Military Review

The National Interest: How Russia is trying to make American F-22 and F-35 obsolete like battleships

73
The Russian military department pays special attention to the projects of radar systems with enhanced characteristics, which regularly leads to the emergence of new models. Immediately or with some delay, promising radars attract the attention of domestic and foreign specialists. Among other things, this leads to the emergence of various publications of various kinds. Along with screaming headlines, there are attempts at weighted consideration of the issue.


14 in October, the American edition of The National Interest published an article by the author Charlie Tao under the heading “F-22 and F-35 as Obsolete as Battleships” (“How Russia is trying to make American F-22 and F-35 obsolete like battleships "). The article from The Buzz and “Security” headings, which has a specific title, is devoted to one of the Russian developments in the field of radar.

The author begins his material with a reminder of past events. So, since the advent of the so-called stealth technology and aviation technicians using them many radars were declared "invisible killers." To date, one of the best systems of this kind has been created - the Struna-1 / Barrier-E bistatic radar station. This radar was created by the Moscow Central Scientific Research Institute of Radioelectronic Systems (TsNIIRS), which is part of the Almaz-Antey concern.



The first version of the radar "String-1" was created in 1999 year. In the future, this project was developed, the result of which was the updated station "Barrier-E". The first demonstration of this development, intended for export deliveries, took place at the MAKS-2007 exhibition. Ch. Gao notes that the radar family "String-1" is not present on the official website of the concern-developer, but the materials on this project were presented at the MAKS salon this year. According to unconfirmed reports, similar detection tools have already been deployed in the Moscow region.

The author describes the principles of the new station. The “Struna-1” complex differs from most locators by the principles of operation - this is the so-called Bistatic station, which includes a long-distance transmitter and receiver. “Ordinary” monostatic radars are equipped with a combined receiving and transmitting device made in the form of a single unit.

The characteristics and potential of a radar station are limited by the specifics of radio wave propagation. Increasing the distance to the target reduces the power of the probe signal reflected by it, however, it is enough to detect the object. In the case of monostatic stations, the reflected signal, in an ideal situation, is four times weaker than the transmitted one. Stealth technology involves the use of various means of reflecting or absorbing radio waves. As a result, only a significantly weakened radio signal returns to the station, which makes it very difficult to detect the target.

In the “String-1” project, the problem of reducing the power of the reflected signal was solved by separating the receiver and transmitter by a certain distance. Due to this, the receiver receives a more powerful signal, which increases the basic characteristics of the station. According to C. Gao, obtained from Russian sources, this method of radar operation almost three times increases the effective target scattering area, and also practically ignores any coatings intended to reflect radio waves. A station with similar capabilities is able to find a variety of aerial targets characterized by low ESR. It can be stealth planes, cruise missiles and even hang gliders.

The structure of the radar "String-1" / "Barrier-E" includes several receiving and transmitting posts equipped with the necessary radio-electronic equipment and means of communication. One radar complex can include up to ten such posts. According to reports, the distance between the nearest posts can reach 50 km, thanks to which one station of the full complement covers an area up to 500 km wide.

The author notes that the individual "towers" of the bistatic station are distinguished by low power consumption, and also have less radiation power in comparison with other radars. This reduces the likelihood of the detection and destruction of anti-radar station weapons. Receiving and transmitting posts are made mobile, which allows you to quickly transfer them to a given area. For communication between themselves and with the control station, the posts use a secure radio channel.

The proposed architecture of the complex increases survivability: when several components are out of operation, the station as a whole remains operational, although the detection accuracy can be reduced in some way. Transmitters and receivers with the help of mast devices rise to a height of about 25 m, which allows the station to monitor the situation at low altitudes, solving one of the most difficult tasks for the radar.

With all its advantages, the radar "Struna-1" has some drawbacks. First of all - restrictions on the height of detection. Due to the use of spaced posts with transmitter and receiver, the tracking area has the shape of a parabola. As a result, the maximum detection height does not exceed 7 km. In addition, the height of the detection zone decreases as it approaches the station components. There are restrictions on the transverse dimensions of this zone. Next to receiving and transmitting posts, it has a width of about 1,5 km. At the optimum point between the two components of the station, the diameter of the parabola is 12 km.

