Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can China's New Destroyer Find U.S. Stealth Fighters?
USNI ^ | May 14, 2014 | By: Dave Majumdar

Posted on 05/15/2014 7:56:35 AM PDT by Fennie

Can China's new Type 052D Luyang III destroyers successfully see through the stealth of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter?

Maybe.

U.K., Chinese and Russian media report the radar on China's new destroyer could track and engage the F-35; however it is not clear if such claims have any validity.

Konstantin Sivkov, director of the Russian Academy for Geopolitical Issues, asserted that the destroyer's active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar system can detect, track and launch weapons against the F-35 at a range of 350 kilometers or about 189 nautical miles, according to a Voice of Russia report.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.usni.org ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: china; military; obama

1 posted on 05/15/2014 7:56:35 AM PDT by Fennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Fennie

It sounds as if the Russians and the Chinese are blowing smoke here.Since the U.S. has had stealthy aircraft since the 1980’s.At that time the Russians had radars that were not as good as an American radar and even if the Russians improved their radar capabilities the U.S. has had the time and experience to update its stealth aircraft capabilities.


2 posted on 05/15/2014 8:09:11 AM PDT by puppypusher ( The World is going to the dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

it wouldn’t surprise me if they could - hell, we prolly gave the technology to them to do it with - we’re pretty stupid that way


3 posted on 05/15/2014 8:10:25 AM PDT by WorkerbeeCitizen (am in the process of not complying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WorkerbeeCitizen

Or a Democrat voting traitor sold it to them. Anyone seen Bill Clinton, Al Gore or Obama today?


4 posted on 05/15/2014 8:13:47 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Liberty or Big Government - you can't have both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fennie
It might work--if the radar has separate, well-spaced apart transmitting and receiving antennas. But that requires very sophisticated computer technology to take advantage of what's known as bi-static radar.
5 posted on 05/15/2014 8:22:32 AM PDT by RayChuang88 (FairTax: America's economic cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Geez, this will be a “fun” and “informative” thread...

Can’t wait for all the resident FR self-proclaimed “aviation and F35 experts” to weigh in.../s


6 posted on 05/15/2014 8:25:06 AM PDT by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political parties in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: puppypusher

They are not blowing smoke. What they look for is the absence of radio signals. Stealth tends to be a black hole for all radio emmissions, so... instead of looking for radio reflections (looking for a white dot on a grey field) you look for a lack of ambient radio signals (looking for a black dot on a grey field).


7 posted on 05/15/2014 8:26:04 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Questions about how effective the stealth capabilites are is one of the reasons why the Navy has requested funding for additional EF-18G aircraft.


8 posted on 05/15/2014 8:27:38 AM PDT by Lower Deck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

So they are claiming to have an SAM with a 189 NM range?

Right there I’m calling BS.

And harking back to my old NAVAIR days, no ship was going to see me in my non-stealth aircraft, until I broke the radar horizon at about 20 miles.


9 posted on 05/15/2014 8:32:34 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: puppypusher
>>>>>It sounds as if the Russians and the Chinese are blowing smoke here.Since the U.S. has had stealthy aircraft since the 1980’s.At that time the Russians had radars that were not as good as an American radar and even if the Russians improved their radar capabilities the U.S. has had the time and experience to update its stealth aircraft capabilities.<<<<<

F117A was shot down by using obsolete 1950s radar.

And this obsolete radar made stealth gimmick obsolete overnight.

For some reason Chicoms decided to make their own copy through R&D (reverse engineer and Duplicate).

A quiz question for aviation aficionados:

F-35 can be considered stealth only when 2 internal weapon bays are used and no external weapons attached to the hardpoints.

When using only 2 internal weapon bays F-35s can be easily outgunned.When using under-wing missiles it can be out-maneuvered.

True or false?

10 posted on 05/15/2014 8:33:59 AM PDT by DTA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
They are not blowing smoke. What they look for is the absence of radio signals. Stealth tends to be a black hole for all radio emmissions, so...

