Stealth detection systems

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by backtoreality
Stealth Spy, interesting links you have provided. Glad to see you are still denying "ignorence".

Stop making such a big fuss about a typing error that i made while spelling ignorance in an older thread.

IMO, it is the height of "ignorence"(let alone ignorance) to assume that other nations are happily sitting on their backsides and weefully watching america building a stealth plane for every role there exists, thinking of how america will wipe them out with something they cant see.

Ah, if only it were that simple my friend. Unfortunately, I'm referring to your avatar in which every thread is declaring your personal war against "ignorence".

Be that as it may, as other nations develop counter measures to stealth aircraft, America is and has been decade(s) ahead in their planning to counter those counter measures. 'Tis the nature of the business.

Even if it is possible to detect stealth through a mobile phone network it would be ungodly easy to take down that network. Send up an EA-6 or a B-52 with an ECM pod next thing you know thousands of watts along the same frequency. That would fry every tower for at least 100 miles. Stealth is only one part in the US arsenal.

Originally posted by backtoreality
as other nations develop counter measures to stealth aircraft, America is and has been decade(s) ahead in their planning to counter those counter measures. 'Tis the nature of the business.

Well, at least all Americans HOPE thats the case, but as for proof?

As for proof that they can track in our most basic stealth design? Sure, there are rumors but no confirmed incidents. Not that it matters though, as other countries play catch up in radar to detect stealth, America continues to perfect it.

Originally posted by backtoreality
Unfortunately, I'm referring to your avatar in which every thread is declaring your personal war against "ignorence".

Let me jump the gun and say the phrase in the avatar is intended to be cynical (although it was originally a typing error)

First up: Detecting a stealth plane isn’t impossible with radar. There are already methods of doing this using arrays of radars spread over wide area's. But TARGETING a stealth aircraft is still very hard. Missiles need to lock on, and this "new" detection method you mention doesn’t do that.

Does it compromise stealth planes? Maybe a little, but this isn’t a giant leap in technology. In the end, missiles need to lock on to the plane, if that doesn’t happen, shooting it down is still very difficult.

At best this tech allows anti aircraft guns and such a general area to target

The Izvestia (Taras Lariokhin, "BEIJING LEARNED HOW TO SEE THE 'INVISIBLE' ONES", Moscow, Pg.7) reported that high-ranking officials of the US Defense Department and industry experts will convene in Washington this December to discuss the implications of alleged PRC capability of detecting the US F-117 Stealth aircraft.

The US intelligence claims that the new technology may be introduced to the PRC air defenses within two years. Unlike the existing radars, the new radar systems operate by detecting the temporary noises caused by a passing Stealth aircraft. The radar will not need to emit electromagnetic waves and therefore cannot be easily detected or subsequently destroyed.

The US company Lockheed Martin, which invented the Stealth technology, has also produced a similar device called the "Silent Sentinel," but has not introduced it into practice.

source



[edit on 1-6-2005 by Stealth Spy]

Here is the official site of the chechz VERA-E anti-stealth radar ;

www.era.cz...

Russia and several European and US companies are working on a new type of radar that could be used to make America's premier stealth aircraft far more detectable, intelligence sources.

The cutting-edge work threatens to make today's most advanced stealth planes obsolete - the $40 billion fleet of B-2 bombers that saw its first action just two years ago in the air war over Kosovo and the older $6 billion fleet of F-117s.

"In the end you may have to redesign your stealth aircraft or think about adding jamming or other countermeasures," says Dan Goure, a former Pentagon official who is a senior fellow at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Virginia. That could cost billions of dollars. And the new radar also could put US pilots in non-stealth aircraft at risk.

Source

1) Mobile phone masts normally are honeycombed across large areas, transmitting and receiving signals to provide a continuous service for users. They, and radio and television transmitters, produce a screen of radiation that can be distorted by moving aircraft.

2) Special receivers, scattered over an area, are used to receive radio frequency waves already in the atmosphere.

3) The receivers are linked to a high-performance computer that can process all the signal data and provide a graphical depiction of the aircraft location.

4) A global positioning satellite might be used to help pinpoint the location of the aircraft for targeting.

5) A US F-117 stealth aircraft is shaped so it is difficult to detect when traditional radar signals strike it head on. With the passive system, signals are transmitted from many fixed points near the ground. It's asserted they might bounce off the aircraft's fairly flat underbelly, making the plane easier to detect.

