via FA
The AAS's ultra fast scanning active electronically scanned array (AESA) antenna system, tied to advanced computer processors, would theoretically allow the P-8 to detect a moving target in a cluttered bay or inlet, and then shoot a powerful and tight beam of radar energy at that target to take a "SAR picture" of it and thus judge its identity. If the contact is deemed hostile, the radar can continue to track the target as it moves while still scanning for and tracking others as well. This data, which can be collected by a P-8 well over a hundred miles away, can then be transmitted via data link off the aircraft for exploitation by other weapons platforms.Read the entire article here.
For instance, once a P-8, orbiting over a hundred miles off an enemy's coast, has identified a hostile patrol boat guarding its homeport, it can send that "target track" to a Super Hornet, flying about fifty miles closer to the enemy's shore, and request an attack. The P-8 has done this via using its Advanced Airborne Sensor to detect that ship's motion amongst the port's clutter, and then by instantly employing a beam of radar energy to survey and classify the target. The Super Hornet crew can then fire a standoff missile at the target, such as a SLAM-ER.
The Super Hornet would be receiving the P-8's radar data on the target in question continuously via data link, and would be forwarding this information in real time to the missile as it makes its way toward the hapless patrol boat. Once the missile reaches the point at which its own terminal guidance sensors can lock onto the patrol ship, the data link is no longer needed and the targeted ship will either be destroyed by the missile or would have to be re-attacked.
Question.
Can this same technology be used against aerial targets?
If it can then stealth is dead.
There is a big difference between detecting a boat (big RCS target) at 100nm and detecting an inbound VLO airframe coming to kill you. Remember that a big, lumbering ISR asset will be a juicy, easy to ID & track target.
ReplyDeleteyou're looking at this particular platform but these same radars or something like them has been put on Gulfstars airplanes.
Deletethey're not lumbering.
but again, you're ignoring the bigger question. can this tech be used to locate aircraft. they can track trucks and personnel on the ground so why not aircraft in the sky????
GMTI works by comparing a series of SAR images and looking for differences. If it can detect a “track” then it knows something is there and moving.
DeleteThat does not work with airplane detection because there is no “background” radar image in which to compare.
Note that the article specifically states that in order to detect the target you would need to see the target moving vs the background standing still. With planes, especially VLO ones, you will have neither a direct return or a background to compare it against.
i beg to differ. atmospheric disturbance will occur unless they've found a way to negate that and last i heard they haven't.
Deleteif it disturbs the atmosphere then you have a background to compare. you might have to dial up the sensitivity to max and you might need to increase computing power but its doable.
and if a ground pounder can figure this out then so can the big brains.
GMTI works because virtually the only thing that changes in the image will be moving objects. The same cannot be said of the atmosphere. I have heard of radars that track exhaust plumes for years yet no military application has arrived yet.
DeleteThings often work in theory but not in practicality.
very true.
DeletePlus those exhaust plume tracking radar are GIGANTIC PESA or AESA arrays and costs tens of millions if not more. Once built, you can't move them.
A Gulfstar compared to a Fighter or long range SAM is absolutely lumbering.
ReplyDeletereally? seriously? are you being ignorant on purpose or just to suit your twisted needs? i'm talking about the concept of aircraft being used far behind the line of battle of whatever the air guys call it, detecting stealth aircraft.
Deletesorta like AWACS does now.
stop being stupid and talk about the concept.
some of you guys are really starting to piss me off with your silliness.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteyou keep focusing on GMTI, but lets call this what it is. synthetic aperture radar. the application is being applied to aerial systems as we speak.
ReplyDeletestop trying to confuse the issue.
SAR (and Inverse SAR) works because either the sender or the target are not moving and the the returns can be layered together to increase the resolution.
ReplyDeleteThis will not work with an airplane-to-airplane SAR due to both are moving.
You are amazing... So an AH-64D/E with a Longbow is hovering and looking for targets, all you have to do is stop moving and then you are invisible? You do not seem to understand the SAR does not use the DOPPLER effect, which requires movement differential.
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_16
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_Data_Link
This is really nothing new. The Navy has been using Link 11 since the 50s to share tactical data.
To answer your question, yes it exists, and yes it works.
Consider that Boeing was about 70% done developing the E-10 platform based on the 767-400 airframe which was supposed to be a "Jack of All Trades" replacing the E-3, JSTARS and Rivet Joint. That program was far too ambitious but they developed the technologies which are now showing up in other platforms like the P-8 and BAMS.
ReplyDeleteA radar, especially an AESA, works on the same basic principles no matter where its intended operation zone is. The difference between the P-8's sea scan and the JSTARS's ground scan is not so much the antenna itself as much as in the processing software. With the right kind of software the same radar can be used for either task.
That being said, GMTI and SAR are the two most complex functions a radar performs. Which is why most operational AESA's today either don't have those modes at all (especially GMTI) or offer them only as additional development items. Notice the brilliant SABR radar being offered for the F-16 CAPES, the SAR maps that Northrop-Grumman displayed as part of its marketing are stunning. But they spent so much time and effort perfecting it that the GMTI option is not even on the table at this point. The software is simply too complex and too expensive for most users.
Sol, for the most part this radar could be used air to air. It was originally designed for the E-10 that basic radar would have been used used for Air to Air and Air to Ground. But the placement would have been different. If you look the first image will see the side slope in word towards the bottom. This would preclude good air to air usage, as you just have to fly higher (several thousand feet) then the P-8 and it would be blind to the attackers. The E-10 Air to Air version would have looked like the 737 AEW&C, only much larger. Since it is the same basic radar, only scaled down.
ReplyDeleteGMTI/SAR and ISAR are processing modes. The radar scans and collects data, when an AESA "tracks" a target it is just a continuous scan of the target. Everything else is processing for human use. GMTI in and of itself is not new, it is the same process Astronomers use to find asteroids, moons and planets in our solar system for centuries. Modern astronomers take a series of pictures and look for what has changed. If they find a change then keep an eye on that area, then you can overlay the photos and draw a line of motion. This is the old fashioned way a "Space Moving Target Indicator". The only major advance here is that the large AESA (P-8) and PESA (E-8) make photo quality images. Previous generation radars could not. I have had a flight on the E-8 and was floored buy the quality of the images. Looked like an old B&W movie. I can only image that the AAS would like like a B&W HD movie.
Due to the incredible growth of processing power and radar resolution you no longer need something moving at 120 mph for GTMI to work. As was repeatedly shown in Afghanistan, all you had to do was roll over or move your head up for a look, and the E-8 knew you were present. I am not sure the limitation of the AAS or the processing systems; it is theoretically possible to see someone by the movement of the chest when you breath.
The current millimeter wave radars (AKA Longbow, Naval CIWS) are working on 3 mm wave length, they need 3 mm in change to measure the changes. Not sure if the AAS is that capable, its frequency is classified. But 99.9 GHz is 3 mm and 30 GHz is 1 cm resolution.
The E-10 would have been like this only 200 ft instead of 110 ft long. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_AEW&C
There are two separate capabilities being discussed: SAR and AESA. AESA platforms can 'focus' a beam for longer range independently of SAR style capabilities. This is common for AESA platforms: Erieye (from Saab) has been doing this for years and it is also a capability of the Russian Nebo-SVU VHF AESA radar. By increasing the amount of power directed in a specific sector, the detection range is increased roughly proportionally to the power increase.
ReplyDeleteThe other issue here is that the radar being used as an example is X band, which of course is what USAF fighter stealth is optimized against. The lower the band, the more issues stealth aircraft have: S band is already common, the Israelis pioneered it for AWACS use, and for ground use the Russians have it in VHF.