Military Review

The creator of the German radar denies the "invisibility" F-35

79
The German company has created a radar station, whose work has denied the F-35's heavily promoted “invisibility”. True, for this I had to arrange a real hunt for the latest American combat aircraft.




The game "cats - mice"


Hensoldt manufactured a passive radar TwInvis, which fixes the location of aircraft. Due to the fact that radiation does not come from this equipment, it remains hidden to prying eyes, while highlighting objects of interest.

With the help of the new radar, the manufacturer decided to detect the F-35 flight. Moreover, it was a convenient opportunity - two "invisibles" arrived from Arizona at the Berlin Air Show, held in April 2018 of the year. For a more accurate fixation, the radar used the power of signals from Polish FM emitters broadcasting inland to Germany. However, the American fighters did not take to the air at the designated exhibition, but the Eurofighters flying were "caught".

As it turns out, then Hensoldt relocated the radar with a folding antenna (placed in a van or SUV) to a new site located 150 km from Berlin. The equipment was placed among the horses on a pony farm, not far from the airport. As one eyewitness explained, “someone from the Berlin air show appeared and stayed here for two or three days.” At the same time, every step of the F-35 was recorded by "agents" in anticipation of their flight.


TwInvis placement example


Trap for F-35


As soon as the planes were in the air, the radar began tracking them. Data collection was based on signals from ADS-B transponders. The so-called Luneberg lenses are equipped with machines so that their movement can be recorded by ground services. The soaring F-35s were just equipped with them.

However, as the manufacturer assures, the radar is capable of detecting targets regardless of whether radar reflectors are installed on them. According to Hensoldt, a passive radar operates in a different spectrum, which makes the presence (or absence) of these lenses unimportant.

The German military has already appreciated the new creation. The Bundeswehr is currently considering a passive radar created by the company as a technology capable of significantly expanding the combat capabilities of troops, in particular, in the matter of air defense. Last fall, in the south of Germany, large-scale testing of a system that recorded the entire flow of aircraft was carried out.

Moreover, significant adjustments were made to the program for creating a new combat aircraft, in which Germany, France and Spain participate.

The stealth we knew lost its luster

- writes in this regard, the publication c4isrnet.

79 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. pafegosoff
    pafegosoff 30 September 2019 09: 29
    +47
    Who would doubt that? Since 1974 of the year in aviation, I’m tired of listening to fairy tales about the invisible ...
    1. zache
      zache 30 September 2019 09: 36
      -2
      “As soon as the planes were in the air, the radar began tracking them. Data collection was carried out based on signals from ADS-B transponders. The so-called Luneberg lenses are equipped with the cars so that their movements could be recorded by ground services.” The F-35s that took off were just they are equipped.

      However, as the manufacturer assures, the radar is capable of detecting targets regardless of whether they are equipped with radar reflectors. "
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Next, you can no longer read.
      1. Pete mitchell
        Pete mitchell 30 September 2019 10: 27
        +9
        Quote: zaches
        Next, you can no longer read
        I completely agree with you: here either the translation is incorrect or the author does not understand what he is writing about. Lunenberg lenses are installed to increase the EPR, play a role in primary radar: the radar emits and receives the reflected signal, processes ... Transponders work with radars of the secondary location: the radar requested, the transponder replied, the main application in the civilian sector. Probably just an incorrect translation.
        But seriously, last year one programmer wrote on his knee a program for tracking military aircraft, including stealth cars: they often fly without sending flight plans, but with transponders turned on: they did not respond to civilian radars, but interacted with transponders of other aircraft / tcas worked, for breeding smoles in case of a dangerous approach, it is mandatory, of course not used when maintaining a database / so, according to information received from other aircraft, he perked up to receive data on flights of stealths, and of other military aircraft.
        1. Cube123
          Cube123 30 September 2019 10: 52
          +16
          Quote: Pete Mitchell
          Quote: zaches
          Next, you can no longer read
          I completely agree with you: here either the translation is incorrect or the author does not understand what he is writing about.