Of immediate concern is that this so-called passive radar can also track all types of aircraft without the pilots knowing they are being watched or targeted. With conventional radar, pilots know when they are being tracked and can take appropriate action. Conventional radar sends out its own high-frequency signal that a pilot can detect. The new radar simply listens to low-frequency radio waves that are already in the atmosphere in great profusion, from power sources such as transmitters used for television, FM radio and cell phones.

"And because there are quite a large number of transmitters that they can use for that purpose, it's quite effective," says Professor Hugh Griffiths of University College London.

When stealth technology is used in modern military aircraft, usually only the forward sector of the aircraft is treated and/or shaped. This forward sector treatment is effective against static, ground based radars.

However, the aircraft may be very susceptible to a look-down type of radar. This thesis addresses the viability of using space- based radar to detect stealth aircraft. Many papers have been written on how to use space-based radar to detect and track targets.

The approach of this thesis was to select a target area, in this case Iraq, and develop two satellite constellations that could provide the required radar coverage. The next step was to determine if the system would be able to detect and track stealth targets.

Based on the analysis, one satellite in geosynchronous orbit can detect stealth aircraft. However, because the satellite is 35,786 km away, the power requirements, as well as the spot size are too large to track stealth aircraft. On the other hand, a constellation of 32 satellites in low earth orbit (1000 km) can both detect and track stealth aircraft.

www.stormingmedia.us...

Stealth teaches the lesson that technology is never static - a "stealth breakthrough" may only last for a few years before an adversary finds a means of countering it.

Low-frequency radar will spot virtually any stealthy aircraft but is bad at determining its exact location. Communications networks enabling a defensive system to combine information and locate a target also connect these and other radars. Other systems attempt to pick up radio and television signals that may bounce off a stealthy airplane.

www.centennialofflight.gov...

A number of methodologies to detect stealth aircraft at long range have been developed. Both Australia and Russia have announced that they have developed processing techniques that allow them to detect the turbulence of aircraft at reasonably long ranges (possibly negating the stealth technology). The UK has announced a system that uses the signals broadcast from the huge number of cellular telephone towers to generate a synthetic picture, although it is not clear if this method is actually practical. A general feature of these systems is that they use a large number of low-accuracy radar systems (or signal sources) combined with heavy computer processing to generate tracking information.

Link

Frequency filtering has been used in radar signal processing since it’s beginnings. Moving targets reflect energy to ground based radars that are Doppler shifted in frequency. The amount of Doppler shift is determined by the speed of the target and the direction of the target relative to the radar set. Targets moving directly toward or directly away from a radar have the maximum Doppler frequency shift. Targets moving at right angles to a radar beam have zero Doppler shift. By directing the received radar energy through banks of Doppler filters, moving targets are sorted by velocity from fixed or slow targets such as insects or birds. In radar terms this is often called a Moving Target Indicator (MTI). The National Weather Service now uses Doppler radars to detect severe storms and winds by the Doppler shift. This radar and it’s display can be seen at the following web site under NEXTRAD (WSR-88D radar): www.nws.noaa.gov... Scientists are studing bird and butterfly migrations using the NEXTRAD data!

Airborne pulse Doppler radars have a more difficult processing job because reflections from the ground are Doppler shifted by the moving radar in the aircraft. However, the aircraft knows what it’s velocity is and a notch filter can be used to reject the ground reflections. In recent times digital computers have been used to do doppler filtering, greatly improving airborne systems such as AWACS and JSTARS now being used in the mid east.

The F-117 stealth aircraft might have the radar reflection of a golf ball; however, the golf ball is moving hundreds of miles per hour and if the radar is sensitive enough to detect it, then the Doppler shift filters will remove other slower targets.

Link

Multi-billion pound stealth bombers could be rendered obsolete by a British invention that uses existing mobile telephone masts to detect and track aircraft that were previously invisible to radar.

Stealth fighters and bombers such as the F117, B1 and B2 played key roles in the Gulf and Kosovan wars as they are almost impossible to detect using conventional radar. However, the ease with which the mobile telephone mast system developed at Roke Manor Research at Romsey in Hampshire can be used to detect the aircraft has greatly concerned the military.

Peter Lloyd, head of projects at the laboratory's sensor department, said: "I cannot comment in detail because it is a classified matter, but let's say the US military is very interested." Stealth aircraft, each of which costs at least £1.4 billion, are shaped to confuse radar. A special paint absorbs radio waves, reducing the radar signature to the equivalent of a gull in flight.

The Roke Manor scientists discovered that telephone calls sent between mobile phone masts detected the precise position of stealth aircraft with great ease.

Mr Lloyd said: "We use just the normal phone calls that are flying about in the ether. The front of the stealth plane cannot be detected by conventional radar, but its bottom surface reflects very well."

Mobile telephone calls bouncing between base stations produce a screen of radiation. When the aircraft fly through this screen they disrupt the phase pattern of the signals. The Roke Manor system uses receivers, shaped like television aerials, to detect distortions in the signals. A network of aerials large enough to cover a battlefield can be packed in a Land Rover.

Using a laptop connected to the receiver network, soldiers on the ground can calculate the position of stealth aircraft with an accuracy of 10 metres with the aid of the GPS satellite navigation system.

Mr Lloyd said: "It's remarkable that a stealth system that cost £60 billion to develop is beaten by £100,000 mobile phone technology. It's almost impossible to disable a mobile phone network without bombing an entire country, whereas radar installations are often knocked out of action with a single bomb or missile."

Mr Lloyd said the range of the mobile telephone base station system is classified information, but it would be at least the maximum distance a mobile phone would work from a base station - about 15 miles.

According to military sources, a rough version of a similar system might have been used in Serbia to shoot down an American F117 stealth fighter 40 miles west of Belgrade during the Kosovo campaign. The Serbs fired several missiles into an area they suspected the stealth fighter was flying through.

Source

A big part of the radar visibility problem is that stealth technology was designed to hide planes from high frequency radar commonly used by the former Soviet Union, but stealth planes are readily spotted by low-frequency radar systems. Older radar technology was based on low-frequency and new radar systems include a broad range of both low and high frequency radar. These radar systems are buildable with off-the-shelf parts by virtually any engineering student.

In other words, stealth technology is already obsolete.

(this is from an article dated November, 2000)

If this is not the time to reduce military spending on ineffective technologies, then it seems that time will never come.

web.mit.edu...

do you have any idea how much 32 satellites cost???


Multi-Static Radar is the new thing!


did you ever hear of cell phone jammers?? they cost like $400! hell, i can make one for $50 probably!


tell me, why/how does low frequency radars detect stealth planes??
dont forget, IT CAN ONLY DETECT IT, NOT SHOOT IT DOWN due to it can only detect it within 30-50m, so its useless almost for shooting it down


a thought just popped into mind, the Tamara and Kolchuga systems are passive right, suppose these planes start to use jammers, they as good as DEAD!!! combine it with a passive missile and A GERANTIED hit!

oh yea, btw, do you know how VERA works precisly?












[edit on 1-6-2005 by 187onu]

Typical workstation consoles for the VERA-E system

According to Maj. Gen. Oldrizhikh Barak, president of Tesla, Tamara uses a so-called "chronometric hyperbolic principle" that with three units spaced “several miles apart” can track aircraft from distances of “about 12 miles”. Also JDW credits the system as being able to track 72 targets concurrently.

Similar to the Tamara but apparently more capable is the Ukrainian "Kolchuga". This system was designed and produced by Topaz (Donetsk). The company has its own design and research facilities and production facilities left over from the former Soviet state-owned defense industry. The Kolchuga is essentially a high-precision, passive, signals- intelligence (SIGINT) system, consisting of four elements: three detection and tracking stations and a command-and-control (C2) element with powerful analysis capabilities. Normally, when the system is deployed in the field, the detection elements are separated by about 60 km from each other, which enables precision location of an air target by tracking it with two or three stations simultaneously. Each station is equipped with a set of rotating antennas, covering the 0.1- to 18-GHz frequency band. The antennas and receivers are able to detect, track, and output data for further analysis. All aircraft emissions - such as non-autonomous navigation aids (e.g., TACAN), radar altimeters and Doppler radars,

do you have any idea how much 32 satellites cost???

maybe about 1 billion dollars. but its worth it, considering that your country will be safe from stealth bombers.

did you ever hear of cell phone jammers?? they cost like $400! hell, i can make one for $50 probably!

Yeah i've heard of those. I've seen one at a nearby college where the use of cell phones is banned. But, they have very small ranges.

Good luck trying your 50$ jammer.

But these domestic tech can by no way challenge military tech.
Most military systems from the world over are immune to jamming

tell me, why/how does low frequency radars detect stealth planes??

i dont know but maybe the higher wavelength radar waves from low frequency radar sources will be able to negate the stealth shaping and are less prone to being absorbed by RAM.

a thought just popped into mind, the Tamara and Kolchuga systems are passive right,
oh yea, btw, do you know how VERA works precisly?

