Couldn't most "stealthy" shapes be easily countered by placing the radar transmitter and receiver in different places?

Couldn't most "stealthy" shapes be easily countered by placing the radar transmitter and receiver in different places? As I understand it the shapes are simply designed not to reflect things back in the same direction the waves came from.

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No

    MAYBE if you could surround the stealth plane with airborne and ground-based radar systems that could all share information with each other in real time.

    But outside of that highly unrealistic scenario, no not really.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I made an example with a boat emitting waves. Why wouldn't this work? You could make the boat a drone ship

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You need a signal processing data aerver in both parties with an extremely low latency internet network

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I see, thanks

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        holy fucking shit guys. put RADAR on the SHIPS!
        PrepHole has revolutionized war.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How far do you reasonably think a transmitter can be located from a receiver and still form an effective mobile IADS? Now ask yourself how much that distance scales in comparison to a target 10s of miles away. Nevermind whatever difficultly you're going to see in the actual processing of a return like that

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The shape is only one part of stealth. The are parts are magnetic and electromagnetic reduction, infrared reduction. panels that act a sponge-like material to absorb radar transmissions.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Flying dorito
    How is that a stealthy shape? They should try designing planes shaped like clouds so any radar would just show a moving cloud (NOT a plane)...

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >H-hey, tower. What's the air speed today?
      >About 15 knots SSE.
      >I've got a cloud moving at 200 knots the opposite direction.
      >Roger that. Launching SAM.
      Also, how are you going to fly a metal cloud? Does it strike you as a particularly aerodynamic shape?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Also, how are you going to fly a metal cloud? Does it strike you as a particularly aerodynamic shape?
        It is made of air water so it is objectively aerodynamic

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    there is no wunderwaffen in rcs tech anon
    basicly all the gen stealth now are optimised to absord X band from the front and s band from the rear which is the bands that most modern NON aesa radar works

    as for aesa its all izi pizi really they can see everything so long that you can pump enough energy to it
    first gen aesa like ones on the erieye and shit might have some trouble due to the old mainframe setup not being able to declutter fast

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You could hypothetically, but currently it won't be mobile. It would have to be more like a network of radars and receivers in permanent emplacements linked by dedicated transmission lines for latency. Every transmission is a known quantity with an expected return somewhere else, makes it a lot easier to find and target an ingress. It could work on say, the Chinese mainland, but to push it out further they'd have to set up fake islands or something... Even then the signals they can get back are really hard to turn into a target track. They can see the rough location and vector planes to where they think it's going, but that's about it. The nature of the systems used by the us to stealth their planes makes actual engagement very difficult if not impossible. It's not just radar, it's full spectrum.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >but to push it out further they'd have to set up fake islands or something
      Oh..

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >they'd have to set up fake islands or something...
      Ayy.
      Then again that seems like a big investment for something that can just be SEAD'ed to shit.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yes it does actually with modern passive radars

    in the past passive radars were a bitch to install due to the massive datacenter they needed
    but now you can either do this like CELLDAR (retarded but it works for non stealth)
    or like aulos passive radar that needs a threadripper like system

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you have the most need to detect aircraft when it's facing you and it's also easier to detect an approaching aircraft due to radio waves kind of compressing, giving greater returns than for a still object, with receding objects giving off even less. That's why for stealth aircraft rcs reduction is the most important at the front. For such a radar it would have to be at a specific place where it can actually receive the reflected radiation, most likely under the plane or slightly behind it. It would depend on the plane's design, altitude and probably also speed. This means that to get anywhere even in theory you need a wide and dense network of very expensive and powerful fixed radars and receivers that are all constantly connected to each other.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >easier to detect an approaching aircraft due to radio waves kind of compressing, giving greater returns than for a still object, with receding objects giving off even less
      lmao this is absolute bullshit

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Doppler effect for retards

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's not how Doppler works. Also OP just thought of bistatic/multistatic radar.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >how Doppler works
            Esplain the Doppler effect, then.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    inverse square law says no

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >PrepHole inventing radar theory and discovering the doppler effect
    I was in the thread, I was there.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolchuga_passive_sensor

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, if you had them all feeding data to a centralized location that is running the results against probability distributions, sorting through anomalies.

    You'd also need decently high coverage.

    But poor countries don't have this because it would be cutting edge and expensive and rich ones don't because they expect to be doing the bombing.

    You can also look for the disguised radar frequencies those planes are using and figure out which sets of activity are highly likely to be unnatural.

    Scrambling a bunch of drone radars once low frequency has spotted something abnormal could get you a bit further, and these could also scan for heat, although this is going to have bad range.

    If you had an AI trained on stealth incursions that did Bayseian updating for the probability of a stealth jet at location X given data D, you could probably get a pretty good detection system without some huge upgrade to radars. However, this still doesn't get you a targeting solution, so you'd need another component for locking the thing once you're sure it's somewhere in X area. A drone would allow you to make this capability mobile.

    All the data to find stealth aircraft is in current radar networks, but you need the AI to turn small bits of irregularity into high confidence detection out of the background noise.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Interesting post anon

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yes anon, its called bistatic radar

Your email address will not be published.