          Or you do not understand what the author writes about.

          "For a more accurate fixation, the radar used the power of the signals from Polish FM emitters, broadcasting deep into Germany."


          This is a purely passive system that uses signals (possibly civilian TVs and radio transmitters) to search for reflections in the upper hemisphere. Given the power of such transmitters - a very real task. The second plus is the use of mirror reflection of the plane down. For transmitter and receiver spaced in space.

          "According to Hensoldt, the passive radar is

          In this way, you cannot get the exact coordinate, but to fix the presence of the aircraft within the horizon and the direction to it is quite.
          1. Cube123
            Cube123 30 September 2019 11: 12
            +6
            https://studfiles.net/preview/2806470/page:3/
            "3. The main methods of radar."

            "With active radar with an active response (Fig. 1.6, b), it is assumed that there is a transponder (repeater) on the object, which consists of a receiving device designed to receive and amplify a direct signal from a radar interrogator, and a transmitting device to create a response signal (re-emission).
            With passive radar the target itself is a source of electromagnetic radiation, and the radar performs the functions of a receiving device designed to determine the direction to this source (Fig. 1.6, c). "

            "Diversity radar system - a kind of radar for passive targets. Its characteristic feature: the transmitting and receiving devices are separated by a considerable distance. In fig. 1.6, d shows a functional diagram of an active radar diversity system, in which the transmitting device belongs to the ground station, and the receiving "

            "Active radar, in contrast to passive, allows you to determine all the coordinates of the target (not only the direction to it). The advantage of the passive system is the hidden nature of the location (there is no radiation from the radar)."
          2. Pete mitchell
            Pete mitchell 30 September 2019 11: 30
            +2
            I still wildly apologize, but the comment was related to a specific review. The rest I agree with you: exactly spaced location or bi-radar systems are the easiest threat to any stealth. In passive systems, they were called by female names, the Czechs progressed very well at the time, as I don’t know now. Have a nice day
      2. Letun
        Letun 30 September 2019 11: 27
        -2
        Quote: zaches
        Next, you can no longer read.

        Yes, in general, some kind of nonsense. A passive radar tracking the target using two Polish FM radio stations and a transponder mounted on the F-35, but can do it even without them ... We checked last year on the field where some ponies grazed ... Crazy crazy.
      3. venik
        venik 30 September 2019 15: 51
        +5
        Quote: zaches
        Next, you can no longer read.

        ========
        "...Hensoldt manufactured passive radar TwInvis which fixes the location of aircraft. Due to the fact that this equipment does not emit radiation, it remains hidden to prying eyes, while highlighting objects of interest... ... "
        -----------
        Lord, Save and Have Mercy! "What place" do the moderators think ??? fool In those prehistoric times, when he served as a "conscript" as the commander of the crew - THIS was called RTR (Radio-Technical Intelligence !!!) ....
    2. edeligor
      edeligor 30 September 2019 09: 37
      +8
      I agree. When I was studying at a university, back in the late 80s, detection tools were already being calculated. Are scientists from the country of mattresses still blindly believing in their technology? It’s ridiculous.
      1. bk316
        bk316 30 September 2019 10: 11
        +8
        Are scientists from the country of mattresses still blindly believing in their technology?

        Yes, where do the scientists? marketers talk about invisibility. Or do you want to tell the truth in advertising? like wash your hair with our shampoo or not ours anyway bald? no so it doesn't work .....
      2. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 30 September 2019 10: 16
        +4
        Quote: edeligor
        I agree. When I was studying at a university, back in the late 80s, detection tools were already being calculated. Are scientists from the country of mattresses still blindly believing in their technology? Funny

        Perhaps this is a "shadow station". It tracks the shadow of an airplane against the background of radio waves reflected from the ionosphere. The signal is very weak, a lot of interference - but artificial intelligence works wonders ... There is a hint of this in the article. They used signals from Polish radio stations aimed at Germany ...
    3. TARSUS
      TARSUS 30 September 2019 10: 47
      +5
      I’ve been in aviation since 2012, but even before that date I knew that invisibility does not exist, but there is technology of low visibility. Does your SU-57 flying shed, and not just American counterparts, come out of your words?
    4. Vol4ara
      Vol4ara 30 September 2019 10: 58
      +2
      Quote: pafegosoff
      Who would doubt that? Since 1974 of the year in aviation, I’m tired of listening to fairy tales about the invisible ...

      You can’t imagine how tired I am of listening to them, dumb journalists just tryndyat that about invisibility, when the developers declared stealth. From what distance did this radar spot the plane? With 3 km? they didn’t write about the most important thing ... It must be because with 4 he would already be offended to look for him, while noting the eurofighter from 30, for example
    5. Pivot
      Pivot 30 September 2019 13: 13
      +1
      Well, I think the State Department will impose sanctions on the manufacturer of these radars.
    6. NEXUS
      NEXUS 30 September 2019 15: 17
      +3
      Quote: pafegosoff
      Who would doubt that? Since 1974 of the year in aviation, I’m tired of listening to fairy tales about the invisible ...

      I believe this passive radar is something like an OLS. At SU-57, it seems like they are testing the new OLS -50M. And I suspect that she is up to the lantern with these Luneberg lenses, passion for stealth (stealth)
      etc...
  2. Livonetc
    Livonetc 30 September 2019 09: 30
    +4
    And you are Hans!
    First Russian and Chinese, and now !?
    Knife in the back?
    The reaction of the exceptional will be interesting.
  3. Stalllker
    Stalllker 30 September 2019 09: 33
    -3
    Turned off the transponder and the radar went blind. What is the principle of children's watches and applications Where is the child laughing
  4. Yrec
    Yrec 30 September 2019 09: 36
    +4
    Well, what is the detection range of such a "radar"? 10-15 km? The F-35 is visible in both optical and infrared ranges. This is hardly news. Well, if the F-35 turns on its radar, then anyone will see it by radiation.
  5. anjey
    anjey 30 September 2019 09: 38
    +5
    Yes, not for business, the Germans want to ruin one of the best American "military business projects", where potential consumers of this product are attracted, debunking the myth in action, no one likes when their heads are fooled laughing
  6. gabonskijfront
    gabonskijfront 30 September 2019 09: 41
    +3
    The eternal struggle of the sword and armor, goes into the struggle of the cap of invisibility and the all-seeing eye, this is the postmodernism of the Lord.
  7. Nycomed
    Nycomed 30 September 2019 09: 42
    +7
    Poor F-35 who just did not trample on it ... feel
    1. Vladimir16
      Vladimir16 30 September 2019 12: 07
      -1
      It really looks like a piece of shit. He came by chance and it stinks. lol
      But mattresses sell it to dozens of regimes. good
      Marketers work their bread one hundred percent. wink
      Americans dubbed the dough and do not blow a mustache. laughing
      1. Nycomed
        Nycomed 30 September 2019 12: 16
        +5
        Apparently, what in recent years is written on VO about the F-35, then only the Wright brothers' airplane is more primitive than this plane.
        1. Chaldon48
          Chaldon48 1 October 2019 06: 06
          0
          Previously, Mozhaisky’s plane still appeared.
          1. Nycomed
            Nycomed 1 October 2019 17: 53
            0
            Before what? And if you are talking about Mozhaisky, then it would be more correct: sketches were found, very similar to drawings and part of the correspondence of A.F. Mozhaisky with the military departments. That is all we know about Mozhaisky's "plane" today.
  8. rocket757
    rocket757 30 September 2019 09: 42
    +5
    The question is, what will remain of the advantages of the "penguin" in the absence of a full-fledged network support structure for it, and the emergence of a network structure of airspace control from its opponents ???
    It seems he will not fly there !!! because ........
  9. Forest
    Forest 30 September 2019 10: 18
    +1
    No, he is "invisible", let them sell more to allies)
  10. Operator
    Operator 30 September 2019 10: 38
    +9
    Passive radar works by receiving radiation generated by radio and television stations, base cell towers, and other radars. In wartime, these are disposable protozoa.