The relatively small size of the detection zone to a certain extent reduces the potential of the Struna-1 / Barrier-E radar in comparison with other modern Russian and foreign stations, and therefore it cannot be a full-fledged replacement for them. At the same time, it is able to find inconspicuous airplanes and small-sized targets, as well as to determine their coordinates with high accuracy. In this regard, "String-1" is able, at least, to complement some of the existing patterns.

The bistatic station cannot be used for targeting guided ground-to-air missiles with a semi-active radar homing head. In connection with the characteristic technical appearance, it is not able to provide a constant illumination of the air target, because of which the rockets cannot receive the reflected signal and be guided along it.

Charlie Gao concludes his article “How Russia is Trying to Make America's F-22 and F-35 as Obsolete as Battleships” with conclusions about the real potential of the Russian radar in the context of use against modern foreign technology. He believes that the station "String-1" is not a universal means of detecting subtle aircraft and other complex targets. At the same time, however, it is fully capable of posing a serious threat to such equipment of the NATO countries during a hypothetical conflict.

Attack aircraft, which rely on their stealth, are distinguished by a specific flight profile, which literally pushes them into the String-1 radar. The latter, working together with other systems of “invisible killers”, can collect critical information about the movements of attacking aircraft, which will have clear consequences.

***

According to reports, the radar "Struna-1" was created in the late nineties and a few years later entered service. Within the framework of this project, specialists of TsNIIR implemented the original principle of a clear-cut bistatic location. Due to the separation of the transmitter and receiver at a considerable distance in the space between them, an area with an increased energy potential is formed. This is what gives the station unique characteristics and capabilities.

It is known that the String-1 / Barrier-E station uses a radio relay station with a power (in normal mode) not more than 2-3 W to generate a probing signal. Despite the relatively low power, the complex forms a large tracking zone with a length of up to several hundred kilometers, depending on the number of receiving and transmitting posts. The configuration of such a radar "barrier" can be determined in accordance with current needs. It is noteworthy that the low power of the emitters allows the placement of posts near settlements.

The complex incorporates a portable device with an operator’s workplace and up to ten receiving and transmitting posts. All components of the "Strings-1" are made in the form of mobile systems on their own chassis. An important feature of this radar is maximum automation. Remote posts work independently and without human intervention.

According to open data, the radar "String-1" uses the frequency range from 390 to 430 MHz with simultaneous operation of 10 posts. The detection zone can be up to 500 km long and is divided into several links up to 50 km long. The coordinates of the target parallel to the radar barrier are determined with an accuracy of 2100 m; across - to 170 m. The resolution for target speed is 5,8 m / s. Despite the low radiation power, the station has a high potential in detecting targets. The bistatic principle of operation allows to increase the actual EPR of the target by two or three orders of magnitude (it is noteworthy that Ch. Gao wrote about the increase only 2-3 times). As a result, various small size or stealth targets can be detected.

The automation system is capable of simultaneously accompanying up to 50 air targets — by 5 in the detection zone of each of the links. Based on the collected data, information about the target’s path is generated with an update every second. The equipment is capable of recognizing a cruise missile, fighter, bomber, light aircraft or helicopter. The probability of correct recognition of the object - 0,89. Information about the air situation, processed and analyzed by the equipment of the operator’s workplace, can be transmitted via radio to various consumers.

In 2005, the Struna-1 station was put into service and put into series. The start of production and supply of promising systems to the troops did not lead to a halt in design work. The Central Research Institute of Radioelectronic Systems continued the development of the existing project. In 2007, the export version of the 1 String, called Barrier-E, was introduced. In the future, materials on this project were repeatedly demonstrated to potential customers at various exhibitions.

According to open data, the Struna-1 radar was put into service in the middle of the last decade, but there is no information about the volumes of mass production, supplies and deployment of these systems. Data on the sale of export stations to foreign customers was also not published.


