China anti-stealth radars

[Azn boy]

These are links to china's anti-stealth radars.
http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/flying/f117a_nighthawks.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/kolchuga.htm


http://www.engineering.com/content/ContentDisplay?contentId=41010021
Limitations

There is no one optimum stealth design, but rather each mission requirement generates an appropriate mix of techniques. Implementation of stealth is not without penalties. Some of the materials used require special and costly maintenance. The maneuverability of an aircraft can be compromised by the introduction of stealth design features. As was the case with the F-117A, each B-2 bomber will have its own covered maintenance facility, since the B-2's low observable features require frequent performance of structural and maintenance activities.

Stealth requires not only design compromises, it also imposes operational compromises. Sensors to locate targets pose a particular problem for stealth aircraft. The large radars used by conventional aircraft would obviously compromise the position of a stealth aircraft. Air-to-air combat would rely on passive detection of transmissions by hostile aircraft, as well as infrared tracking. However, these techniques are of marginal effectiveness against other stealth aircraft, explaining the limited application of stealth to the Advanced Tactical Fighter.

Aircraft for attacking targets on the ground face a similar problem. FLIR can be used for precise aiming at targets whose general location is known, but they are poorly suited for searching for targets over a wide area. A radar on the aircraft to scan for potential targets would compromise its position. In order to locate targets, stealth aircraft may rely on an airborne laser radar, although such a sensor may prove of limited utility in poor weather. A more promising approach would be to use data from reconnaissance satellites, either transmitted directly from the satellite or relayed through communications satellites from processing centers in the United States.

There are limits to the utility of stealth techniques. Since the radar cross-section of an aircraft depends on the angle from which it is viewed, an aircraft will typically have a much smaller RCS when viewed from the front or rear than when viewed from the side or from above. In general stealth aircraft are designed to minimize their frontal RCS. But it is not possible to contour the surface of an aircraft to reduce the RCS equally in all directions, and reductions in the frontal RCS may lead to a larger RCS from above. Thus while a stealth aircraft may be difficult to track when it is flying toward a ground-based radar or another aircraft at the same altitude, a high-altitude airborne radar or a space-based radar may have an easier time tracking it.

Another limitation of stealth aircraft is their vulnerability to detection by bi-static radars. The contouring of a stealth aircraft is designed to avoid reflecting a radar signal directly back in the direction of the radar transmitter. But the transmitter and receiver of a bi-static radar are in separate locations — indeed, a single transmitter may be used by radar receivers scattered over a wide area. This greatly increases the odds that at least one of these receivers will pickup a reflected signal. The prospects for detection of stealth aircraft by bi-static radar are further improved if the radar transmitter is space-based, and thus viewing the aircraft from above, the direction of its largest radar cross section.

Several analysts claim stealth aircraft such as the ATF will be vulnerable to detection by infrared search and track systems (IRST). The natural heating of an aircraft's surface makes it visible to this type of system. The faster and aircraft flies, the warmer it gets, and thus, the easier to detect through infrared means. One expert asserts "if an aircraft deviates from its surroundings by only one degree centigrade, you will be able to detect it at militarily useful ranges." In fact, both the Russian MiG-29 and Su-27 carry IRST devices, which indicates that the Russians have long targeted this as a potential stealth weakness.

Stealth aircraft are even more vulnerable to multiple sensors used in tandem. By using an IRST to track the target and a Ladar (laser radar), or a narrow beam, high-power radar to paint the target superior data is provided.

The most basic potential limitation of stealth, is its vulnerability to visual detection. Since the ATF is 25-30 percent larger than the F-15 and 40 percent larger than the F-18, for example, it will be much easier to detect visually from ranges on the order of 10 miles. When one considers that stealth characteristics will drastically reduce the effectiveness of several types of guided air-to-air missiles, fighter engagements will probably move back to the visual range arena. In this context, the cumbersome F-22 would be at a distinct disadvantage.
Another potential "limitation" of stealth technology has little to do with its capabilities. Rather, some question the effect the pursuit of such hi tech aircraft will have on the US aerospace industry as a whole. These aircraft would not be available for foreign export until well into the next century. During that time, competitors such as the Gripen, Rafale and EFA will be peddled aggressively by European exporters. One analyst estimated that US foreign sales saved the Pentagon "about $2.8 billion through surcharges to recover part of their development costs and perhaps another $4 billion through the learning curve effect of higher production runs." Thus, America's stealth success could actually backfire, on its larger aerospace industry by causing it to forfeit sales to a new generation of top-of-the-line, although less formidable, European fighter aircraft.

[tphuang]

interesting, I guess countries will be increasingly willing to put military related radars into space because of this.

[Fairthought]

I find it intersting that the proliferation of stealth technology will return air to air combat back into the Within Visual Range. Too much reliance is on BVR missiles. Nations who chose to neglect superagility and machine guns as obsolete features on the planes of tomorrow will live to regret it.

[Lavi]

I don't expect visual range engagements to become standard again, although dog-fights never have been totally left out of the picture, but increased use of e.g. IR-techincs will lower fighting ranges. Today, fighter pilots are not that interested in always flying with the radar on, because it gives away their bearing. Relying on AWACS for radar pictures, and then using passive sensors onboard will probably be the way most engagements are fought.

[Eurofighter]

the use of the static field to detect a stealth fighter has already been put in to practice. If I remember it correcly the French has already build a facility to do experimental tests.....can someone please confirm this?

