Can China's New Destroyer Find U.S. Stealth Fighters?

USNI ^ | May 14, 2014 | By: Dave Majumdar

[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.

[SZonian]

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.

[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?

[Little Ray]

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.

[Little Ray]

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]

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.

[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.

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.

[Lazamataz]

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.

[SampleMan]

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.

[riverdawg]

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

[USAF80]

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.

[SampleMan]

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

[Lazamataz]

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.

[SampleMan]

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 ;-)

[riverdawg]

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

[Triple]

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

Hmmmm

[USAF80]

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

[Mat_Helm]

To bad Chinese destroyers, cruisers, missile boats, and anything that floats are highly susceptible to fast attack subs!