Based on:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-russia-trying-make-americas-f-22-f-35-obsolete-22715
http://tsniires.ru/
http://rusarmy.com/
Author:
73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vard
    Vard 18 October 2017 07: 38 New
    +1
    The elusive Joe rushed across the prairie ... flew across the sky ...
    1. Juborg
      Juborg 18 October 2017 12: 36 New
      +2
      And at this time - on October 11, at 4 am, the T-50 fighter made an emergency landing on the LII runway, interrupting the experimental flight. http://inzhukovskiy.ru/novosti/Aviacia/pozharnye-
      naukograda-strahovali-istrebitel-t-50-pri-vynuzhd
      ennoy-posadke
      1. Phoenix_L'vov
        Phoenix_L'vov 18 October 2017 19: 14 New
        +4
        the pilot successfully landed, no casualties or damage
        what's next? Why did they write?
        1. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 20 October 2017 12: 56 New
          0
          Well ... well, it's time to give up. "Vata" is not even able to test the plane.
          Now a support group will come running and they will start to throw on the fan
      2. NOVERU
        NOVERU 22 October 2017 01: 54 New
        0
        sat down sat down flight experimental yeah what the question is not clear
  2. FID
    FID 18 October 2017 08: 32 New
    +2
    Why elusive? Yes, he is on ...... whoever surrendered.
    1. Cat
      Cat 18 October 2017 15: 30 New
      +2
      If you drop ski under the tail, it makes everyone elusive from 5 to 15 minutes! hi
  3. Alexander War
    Alexander War 18 October 2017 08: 44 New
    +3
    I think ours in Syria are studying and will make adjustments, especially since both F-22 and F-35 fly there! Although a flock of birds attacking these stealth and everything super covered by flies off laughing
    1. NOVERU
      NOVERU 22 October 2017 01: 59 New
      0
      but in Syria in March the system with 200 got into the Israeli f35 so it doesn’t fly anymore, they said it encountered a bird, the stealth cover is damaged, although there is a certificate where it collided with birds, it passed and think about it
  4. lance
    lance 18 October 2017 09: 42 New
    +5
    Already there are a lot of questions, coincidence of facts s-200 covered f-35
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 18 October 2017 10: 53 New
      +3
      In the sense: vice versa. F-35 covered the S-200.
      I do not think that they have already begun to be used in shock operations
      There is no such rush. Probably the usual F-16s were fired.
      1. shans2
        shans2 18 October 2017 11: 48 New
        +9
        to lie to the Jews, as usual, and to fight, these are two different things, as some gypsies banned you in 2006, you won’t wash yourself forever ... These are not propaganda messages in your Jewish media to write ...
      2. lance
        lance 18 October 2017 12: 29 New
        +2
        then what kind of damage to the skin of the f35 aircraft making it impossible to use with a broken lamp?
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 18 October 2017 12: 51 New
          +3
          So you believe that the S-200 missile could only damage
          stele-coating aircraft F-35? Nevysky, you have opinions about her. smile
          1. lance
            lance 18 October 2017 12: 57 New
            +3
            I don’t have a high opinion of the plane if the rocket of the 60s with analog guidance caused damage to it. pilot apparently, thank him that this drake was not in the hands of syria and rf
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 18 October 2017 14: 07 New
              +6
              "if a 60s rocket with analog guidance caused him damage." ///

              I mean, are you satisfied that the striking parts of the anti-aircraft missile could not penetrate the unarmored skin of the aircraft?
              Is it not clear that your version is completely absurd?
              1. lance
                lance 18 October 2017 21: 03 New
                +1
                Apparently, the pilot carried out anti-ballistic maneuvering, the missile damaged the skin of the aircraft and not only the “cover” (which is restored after several dozen flights), including the flashlight - bring the aircraft into salvage. Well, who helped direct the rocket to f35 guess yourself?
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 18 October 2017 23: 13 New
                  +1
                  I pay tribute to your good imagination, a whole plot of real astion came up,
                  even with a "missile defense" - it sounds beautiful.
                  But:
                  "Minor damage to the F-35 was found while preparing for normal landing. The plane collided with two birds during a training flight. After landing, the aircraft was sent for maintenance. It will return to service in the next few days."
                  1. lance
                    lance 19 October 2017 07: 43 New
                    0
                    let's look through this short time, it either heals everything or reveals it.
                    1. voyaka uh
                      voyaka uh 19 October 2017 09: 41 New
                      +2
                      It's right. And we both have the right to make hypotheses based on
                      press releases. drinks
            2. NOVERU
              NOVERU 22 October 2017 02: 03 New
              +1
              in 99 they shot down invisibility f 117 from 75 and then from 200
          2. Kent0001
            Kent0001 20 October 2017 17: 41 New
            0
            And no one knows the real damage, but much can be said about and much kept silent.
      3. Graz
        Graz 18 October 2017 15: 41 New
        +5
        Yes, they shot down your F-35 in Syria, but you’ve got a bird, yeah, let’s believe you
        1. MadCat
          MadCat 18 October 2017 17: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: Graz
          Yes, they shot down your F-35 in Syria, but you’ve got a bird, yeah, let’s believe you

