What happens to passive radar when all the transmitters are shutdown or jammed?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Then I guess it really is passive
Then I guess it really is passive
Except then there would be no signals for it do it's magic calculations.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
That's what I meant; passive as in like a papper wieght.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
I've been know to have those moments myself occasionally..............although I'm sure there are those that would question the occasionally part
I got to see an F-35 at the St. Louis airshow a few weeks ago. Gotta say she is one ugly looking beast. 
That 22 though...
That 22 though...
- Thread starter
- #1,489
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Vermont ANG just got some .... folks in Burlington think they're LOUD, I've read
- Thread starter
- #1,491
I've heard a ton of f-16s,some f-15s taking off. F-35 seemed about the same to me..Vermont ANG just got some .... folks in Burlington think they're LOUD, I've read
To me something just seems off, unlike the 22 which seems beautiful.
- Thread starter
- #1,493
Kinda like a P-47 to a P-51
How does this sound to you?
The shape and placement of the vertical tails detract from what appears to already be a short coupled airplane.
Could be...
I was at a used car lot in Williston when the first pair hit the break overhead for Rwy 33 at KBTV. LOUD, no kidding! And that was with no afterburner action. Don't know if it's the thrust vectoring feature or the IR image suppression bit, but the tailpipe has a piercing, high pitched, torchy sound to it reminiscent of short pipe straight turbojet engines like the pre-fan 707s and DC8s. Anybody remember those? The general public has certainly forgotten. They've been lulled by three decades of F16s tippy toeing around. It's been 32 years since the F4s went away and an entire generation has grown up with no frame of reference for LOUD.Vermont ANG just got some .... folks in Burlington think they're LOUD, I've read
I think we dinosaurs who've sacrificed most of our high frequency hearing to the song of the sky might find F35s less annoying than those with sharper ears would. I suspect the irritating, jaw clenching nature of the sound might make the perceived loudness of it greater than the actual decibel count would indicate, thus rendering all those carefully contrived "noise footprint" maps moot.
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
Token
Senior Airman
Think about that just a second. A jammed transmitter does not matter, since the jammer is now an illumination source.
Passive radar is simply a bistatic radar application using separated and possibly non-cooperative transmitters to illuminate the target.
Bistatic has an obvious advantage when dealing with stealth technologies. Stealth is not a Klingon Cloaking device, it does not make any aircraft invisible and there is no one thing it does. Instead it is the fusion of many different functions to reduce or control the reflected energy from a platform. At the most basic level you reduce the reflections as much as you can, and then you redirect the remaining reflections in any direction but back towards the source. But, if the tracking system, passive radar, transmitter and receivers are not in the same directions (from the protected platform) then this is much harder to do.
So you can shut down the transmitters used. They can, of course, be hard killed. They might be reduced in capability by soft kills if you hit the infrastructure. But, if you have jammers active for any reason then your own jammers, on other aircraft / platforms, have just become illuminators for possible passive radar exploitation. Or your own AWACS, sweeping the airspace to maintain control of the battle space might be providing the illumination needed.
Passive radar, optimized to use non-cooperative sources, is a hard nut to crack.
T!
buffnut453
Captain
Agreed....although passive bistatic systems depend on those non-cooperative sources which may not be in the right place at the right time to provide the necessary inputs. That's a risky proposition. Also, getting a firing solution using bistatic systems is incredibly challenging. Yes, you can vector an aircraft into the area but the aircraft must still acquire the LO platform, and do that without being shot down itself. This may be tricky depending on the scenario given airspace control and GBAD free-fire limitations.
It doesn't matter if an adversary can see you if they can't get a good enough solution to engage weapons. In such cases, all the adversary can do is watch while you conduct your operations.
- Thread starter
- #1,499
F35 does not have thrust vectoring,,,,F22 does
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Actually, the F-35 does have it too.
