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

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?

We'd be taking those babies out with JASSM and Tomahawks before *any*
aircraft got near. That's if someone

Interesting,but didn't I say "US multistatic system is also very effective next
generation of stealthy cruise misilles that use terrain masking in addiditon to
passive stealth".

JASSM or JASSM counterparts will be shot down long before they reach their
targets.

That's if someone were to actually deploy such a
system of course. And if it actually worked. Besides, to use your

Multistatics are not new,in applications that the money is no problem,like
defense in national level,US used them for years,for example the space based
multistatic system for the defense of of CONUS,but problem was the theater
level applications where a similar system need to be realized much cheaper.So
it had to wait for some innovations.

50 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.

Forget HARM type weapons,current ones have not enough range to keep HARM trucks
outside lethal range of SAMs and next generation long range HARMs themselves
will become targets.
If were an attacker I would try to disturb the command link.

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.

Yes I am talking about a couple of miles and its more than enough as
terminalguidance as we all learned in Balkans.

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

Who needs 150+ miles guidance radar,IR,laser or whatever.
Multistatics easily track every existing stealth aircraft at 600 miles.
(B2 has an excellent monostatic RCS value,but its "bistatic" RCS value is
bigger than B52 frontal monostatic RCS !)
As I said before as you come closer to stealth target you will receive
backscatter returns and if you need only a couple of miles range the band you
use wont make much difference.so better use whatever you have.

On 25 May 2004 16:42:16 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

We'd be taking those babies out with JASSM and Tomahawks before *any*
aircraft got near. That's if someone

Interesting,but didn't I say "US multistatic system is also very effective next
generation of stealthy cruise misilles that use terrain masking in addiditon to
passive stealth".

Well then it's just like I said. Exactly who with what system is
going to be a threat to US stealth aircraft anytime in the near
future? Besides that, having an airborne TRANSMITTER is just begging
to be shot down.





JASSM or JASSM counterparts will be shot down long before they reach their
targets.

That's if someone were to actually deploy such a
system of course. And if it actually worked. Besides, to use your

Multistatics are not new,in applications that the money is no problem,like
defense in national level,US used them for years,for example the space based
multistatic system for the defense of of CONUS

What are you smoking?



,but problem was the theater
level applications where a similar system need to be realized much cheaper.So
it had to wait for some innovations.

50 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.

Forget HARM type weapons,current ones have not enough range to keep HARM trucks
outside lethal range of SAMs

We're talking about stealth aircraft here. Say you somehow detect a
stealth aircraft at 600 miles and you have a SAM that can hit a target
at 150 miles. 1. You're going to have to hide those big-ass missiles
somewhere they can't be destroyed. Good luck. 2. Semi Active
guidance with a MMVR will never work so forget it. You obviously
don't know how the two work. 3. High frequency radar of ANY type
doesn't work against stealth unless they're practically on top of it.
So I'd forget that too. 4. Whatever terminal guidance you use you're
going to have to send updates to that missile until it can get close
enough for onboard guidance to take over. That means transmitting.
If you have the cash maybe you could get yourself some LPI
transmitters but I wouldn't bank on that though it might be your only
choice.


and next generation long range HARMs themselves
will become targets.

And I'd trade them all day. A next generation HARM against a next
generation S-400+? That's like saying "I'm going to defeat all of
your Maverick missiles by putting tanks in front of my bunkers"





If were an attacker I would try to disturb the command link.

Yeah. I'd disturb it with a HARM.



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.

Yes I am talking about a couple of miles and its more than enough as
terminalguidance as we all learned in Balkans.


You obviously don't have a clue what happened there. Why don't you
tell how you *think* it happened. My guess is you've got some things
confused.




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

Who needs 150+ miles guidance radar,IR,laser or whatever.
Multistatics easily track every existing stealth aircraft at 600 miles.

Well you want to hit the thing don't you? You want to hit the
aircraft before it can hit you back don't you? Doesn't do you much
good if your SAM only flies twenty miles but the airplane can hit you
from a hundred.



(B2 has an excellent monostatic RCS value,but its "bistatic" RCS value is
bigger than B52 frontal monostatic RCS !)

Any sources for that? Didn't think so.



As I said before as you come closer to stealth target

The more likely it is to hit you.


you will receive
backscatter returns and if you need only a couple of miles range the band you
use wont make much difference.so better use whatever you have.


If you wanted to come up with an anti stealth system a good way to do
it would be to have a MSVR that actually WORKS. Proven, in service,
non vaporware and you have more than one. You use that to collect
your x,y,z positions of stealth aircraft. Using cellular, radio, or
freakin' internet, communicate those positions to *mobile* LPI
transmitters that talk to your SAMS. For missiles use something like
an ESSM with an AIM-9X seeker that can do LOAL. Stick two or four of
them per truck-mounted launcher. The idea being to have the two or
four missiles and a truck be CHEAP. I don't mean stick them on a
forty year old rust bucket rescued from the scrap heap but then again
I'm not talking about one of those big eight-wheeled vehicles either.
So you deploy you launchers God only knows where but make sure you
have adequate coverage. They pull up to their site and hook up to the
internet. All the truck gets is "launch missile, tell it to go to
x,y,z". After that the nearest LPI transmitter takes over and the
missile launcher is back on the road. It updates the now in-flight
missile intermittently and stays off the air the majority of the time
LPI or not. As the missile gets closer to the target it gets more
frequent updates. Once the IIR seeker has locked on to it's target
the LPI transmitter forgets about it. Numerous missiles on cheap
trucks, hard to detect transmitters, and a distributed comm network.
All spread out, realtively cheap, with no one unit worth a Tomahawk
and mobile to boot. The only vurnerable spot would be the decision
maker which would likely be the first thing hit.

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?