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.

"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.

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.

On 22 May 2004 03:30:36 GMT, (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.


That's the joy of F-22 (and -23)--the interceptor dies long before
he/she ever gets within a range that would allow their radar to detect
the small RCS. You simply cruise along, passively detecting the enemy
and plinking them at your leisure. No sweating, grunting, groaning,
straining, turning or burning. Just hope you have enough weapons to
make ace.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.