          Is this Syrian SANA reported to you? Every day they “knock down” there, though it’s not clear what exactly, there is a suspicion that they are sober laughing
          1. lance
            lance 18 October 2017 21: 14 New
            0
            Confirmation of the incapacitation of the aircraft and its further operation was made by Israel itself. only conrods and vultures above the border of Lebanon and altitudes above 3 km do not fly and they do not scratch the skin, they do not bite the cab.
            1. Shahno
              Shahno 18 October 2017 21: 32 New
              0
              Lance. 35 are not sent to reconnaissance missions (for now) without 16's either. If the link went on the attack near the border there should be consequences for the Syrian side. And the f-16 link didn’t even think about approaching the target .... It would be much more interesting if the bird damaged Xnumx.
              1. NOVERU
                NOVERU 22 October 2017 02: 06 New
                0
                so they are together and floaters in the affected area with 200
            2. Shahno
              Shahno 18 October 2017 21: 47 New
              +1
              And then what do you think at our place in MO- ???? . Why report damage now. Put in the hangar. And in a month .....
              1. lance
                lance 19 October 2017 07: 40 New
                0
                Channel 11 reported that one of the new F35 fighter jets failed after a collision with a bird during a training flight.
                will we each differ in our opinion?
  5. sgapich
    sgapich 18 October 2017 09: 50 New
    +3
    On October 14, the American edition of The National Interest published an article by author Charlie Dao entitled “How Russia Is Trying to Make America's F-22 and F-35 as Obsolete as Battleships” (“How Russia is trying to make American F-22 and F-35 obsolete like battleships ”).


    And what about Dave Majumdar on vacation or something? He is also the main “expert” of The National Interest on Russian weapons. And all at once. laughing
    1. cost 75
      cost 75 18 October 2017 10: 09 New
      0
      Dave changed to Charlie
  6. Großer feldherr
    Großer feldherr 18 October 2017 10: 30 New
    +4
    If not for the headline, I thought that the article was authored by Damantsev.
    A huge number of "efficiency factors" of dubious origin and unfounded claims.
    this method of radar operation almost three times increases the effective scattering area of ​​the target, and also virtually ignores any coverage

    On what basis?
    Remote transmitter and receiver.

    Aren't they a hundred years old at lunch?
    The detection zone can be up to 500 km long and is divided into several links up to 50 km long.

    And how much will it cost + each of these units need layered air defense? How much does a s-400 cost?
    1. Pan_hrabio
      Pan_hrabio 18 October 2017 13: 32 New
      0
      I absolutely support! Plus, if I understand correctly, the radio horizon will still remain on the aviation side.
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 18 October 2017 13: 50 New
        +4
        But this is unlikely (I'm talking about a radio horizon) Why the 35th will climb to small and criminally small heights, where, in normal weather, it can be found even glazedly. Rather, on the contrary, it simply will not go down below 7 km.
        1. Pulya
          Pulya 22 October 2017 15: 27 New
          0
          glazily

          This is a masterpiece from sivuch ... !!!!!
          wassat
    2. Soho
      Soho 18 October 2017 18: 37 New
      +1
      IMHO, low-power transmitter and receiver do not require an equipped stationary post, like a powerful radar. In fact, they can be installed on base stations of cellular communication. Therefore, the cover of the S400-500 is not required - of course it is possible to cut each match, but in practice it is difficult
  7. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 18 October 2017 14: 33 New
    +5
    In the case of monostatic stations, the reflected signal, in an ideal situation, is four times weaker than the transmitted signal.