[tphuang]

more on China's anti stealth radar:
http://jczs.sina.com.cn/2005-10-17/0857325333.html
中国研成激光雷达实现对30-110公里高空探测
http://jczs.sina.com.cn 2005年10月17日 08:57 科技日报

　　据新华社武汉讯记者10月12日从中国科学院武汉物理与数学所获悉，用于探测太阳剧烈活动与空间灾害天 气的“双波长高空探测激光雷达â€�已研制成功，并于近日通过专家验收。初步试运行结果表明，这一具有 自主知识产权的新工具将成为我国中高层大气探测研究更为有效的手段。

　　“双波长高空探测激光雷达研制â€�为国家“973â€�项目“太阳剧烈活动 与空间灾害天
气â€�中的设备专项研制之一。武汉物理与数学所在已研制成功的瑞利散射(30~70公里)和钠层荧光(8 0~110公里)两种激光雷达的基础上，通过攻关解决关键技术及将原有技术升级改造成一种双波长高空激光雷 达，实现对30~110公里中高层大气和低电离层段的同时、连通性探测。

　　专家介绍，在30~110公里范围中高层大气和低电离层探测技术发展一直较为薄弱。对原位探测而言，这 一层段对气球探空显得太高，对卫星探测又显得太低；对遥感探测而言，这一层段对地面的无线电遥感大多属于盲 区，而卫星从上向下的被动光学遥感又存在分辨率和精确度方面的缺点。激光雷达的出现提供了一种较为有效的解 决方案。

　　此外，中高层大气和低电离层是“日-地â€�关系链中的重要环节。太阳活动对中高层大气和低电离层中的许多物理、化学和动力学过程，以及与其相 邻的上下层次之间的相互作用过程都有重要影响。因此，研究中高层大气和低电离层的各种特性具有很高学术价值 。

　　专家组认为，“双波长高空探测激光雷达â€�研制中解决了二次倍频余光复用、双光纤焦面分光、高空 收发整机联调等关键技术，从而将瑞利散射和钠层荧光两种机制融入一台激光雷达中，在国际上首次实现了两段高 度的同时探测，扩展了探测范围。

[DPRKPTboat]

The flatrock site is particulary interesting. Passive radar could spell the end for stealth aircraft. Does anyone know what kind of Radar the Serbs were using when they shot down those F-117s? I also remember hearing somewhere that another F-117 was shot down by a Serb MiG-29. Well, theres a weakness of one stealth aircraft. The F-117 is totally commited to air-defence penetration and rapidly hitting enemy targets. It earns an amazing ability to infiltrate enemy territory and bomb key targets accurately at the expense of self-defence. The F-117 doesn't carry any air-to-air weapons, so you can't really call it a stealth "fighter". This makes it an easy target for enemy CAPs.

[walter]

The flatrock site is particulary interesting. Passive radar could spell the end for stealth aircraft. Does anyone know what kind of Radar the Serbs were using when they shot down those F-117s? I also remember hearing somewhere that another F-117 was shot down by a Serb MiG-29. Well, theres a weakness of one stealth aircraft. The F-117 is totally commited to air-defence penetration and rapidly hitting enemy targets. It earns an amazing ability to infiltrate enemy territory and bomb key targets accurately at the expense of self-defence. The F-117 doesn't carry any air-to-air weapons, so you can't really call it a stealth "fighter". This makes it an easy target for enemy CAPs.

I don't know the exact model of radar used, but it was dated (70's era) tech supposedly with some mods. However, i don't think the type of radar was the deciding factor, but rather the combination of 1) superb Serbian Officer who made the most out of what was available to him and 2) poor/sloppy planning by NATO--F-117s were flying the exact same routes at the same times of night every night for 2 weeks (so I hear?). In the end, the serb officer got wise to the flight schedules and knew where to place his radar and when to turn it on to catch the F-117. So the F-117 is still stealthy, but when it gets lit up by a radar just a few miles away it can still be seen and tracked--that is true for any stealth aircraft.

As to MIG-29 downing one, I haven't heard that before and am inclined not to believe it since the serbs were not flying after the first couple of days. I did hear another F-117 was damaged beyond repair but made it back to base, but that was supposedly AAA or another SAM.

Also, F-117's can carry 2 AIM-9s, but at the cost of not carrying any bombs. I don't think this option has even been used in actual operations, though.

[DPRKPTboat]

I don't know the exact model of radar used, but it was dated (70's era) tech supposedly with some mods. However, i don't think the type of radar was the deciding factor, but rather the combination of 1) superb Serbian Officer who made the most out of what was available to him and 2) poor/sloppy planning by NATO--F-117s were flying the exact same routes at the same times of night every night for 2 weeks (so I hear?). In the end, the serb officer got wise to the flight schedules and knew where to place his radar and when to turn it on to catch the F-117. So the F-117 is still stealthy, but when it gets lit up by a radar just a few miles away it can still be seen and tracked--that is true for any stealth aircraft.

Also, F-117's can carry 2 AIM-9s, but at the cost of not carrying any bombs. I don't think this option has even been used in actual operations, though.

2 AIM-9s would not be enough to survive a dogfight, and if the stealth couldn't carry any other weapons, it would be a pretty useless configuration to the USAF. Probably why it isn't used so much. So whatever configuration the F-117 has, it would be no match for Chinese Flankers or J-10s, especially if they were fitted with passive radars. The only reason why it has succeeded so far is becasue it hasn't met adequate fighter opposition yet. This is true for most of the USAF. And that goes for the B-2 aswell. The only stealth that is a major air-to-air threat is the F-22. But as you said the fact that a Stealth is totally invisible is merely propaganda, and they can all be tracked, so they are defiently not invincible. As for the Serb MiG-29, I know that the serbs had over 20 aircraft in total, and they were able to use them, although not very much. I forgot the site that told me one of them shot down a stealth, but if anyone can confirm that, be my guest.

[walter]

2 AIM-9s would not be enough to survive a dogfight, and if the stealth couldn't carry any other weapons, it would be a pretty useless configuration to the USAF. Probably why it isn't used so much. So whatever configuration the F-117 has, it would be no match for Chinese Flankers or J-10s, especially if they were fitted with passive radars. The only reason why it has succeeded so far is becasue it hasn't met adequate fighter opposition yet. This is true for most of the USAF. And that goes for the B-2 aswell. The only stealth that is a major air-to-air threat is the F-22.

right, obviously no commander would send an F-117 to do CAP missions with 2 AIM-9s, I was just stating the fact as FYI. And I agree completely, the F-117 isn't deserving of the "F" for fighter. I read the reason it has the F-designation was to drum up support (funding) for it in Washington while it was still classified. Those in the know thought a "fighter" would have a better ring to it as opposed to "attack aircraft" or "bomber". Who knows if that is true, but they sure didn't call it a fighter because of its mission or capabilties.

[ahho]

Just wondering, doesn't all fighter have RFID to prevent itself from being lock on and hit by friendly??? Also remember in Iraq that patriot missile shot down a british bomber and the US personnel said that the British bobmber probably didn't turn the friendly thing on. Wouldn't these thing give out the stealth planes position if they manage to get the right frequencies??

[bd popeye]

You kids crack me up. Every since the USAF made the F-22 operational I've read so much about how it's really not that stealthy and can be shot down. What a bunch of hooie. According to the article in the global security the Ukraine may sold this type radar to Iraq. Gee??:confused: I wonder why Iraq did not shoot down any stealth aircraft. They are the first in you know..Curious.

As for the F-117 being shot down over Serbia. It happend because NATO is a bunch of idiots...An Mig-29 shot down anther one?? Never happened.

I don't have the technical know how on how radar works and stuff like that. So who knows? May this radar does work. But I doubt it.

I do know this. Once a radra of any type is turned on GPD ID's it's position and a JDAM will blow it up.

[darth sidious]

You kids crack me up. Every since the USAF made the F-22 operational I've read so much about how it's really not that stealthy and can be shot down. What a bunch of hooie. According to the article in the global security the Ukraine may sold this type radar to Iraq. Gee??:confused: I wonder why Iraq did not shoot down any stealth aircraft. They are the first in you know..Curious.

As for the F-117 being shot down over Serbia. It happend because NATO is a bunch of idiots...An Mig-29 shot down anther one?? Never happened.

I don't have the technical know how on how radar works and stuff like that. So who knows? May this radar does work. But I doubt it.

I do know this. Once a radra of any type is turned on GPD ID's it's position and a JDAM will blow it up.

yes only one was lost but another was damage later

as for they radar it an upradged version of S-125 missile system designedd in the late 50s

serbia has 20 Mig-29A made in soviet union in 83/84 in 99 they were near the end of their airframe life and with out BVR

in the conflict they lost 3 MIG but manage to down a F-15

[walter]

in the conflict they lost 3 MIG but manage to down a F-15

not sure about that. All I have ever heard about the F-15 is that it is undefeated in air to air combat, so if a F-15 was downed in serbia it was from a SAM or AAA, but definitely not an enemy fighter. Maybe they got an F-18 or F-16, I could buy that.

[IDonT]

in the conflict they lost 3 MIG but manage to down a F-15

Not true, please prove that. NATO only lost 2 aircraft (F117 and F-16) all by SAMS from the same battery commander and all by short range shots (less than 15 km).

F-15 has never lost in air to air combat. Its kill score is 105-0

[tphuang]

I remember the same general downed a F-117 and a F-16 in Kosovo, that's it. I think that was agreed to by both sides. I never heard of anything regarding F-15.

[Totoro]

I don't think anyone here is saying f22 is an easy plane to down. But it is also certainly not wise to claim f22 can't be shot down. We know this so far: f117 was previous generation of radar stealth and it was trackable and even targetable by the end of 90s. f22 is newer as stealth tech progressed but so have the ways of anti stealth. Of course in the end only a real confrontation will prove who is right and who is wrong.

While in a2a role over a neutral territory i do see raptor as next to unbeatable, where its opponents would have to use big numbers of planes in order to get lucky to down one, situation over enemy territory is somewhat different. Basically, the deeper it goes into enemy territory, more exposed for a larger number of radars over a longer period of time it will be. Thus the chances for detection and interception will grow. Stealth planes can be detected and even tracked to an extent, with proper tech, but they cant be targeted by radar that easely. Basically, by the time you get into range to use your r-27 or r-77 on a f22, you'll be more or less able to see it with your eyes. IRSTs are nice and all but they don't give you the range component, you can at best assume the range based on likelihood of which plane it might be, how fast it might be travelling, etc.

For china, it would be essential to make a network where every radar/other sensor and every plane/sam site/aaa site would share each other's data in real time with multiple redundant centers processing the data and assigning tasks to each part of the network. Also, making the sensors mobile is an absolute must. fixed radar installations are as good as dead in a war against US. Multistatic radar arrays are not easy to pull off as it is, with them being *static*. So long wave radars are the way to go. China must find a way to make them mobile. That could mean huge trucks, perhaps groups of trucks just to form one array or, preferably, airships mounting such arrays. What is important is that any radar in network can be turned off and moved to different position, while the remaining ones keep working until first one gets to new position and lights up. Persistant data transfer network is of utmost importance there. And such a sensor network must be vast, forcing the enemy to use massive simultaneous attacks if it wants to take even parts of it out. sam and fighter networks would, of course, be there to try to prevent that.

[DPRKPTboat]

You kids crack me up. Every since the USAF made the F-22 operational I've read so much about how it's really not that stealthy and can be shot down. What a bunch of hooie. According to the article in the global security the Ukraine may sold this type radar to Iraq. Gee??:confused: I wonder why Iraq did not shoot down any stealth aircraft. They are the first in you know..Curious.

Well Iraqi tactics, leadership, training and general quality of their commanders were known to be very poor. In both Gulf wars they left their radars on all the time, so U.S. ARMs could practically home in on them. The Serbs, although their technology was of the same quality of the Iraqis', made use of what they had, as walter told me. They only turned their radars on at the precise moment when NATO aircraft were passing over. And the terrain also offered them better comoflage. The Serb battery commanders clearly knew what they had to do, and it produced results. What was the name of the commander of the SAM battery that shot down that F-117? Whoever he was, he should have got a medal for that. I'm impressed to say the least.

[IDonT]

Well Iraqi tactics, leadership, training and general quality of their commanders were known to be very poor. In both Gulf wars they left their radars on all the time, so U.S. ARMs could practically home in on them. The Serbs, although their technology was of the same quality of the Iraqis', made use of what they had, as walter told me. They only turned their radars on at the precise moment when NATO aircraft were passing over. And the terrain also offered them better comoflage. The Serb battery commanders clearly knew what they had to do, and it produced results. What was the name of the commander of the SAM battery that shot down that F-117? Whoever he was, he should have got a medal for that. I'm impressed to say the least.

Then explain to me why the Iraqis shot down more than a dozen allied warplanes in Gulf War I vs 2 by Serbia. Turning your SAM radar on and off to avaoid an ARM is not exactly a secret tactic.

[DPRKPTboat]

Then explain to me why the Iraqis shot down more than a dozen allied warplanes in Gulf War I vs 2 by Serbia. Turning your SAM radar on and off to avaoid an ARM is not exactly a secret tactic.

The Iraqi army was larger than the Serbs, and it also possesed a lot more heavy equipment. It is possible for a junior officer to gain some success even if the tactics employed by his superiors are exceptionally poor. Its know that there were several disputes and breakdowns of communication in the Iraqi chain of command, and junior officers would sometimes countermand orders they felt were not well thought over. Obviously some Iraqi battery commanders did not listen to their superiors and may have employed different tactics. Or maybe it was just pure luck.
And it was recently found NATO air losses were more than two. And although turning your radars on only at the precise moment is no secret to the west, it is a simple tactic, but very effective - and it was not used by the Iraqis.

[Gollevainen]

This "Serbia shooting down F-117"- issue has been chewed to death in this forum...there is nothing new been released, and it's connection in it's best to the topic is loose. So before we drift on another USA bashing and dirth throw contest, lets drop this issue ok? We have had too much bad memories about this...

[IDonT]

The Iraqi army was larger than the Serbs, and it also possesed a lot more heavy equipment. It is possible for a junior officer to gain some success even if the tactics employed by his superiors are exceptionally poor. Its know that there were several disputes and breakdowns of communication in the Iraqi chain of command, and junior officers would sometimes countermand orders they felt were not well thought over. Obviously some Iraqi battery commanders did not listen to their superiors and may have employed different tactics. Or maybe it was just pure luck.
And it was recently found NATO air losses were more than two. And although turning your radars on only at the precise moment is no secret to the west, it is a simple tactic, but very effective - and it was not used by the Iraqis.

deleted

[DPRKPTboat]

O.K. But that goes to show that this passive radar techonlogy hasn't really been tested in actual combat. And is there even any info to confirm that it is actually in service with the PLA? I wonder if it is even gone into production, or has been opened to the export market.

[Totoro]

Serbs didn't really want to put up a fight. They knew they couldn't win so they did as much as they could while still trying to survive and preserve a fair number of their equipment. While the fixed installations suffered, mobile Serb equipment did manage to survive in quite a large numbers. Lots of decoys, lots of moving around, better intel about incoming strikes, strategic NATO decisions bout staying high up, not risking great losses but also limiting the effectiveness of the strikes, serbia's geographical features - they had all had a hand in serbian forces' survival. So they shot down just two allied planes, damaging maybe a few more.

On the other hand, iraqis in 1991 were ordered to put up a real fight, to try to resist the enemy and inflict highest losses possible, no matter what the cost. So they downed 40 allied planes, damaging another 40. But they lost literally hundreds of aircraft and sam sites, thousands of armored vehicles, tens of thousands of armymen. Was it worth it? I guess with hindsight we can safely say it wasn't. :D One must choose their battles carefully. Serbs did that, Iraqis didn't.

[adeptitus]

serbia has 20 Mig-29A made in soviet union in 83/84 in 99 they were near the end of their airframe life and with out BVR
in the conflict they lost 3 MIG but manage to down a F-15

There is no record of a F-15 being shot down.

Serbia had 14 MiG-29's and 2 MiG-29UB's in service in the 1990's, but due to the arms embargo and lack of spares, they were in terrible shape. Here's a description from the Serbia vs. NATO conflict in 1999:

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_380.shtml

On the first night of the war, the MiGs of the 127.LAE were dispersed on several airfields around Serbia. As only few aircraft were considered operational (they were actually merely flyable) the JRViPVO had to deploy them so to cover as much airspace as possible. Therefore, two were at Nis, and two at Batajnica AB, while one was at Ponikve AB. Remaining aircraft were unserviceable.

