gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
That is actually a very good question, one that many take for granted that there is a consistency between the world's 'fighter-class' radar systems. Truth is that since there are wide variations between manufacturers in terms of the technology level they have at their disposal, it is inevitable that the products they produce will have variations in terms of RCS values as well. It may sound counter-intuitive but there is a direct relationship between quality of the seeking radar and an aircraft's RCS value, meaning the lower the quality the lower the RCS, which in this case does not mean the aircraft itself 'reflect' that RCS. Pun intended.How will you exploit the RCS without a good enough radar?
A radar cross section (RCS) value is calculated based upon these major (target) factors:
- Target shape.
- Target dimensions.
- Aspect angle to the seeking (mono-static) radar.
For the seeking radar, its burden on PRODUCING an RCS value rests upon these major factors:
The quality of ALL signal components must be equal IF these target resolutions are to be extracted from the echoes:
- Altitude
- Velocity
- Aspect angle
- Heading
- Range
- Direction
Case in point: The MIG-25's radar was so powerful (amplitude wise) that it could achieve 'burn-through' of most jamming signals, but the cost was altitude, velocity, aspect angle, and heading resolutions, leaving only direction (position) and possibly range for the pilot to know if anything is 'out there'. That is why I put 'Direction' apart from the other resolutions. Of all target resolutions, location of target is the easiest to produce by post WW II radars. Location of target is the first bit of target information that we seek before we formulate any course of action, whether it be by sight or sound.
So here is a dilemma for radar engineers worldwide: In trying to balance out the quality of signal components to achieve the above 6 target resolutions, the lower the technology level used to design the radar system, the lower any target RCS value. In other words, in trying to extract the 5 crucial data for the B-52, the lower the quality of the seeking signal, the lower the RCS value of the B-52. It can be difficult to understand why because we are used to thinking that a value of any kind is fixed but in radar detection an RCS value is a completely fictitious figure.
- No radar signal, no RCS value.
- No target, no RCS value.
But if the seeking radar signal is 'crappy' enough, then even if the target is physically real and in the area, it may as well does not exist for the seeking radar. After all, if it does not know how 'crappy' it is to begin with, how can it process any echoes to determine if there is anyone out there?
It is no longer appropriate to extract only target location and call it good as in the old MIG-25 days. So a new dilemma exist for the radar engineers of any country: In creating as high a quality signal as possible with the available technology at hand, distance may have to be sacrificed, in other words, if the B-52's RCS of 100 m/sq appears at 100km for country A, that same RCS of 100 m/sq will be available at 80km or less for country B because B is working with a lower technology base. In radar detection, the lower the distance figure, the less response time available, be it a civilian air traffic controller or an air defense crew protecting a valuable national asset.
The uncomfortable choice for country B is this: Either sacrifice 5 target resolutions and get only location. Or sacrifice distance to get all 6 resolutions, but with a lower distance resolution, of course. The decision to go either way depends on many factors, highest importance of them is the proximity of potential adversaries. If the threat can cross the borders and attack valuable national assets quickly, then may be general location is good enough. At least the defenders can face the enemy instead of being blindsided or flanked.
Next to the jet engine, a good radar system is the equal technical hurdle.