    There is, of course, a confusion with the “four times”. Moreover, in the original, almost everything is explained correctly, with reference to the law of dependence as the inverse fourth degree of distance, but as a result they also speak of four times in which the signal is supposedly weaker. Although they do not mention the "ideal situation" - what does it mean? .. Well, okay. It has long been known that many authors on these sites are experts like me - the pope.
    1. Cat
      Cat 18 October 2017 15: 35 New
      +1
      It remains for the small - to notify the Vatican that you are the pope - the Roman!
      I'm afraid that the current dad will only get upset!
      1. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 19 October 2017 00: 40 New
        0
        Well, notify. But only I'm not dad. That is, I am a pope, but not Roman.
        1. NOVERU
          NOVERU 22 October 2017 02: 10 New
          0
          Well, not Roman, but why are you worse
  8. viktorch
    viktorch 18 October 2017 16: 18 New
    +4
    oo, another article about miracle weapons that can easily endure the most expensive and technically sophisticated aircraft in the world.

    not even funny in general
    the author speaks in all seriousness about the solution of the 35tk issue with the help of the wonder string.

    Ale garage, 35th this is not il2 he will not attack anyone point-blank, and with modern saturation of UAVs and electronic warfare systems in modern armies, talking about radars like a string as something effective can only alternatively gifted citizens.
    1. Soho
      Soho 18 October 2017 18: 27 New
      0
      In fact, biostatic radar is a fairly well-known thing. And the fact that you do not believe in it in your naivety does not mean that it does not exist)) with this approach, you probably still believe that the Earth is flat))
      1. viktorch
        viktorch 19 October 2017 15: 12 New
        0
        not flat? oh what a surprise
        Do you happen to be a string operator? don’t tell me the secret of how to use it in contrast to 35 currents, poor, bad Americans are building for some reason inconspicuous drummers, and here everything is visible to the trunk and the demon.
        1. Soho
          Soho 30 October 2017 11: 38 New
          0
          probably it will be a surprise for you, but the reduced visibility in the radio and visible spectrum is not yet complete invisibility (as all the ardent knees of great America like you and its miracle technology think). Accordingly, any radar can see f35. The question is in the distance.
          And besides, do you also start (angrily waving LM advertising leaflets) to convince me of Lightning's 0,0000001 EPR? )) Well, not the first time) You probably also firmly believe that this is a 5th generation airplane?
  9. NIKNN
    NIKNN 18 October 2017 16: 42 New
    +1
    In the case of monostatic stations, the reflected signal, in an ideal situation, is four times weaker than the transmitted signal.
    Some kind of nonsense ... Apparently there was a new theory of some kind, recently you see an open, all scientific substantiation is complete nonsense ...
  10. opus
    opus 18 October 2017 18: 57 New
    +4
    Quote: Author: Ryabov Cyril
    In the project "String-1" the problem of reducing the power of the reflected signal was solved by the separation of the receiver and transmitter at a certain distance.

    what
    I don’t understand Charlie Gao from NI raves.
    But why repeat nonsense?
    1. Bistatic (received power of the radio signal)

    2.On-position radar system

    SIMPLIFIED (ceteris paribus) ONLY FORMULA

    Not, well, if the author, together with NI, takes out the receiver in the direction of the likely approach of the F-22, "preferably beyond the front line and into someone else's territory (to Poland)?"
    then yes.
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 19 October 2017 00: 37 New
      +3
      Do not simplify. It’s not only a matter of 1 / R in the fourth degree, but of optimization for not reflecting back in the horizontal plane, but wings and other metal planes, like mirrors, will nevertheless reflect the signal somewhere usually for the plane. But you are right that it is problematic to defend the border (or the front line) and look behind it, because there are no further “ours” there.
      1. opus
        opus 19 October 2017 17: 50 New
        +1
        Quote: Falcon5555
        and in optimization for not reflecting backwards in the horizontal plane,


        Quote: Falcon5555
        but wings and other metal planes, like mirrors, still reflect the signal somewhere usually for the plane

        for me it's some kind of nonsense ...
        1.Fresnel law (angle of incidence = (usually) angle of reflection / more precisely, Huygens-Fresnel principle
        2. Shift of Fedorov
        3. Diffuse reflection (Lambert's law), for surface irregularities of the order of the wavelength or more, but this is theorization
        ===
        how does this relate to bistatic radar and delusional
        Quote: Author: Ryabov Cyril

        In the project "String-1" the problem of reducing the power of the reflected signal was solved by spacing the receiver and transmitter at a certain distance.

        ?

        1. Cube123
          Cube123 19 October 2017 21: 34 New
          +2
          Quote: opus

          for me it's some kind of nonsense ...
          ===
          how does this relate to bistatic radar and delusional

          You just look from the wrong angle wink
          For stealth aircraft, the EPR is optimized only for certain angles. Usually frontal. I can explain this in my opinion. Take the blade of a knife. In frontal observation from the cutting edge, the blade is practically not visible. But at least it is necessary to tilt the blade a little and it becomes many times more noticeable. Now imagine a diagram when the plane is at some height между transmitting and receiving station. In this case, the wings of the aircraft give not diffuse, but specular reflection, which gives the reflected signal several orders of magnitude higher. In the ideal case, of course.
          1. opus
            opus 19 October 2017 22: 14 New
            +1
            Quote: Cube123
            You just look from the wrong angle

            Come on?
            Quote: Cube123
            For stealth aircraft, the EPR is optimized only for certain angles.

            and specific wavelengths
            Quote: Cube123
            on the cutting edge side the blade is actually

            where is the "cutting edge" on the aircraft?
            Quote: Cube123
            The wings of the aircraft in this case give not a diffuse, but a mirror reflection,

            "cube" ... my boom, excuse me, but what are you trying to explain to the K3B (VUS) operator?
        2. Falcon5555
          Falcon5555 20 October 2017 01: 00 New
          +3
          Quote: opus
          for me it's some kind of nonsense ...

          Something you today are unusually self-critical and modest! smile Not like you.
          Weather, or what? - something began to cool ...
          That the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection (relative to the normal, and on the other side of it) - I forgot that this is the "Fresnel law." (Probably a big rascal was this respected sir, just guessed to formulate the obvious as the law. laughing ) And the right law. Everything happens on it.
          1. opus
            opus 20 October 2017 02: 17 New
            +1
            Quote: Falcon5555
            everything about him is happening.

            Not all

            1. the expansion of the spectrum of the beat signal when the DND deviates from the axial direction.
            2. degree of reflection from the underlying surface (if any)
            3. non-coplanar axis of the bottom
            4. and so on.
            and again

            overall
            Quote: Falcon5555
            they will reflect the signal somewhere usually usually for the plane.

            I can’t comprehend this.
            Why "for the plane"?
            and how is that?
            1. Cube123
              Cube123 20 October 2017 06: 34 New
              +2
              Quote: opus
              Quote: Falcon5555
              they will reflect the signal somewhere usually usually for the plane.

              I can’t comprehend this.
              Why "for the plane"?
              and how is that?

              In your picture all drawn.

              Compare the amount of energy that is reflected "back" in the direction of the incident beam (conventional radar), and the amount that receives reception room station, if you place it in the area indicated in the figure "reflection angle" (bistatic radar).
              1. opus
                opus 20 October 2017 14: 05 New
                +1
                Quote: Cube123
                Compare the amount of energy that is reflected back

                1. there is no energy
                2. these pictures for a light wave (akhtung: frequency, length, polarization, front, etc.), and although this is the same EMV, but "Fedot, but not that"
                3. LA (and any object) subjected to radar irradiation is not "flat" and not "mirror"
                Quote: Cube123
                if you place it in the area indicated in the figure "reflection angle" (bistatic radar).

                I imagine situevina
                Kubik123 with its powerful shoulders shouldered, the receiving radar antenna runs through the fields and weights of a happy country and catches the radar signal reflected from the plane, increasing
                Quote: Cube123
                the amount of energy that is reflected "back"

                wassat
                Well, do not smack nonsense.
                the essence is bistatic (or isho better than the polystatic radar station system) ABSOLUTELY OTHER.

                by this
                Quote: Author: Ryabov Cyril

                In the project "String-1" the problem of reducing the power of the reflected signal was solved by diversity receiver and transmitter at a certain distance.

                bullshit.
                Ryabov Kiril (journalist) was a little tense, he was helped by a blogger Charlie Gao from NI and they were on 2x (They wanted IS Mujamur, or whatever) he helped) - overcame the law of inverse squares
                1. Cube123
                  Cube123 20 October 2017 17: 15 New
                  +1
                  Quote: opus
                  Well, do not smack nonsense.
                  the essence is bistatic (or isho better than the polystatic radar station system) ABSOLUTELY OTHER.

