorance for a while.


No, you do not know the difference.

Allowed......how did u allow it. Stealth is not a cloaking device thatyou turn on and off. Its primerily the deflection and absorption of radar signals. So how did the USAF allow it. 2ndly you are indian....let that sink in

 

[gambit]

And we come back at the same thing, OVER and OVER again.

First of all, if China really do know how to detect stealth, chances are they will NOT come out with a presentation and broadcast it publicly like this. I mean if we do know some capability your enemy have, would you stupid enough to broadcast it so your enemy can change/improve or whatever on it? No

Second of all, there are no way anyone other than people who fly that F-22 or people in high power in LM would know the true capability in war. Having operated a Radar and GPS myself I can tell you that, whatever you see on a screen is something, YOU WILL NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS UNTIL YOU SAW IT OR HAVE IT VERIFY.

So report like this, I probably will not even ask you to treat it with a grain of salt. I will probably just discard it as rubbish.

Other than us two, I doubt anyone in this forum know what a real radar scope look like. Not the airport kind where the aircrafts ASSISTED the airport and each target have unique IDs.

 

[LKJ86]

No, you do not know the difference.

Yep, USA always is the best. Are you satisfied?

 

[gambit]

Yep, USA always is the best. Are you satisfied?

We are not satisfied on the opinions of others. That is the difference between US and you. We are satisfied on hard data and experience. For the latter, it is COMBAT experience, something that your PLA do not have. Your scientist can blather about 'anti-stealth' radar all he wants. You still have to reconcile what he said vs what your government actually do, which is working on 'stealth'.

 

[LKJ86]

We are not satisfied on the opinions of others. That is the difference between US and you. We are satisfied on hard data and experience. For the latter, it is COMBAT experience, something that your PLA do not have. Your scientist can blather about 'anti-stealth' radar all he wants. You still have to reconcile what he said vs what your government actually do, which is working on 'stealth'.

It is funny.
We have J-20. J-20 also flies with external fuel tanks or Luneburg lenses to mask their RCS. We do a lot of experiments and test on it and F-22 flying around. We do know the difference.

 

[jhungary]

Other than us two, I doubt anyone in this forum know what a real radar scope look like. Not the airport kind where the aircrafts ASSISTED the airport and each target have unique IDs.

They probably watched too much TVs.

Primary Radar return is not like they do with transponder readback....But meh, I don't think anyone else actually see or used radar before, so these "Post" make sense to most people, I just laugh and move on.

 

[gambit]

It is funny.
We have J-20. J-20 also flies with external fuel tanks or Luneburg lenses to mask their RCS. We do a lot of experiments and test on it and F-22 flying around. We do know the difference.

You can claim to know anything you want. The bottom line is that as you are struggling with the J-20, we are moving to beyond the F-22. The manufacture of the F-35 is to prepare the current force structure to be readied for what is coming next, which is something that you will not and cannot anticipate.

Hah...You think that just because you cleaned up an existing design that made you a 'stealth' designer?

Primary Radar return is not like they do with transponder readback

Maybe that is what this scientist meant...

 

[LKJ86]

You can claim to know anything you want. The bottom line is that as you are struggling with the J-20, we are moving to beyond the F-22. The manufacture of the F-35 is to prepare the current force structure to be readied for what is coming next, which is something that you will not and cannot anticipate.

Why do you avoid the question we are talking?

 

[Trango Towers]

Yep, USA always is the best. Are you satisfied?

Indian wannabe american. Like nikki healey

 

[serenity]

These people happy to believe Indian detected J-20 easily at hundreds of kilometer ranges. And then when Chinese claim something similar with just radar scientists claiming to have detected F-22, automatically it is impossible to verify it is F-22 and if it is, it is because F-22 is holding fuel tanks and luneberg lens. But they are happy to believe Indian claim against China at face value even though J-20 nearly always flying with luneberg lens. Immediately their radar suddenly work like hollywood version where the radar screen will display in big writing "J-20 over here" hahahahaha.

These Chinese radars like the Russian anti-stealth radars are designed just for this purpose and these are second generation types of these custom designed to attempt at tracking stealth fighters and bombers. The Indian claim is the Su-30MKI radar can detect J-20. Okay believe that. Don't believe this. No worries at all. If war happens we all die together anyway. If they believe they can wage a real war against China or Russia, they are welcome. Just like Russia, China will not budge one inch and they are powerless today. Unlike 50 years ago and before that.