You know what else is a black hole for radio emissions? The entire rest of the sky. The emissions don't reflect back off of nothing.

11 posted on 05/15/2014 8:35:29 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DTA

The F-117 got shot down by being predictable and by having the bomb bay open too long.


12 posted on 05/15/2014 8:37:51 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lower Deck
If the Chinese are using active radar, EF-18G Growlers will be able to identify the source, fry the electronics and sink the ships with anti-ship missiles. The U.S. Navy and USAF have different approaches to counter anti-aircraft fire. The USAF tries to hide using stealth, and the USN identifies, fries and then bombs the AA sites. That's why the USAF always liked to have USN EA-6B Prowlers lead them in on bombing missions during the Gulf wars.
13 posted on 05/15/2014 8:39:17 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DTA

The F-117 shotdown over Serbia was flying the same flight path that it had been flying on a previous mission if I recall.

The plane was also shot down by AAA not a SAM.Which only tells me that sooner or later if you fire enough rounds into the air your likely going to hit something sooner or later.

In this case it was a luckey shootdown on behalf of the Serbians.The case of the Golden B.B.


14 posted on 05/15/2014 8:42:28 AM PDT by puppypusher ( The World is going to the dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

I would think launching say 1,000 cruise missiles at targets all at once would destroy any fleet of ships or land targets. Follow up with aircraft after that for any left over targets. I think the future combat will be cruise missiles. The first side that runs out will lose the war.


15 posted on 05/15/2014 8:43:28 AM PDT by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DTA

false


16 posted on 05/15/2014 8:49:09 AM PDT by rdcbn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DTA

The “mission planners”, NATO conops, NATO ROE, spies in Italy and an open weapons bay were the reasons 786 was shot down...they failed to follow the highly successful tactics used during DS to ensure the aircraft wouldn’t be compromised.

In my opinion, it was a deliberate act that cost us that aircraft and almost the pilot.


17 posted on 05/15/2014 9:01:30 AM PDT by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political parties in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SZonian

Sorry, not 786, 806...

Crewed both...


18 posted on 05/15/2014 9:02:58 AM PDT by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political parties in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SZonian

Not to mention the civilian observers in Italy that watched the F-117s take off and reported that back to the Serbs.

If you know where to look, and you know when to look, you can find them.


19 posted on 05/15/2014 9:33:29 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

SM-2 Block IV has that kind of range, and our fearless leaders have no doubt given the ChiComs all the specs.


20 posted on 05/15/2014 9:46:44 AM PDT by afsnco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Yep, the “observers” I call spies.

During DS the earliest we took off was at dusk based on the mission profile, flight time to target, etc.

We were so far removed from the Iraq border that none had a chance to “know where and when” to look. The aircraft didn’t follow a prescribed egress/ingress flight path into Iraq everynight.

When leaving Italy to Serbia, they were flying in a corridor. Stupid, absolutely stupid or outright treachery...I vote for the latter.


21 posted on 05/15/2014 9:53:43 AM PDT by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political parties in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Just for the sake of conjecture, let us say a radar system is based in outer space, not the atmosphere, land, or sea Would this potentially render aircraft stealth techniques obsolete?
22 posted on 05/15/2014 9:56:45 AM PDT by buckalfa (Tilting at Windmills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WorkerbeeCitizen

Considering the the Soviets did the math that described stealth, I’m sure they can find a way to detect stealthy aircraft.
The question is, can they target missiles or aim guns with it.


23 posted on 05/15/2014 10:03:03 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

If I understand correctly, they detect stealth aircraft using emitters that are distant from the receivers.
“Stealth” deflects radar waves and prevents them from going back to the emitter. However, separated receivers can receive the deflected radio waves - and find the aircraft.