When the NATO attack finally came, on the evening hours of 24 March 1999, the MiGs went into action, being scrambled one after the other. The two fighters that took off from Nis and were vectored to intercept targets over southern Serbia and Kosovo, were swiftly dealth with by NATO fighters: the MiG-29 flown by Maj. Dragan Ilic was damaged - either by an AIM-120 fired from a Dutch F-16AM fighters, or by a Serbian SA-6 SAM, in a case of fratricide fire. The second MiG that scrambled from the same airfield was flown by Maj. Ilijo Arizanov, was shot down by an USAF F-15C. The pair from Batajnica experienced only a slightly better fate: first to launch was Maj. Nebojsa Nikolic, who was shot down shortly after take off. Maj. Ljubisa Kulacin evaded several missiles fired at him while fighting to bring his malfunctioning systems back in working order. Eventually realizing that he could not do anything, and with Batajnica AB under a severe attack, he diverted to Belgrade IAP, and landed safely. Kulacin's experience was not much different to that of his three other colleagues, all of which experienced immense problems with weapons and navigational systems on their aircraft: on the 18112, flown by Maj. Arizanov, both the radio and SPO-15 malfunctioned; on 18104, flown by Maj. Ilic, the radar failed; on 18111, flown by Maj. Nikolic, both the radar and the SN-29 missile guidance systems were inoperative, and apparently the SPO-15 also did not function properly.

The fifth and last MiG-29 to get airborne on that night was 18106, flown by Maj. Predrag Milutinovic. Immediately after take-off his radar failed and even the electrical generator malfunctioned. Shortly after, he was warned by SPO-15 of being acquired, but he evaded the opponent by several evasive manoeuvres. Attempting to evade further encounters and searching for an airfield where a landing was possible, he finally ended over Ribarska Banja, when his RWR warned him of acquisition by a ground-based radar. Seconds afterward the aircraft was hit and Milutinovic forced to eject.


No matter how good your pilots are, you can't fight with the radio, radar, and missile guidance systems down. =p

The MiG-29's were purchased as replacement for the cancelled Novi Avion project. Too bad Yugoslavia never got to build it. For those curious about the aircraft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novi_Avion

[Gollevainen]

As facination subjects the Novi Avion or other Serbia related issues are, quit it, before i have to close this thread. There are existing thread about Novi Avion in the world armed forces thread:off :off

[coolieno99]

The following article describe the long wavelength-"low" frequency over-the-horizon bistatic radars put into service by Australia. The term "high frequency" use in this article is misleading. The frequency used in this radar system is much lower than conventional radar. :coffee:


JORN assures early warning for Australia
29 February 2000

By Michael Sinclair-Jones
Introduction

Australia is using a sophisticated new radar network that can detect stealth bombers, curb illegal immigration and spy on neighbouring nations from at least 3000 kilometres away. The $A1.8 billion Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) has taken more than 30 years to complete but is now undergoing final trials.
JORN is designed to monitor air and sea movements across 37,000km of largely unprotected coastline and 9 million square kilometres of ocean. It is being used to cast a security shield across Australia's remote northern approaches without the high cost of maintaining constant maritime and air patrols.

Operational Use

Jindalee over-the-horizon radar was used to track military aircraft landing and taking off from Dili Airport, in East Timor, on 20 September 1999, when Australia-led Interfet forces began securing the former Indonesian province from militia violence. Australian Hercules C130 transports were detected from 1500 kilometres away by a 6 kilometres-long radar array at Longreach (Queensland), and at a similar site at Alice Springs (Northern Territory).
Aircraft images were displayed on radar consoles in Adelaide and Melbourne, 2600 kilometres from the action. Royal Australian Air Force commanders said the radar was accurate enough to show aircraft turning on their landing approach to Dili Airport.

Radar 2 (blue arc) is located at Laverton
IRSU (pink arc) is the Jindalee Alice Springs Facility
Radar 1 (yellow arc) is located at Longreach
The new radar has also been used to track illegal immigrants approaching Australia by boat through the region's largely unguarded northern waters. Although designed primarily for air detection, JORN was reconfigured last year at Australian Government request to scan for marine intruders. More than 500 illegal immigrants have been arrested and detained in recent weeks, largely as a result of JORN intelligence passed to civilian customs authorities. JORN can also measure wave height and wind direction for meteorological reports.
Jindalee radar at Longreach, Alice Springs and Laverton (Western Australia) enables Australian military commanders to observe all air and sea activity north of Australia to distances of at least 3000 kilometers. This takes in all of Java, Irian Jaya, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, and halfway across the Indian Ocean.

JORN underpins Australian long-term military defence planning based on repelling an invader that attacks southwards through the Indonesian Islands, as did Japan in World War 2.
RAAF Group Captain Greg Hockings, who heads the new Jindalee Operational Radar Network, describes Jindalee as a "tripwire" in Australia's northern surveillance system.
JORN project manager Gordon McElroy, who previously directed Lockheed Martin's US battlefield defence programs, says of JORN: "There is none like it anywhere on the planet."