According to Maj. Gen. Oldrizhikh Barak, president of Tesla, Tamara uses a so-called "chronometric hyperbolic principle" that with three units spaced “several miles apart” can track aircraft from distances of “about 12 miles”. Also JDW credits the system as being able to track 72 targets concurrently.

The Kolchuga is essentially a high-precision, passive, signals- intelligence (SIGINT) system, consisting of four elements: three detection and tracking stations and a command-and-control (C2) element with powerful analysis capabilities. Normally, when the system is deployed in the field, the detection elements are separated by about 60 km from each other, which enables precision location of an air target by tracking it with two or three stations simultaneously. Each station is equipped with a set of rotating antennas, covering the 0.1- to 18-GHz frequency band. The antennas and receivers are able to detect, track, and output data for further analysis. All aircraft emissions - such as non-autonomous navigation aids (e.g., TACAN), radar altimeters and Doppler radars,communications, fire-control radars, and IFF signals - can be intercepted and analyzed. About 40 elements of signal characteristics are analyzed, which ensures (according to the producer) a 90% probability of target identification and recognition (as a particular type of aircraft or helicopter). The system has two basic modes with two different ranges - one up to 600 km and another up to 200 km - but under ideal circumstances, it can track targets up to 1,000 km away. The system's intercept probability and ability to track multiple targets, however, is much better when operating at shorter ranges.

The system software on the C2 vehicle allows a basic assessment of the air situation, provides target prioritization, and determines the target's trajectories and modes of operation based on the target's radar mode - i.e., navigation, ground attack, air-target track etc.). The whole system is mounted on heavy cross-country tracks and is, thus, highly mobile. Each mobile element possesses its own means of autonomous secure communications for real-time data transmission and synchronization of operations with the other stations, as directed by the C2 element. The deployment and redeployment time is short, which enables the system to change positions rapidly, thereby increasing its combat survivability.

Though probably not designed specifically with VLO targets in mind, such systems can probably contribute significantly to an air-defence system's ability to cope with targets that are more likely to register on passive rather than active sensors. Hard as they are to detect on radar, VLO aircraft still have to use radar for navigation & target acquisition purposes (particularly when hunting mobile targets such as Scud launchers or mobile SAMs), in addition to regularly communicating with other assets to facilitate a flexible C4I and battle management system. For non-stealthy aircraft that are already tracked by radar, the giveaway of these emissions is not a great deal in the tactical confines (subsequent enemy analysis and eventual decoding of the emissions is a longer-term worry), but for stealthy assets the loss of the surprise factor can mean the difference between accomplishing their mission and having to abort as a result of enemy defences being pre-alerted and too dangerous to challenge (or worse, trying and dying).

Far from simply providing the friendly integrated air-defence system (IADS) an ambiguous heads-up or the general location of possible targets, modern systems can actually perform a substantial part of the detect-classify-track-engage loop in complete electronic silence.

This was amply demonstrated during the state acceptance trials of the advanced S-400 SAM system on the Kapustin Yar test range on September 2003. One of the test-firings involved using the S-400’s ability for “late lock”, the Russian equivalent term for lock-on-after- launch capability. A Kolchuga system fed the S-400 initial targeting information and the missile launch was performed in total EMCON. When the missile reached the target area, the radar was switched from stand-by to normal operating mode, and the engagement was successfully completed.

The Ramona and later the Tamara systems were common in Warsaw Pact dedicated air- defense SIGINT regiments (usually one per country, except for the Soviet Union, which had numerous sets, both Czechoslovakian and domestically produced). Presently, Russia operates large numbers of Kolchugas (not to be confused with the more modern Kolchuga- M, presently offered by Ukraine). Another system, VERA-E is produced by ERA (a kind of "daughter company" of Tesla) and is being negotiated for sale to China, and the BORAP system is manufactured by Tesla itself.

India is interested in purchasing BORAP systems, and talks are underway.

1 billion?, my friend a satellite costs like $400 million a piece not to mention to operate it.

Originally posted by 187onu
1 billion?, my friend a satellite costs like $400 million a piece not to mention to operate it.

buddy, if you are alredy so well acquainted with this then why the heck do you have to ask me this and then debunk my reply ?

Besides, there are different kinds of satellites. These are not the complicated and expensive communication satellites which are mostly launched.

These IMO are not that advanced and are far far less expensive.

Countries like India can launch like 3 small satellites of a total weight of ~4000 kg at once for a cost of less then 10 million dollars.