    To determine the coordinates of the target, you need at least two receiving antennas, and preferably three or more. Accordingly, the system is called bistatic or multistatic radar. In Russia and abroad, in large megalopolises and suburbs with a dense coverage of cellular communications, multi-static passive radars with one receivers on 9 base cellular towers have already been deployed. These systems detect any flying object up to small UAVs.

    In the future, multistatic receivers (requiring little power consumption) are supposed to be installed on UAVs and connected into a single system using narrowly directed radio channels with a ground station equipped with high-performance computers.

    After that, the bat will not slip to the protected air defense facility (metropolis, military base, oil refinery, etc.) laughing
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 30 September 2019 12: 39
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      Accordingly, the system is called bistatic or multistatic radar.

      There is another "term", it is possible that invented by journalists ...: "French radar".
      Quote: Operator
      In Russia, in large megacities and suburbs with a dense coverage of cellular communications, multistatic passive radars have already been deployed ...

      Yes ... there were reports of similar tests in due time. But about the ones that were deployed ... I don’t know, I don’t know ... Messages were mainly about "experimental activities" in order to confirm the real possibility of a wide application of such a method ... Then, such messages somehow "died down". It seems that the message "flashed somewhere" that during the tests it was not possible to achieve acceptable accuracy for practical use ... and interest in the method waned.
      1. Operator
        Operator 30 September 2019 12: 47
        +2
        The method is used to control airspace, including over the Kremlin and other government facilities, and therefore there is no hype on the Internet.
  11. parkello
    parkello 30 September 2019 11: 05
    +1
    in short, Fritz said you can paint your fu-35s white and red and throw them in a landfill. because unpainted even for landfills are not suitable
  12. Alexzn
    Alexzn 30 September 2019 11: 10
    +8
    I wonder how the media replaced the issue of difficulty knocking down on the difficulty of detecting. Aircraft can be detected by modern advanced (and not only) air defense systems, does this mean that shooting down is as simple as detecting it? Of course not! If the backlight radars work in an active mode, then they themselves will become a target, without backlighting, the question arises of the ability of missiles to capture a target with a low reflective surface and the significant ability of radio-electronic countermeasures.
    Well, as usual, cognitive dissonance - the same people write about the stupidity of stealth technologies and admire the Su-57 in which these technologies are trying to implement ...
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 30 September 2019 11: 56
      0
      Quote: AlexZN
      I wonder how the media replaced the issue of difficulty knocking down on the difficulty of detecting.

      But nobody does modern, advanced missiles?
      Target designation is, as soon as the target is found .... let the missile into the effective capture zone of the GOS and that's it.
      Only to "wag" the more actively, the more efficiently or to skiddle around with all the tricks, protection ... nothing fundamentally new has been invented, has not been established.
      1. Alexzn
        Alexzn 30 September 2019 14: 25
        +2
        The capabilities of the GOS and the stationary radar are two big differences. Any method of target designation makes the target designation target. Well, advanced missiles appear against advanced aircraft and vice versa. If you think that high maneuverability is better than low visibility, then your right. The ratio of possible overloads for a rocket and a manned aircraft is very different and not in favor of the maneuverability of the aircraft ...
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 30 September 2019 14: 52
          +1
          Stealth (and not INVISIBILITY), interaction with network structures of intelligence, control, organization of the combat process ... yes, I’m only FOR! This is an indicator of modernity, the perfection of the technical base and everything else, anyone!
          True, the high flight performance of aircraft will not be superfluous!
          It turns out that I am for the COMPREHENSIVE approach! That's all.
          The confrontation of well-equipped rivals is a competition of the most advanced science, technological and economic power .....
  13. Karabas
    Karabas 30 September 2019 11: 15
    +2
    A passive radar operates in a different spectrum,

    Over the entire spectrum of radio waves, they still do not have enough to monitor to see the skill. smile
  14. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 30 September 2019 11: 16
    +3
    Not "invisibility", but stealth. This is precisely what the American and Chinese and our designers are fighting for. And this is fundamentally important for argumentation on the forums. Everything must be clearly defined - from this and start criticizing or praising the weapon.
    In addition, the goal is little to notice. It is necessary that the rocket is aimed and met with the target. And they are going to actively interfere with this, both by the very design of the aircraft, and by the means of RE-protection.
    Lenses and transponders? And the pilot didn’t cut the music at full volume, so that he would certainly be able to detect himself with sound reconnaissance?
  15. ZVS
    ZVS 30 September 2019 11: 36
    +1
    In a word, a pure experiment did not happen; without lenses, the plane could not be detected. Therefore, all the declarations of the designers are one blah blah.
    To declare the capabilities of this complex, it is necessary to conduct tests and not one. with tracking an airplane flying without Luneberg lenses.
    1. Operator
      Operator 30 September 2019 12: 37
      0
      Multistatic radar works by radio shadow when an air target is between the transmitter and the receiver, shielding a direct signal from the first to the second. Therefore, the multistatics absolutely violet value of the EPR of the air target - at least an absolute zero.
      1. ZVS
        ZVS 30 September 2019 16: 24
        0
        I don’t want to argue with you, but apparently the article is not about multistatic radar, but about the effect of the reflected signal of another station, for example, ShVRS. Well, how can an object obscure a signal from a station to a station located on the ground if this object is in the air?
        1. Operator
          Operator 30 September 2019 16: 33
          +1
          You are right - bistatics work on reflected radiation, but I talked about multistatics with both transmitters and radiation receivers raised to the towers (in the future, UAVs). The last method of detecting stealth by their radio shadow was presented at a scientific conference at the beginning of the 1990, with the participation of the author of the mathematical algorithm for designing a faceted stealth glider of the aircraft Peter Ufimtsev (if I am not mistaken), and it was implemented just a year or two ago - too large in hardware - software resources had to be used to get a reliable 3D picture of the air situation in the controlled area.
          1. ZVS
            ZVS 1 October 2019 10: 45
            0
            What you are talking about is a dead end project from all points of view. And one caveat, doesn’t defraction of radio waves exist and they are not able to go around an object?
            1. Operator
              Operator 1 October 2019 10: 57
              +1
              Diffraction of radio waves occurs when their length is longer than the length of the object - cellular communication is supported in the range from 33 to 12 cm. The prospective 5g network has a range of up to 1 centimeters and cell sizes up to 100 meters.

              Those. from the point of view of the radiation receiver located on the UAV at an altitude of 6 km, the 5g base stations look like one large planar radiator. Any air target against its background has not only its own shadow, but also a characteristic radio signature from flapping wings of birds or carriers, pulling and pushing UAV propellers.
              1. ZVS
                ZVS 1 October 2019 13: 50
                0
                How long are you going to keep a mass of UAVs in the air to detect an object? At what distance will the UAV be from the passive locator?
                Believe that this idea has no practical application, since the enemy radiates all radiating objects like nuts.
                1. Operator
                  Operator 1 October 2019 14: 05
                  0
                  The standard time for the 1-3 ton UAV with ICE to barrage is 24 hours.
                  The drift barrage height of UAVs equipped with a cellular range radiation receiver, a computational module, and a highly directional antenna of a data radio transmitter is 6 km.
                  The number of UAVs for monitoring the air situation at altitudes from 3 km to 3 meters above urban development can be estimated as one vehicle at 10х10 km.