The JORN System

Lockheed Martin is the major partner in an Australian joint venture company, RLM Systems, which took over the project from the Australian Government's partly privatised telecommunications company, Telstra, in 1997. RLM performed a rescue operation after Telstra reported a $609 million loss on the project and could not guarantee a delivery date.
JORN uses two high frequency radio transmitters located 2300 kilometres apart, at Longreach and Laverton. The transmitter arrays are about one kilometre long and can generate a 20 kilowatt signal, which is stronger than most radio station signals.
The signal is said to be strong enough to blow up nearby re-fuelling depots, which are equipped with metal "faraday" shields to stop accidental sparks.
Signals are aimed at the ionosphere, where the beam is reflected over the horizon to targets up to 3000km away. A weak return signal from over the horizon is captured by a highly sensitive receiver that uses advanced software to separate background "clutter" from selected targets.
The receivers consist of two "arms", each 3.4 kilometers long, and each site consists of 960 individual antenna masts that must not be more than 10mm out of line along the whole length.
Transmitter and receiver sites near Longreach and Laverton are located about 100km apart to prevent electronic interference. The system is linked to 17 beacon stations across northern Australia, which are used to measure ionospheric conditions and calibrate transmissions from Longreach and Laverton.
The RAAF admits the system can operate well beyond its "unclassified" range of 3000 kilometres when radar signals become trapped inside the ionosphere and bounce twice before emerging over the horizon. However, unofficial reports that JORN can see as far as Singapore Harbour, Hong Kong and the Russian border are described by the RAAF as "highly optimistic".
More than a million lines of software code were written to integrate the constantly changing electronic data in what is described by RLM Systems as the biggest software development project in the southern hemisphere. The whole network is linked to a test command centre in Melbourne and, via a duplicate link, to the RAAF's high frequency surveillance command headquarters at Edinburg base, near Adelaide.

Stealth Aircraft not Immune

Edinburg is also linked to a third Jindalee transmitter and receiver at Alice Springs, which has operated as a JORN test site since 1993. McElroy says the Jindalee radar is very difficult to jam because of the way the signal is propagated over the ionosphere. "It can also detect stealth bombers, which are not designed to defeat the characteristics of Jindalee's high frequency radar," he said.
Stealth aircraft, such as the US Nighthawk F117A, are designed with sharp leading edges and a flat belly to minimise reflections back towards conventional ground-based radars. However, Jindalee radar bounces down from the ionosphere onto upper surfaces that include radar-reflecting protrusions for a cockpit, engine housings and other equipment.
Group Captain Hockings says stealth aircraft are coated with special radar absorbing material to avoid detection by conventional microwave radar. But the Jindalee radar uses high frequency radio waves, which have a much longer frequency than microwave radar. "Unless designed to be stealthy to both microwave and HF radars, (stealth) aircraft would not evade detection by JORN," he said.
Defence contractors are due to hand JORN over to the RAAF at the end of next year.

[Totoro]

Jindalee and such are great, indeed, but they have little use against an enemy with long range cruise/ballistic missile capability. They are huge complexes, huge fixed targets. One can be sure they would be very first targets for the enemy.

Key is to make long wave radar network mobile. Like any radar and sam network, really. Fixed installations in a war against US would be as good as dead. Only problem is - how do you fit a long wave radar on a plane or truck? While it doesnt have to be as big as the jindalee arrays, its still in the 20-30-or more meters size range. It could be made modular, have several trucks carry it. It'd still need some lenghty deployment time i imagine. With loitering abilities of new tomahawk, it'd still be rather voulnerable. (althought still much less vulnerable than if it was fixed, of course)

Unless you can make your network systems deployable in under 5 mins, you really need to get those sensors airborne if you wanna keep em safe. Of course, you need fighters to protect them, tankers to keep them up in the air at required locations and far enough airfields out of reach of most cruise missiles to operate em all. Not an easy task. Plus i really can't see an airplane carrying a long wave radar... maybe some very slow one, under 300 kmh..., itd still have enormous drag, fuel consumption would be huge. An airship on the other hand.... ;)

[tphuang]

sorry guys, I might be away for a while, so I'm spamming you guys with some interesting bits before I leave:)
http://mil.qianlong.com/4919/2006/04/26/2420@3143462.htm

千龙军事讯：“维拉”(VERA-E)雷达系统是捷克ERA公司研制的一种可以探测到隐身飞机的多基地无源系统，据称曾在科索沃战争击落美国 F-117隐身飞机的过程中发挥了作用。2004年初，捷克ERA公司曾与向中国签署了总额为5500万美元， 向中国出售“维拉”雷达系统的合同。但是在美国强烈要求和外交压力下，捷克政府取消了这一合同 。

　　南京电子14所是中国雷达研制的“国家队”，
在26日开幕的第五届中国国际国防电子展览会上，14所展出了YLC-20双站无源测向和定位雷达，显示了中国国防电子工业在多基地信号探测上取得的阶段性成果

Basically, we all know that China tried to obtain VERA, but that deal was nixed under pressure from US. YLC-20 is a radar developed by lab 14 that uses passive scanning and such. Anyhow, not sure if this is saying lab 14 copied Vera or what. Here it is, this was shown in the recent Chinese defense electronics international :

http://images.qianlong.com/mmsource/images/2006/04/26/jstyj06042601.jpg

[Roger604]

Czech Vera

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/2871/132790392006042708410552459300.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Looks similar to me. I wonder how they figured out what the Vera technology is?

[Troika]

Czech Vera

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/2871/132790392006042708410552459300.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Looks similar to me. I wonder how they figured out what the Vera technology is?

That sort of receiver for such waves all look similar anyway (taking into account need for mobility and so on)... The key to VERA lies more in the algorithms and codes than the hardware.

[Roger604]

It seems that these anti-stealth radars are designed to pin point accurately any source of electro magnetic emission, even the low level emission generated by a stealth aircraft.

