If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Denyav" wrote in message ... It's all very well to apply handwavium multistatic techology that you just happen to have in your hip pocket but how are you going to guide a weapon using it? Inquiring minds... You can kill easily any stealth bomber that you can detect,track and even image for ATR purposes at long ranges, even a F-86 can do the job easily. But the real beauty of multistatics is the ability of tracking targets without alerting them. Also completely passive nature of tracking makes receiver/processor units,by far the most expensive part of any multistatic system,virtually immune to HARM type type attacks. Go back and take a look at '50s vintage fighters. Managing an intercept on a high-subsonic bomber using strictl GCI-only at night was a bitch and it failed. Often. That's why the F-86D et al had on-board RADAR. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Go back and take a look at '50s vintage fighters. Managing an intercept on a
high-subsonic bomber using strictl GCI-only at night was a bitch and it failed. Often. That's why the F-86D et al had on-board RADAR. Fine,if you can get F-86D close enough to stealth bomber even its vintage radar could detect stealth aircraft. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Denyav" wrote Go back and take a look at '50s vintage fighters. Managing an intercept on a high-subsonic bomber using strictl GCI-only at night was a bitch and it failed. Often. That's why the F-86D et al had on-board RADAR. Fine,if you can get F-86D close enough to stealth bomber even its vintage radar could detect stealth aircraft. Going to use the air data probe for FOX-4? Get a life. Stealth works superbly against X-band RADARs. In case you didn't understand, even with MagicTech multistatic RADARs, the interceptor is going to be effectively blind, none of his guided weapons will work and he's reduced to being a Hawker Hunter blindly poking around the night sky aided by hints from the GCI site. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Paul F Austin" wrote: Going to use the air data probe for FOX-4? Get a life. Stealth works superbly against X-band RADARs. In case you didn't understand, even with MagicTech multistatic RADARs, the interceptor is going to be effectively blind, none of his guided weapons will work and he's reduced to being a Hawker Hunter blindly poking around the night sky aided by hints from the GCI site. One of the big ugly problems with multistatics is that they're *really* vulnerable to wideband jamming. Put up a half-dozen very low power jammers in their line of sight, and they're screwed. Since the systems are dealing with sub-nanowatt signals in the first place (less if trying to detect stealthy airframes), a milliwatt would be more than enough. A couple of watts of fairly directional RF over a very wide bandwidth would do the trick. A few hundred watts aimed at the radar might even do enough damage to take the system offline. The problem is compounded by the fact that "celldars" and distributed radars don't actually have that many frequencies to choose from. If they're doing the full passive schtick, they only get a handful of civilian frequencies, and if they're active parts of the system, they can be jammed and/or blown up. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Stealth works
superbly against X-band RADARs. In case you didn't understand, even with MagicTech multistatic RADARs, the interceptor is going to be effectively blind, none of his guided weapons will work and he's reduced to There is ALWAYS backscatter from the target,unless you use active cancellation,for usefulness of backscatter everything depends on how close you get to your target. The rule of the thumb for multistatic-stealth relationship is: Better stealth means easier detection and tracking by multistatics. Better stealth reduces backscatterers but increases forwardscatterers but multistatics chase forward scatterers. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
what is good sound proofing for interior?!?! | Rick | Home Built | 12 | May 13th 04 02:29 AM |
How Aircraft Stay In The Air | Sarah Hotdesking | Military Aviation | 145 | March 25th 04 05:13 PM |
Pulse jet active sound attentuation | Jay | Home Built | 32 | March 19th 04 05:57 AM |
The sound of survival: Huey's distinctive 'whop-whop' will be heard again locally, By Ian Thompson/McNaughton Newspapers | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 19th 04 12:01 AM |
F-86 and sound barrier | VH | Military Aviation | 43 | September 26th 03 02:53 AM |