                  For Moscow, within the MKAD, this is 10 UAV in the air, plus 10 UAV on the ground for substitution.
                  1. ZVS
                    ZVS 4 October 2019 14: 11
                    0
                    There is in aviation, and UAVs, I think you will agree with me, applies to aviation, certain types of work on aircraft, which will need to be carried out. This includes preliminary preparation, park days, various types of regulations, and ultimately overhaul upon the expiration of the assigned resource. This means that this amount must be increased at least threefold. Yes, and only the circumference of the Moscow Ring Road 108 km. But you won’t place it above it, you need to take the UAV to such a distance that the enemy’s strike aircraft will be determined, but it will not be at the strike distance. It means that you will need to carry out these emitters at least 100 km from Moscow.
                    Now another question: why exactly around Moscow? I would place around large industrial centers that provide for the transformation of production in the military, which Moscow has not been for a long time (center).
                    So all of your "backlights" can be perfectly replaced by a pair of radars adapted for this task (this is only near the borders of Moscow. And it is cheaper, and there is no such hemorrhoids with the number of systems and finances.
                  2. ZVS
                    ZVS 10 October 2019 13: 54
                    0
                    Here is what I told you on October 4, https://topwar.ru/163398-rosteh-razrabotal-novuju-rls-sposobnuju-obnaruzhivat-malorazmernye-drony.html
  16. askort154
    askort154 30 September 2019 12: 02
    0
    Simple logic. If the F-35 was actually "invisible", the Americans would not sell it left and right. Yes, it has stealth, but with the rapid development of modern means of detection and protection, stealth loses its relevance. Therefore, we are in no hurry to rivet the Su-57 in hundreds. The Americans hurried, riveted a lot, now they force all their vassals. And in 20 years, it will be an ordinary "air-iron",
    which will be visible from the moment of take-off from the airfield.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 1 October 2019 11: 27
      -4
      "Americans wouldn't sell it left and right." ////
      ----
      First of all, they saturate their own Air Force, and only then the Allies.
      Now the formation of the 8th F-35A squadron for the US Air Force,
      the second F-35C squadron for the US Navy and the 5th F-35B squadron
      for the Marine Corps.
  17. vadimtt
    vadimtt 30 September 2019 12: 27
    0
    Here's how. And I thought that a full-fledged bistatic was still only in laboratories. And then they rolled out to the "fields" good
  18. akarfoxhound
    akarfoxhound 30 September 2019 12: 28
    0
    All stealth revolved around modern DC range stations. However, our old Soviet tube "meter" P-18s can see them perfectly. Worse in range than "normal" aircraft, but they can see. Surprise, however ... wassat
  19. Old26
    Old26 30 September 2019 13: 06
    +4
    Quote: pafegosoff
    Who would doubt that? Since 1974 of the year in aviation, I’m tired of listening to fairy tales about the invisible ...

    It's just that the West is always "blowing in the ears" that "stealth" means invisibility. In reality, stealth has always been and remains an "unobtrusive" aircraft. That is, if an ordinary one could be detected, for example, from a distance of 500 km, then "stealth" - from a distance of 150-200 km. And the longer the radar wavelength, the better this plane is seen. It is not without reason that our old VHF radars can perfectly see this type of aircraft. While millimeter and centimeter western radars may not see
    1. Operator
      Operator 30 September 2019 13: 25
      +2
      Reducing the RCS by an order of magnitude reduces the radar detection range by about half - for example, the Su-35 with RCS of 10 square meters is detected at a distance of 500 km, the Rafal with RCS of 1 square meters - at a distance of 250 km, F-35 with RCS 0,3 m175 - XNUMX km.

      In the meter range, the reduction in detection range is less, with the exception of the F-117 (retired) with a faceted glider and 0,017 square EPR - the S-125 sight radar of the meter range with the illumination from the lower hemisphere was able to detect the F-117 at a distance of 30 km .
      1. Something
        Something 30 September 2019 15: 32
        0
        Take as an example more real data - a fighter with an image intensifier tube = 1 m2 MiG-35 is found at a distance of D = 400 km in free space (radar N036 "Belka"), then "stealth" with an image intensifier tube = 0,3 m2 (F-22 , F-35) will be detected at a distance of D = 296 km in free space.
        1. Operator
          Operator 30 September 2019 15: 36
          +2
          Quote: Something
          Image intensifier = 1 m2 Mig-35

          Where can you read about this achievement of RSK MiG?
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 1 October 2019 11: 31
        -5
        F-35 with an EPR of 0,3 sq.m - 175 km.
        -----
        But since the EPR F-35 is 0.001 m2, we divide (roughly) 175 into two and once again into two.
        Somewhere 30-35 km. So it is - your estimate is correct.
        1. Something
          Something 1 October 2019 14: 29
          +1
          voyaka uh (Alexey), illiteracy is there! Lockheed Martin stupid advertising data to yourself. Finally, learn to understand the EOP (EPR) and feel the difference between the average value and the minimum. As always, write the same thing without understanding. And learn to count for a start, strategist. The difference is not in 2 times, And in 1,7783 times.
    2. Avior
      Avior 30 September 2019 16: 52
      0
      The transition to the meter range from a decimeter EPR of a fighter type target increases three times without taking into account the stealth coverage.
      1. Something
        Something 4 October 2019 09: 05
        +1
        Avior (Sergey), you are mistaken ... When you switch to the meter range from the decimeter range, the target detection range increases from 3,16 ... up to 10 times, which is equivalent to increasing the target’s image intensifier 100 times to 10000 times without taking into account stealth coverage.
        1. Avior
          Avior 4 October 2019 09: 31
          0
          at home on a computer somewhere is a textbook for P-18 operators.
          for a target like a fighter, 3 times, a bomber 2 times, for cruise missiles, dozens of times.
          due to geometric dimensions - in order for the EPR to increase, the sizes of the elements must be much larger than the wavelength
          1. Something
            Something 4 October 2019 11: 55
            +1
            Avior (Sergey), take the formula for radar and calculate ...
            1. Something
              Something 4 October 2019 12: 16
              +1
              Avior (Sergey), it will be right in two ways - it doesn’t interfere with one another, recalculating the distance from the wavelength and increasing the image intensifier from resonance phenomena when reflected from the target glider.
              1. Avior
                Avior 4 October 2019 13: 13
                0
                I get home at home to the computer - I will give a tablet and a textbook.
              2. Avior
                Avior 4 October 2019 14: 40
                +1

                Somewhere like that.
                This does not include stealth coverage for different types of purposes.
                For purposes such as a fighter, as we see in the example of F-15, EPR increases three times.
            2. Avior
              Avior 4 October 2019 13: 11
              0
              You can’t count so.
    3. Town Hall
      Town Hall 1 October 2019 19: 39
      -2
      Quote: Old26
      No wonder our old radars

      It is rather strange to read such a "nonsense" from such a technically prepared and not urapatriotic comrade
      1. Something
        Something 2 October 2019 12: 08
        0
        Town Hall (Town Hall), you can disagree with Stary26 on some of his judgments.
        Quote: Old26

        And the longer the dyne of the radar wave, the better this plane can be seen. It is not for nothing that our old meter radars perfectly see aircraft of this type.

        But here he is apparently right.
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 2 October 2019 13: 08
          -1
          Quote: Something
          And the longer the dyne of the radar wave, the better this plane can be seen. It is not for nothing that our old meter radars perfectly see aircraft of this type.

          But here he is apparently right.

          Not really. The meter range radar is not able to localize the coordinates of the aircraft, it cannot give out the type of target, nor the altitude, nor the speed, nor the direction of movement. .Not to accompany and issue target designation .. The only thing that it can - that in a certain direction there is something and inform other radars that can calculate all these parameters. It is a pity that they can only work in the range of "small" waves - decimeter, centimeter, millimeter. In which the stealth aircraft is "invisible". Therefore, the practical value of meter radars against stealth is near-zero
          1. Something
            Something 2 October 2019 15: 05
            0
            Quote: Town Hall
            It is a pity that they can do this only by working in the range of "small" waves - decimeter, centimeter, millimeter. In which the stealth aircraft is "invisible".