The question is, what does it do with that information? Can the Czech Vera, for example, datalink with a SAM? Or datalink with fighters to guide their missiles?

[ahho]

i dun think it will guide missiles, i think it is used to locate it so other fighter can close in. It is probably like a early warning system saying where it is heading too so other fighter can close in

[Roger604]

But then it is only an evolutionary, not a revolutionary improvement over existing technology.

Existing radars already CAN detect stealth aircraft. As something really small flying at supersonic speeds.

Perhaps the difference is that this system is passive (no emissions) and therefore very difficult to suppress by enemy aircraft.

[ahho]

But then it is only an evolutionary, not a revolutionary improvement over existing technology.

Existing radars already CAN detect stealth aircraft. As something really small flying at supersonic speeds.

Perhaps the difference is that this system is passive (no emissions) and therefore very difficult to suppress by enemy aircraft.

well yeah existing radar CAN detect stealth only at certain range, maybe this thing may have longer range in detection and you can put quite a bit in some area

[KYli]

Report: China claims its tech can detect U.S. stealth jets

Special to World Tribune.com
EAST-ASIA-INTEL.COM

Thursday, May 18, 2006

China’s military claims it has developed technology to detect U.S. F-22 jet fighters.

The F-22 is the newest Air Force jetfighter equipped with radar-evading stealth characteristics. The first jets entered service last year.



According to a report from a weapons research institute in China, the Chinese military has developed “a number” of technologies that can be used to detect and attack stealth jets.
The U.S. military pioneered the use of stealth jets with the F-117 fighter-bomber, the B-2 strategic bomber and the new F-22. The jets use composite material and unique shapes to reduce radar signatures.



"Owing to the fact that some technologies and means of stealth planes were developed in light of current air defense system, we totally can, through analyzing their technologies and facts, weaken or eliminate their stealth capability," a Chinese expert was quoted as saying in the PRC-owned Ta Kung Pao newspaper.
The effort involves the use of multiple sensors to measure reflected radar beams from targets. The new system permits locating and locking on to the targets.

The Chinese expert claimed the technology has been “mastered.”

[MIGleader]

As much as I would like to believe this article, I wont. Why? If china has really successfully developed such a revolutionry and advanced system, it would not share the information with the public. It would be China's ace in the hole.

Im not saying Chian does not have the technology, but im just saying the credibility of the report is...questionable.

[Roger604]

Well here's one hypothesis for you Migleader...

The Chinese believe the US already knows that it has a viable anti-stealth problem, so making some vague statements to the press about the existence of the program doesn't reveal any secrets.

:china:

[MIGleader]

Nice hypothesis. However, I dont think we will recieve any confirmation for it for many years. I still think that its absurd to claim something can detect an f-22 when it has never been tested against one.

[coolieno99]

This is just my opinion and speculation. It could be an AESA radar. China has been working with Russia to develop an AESA radar. The sensitivity of the AESA radar is much better than ordinary phase array radar. The receive modules(with pre-amplifications) are built right on the array itself. There's no signal loss from the array to the main processing unit via waveguides. Likewise the transmit modules can emit a much stronger signals since the transmit modules are built right on the array itself. Since the AESA radar can detect targets at about 3 times the distance of ordinary phase array radars, then the effective sensitivity is about 9 times greater.:rolleyes:

[Roger604]

This is just my opinion and speculation. It could be an AESA radar. China has been working with Russia to develop an AESA radar. The sensitivity of the AESA radar is much better than ordinary phase array radar. The receive modules(with pre-amplifications) are built right on the array itself. There's no signal loss from the array to the main processing unit via waveguides. Likewise the transmit modules can emit a much stronger signals since the transmit modules are built right on the array itself. Since the AESA radar can detect targets at about 3 times the distance of ordinary phase array radars, then the effective sensitivity is about 9 times greater.:rolleyes:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if AESA was introduced into service but I doubt this is what the article was talking about.

The article says, "The effort involves the use of multiple sensors to measure reflected radar beams from targets. The new system permits locating and locking on to the targets."

Clearly this is based on the Czech Vera, and is probably the same system that was posted before. What is surprising is that this system can guide missiles too!

Recall that the recently deploy S-400 (a joint Russia China endeavor) is claimed to detect stealth. The only logical conclusion is that this technology is part of a SAM system to detect stealth aircraft and shoot them down.

[Gollevainen]

...And since when the S-400 have been a russian-chinese joint venture? This is news to me, would you give me bit more proof of this partnership?

[Roger604]

...And since when the S-400 have been a russian-chinese joint venture? This is news to me, would you give me bit more proof of this partnership?

I did read that China bought some S-400's and that they can upgrade the HQ-15 to S-400 standard by substituting some components. I assumed there is some tech transfer going on here if Chinese engineers are playing around with the components, but I might be wrong.

According to several unconfirmed reports, in 2001 the PLA acquired from Russia several Triumph S-400 ADM launchers, with a range up to 250 km. Evidently, it won't be very difficult for the Chinese side to upgrade the HQ-15/S-300 systems to the S-400 level ("by substituting a small number of key components"), thus greatly expanding the combat potential of the already constructed multi-level air defense network.

[Gollevainen]

And in whitch point did normal export procedure turn into "joint devolpment"??
You have to be carefull what to say, I wont go around denoucing F/A-18 Hornets as joint Finnish-USA desing despite we do assemple them...