24 posted on 05/15/2014 10:06:07 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: buckalfa
Just for the sake of conjecture, let us say a radar system is based in outer space, not the atmosphere, land, or sea Would this potentially render aircraft stealth techniques obsolete?

Not really.

The "hole return theory" would require unbelieavable power (for area coverage) and pencil beam radar, smaller (from 150 miles up) than the aircract width itself.

Additionally, radio beams difuse, just like waves on the surface of water, so holes close up after a fairly short distance. i.e. if you form a ripple on the surface of water and block its propagation with your finger in one spot, the edges of the ripple will come back together as it expands.

25 posted on 05/15/2014 10:11:13 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray; SampleMan
If I understand correctly, they detect stealth aircraft using emitters that are distant from the receivers. “Stealth” deflects radar waves and prevents them from going back to the emitter. However, separated receivers can receive the deflected radio waves - and find the aircraft.

Sampleman, this.

In Yugoslavia, the emitters were cell-phone towers. China and Russia may be relying on those kind of signals, or they may generate some signals using drones.

26 posted on 05/15/2014 10:19:32 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
The "hole return theory" would require unbelieavable power (for area coverage)

Cell phone towers sufficed.

Enhance the sensitivity of the receivers and you have a solution in a non-cell area.

27 posted on 05/15/2014 10:20:35 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: afsnco
SM-2 Block IV project was tested but never deployed, the project was canceled in 2001 and the USN went with SM-3. SM-3 range is indeed advertised as far in excess of 189NM, but its an ABM. ABMs get their range by flying mainly in space (or edge of) and use thrusters to position against a mainly predictable BM trajectory. They are way too high to use fins for control. So when you use that ABM down into the atmosphere, you aren't going to get the same kind of range with it, and you are going to have an issue with its ability to hit a maneuvering target.

The Chinese use the HQ-9, which is advertised to have a range of ~110NM (close to 189km, so maybe typo or I misread). Given its size, I'd say that is about right. The practicality of extreme long range, surface-to-air missiles is limited anyway, because the curvature of the earth puts the radar horizon extremely high and easy to fly under. At 200NM the radar horizon is ~25,000ft. So the radar is blind to everything below that.

28 posted on 05/15/2014 10:34:59 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DTA

So, how is your defense against the F-22? By the time you could possibly “see” it, you are dead.


29 posted on 05/15/2014 10:35:52 AM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg
So, how is your defense against the F-22? By the time you could possibly “see” it, you are dead.

Take out their airbases before they get airborne is one way.

30 posted on 05/15/2014 3:27:08 PM PDT by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Cell tower use isn’t based on power, or a hole, it’s based on scatter. Stealth aircraft scatter the reflected signal. With heavy computing it’s theoretically possible to get a rough location of aircraft, but I doubt it’s capabilities. It would be easily spoofed. But at best you couldn’t use such a network for targeting


31 posted on 05/15/2014 4:55:30 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Shoot. So I pretty much am clueless.

I admit it. I am, on stealth tech.

I can design you a pretty hacker-resistant professional B2B website though.

32 posted on 05/15/2014 6:17:58 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I can design you a pretty hacker-resistant professional B2B website though.

I'm sure there is more money in website development, than in my sharing of 25 years of radar experience on FR ;-)

33 posted on 05/16/2014 4:59:32 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: USAF80

Good luck taking out LAFB before the F-22s can scramble ...


34 posted on 05/16/2014 5:13:19 AM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Maybe - but when they turn on these radars do their ships light up like beacons? Do they become missile magnets?

Hmmmm


35 posted on 05/16/2014 5:18:23 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg

They will have to be forward based. I don’t see them doing US to overseas fighter missions. Those things don’t have toilets.


36 posted on 05/16/2014 1:53:07 PM PDT by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Fennie
To bad Chinese destroyers, cruisers, missile boats, and anything that floats are highly susceptible to fast attack subs!
37 posted on 05/16/2014 2:21:13 PM PDT by Mat_Helm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson