Experimental German radar 'tracked two U.S. F-35 stealth jet for 100 MILES'

[Syed_Adeel]

Maybe the jets were using radar reflectors to remain visible because of the airshow

I also have the same doubt

 

[Trango Towers]

I also have the same doubt

Why do u have doubts.
It's a game of cat and mouse

 

[Syed_Adeel]

Why do u have doubts.
It's a game of cat and mouse

Dear i think you didnt read the earlier comment about radar reflection. Because usually in air shows radar reflectors are used with 5th gen fighters.

as far as technology is concerned then Chinese are already working on quantum radars to track stealth fighters,
and one day stealth lemon will be over with time.

 

[Trango Towers]

Dear i think you didnt read the earlier comment about radar reflection. Because usually in air shows radar reflectors are used with 5th gen fighters.

as far as technology is concerned then Chinese are already working on quantum radars to track stealth fighters,
and one day stealth lemon will be over with time.

No brother I did
What i mean is continually technology is on the one hand radar ovation and then radar guys are trying to detect. No matter what they catch up with each other and the game is oscillating continuously

 

[Foxtrot Delta]

China did it first years before germany with YLC-21 Radar.

 

[The Accountant]

There is nothing extraordinary about this. What these people claimed to have is a bi-static radar. See Kolchuga and Lockheed's Silent Sentry. The problem is that the bi-static radar is not the solution to 'stealth' as everyone in the past made it out to be.

• 
  
  
  • It works observing electromagnetic emissions in the atmosphere
  • Then it will read how signals are bouncing off airborne objects

To start, let us establish the foundation of a bi-static or so called 'passive' radar system...

In a bi-static radar system, there are multiple transmitters/receivers. The original configuration have multiple transmitters and one base receiver. With modern technology, each station can transmit and receive.

In a mono-static configuration, a station operates thus: transmit/pause/receive.

In a basic bi-static configuration as illustrate above, a transmitter operates continuously while multiple receivers tracks the target as it reflects. In a multiple transmitters/receivers set up, it is called multi-static, but the foundation is still bi-static. Mathematically, it is the bi-static triangle.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-21697-8_56
The solution to the bistatic triangle for target range from the receiver requires calculating the azimuth of the direct path pulse,...

In theory, the bi-static radar is the greatest threat to 'stealth'. But there are technical challenges that STILL prevents the idea from becoming operationally readied.

One of many problems is synchronization. The receivers must know the transmitting signal and the more it knows, everything from amplitude to freq to pulse characterization, the better.

Another problem is in the signal source(s), which in this case, can be anything from TV to radio to cosmic background radiation: electromagnetic emissions in the atmosphere. The problem is TACTICAL.

What if an airstrike takes out the city's electrical generation stations? Now there are huge radar gaps in this multi-static system. The B-2 win.

Great information. If we put it like this, that such systems are more effective in defense rather than offence where passive sensors can be placed more strategically where the passive radar can process all the frequencies in the area and anything foreign can be highlighted easily ...

 

[gambit]

Great information. If we put it like this, that such systems are more effective in defense rather than offence where passive sensors can be placed more strategically where the passive radar can process all the frequencies in the area and anything foreign can be highlighted easily ...

In theory -- yes.

In the desert, you will not have the quantity and intensity of available signals to use compares to the city where you can exploit TV, radio, and all sorts of man-made EM signals. But we know that in modern warfare, a city's electrical source WILL be among the highest prioritized targets, if not THE top target. So if the city's electrical generation is damaged in any way, bi-static coverage gaps are inevitable. Another way for an attacker to create those gaps is thru EW.

 

[The Accountant]

But an adversary like China having financial muscle can install signal generating units around all strategic installations backed by alternate source ... If this is possible in theory then systems can be build around that. Furthermore, for all practical purpose adversary can mask specific signal generating units to be tracked by passive radars only known to passive radars. A network of such antenas can be used to detect stealth fighter.

Furthermore, I would also like to know your views on detection and target. Only few people understand that detection and targeting are two entirely separate process and if you detect something it doesnt means you have enough information to get target as well ... As far as I understand the biggest challenge with these passive radars is not the detection but the target acquisition as the location identified is not specific enough to get a misile lock with prevailing missile arsenal ..

In theory -- yes.

In the desert, you will not have the quantity and intensity of available signals to use compares to the city where you can exploit TV, radio, and all sorts of man-made EM signals. But we know that in modern warfare, a city's electrical source WILL be among the highest prioritized targets, if not THE top target. So if the city's electrical generation is damaged in any way, bi-static coverage gaps are inevitable. Another way for an attacker to create those gaps is thru EW.