                  Well, tell me what. I was interested in this topic smile
                  1. opus
                    opus 20 October 2017 18: 20 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Cube123
                    Well, tell me what. I was interested in this topic

                    I will try ... but so laziness is all this.
                    if thinking-immediately into the article, and so with your fingers to knock, brrrr.
                    I’m not Ryabov Kirill, according to the article a day.
                    after a trip to Indians m.
                2. Falcon5555
                  Falcon5555 21 October 2017 02: 25 New
                  +2
                  Quote: opus
                  Quote: Cube123
                  Compare the amount of energy that is reflected back

                  1. there is no energy
                  2. these pictures for a light wave (akhtung: frequency, length, polarization, front, etc.), and although this is the same EMV, but "Fedot, but not that"

                  How is it not? But what is tolerated by an electromagnetic wave? And what kind of Fedot is this? Landau and Lifshitz from your revelations in their coffins roll over!
                  Well, do not smack bullshit .... bullshit.

                  Now I find out! laughing It can be seen that it has not yet become so cold. laughing
            2. Cube123
              Cube123 20 October 2017 07: 59 New
              +2
              Quote: opus
              Quote: Falcon5555
              they will reflect the signal somewhere usually usually for the plane.

              I can’t comprehend this.
              Why "for the plane"?
              and how is that?

              Now regarding coatings. They also work as "absorbing" and "antireflective" coatings in optics. The easiest way to illustrate their work is by the example of a diffraction grating. For example, a DR consisting of two mirrors shifted by a quarter wavelength. With a "normal" incidence of the beam in the "opposite" direction, the amount of reflected energy is zero (the reflection from one mirror is suppressed by the reflection of another, in the "far zone", of course). But this does not mean that the incident energy disappears. It is simply redistributed over a pile of side lobes. If I correctly understood the idea of ​​a bistatic radar, the idea is that you have one transmitting station and a bunch of receivers, which you put in the directions of the expected side scatter lobes. Those. not only specular reflection but also diffraction scattering works.
              1. Cube123
                Cube123 20 October 2017 09: 24 New
                +1
                For opus
                I remembered where I first came across the mention of distributed radars. True, there they were called "multi-position radars, which are a system of several transmitters and receivers spaced in space (transmitting stations - space or air based, receiving - ground or air)" (p. 381). This app is A.A. Potapova "Fractals and chaos as the basis of breakthrough technologies in modern radio systems" to the book of R. Kronover "Fractals and chaos in dynamic systems" Moscow, Technosphere, 2006
                A few illustrations from there

                Review (p. 383)

                Example of use
                1. Falcon5555
                  Falcon5555 20 October 2017 14: 14 New
                  +3
                  I don’t know, where does the fractals and chaos.
                  1. Cube123
                    Cube123 20 October 2017 17: 10 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Falcon5555
                    I don’t know, where does the fractals and chaos.

                    It may make sense to get acquainted with this application. There are a hundred pages of interesting text and a bibliography of 230 sources. And all this is in the application of fractals and chaos directly to radar. If you do not find it on the Internet, contact me in PM, I will scan from a paper book.
                    1. Falcon5555
                      Falcon5555 21 October 2017 02: 41 New
                      +3
                      Do not see on the Internet. Thanks for the suggestion, but you don’t need to scan it specifically for me. I still have a tight time now to get to know 100 pages and 230 sources, or even just a list of them. smile But, if in a nutshell you would clarify the point here - it would be interesting.
                      1. Cube123
                        Cube123 21 October 2017 12: 37 New
                        +1
                        In a nutshell, it will not work. A lot of information. Therefore, I will simply list the chapters.
                        1. The problem of low-contrast goals and examples of "stealth technologies."
                        2. A synergistic approach to the radiophysical tasks of radar.
                        3. Texture measures and texture signatures.
                        4. Texture signatures of real optical and radar images on millimeter waves.
                        5. Texture measures and texture features at a variety of spatial frequencies.
                        6. Fractal measures and fractal signatures.
                        7. The concept of "fractal" in radar.
                        8. Selected results of the first stage of research on fractal filtering of low-contrast objects.
                        9. Sampling topology and fractal image processing.
                        10. Fractal distribution or Paretians.
                        11. Selected examples of the second stage of research on digital fractal processing of low-contrast images of stealth objects.
                        12. Development of the first reference dictionary of fractal features of target classes and design of a fractal detector of radar signals.
                        13. Strange attractors in the phase space of reflected MMW radar signals.
                        14. The concept of fractal radioelements and fractal radio systems.
                        15. Physical modeling of fractal impedances, fractional operators, and fractal capacitors.
                        16. Methods for constructing fractal signals and fractal methods for transmitting information.
                        17. Fractal processing of medical information.
                        18. On strategic applications of new information technologies.