[tphuang]

I did read that China bought some S-400's and that they can upgrade the HQ-15 to S-400 standard by substituting some components. I assumed there is some tech transfer going on here if Chinese engineers are playing around with the components, but I might be wrong.
S-400 is not a joint development. It is possible that China cooperated or invested in certain parts. Looking at the recent development of HQ-9, it looks like China's own SAM development is going pretty well. As for anti-stealth detectors, it looks like China is trying out every single type of detectors that it can possibly develop and hope that a combination of them would work well (of course, the much talked about multistatic radar is supposedly the most useful against stealth objects). Either way, the main problem that all the anti-stealth detectors have is that they haven't being tested against any stealth objects.

[MIGleader]

I have read that the s-400 can attack stealth aircraft. The russians claimed to have tested it on f-117 remains. The russians themselves have a few models of very low observability aircraft they can test radar on.

From the description given by the article, we cant even be sure if this thing is a radar, so no AESA yet.

Gollevainen, the s-400 had not yet finalized developemnt in 2001, as it had not completed state tests. So that rules out the fact that this was a standard export order. But it was already in a very mature stage. China normally does not invest in russian weapons until it is sure the development is sucessful. Just my thoughts, I wont draw conclusions.

[Gollevainen]

but the manners where made in normal export procedure. Joint ventures are things like Jaguar, Tornado, Eurofighter...and thougth JF-17 and Bhramoss are marketed as ones, they are more of disguise...But never I have heard claims that S-400 would have been joint devolpment between china and russia. Joint venture means that two or more nations devolps co-operationally single system for all participants needs. In S-400 case, more proper term would be foreing participation.

[Totoro]

Maybe s400 system very well can manage to get a lock on against highly stealthy targets like f117. But i would imagine that would be at miniscule ranges, when planes are almost flying over your head, not more than some 20-50 km. Still, it allows russians to say their system can engage stealthy targets and that they dont have to lie about it. they just omit a bit of truth, that realistically, those engagement ranges are so greatly reduced that the whole usefulness of the s400 battery is severely undermined.

I dont belive one can fight stealth on unit vs unit basis. To fight stealth one'd have to have a network of multiple sensors for multistatic coverage, low frequency sensors that are mobile enough not to be taken out with cruise missiles, vast numbers of ground base mobile IIR missiles with lock on after launch capability that would have to have high enough ceiling to reach even high flying b2s and f22s. Itd be pricey yes, but less pricey than sending dozens of your point defense fighters so you would lose 50% of your force in exchange for a single raptor.

[SampanViking]

Interest point.

Personally I think any realistic strategy would have to concede that it would very difficult to stop stealth aircraft getting in and launching an attack. The objective would have to be to make sure, that once it has given away its location by attacking, such aircraft did not manage to get back out.

[Totoro]

I absolutely agree. Thing is, owners of stealth planes know their craft are more vulnerable when theyre attacking ground targets, deep inside enemy territory. It is not unreasonable to imagine that they will deem deep strikes as too risky and opt for step by step approach, starting from outer enemy sensor and airbase points and slowly working their way in, reserving deep strikes for cruise missiles and-or uavs.

Key still is, and will be for any forseeable future, mobility. To hide that anti stealth sensor network and at the same time to make it highly mobile. To force enemy to get close and actively search for targets, loitering over your territory. Otherwise, they will just be launching their stand off weapons from a safe distance.

[ger_mark]

What i heared about the F117 in German media:


A russian agent in nato told the serbs about where it will fly, so they build up 3 radars, one sending and 2 reciving the reflected radar waves wich are not obsurbed but just not reflected to the sender of the waves! Later the serbs directed the mig to the F117 with a usual phone line.

[MIGleader]

Maybe s400 system very well can manage to get a lock on against highly stealthy targets like f117. But i would imagine that would be at miniscule ranges, when planes are almost flying over your head, not more than some 20-50 km. Still, it allows russians to say their system can engage stealthy targets and that they dont have to lie about it. they just omit a bit of truth, that realistically, those engagement ranges are so greatly reduced that the whole usefulness of the s400 battery is severely undermined.

I dont belive one can fight stealth on unit vs unit basis. To fight stealth one'd have to have a network of multiple sensors for multistatic coverage, low frequency sensors that are mobile enough not to be taken out with cruise missiles, vast numbers of ground base mobile IIR missiles with lock on after launch capability that would have to have high enough ceiling to reach even high flying b2s and f22s. Itd be pricey yes, but less pricey than sending dozens of your point defense fighters so you would lose 50% of your force in exchange for a single raptor.

But remember, the s-400 is also for the russian military. So the russians would want to make the missle as capable as possible. They wouldnt lie to themselves.

now about the chinese "radar" and f-22. why does it claim it can shoot down f-22? The f-22 is almost entirely an air-superiority fighter. So the only stealth aircraft the new radar will engage will likely be the b-2.

[Totoro]

It doesnt have to mean they're lying to themselves (even though that too is possible, wouldnt be the first time that military or defense companies are saying what the government or the people want to hear). It could also be they're bluffing. Truth is, no one can tell with certainty just how effective such systems would be against stealthy planes until theres a war involving them. So both sides are blowing up their horns, claiming their tech is great, hoping the other side might flinch or something.

I must say i don't understand what you wanted to say with your second paragraph, Migleader. B2's RCS has never been made public, no one knows for sure if its more or less stealthy than f22. it is still pretty safe to assume if one can detect-track-lock on b2 that doing the same for f22 can't be very far off. Certainly the job of defeating a b2 seems easier, given its usual deep strike role and the fact its defenceless once confronted, but getting to the point where you are confronting the enemy stealthy plane is already more than half the job done. Even an odd f22 here or there might get shot down in such a sitation.