Comments on: Raptor … or Turkey? (Part Two)

By: Arthuraria

Arthuraria — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:28:01 +0000

I have a question for anyone who can accurately answer. In A2A combat, which is the superior aircraft, the F-22 or the SU-30MK?

By: CC

CC — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 07:17:57 +0000

Big G: Please don’t try to act knowledgable about technology you don’t understand.

By: Benjamin Fan

Benjamin Fan — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:45:10 +0000

What role would AWACS play in such a situation? Wouldn’t an AWACS, with illuminating radar, allow the F-22 to see the enemy without the F-22 having to turn its own radar on?

By: mon

mon — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:35:21 +0000

Can some-one explain how you can be sure of seeing what’s out there by turning on your narrow-beam flashlight for a millisecond in a darkened warehouse?
In other words, the F-22’s radar is fine if you already know where to point your beam, but a problem if you don’t.
And am I alone in finding it fishy that the Air Force finds a brilliant new role for the F-22 every time the previous one is disproven?
That’s the advantage AESA radar provides over previous tech. A F-15 could take up to 15 seconds to scan a patch of sky in front of it, making its radar emissions easy to detect.. by comaprison, a raptor can scan the same patch of sky nearly instantaneously using relatively low-powered radar frequencies that are much more difficult to detect.

By: Big G

Big G — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:56:24 +0000

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 06:33:50 +0000

I think its more important to imagine the next war. Our enemies are smart and if there is a simple fix to the detection of f22 radar problem, I think they will find it and it will be common quickly. In addition RWR is a cheaper technology readily deployable to existing fighters. Imagine if china develops an advanced rwr and it costs $150,000. it will be deployed..
However in the next major airwar, Im imagining AWACS dominating the battlesky..and f22’s not needing to radiate…well maybe briefly before final targeting solution…
sounds worth it…

By: Eric Hundman

Eric Hundman — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:57:59 +0000

I’m no expert on this, btu I think that both spread-spectrum and UWB radars transmit on multiple frequencies; the frequency spread for the former is just vastly narrower and therefore much easier to find. I believe frequency-hopping radars send strong, very narrowly tuned pulses at different frequencies for each pulse (or something along those lines).
Finding noise sources directionally would certainly counter UWB noise radars. The processing requirements would be heavy, though (making it hard to track fast-moving sources) and it is unclear how powerful the noise signals would have to be compared to background sources, natural or otherwise. If our processing capabilities are good enough, the cross-correlation in UWB noise radars could allow low power signals that would be very hard to find. If not, then looking for loud noise sources would work well.

By: Nicholas Weaver

Nicholas Weaver — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:33:52 +0000

As far as my (admittedly ignorant) understanding goes:
Spread spectrum frequency hops with a pseudo-random permutation. Its hopefully cryptographically strong, so its unpredictible. From the point of view of other spread spectrum receivers/senders, congestion just increases the noise floor.
The ultra-wide-band stuff adds two things: operates over a wider frequency range, and you start to send on multiple frequencies at the same time. Both make you look more like noise.
But both improvements STILL make you a “point noise source”.
Given an antenna array rather than a single antenna, and signal processing magic, you should be able to see that “this is a point noise source”. and it has to be a pretty high power point-noise source.
And if you see a point noise source pulsing on and off, moving at mach 1.5 and 40,000 feet, it might be a good candidate…

By: Eric Hundman

Eric Hundman — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:21:57 +0000

Nicholas, a question:
My research on noise radar indicated that spread spectrum was several orders of magnitude narrower (in frequency spread) than ultra-wideband “noise radars.” The latter are actually modulated to be random, but this incurs some significant costs in processing time.
This leads me to believe that traditional radar detectors (which look for powerful, relatively focused peaks) could still detect spread-spectrum radars relatively easily. I agree that a switch to directional radar detection would be necessary if truly noiselike radars became widespread (though even the proponents of noise radar say it is very difficult to put on fast-moving platforms right now), but I’m not sure that would be required for current spread-spectrum radars. What do you think?

By: TrustButVerify

TrustButVerify — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 05:46:00 +0000

Data links in the style of JTIDS/Link 16 have led to established techniques for using one aircraft as a “designated radiator” and sharing its tracks with distant “shooter” aircraft. Mr. Skinner has a point– existing airframes can already do this. I think the advangage of the F-22 lies in stealthiness; can remain undetected much longer than F-16s or Tornados. LPI radar on the radiating aircraft can only improve the odds!