                        I hope you understand that in a nutshell - no way smile
                      2. Cube123
                        Cube123 21 October 2017 13: 04 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Falcon5555
                        Not to be seen on the Internet ... But, if in a nutshell you would clarify the point here - it would be interesting.

                        That's what I found on the Internet. On "in a nutshell" quite pulls.
                        http://old.lvk.cs.msu.su/files/mco2003/potapov.pd
                        f
                2. opus
                  opus 20 October 2017 14: 16 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Cube123
                  I remembered where I first came across the mention of distributed radars.

                  Come on?
                  1. Multiposition radar systems (MP radar) - with them, in fact, the history of radar began.
                  not some A.A. Potapov invented them described
                  2. And the transition to the model: the emitter-receiver in one bottle is due to:
                  -compactness
                  -cheap cost


                  Quote: Cube123
                  . This app is A.A. Potapova "Fractals and chaos as the basis

                  and here (to the topic) "fractals"?
                  These are image processing methods.
                  Quote: Cube123
                  A few illustrations from there

                  And?
                  how to attach them (images, of which several) to the topic?
                  Quote: opus
                  I imagine situevina
                  Kubik123 with its powerful shoulders shouldered, the receiving radar antenna runs through the fields and weights of a happy country and catches the radar signal reflected from the plane, increasing
                  Quote: Cube123
                  the amount of energy that is reflected "back"
  11. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 18 October 2017 21: 26 New
    0
    In any case, stealth 5th generation aircraft will reduce the detection range of their enemy radar and will make it possible to launch anti-radar missiles ...
    1. lance
      lance 19 October 2017 07: 38 New
      0
      ultimately lose the plane with a limited power source and size
  12. groks
    groks 19 October 2017 16: 48 New
    0
    “The problem of reducing the power of the reflected signal was solved by separating the receiver and transmitter by a certain distance. Due to this, a more powerful signal arrives at the receiver” Ohhh.
    And then it turned out that the “Struna-1” radar station uses the frequency range from 390 to 430 MHz. Perhaps that the Stells band generally has a drum.
    “for the formation of the sounding signal, the Struna-1 / Barrier-E station uses a radio relay station with a power (in normal mode) of no more than 2-3 W” It’s generally not clear what the conversation is about.
  13. ydjin
    ydjin 20 October 2017 11: 29 New
    0
    Nor does he know that we have string transmitters on 50% of buildings from 5 and above floors, and receivers on the remaining 50%! laughing
  14. ydjin
    ydjin 20 October 2017 11: 31 New
    0
    Quote: groks
    “The problem of reducing the power of the reflected signal was solved by separating the receiver and transmitter by a certain distance. Due to this, a more powerful signal arrives at the receiver” Ohhh.
    And then it turned out that the “Struna-1” radar station uses the frequency range from 390 to 430 MHz. Perhaps that the Stells band generally has a drum.
    “for the formation of the sounding signal, the Struna-1 / Barrier-E station uses a radio relay station with a power (in normal mode) of no more than 2-3 W” It’s generally not clear what the conversation is about.

    America taxpayers, give even more money for defense (attack) on the Russian aggressor! wassat
  15. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 21 October 2017 13: 05 New
    +2
    Cube123,
    When I see the word “synergistic”, I immediately suspect whether this is pseudoscience. Moreover, there are also “fractals” and chaos. But let's say it’s not her. However, nevertheless, everything complicated can usually be explained “on the fingers” and simply.
  16. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 21 October 2017 15: 03 New
    +2
    Cube123,
    That's what I found on the Internet. On "in a nutshell" quite pulls.
    http://old.lvk.cs.msu.su/files/mco2003/potapov.pd
    f

    My opinion is pseudoscience.
  17. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 3 November 2019 15: 15 New
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    In the sense: vice versa. F-35 covered the S-200.
    I do not think that they have already begun to be used in shock operations
    There is no such rush. Probably the usual F-16s were fired.



    And, as always from foreign territory, from Lebanon. It’s a pity the Syrians have few S-300 stations, otherwise it was possible to bring them down over Lebanon.