Who knows! what if the system is already in secret and the developer offers it on international market intentionally to cut the gap between its effectiveness and the counter systems development cycle............
Systems are already being developed for anti-stealth. But whether they work in real life or not is obviously untested, at least outside the US.
When they say systems maturity by 2017, they really mean they will be able to develop anti-stealth techniques starting from 2017. By the time they develop and operationalize it, it will be time to start working on a FGFA replacement while improving FGFA at the same time like how Su-35 was made from Su-27.
Like ?????? Can you give me one example apart from RAM skins and coatings ok....how can you make an f-35 further stealthy ?????i understand F-22 has undergone some super secret upgrade which we will never now and final variant /production of Pakfa still has ample of scope for RCS reduction after its Rcs test.........
RCS can be reduced by three methods. One is shaping, the second is destruction and the third is negation. The first two are already well known. Destruction is carried out using RAM coating and even plasma in the internal structure of the aircraft like in the radome. Negation is what is known as active cancellation. This is the next step is meant to directly interfere with the performance of the radar using your own EW emissions.
While the first two will continue improving, especially the second method, negation will provide much more significant capabilities over the other two.
If thats so than whole point of anti stealth ground based IADS system is meaningless....why should a country develop it / buy it when she knows her enemy has steath aircraft in its air force inventory
Ground based IADS systems are somewhat of a quick reaction system. If there are no friendly aircraft in the area, then ground based defences are very weak to enemy air attacks. That's what happened during Desert Storm and other post Soviet wars. Many of these countries had very robust IADS systems, some like Iraq were as advanced as what the US had at the time. None of them worked effectively without friendly air cover.
I said this same words to the developer....the reply was the real deal is how to counter stealth a/c by a 4th-4.5 gen a/c.....whats the main difference between an f-35 and mig-35 its conventional stealth offcourse the former offers to the customer............
He wasn't very clear with his answer. Fine, it will make the Mig-35 more capable if you provide it with anti-stealth technologies (he is actually talking about new generation ESM systems that are being developed to counter LPI radars), but it won't provide it the same capability as the F-35 has against the Mig-35. In a 2v2 or 4v4 scenario, it might work, but in a networked scenario with many on many, Mig-35 will be at a huge disadvantage even if they were able to detect the F-35. Like I said, detecting is only one part of the kill cycle. If the missile does not get accurate fire control inputs, the missile will miss.
There is a lot of criticism against stealth outside the US and there is a reason for that. It is as simple as they don't yet employ it yet even in a lab environment. They don't know the extent of the workings of stealth as accurately as the actual developers do. And the US is the leader in the field and only the countries with money are pursuing the US in the same field, that's China, Russia and India. Once the F-35 is fielded and non-stealth air forces go against it, then they will know where they stand.
but we can't avoid its situational awareness in protecting the key strategic areas can't we, can you please explain us the use of it and why it primary exist....!!!!!!!!!!
Nebo-M uses VHF frequencies which have very long wavelength. It is impossible to hide from VHF frequencies because the object is much smaller than the wavelength. Meaning X band has a 3cm wavelength, if it hits a 70 cm radome, then you can use shaping to minimize the returns. VHF is between 10m and 1m, that's bigger than the aircraft's radome, other parts included. This puts the aircraft in the optic region of the radar. So, regardless of the shaping, there will be returns.
Nebo-M is used for early warning. It detects an enemy very early and tells the other systems to start searching in the area. Then a L or S band radar starts looking in that area, once a target is detected it informs the X band fire control radar to start painting the target for missile interception. Now, shaping is primarily meant to prevent the X band radar from shooting the aircraft down.
The reason why it is an early warning system is because it has very low accuracy, in the region of many Kms whereas X band radar has accuracy in the region of many meters.
Completely agree on this part.......what if the radar uses the combi of 2 wavelengths sensor fuse it give an over all picture will it help more than the conventional active radars on the market..........Raytheon has by the way produced a DBR and just found out from Jo's post on forum key pub that Russia plans to field another....my "developer" here happens to be an Israeli......lol....
Dual band systems save more time. If you combine the workings of a UHF/VHF systems with a S/L band system, then you will have one radar network providing a more accurate early detection. A single network resource manager handles two or more radars at once. MKI's Bars radar is a dual band system which combines X band and L band for the same purpose. L band provides greater range than what is advertised by NIIP for aircraft detection in volume search modes. Of course, this is an open source "secret" because foreign radar operators identified this advantage based on their own experiences in the military.
Then the priority for a counter stealth tech would be.........quite opposite!!!!!!
The end techniques will be very similar. Ultimately you will need a combination of radar, IRST and other passive detection systems to find targets. You already mentioned one called quantum imaging. Then there is another tech called quantum radar. Of course, they are still quite far from being fielded, but both are quite possible, and at the same time impossible before FGFA itself becomes obsolete within 10 years after induction. That's why my figure of 2030 before a capable anti-stealth technology is developed against current generation stealth techniques.
Where do you suppose to put it internally?