 

[Syed_Adeel]

No brother I did
What i mean is continually technology is on the one hand radar ovation and then radar guys are trying to detect. No matter what they catch up with each other and the game is oscillating continuously

agree

 

[messiach]

On wings we conquer and burn.

There is nothing extraordinary about this. What these people claimed to have is a bi-static radar. See Kolchuga and Lockheed's Silent Sentry. The problem is that the bi-static radar is not the solution to 'stealth' as everyone in the past made it out to be.

• 
  
  
  • It works observing electromagnetic emissions in the atmosphere
  • Then it will read how signals are bouncing off airborne objects

To start, let us establish the foundation of a bi-static or so called 'passive' radar system...

In a bi-static radar system, there are multiple transmitters/receivers. The original configuration have multiple transmitters and one base receiver. With modern technology, each station can transmit and receive.

In a mono-static configuration, a station operates thus: transmit/pause/receive.

In a basic bi-static configuration as illustrate above, a transmitter operates continuously while multiple receivers tracks the target as it reflects. In a multiple transmitters/receivers set up, it is called multi-static, but the foundation is still bi-static. Mathematically, it is the bi-static triangle.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-21697-8_56
The solution to the bistatic triangle for target range from the receiver requires calculating the azimuth of the direct path pulse,...

In theory, the bi-static radar is the greatest threat to 'stealth'. But there are technical challenges that STILL prevents the idea from becoming operationally readied.

One of many problems is synchronization. The receivers must know the transmitting signal and the more it knows, everything from amplitude to freq to pulse characterization, the better.

Another problem is in the signal source(s), which in this case, can be anything from TV to radio to cosmic background radiation: electromagnetic emissions in the atmosphere. The problem is TACTICAL.

What if an airstrike takes out the city's electrical generation stations? Now there are huge radar gaps in this multi-static system. The B-2 win.

 

[gambit]

But an adversary like China having financial muscle can install signal generating units around all strategic installations backed by alternate source ... If this is possible in theory then systems can be build around that.

Sure. There are no technical barriers in making the theory operational. The question is how much to spend. Even China's budget have discretionary limits. The bottom line is that either you build under the conviction that what you know and have will work, or if you have any doubt, you do not build at all.

Furthermore, for all practical purpose adversary can mask specific signal generating units to be tracked by passive radars only known to passive radars. A network of such antenas can be used to detect stealth fighter.

Not if the system is designed to use only ambient signals.

But for discussion's sake, let us take Beethoven's Fifth, for example. We can program the system's computer to recognize that piece's unique EM signature so that should that piece be in the air while a B-2 passes overhead, we can recognize the music's reflections off the B-2. That is not sarcasm but a genuine technical hurdle. Now take in all the TV and radio programming into consideration. When the system is designed to use ambient signals, the system is considered to be 'opportunistic', meaning using whatever is available at that time.

On the other hand, if the system actually owns the transmitting signals, then the system can be designed to use unique signatures that can be distinguished from ambient noise. But in this scenario, broadband EW can and will affect this multi-static set up just like any mono-static system out there.

A popular way of arguing against 'stealth' is the persistence of varying 'what-ifs' scenarios until 'stealth' is rendered impotent under the most fantastic technical set up that borders on science fiction. Voila...!!! The F-22 is defeated.

Furthermore, I would also like to know your views on detection and target. Only few people understand that detection and targeting are two entirely separate process and if you detect something it doesnt means you have enough information to get target as well ... As far as I understand the biggest challenge with these passive radars is not the detection but the target acquisition as the location identified is not specific enough to get a misile lock with prevailing missile arsenal ..

The challenge is timing, as in timing over constant spatial dislocation, fancy wording for a moving body. It does not matter if you can detect or even track, to target a moving body requires predictive capabilities as to the most probable spatial location in the nearest possible point in time.

What I mean is this...

Can you predict where the car is going to be in one kilometer? How about one meter? Now how about one centimeter?

Between one centimeter and one kilometer, the car can maneuver anywhere and without you knowing. So if you can predict down to the centimeter, you can intercept the car sooner.

The hardware is the radar. The software is guidance laws, such as proportional navigation...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation

The misnamed 'passive' radar cannot provide the software with the necessary target information. To predict the movement of something, you must be directly involved in monitoring it. For that, active measures are required.