Not to sound like an F-22 cheerleader but I thought this was interesting. . .

On 20 May 2004 14:37:07 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

Nope it just puts civilian transmitters on the target list.

and turns your target list into a thick "target book" even if we assume that
planes could safely reach HARM firing range while they tracked continously by
their opponents.(not very likely).

1. The only way to use it with missiles would be some form of command
guidance. I needn't say what would happen to that transmitter.

2. With SDB you can hit *many* targets in one pass. With the wing
kit on them they have a range in the 30 to 50 mile range.

3. About the best way I can think of would be to use the imaginary
radar system to find the x,y,z coordinate of the aircraft, fire off a
FAST surface-to-air missile that has a good IIR seeker. Send periodic
updates to the missile until it's close enough to see the target.

The weak links I see are the transmitter that sends the update though
they could make it so 99.9% of the time it's off the air except for
when you're making sure the missile has the right target, but even
then we're talking seconds. Also your missiles are going to be
relatively large (you're not going to hit an aircraft cruising at
altitude with a MANPADS) and they're definitely going to cost more
than the SDB required to take them out. Overall, in a BEST case
scenario, trying to counter stealth with your system is going to be a
losing battle. However we're dealing with what's REAL here and that
being the case NOBODY has this kind of system nor is likely to have
one anytime soo. You may as well be using the starship Enterprise in
your arguements.



BTW you must also shut down or bomb your own transmitters too,military or
civilian, for the best results !.
Good Luck.

1. The only way to use it with missiles would be some form of command
guidance. I needn't say what would happen to that transmitter.


Every semi active radar guided missile system is an inherently bi-static system
and if get close enough to target even small missile antennas could pick up
returns.
Active homers need only an command link to put them in close vicinity of
target.

2. With SDB you can hit *many* targets in one pass. With the wing
kit on them they have a range in the 30 to 50 mile range.

30-50 m range is not bad but pretty useless aganist 500-600 miles multistatic
tracking and detection ability ,specially if your opponent has fighters with
good range and long range SAMs.

3. About the best way I can think of would be to use the imaginary
radar system to find the x,y,z coordinate of the aircraft, fire off a
FAST surface-to-air missile that has a good IIR seeker. Send periodic
updates to the missile until it's close enough to see the target.

You are on right track but anyway if you come close enough to target any
receiver could pick up echoes or any active homer can lock on even if the
receiver or active homer is inside frontal threat cone.

The weak links I see are the transmitter that sends the update though
they could make it so 99.9% of the time it's off the air except for
when you're making sure the missile has the right target, but even
then we're talking seconds. Also

Right,generally multistatics are more vulnerable to some forms ECM than
backscatterers,even without considereng missile datalinks.
But if you rely on active ECM instead of passive stealth for penetration ,thats
a totally different ballgame again.

On 21 May 2004 23:36:01 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

1. The only way to use it with missiles would be some form of command
guidance. I needn't say what would happen to that transmitter.


Every semi active radar guided missile system is an inherently bi-static system
and if get close enough to target even small missile antennas could pick up
returns.


There are several problems with that.

1. The nature of your radar and target are such that the missile is
going to need to be approaching the aircraft from any number of
directions meaning you're going to have LOTS of launchers.

2. The nature of your radar and target are such that something as
simple as the aircraft rolling ten or fifteen degrees could drop the
return so far that the missile loses it.

3. Your "transmitters" are going to be operating over a LOT of
different frequencies so your missile's seeker will have to see ALL of
them and they'll be changing from moment to moment both in freqency
and location as some turn on and some turn off. It won't be in a
predictable or controllable order to the user either.






Active homers need only an command link to put them in close vicinity of
target.


Active homers also need the return to bounce straight back toward them
too. The very thing stealth is designed to defeat.





2. With SDB you can hit *many* targets in one pass. With the wing
kit on them they have a range in the 30 to 50 mile range.

30-50 m range is not bad but pretty useless aganist 500-600 miles multistatic
tracking and detection ability ,specially if your opponent has fighters with
good range and long range SAMs.

Figthers don't have multistatic radars. Long range missiles cost big
$$$. If the need came up (meaning if hell froze over and we actually
saw any of these systems in service) we could just slap a small
turbojet on the SDB and be back in business.





3. About the best way I can think of would be to use the imaginary
radar system to find the x,y,z coordinate of the aircraft, fire off a
FAST surface-to-air missile that has a good IIR seeker. Send periodic
updates to the missile until it's close enough to see the target.

You are on right track but anyway if you come close enough to target any
receiver could pick up echoes or any active homer can lock on even if the
receiver or active homer is inside frontal threat cone.


Because you say so? Do you even know what you are talking about?
Hell the targeting device could be a satellite.




The weak links I see are the transmitter that sends the update though
they could make it so 99.9% of the time it's off the air except for
when you're making sure the missile has the right target, but even
then we're talking seconds. Also

Right,generally multistatics are more vulnerable to some forms ECM than
backscatterers,even without considereng missile datalinks.
But if you rely on active ECM instead of passive stealth for penetration ,thats
a totally different ballgame again.


You've still not shown any reliable source claiming that such a system
is even in developement. I'm talking about a system of
detection-to-shooter not just some one-off. And as soon as they come
up with a real system that will introduce comm links (it will have to)
and guess what the first thing is that will be knocked out? Face it.
Stealth isn't magic but it's the next best thing.

1. The nature of your radar and target are such that the missile is
going to need to be approaching the aircraft from any number of
directions meaning you're going to have LOTS of launchers.


You are approaching to the problem from the opposite direction,to solve the
problems you described correctly you have to install receiver/processor unit of
multistatic system inside every SAM,which is currently technologically and more
importantly financially not feasible.
But solution is very cheap,though not so excellent like turning SAM missiles
into multistatic processors.
1)Multi statics can track stealth platform at extremely long ranges.
2)Stealth platforms designed to reduce backscatter.They reduce backscatter
significantly but total elimination of bacscatter is not possible.(Thats the
reason why a particular backscatter radar detects conventional aircraft at 100
m but identical sized stealth aircraft only at 5 or 10 miles)
If your radar receiver comes close enough to stealth target (or target comes
close to bacscatter receiver) at some point backscatterer receiver will start
receiving backscatterers from target.

So,
1)You are tracking your target precisely using multistatics (You might not even
need very precise tracking using multistatics (expensive),If you use the
methods used by Serbians,you can detect stealth ,but you cannot track it.(your
SAM crews must be lighting fast)

2)If you want to use an semi active system ,turn on guidance radar and aim it
according to multistatic radar tracking data.
(or if you use serbian style interconnected bacscatterers to the latest known
position position )

3)Fire missiles guide them to target by command guidance,as missile nears to
the target missiles own backscatter receiver will be able to receive
backscatter signals (not forward scatterers used by multistatics) from its own
guidance radar.

If you can use an active homer skip step2 and use missiles active seeker as
terminal guidance only.

You are approaching to the problem from the opposite direction,to solve the
problems you described correctly you have to install receiver/processor unit of
multistatic system inside every SAM,which is currently technologically and more
importantly financially not feasible.
But solution is very cheap,though not so excellent like turning SAM missiles
into multistatic processors.
1)Multi statics can track stealth platform at extremely long ranges.
2)Stealth platforms designed to reduce backscatter.They reduce backscatter
significantly but total elimination of bacscatter is not possible.(Thats the
reason why a particular backscatter radar detects conventional aircraft at 100
m but identical sized stealth aircraft only at 5 or 10 miles)
If your radar receiver comes close enough to stealth target (or target comes
close to bacscatter receiver) at some point backscatterer receiver will start
receiving backscatterers from target.

So,
1)You are tracking your target precisely using multistatics (You might not even
need very precise tracking using multistatics (expensive),If you use the
methods used by Serbians,you can detect stealth ,but you cannot track it.(your
SAM crews must be lighting fast)

2)If you want to use an semi active system ,turn on guidance radar and aim it
according to multistatic radar tracking data.
(or if you use serbian style interconnected bacscatterers to the latest known
position position )


Do you know what "semiactive" is/means?






3)Fire missiles guide them to target by command guidance


Command guidance? I'll bet a HARM would just LOVE that.



,as missile nears to
the target missiles own backscatter receiver will be able to receive
backscatter signals (not forward scatterers used by multistatics) from its own
guidance radar.


An active radar seeker on a AAM likely wouldn't work very well against
stealh. You'd be better off with an IIR seeker.





If you can use an active homer skip step2 and use missiles active seeker as
terminal guidance only.


A high frequency radar against a stealth aircraft?

Do you know what "semiactive" is/means?

I guess so.

Command guidance? I'll bet a HARM would just LOVE that.

Sure,but you will need a HARM with at least 150+ miles range to start with.


An active radar seeker on a AAM likely wouldn't work very well against
stealh. You'd be better off with an IIR seeker.

If you can come close enough to stealth (or stealth comes close enough to you
)everything works.
If you want to increase your chances you might even upgrade SAMs with multi
spectral seekers.

A high frequency radar against a stealth aircraft?

But of course,during terminal phase everything works.We are talking about very
close ranges.

On 25 May 2004 03:27:40 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

Do you know what "semiactive" is/means?

I guess so.

Doesn't sound like it.

Command guidance? I'll bet a HARM would just LOVE that.

Sure,but you will need a HARM with at least 150+ miles range to start with.

Why? You damn sure aren't going to be able to hide a 150+ mile SAM.
We'd be taking those babies out with JASSM and Tomahawks before *any*
aircraft got near. That's if someone were to actually deploy such a
system of course. And if it actually worked. Besides, to use your
150 mile SAM you'd have to bring your command link online and that's
when the HARM would pop him. It could be 10 miles away, it doesn't
matter.





An active radar seeker on a AAM likely wouldn't work very well against
stealh. You'd be better off with an IIR seeker.

If you can come close enough to stealth (or stealth comes close enough to you
)everything works.

You're talking *maybe* a couple miles. An IIR would see it further
than that. No way, NO way will an active radar seeker in an AAM pick
up a stealth aircraft from fifteen or twenty miles. They don't even
do that for NON-stealth aircraft.




If you want to increase your chances you might even upgrade SAMs with multi
spectral seekers.

Multi-spectral? Do you just stick these terms in wherever you think
it might sound right? You essentially have various form of radar and
light. ALL forms of active radar in a missile are high frequency or
REALLY high frequency. Non of which are useful against a stealth
aircraft. There is laser beam-riding, but not on a 150 mile range
missile. Optical guidance for SAMS means optics on the ground and the
missile is command guided. They don't have cameras in the nose of
SAMs like a Maverick. Because of LOS limitatons (among MANY other
things) you aren't going to be able to use optical guidance for a 150
mile SAM. Using a laser designator won't work for many of the same
reasons. Nope, IIR is your best bet. Use your Magical Multistatic
Vaporware Radar (MMVR) to cue the missile and the IIR seeker for
terminal guidance.





A high frequency radar against a stealth aircraft?

But of course,during terminal phase everything works.We are talking about very
close ranges.

What, a mile?

Active homers also need the return to bounce straight back toward them
too. The very thing stealth is designed to defeat.


Quite so,stealth reduces backscatterers very significantly but cannot totally
eliminate it.
If you can guide an active homer close enough to your target using multistatic
tracking data,it will start receiving its own bacscatter .Figthers don't have
multistatic radars. Long range missiles cost big

$$$. If the need came up (meaning if hell froze over and we actually
saw any of these systems in service) we could just slap a small
turbojet on the SDB and be back in business.

Thats correct but air force tries to develop an UCAV based system.

On 23 May 2004 05:00:24 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

Active homers also need the return to bounce straight back toward them
too. The very thing stealth is designed to defeat.


Quite so,stealth reduces backscatterers very significantly but cannot totally
eliminate it.
If you can guide an active homer close enough to your target using multistatic
tracking data,it will start receiving its own bacscatter .Figthers don't have
multistatic radars. Long range missiles cost big

$$$. If the need came up (meaning if hell froze over and we actually
saw any of these systems in service) we could just slap a small
turbojet on the SDB and be back in business.

Thats correct but air force tries to develop an UCAV based system.


Who is? Do you have *any* sources of your claim?