            Stealth is not invisible, but less visible. Radar stations of decimeter, centimeter, millimeter ones "see" it well, but at a closer distance. Staryy26 spoke specifically about target detection (they see) and did not mean target designation and precise determination of coordinates. Therefore, in his expression, he is right. Do not think - nothing personal between us.
    4. Avior
      Avior 4 October 2019 13: 14
      0
      The radar wavelength does not depend much on nationality. From the appointment of the radar is another matter.
  20. Avior
    Avior 30 September 2019 13: 08
    -1
    However, the American fighters did not take to the air at the designated exhibition, but the Eurofighters flying were "caught".

    Interestingly, the anonymous author himself read his creation?
    It turns out that it was allegedly possible to determine the flights of the Eurofighter.
    But the article for some reason about f-35
  21. Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 30 September 2019 13: 53
    0
    The German company has created a radar station, whose work has denied the F-35's heavily promoted “invisibility”.

    Oh socks ...
    Nobody ever said Lightning was "invisible." Subtle - yes.

    As soon as the planes were in the air, the radar began tracking them. Data collection was based on signals from ADS-B transponders.

    Oh, wei ...

    However, as the manufacturer assures, the radar is capable of detecting targets regardless of whether radar reflectors are installed on them.

    Pff, just that the detection range will fall, like on any radar. And so yes, finally sideways.

    Either the Germans are flirting, or ...
  22. NF68
    NF68 30 September 2019 14: 39
    +2
    Now the Americans will blacklist this company. It is so necessary to spoil the hegemon.
  23. didra
    didra 30 September 2019 16: 16
    +2
    I, not a military man, am surprised that for three years during which I read comments from time to time, not a single commentator noticed the obvious: F-35s are sold to all allies not in order to earn money, but in order to win the race for leadership in the world. Each country prepares pilots, builds infrastructure, etc. All this not only offloads the US budget but prepares a mob for them. resource. It is clear even to me that the F-35 is an iron. But thousands of irons, which have a single control and which are difficult to visit, in combination with the fleet and missile launchers along our borders .... This is a tool of pressure above all. And given our obsessive love of self-empowerment ... We need to wait until the citizens boil, add a little civic activity and just wait. Presses outside, presses from the inside - maybe somewhere and push. These are cowboys:
  24. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 30 September 2019 16: 37
    0
    We have long had Struna-1, which these stealth captures, with or without lenses ... One storyteller from Haifa claims that the EPR of Fu-35 = 0, 00001 sq. meter ...
  25. Mentat
    Mentat 30 September 2019 18: 46
    0
    Quote: AlexZN
    Well, as usual, cognitive dissonance - the same people write about the stupidity of stealth technologies and admire the Su-57 in which these technologies are trying to implement ...

    Su-57 is not admired because of the "invisibility", obviously. Dissonance is only in your propaganda efforts.

    My friend, Russia is not “trying to implement”, the theory of low radar signature was developed in the USSR, the USA stole it, but did not develop it. So we are very well aware of everything. Good is already a blizzard of revenge.
  26. Operator
    Operator 1 October 2019 11: 57
    -1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    EPR F-35 0.001 m2

    You are clearly overheating at the celebration of the Jewish New Year in your Haifa laughing
  27. Operator
    Operator 1 October 2019 14: 50
    -1
    Quote: Something
    learn to count for a start

    It’s not relevant for them to learn to count; after their German publication, it burns with a clear flame laughing
  28. Operator
    Operator 14 October 2019 10: 55
    +9
    Quote: SU
    But you won’t place it above it, you need to take the UAV to such a distance that the enemy’s strike aircraft will be determined, but it will not be at the strike distance

    Regarding multistatic radar using small UAVs with an on-board radio receiver, we can talk exclusively about radio-shadow detection of air targets directly over the territory covered by a dense cellular network - i.e. over city building.

    The detection of air targets on approaches to urban development should be done in the good old fashion - using large-sized UAVs with an on-board radar of the meter range.