German radar vendor says it tracked the F-35 jet in 2018

jetblast16 · by **jetblast16** » 30 Sep 2019, 13:45

https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoint/s ... pony-farm/

[Radar in Question]
https://www.hensoldt.net/fileadmin/hens ... review.pdf

garrya · by **garrya** » 30 Sep 2019, 13:59

Little help In case the brochure get deleted

It basically a multi static radar which use civilian TV stations as transmitter.
On one hand, location of civilian TV or radio stations are well known. On the other hand, intentionally attack civilian infrastructure is war crime. Smart designer.

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 30 Sep 2019, 14:03

This is one of the many reasons why powerful radio and TV transmitters are high in the target list in any conflict. Passive radar can very possibly give ability to track even VLO stealth aircraft, but they have very many drawbacks and limitations that they are not really changing anything.

gc · by gc » 30 Sep 2019, 14:35

How susceptible are they to barrage or other forms of jamming? Isn’t the EC-130J Commando Solo designed to take over tv and radio transmissions that these towers are operating on?

The US equivalent: https://insidedefense.com/insider/army- ... or-theater

pmi · by **pmi** » 30 Sep 2019, 14:44

garrya wrote:It basically a multi static radar which use civilian TV stations as transmitter.
On one hand, location of civilian TV or radio stations are well known. On the other hand, intentionally attack civilian infrastructure is war crime. Smart designer.

If they are being used for military purposes then they are a legitimate target.

Said 'smart designer' has opened the door for the destruction of all TV transmitters in countries that use the system.

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 30 Sep 2019, 14:55

But at what range?
Any radar can detect VLO aircraft, but its usually at very close ranges

Since modern VLO aircraft are designed to focus radar waves and return them through a specific angle, wouldn't that mean that the VLO aircraft will be nearly impossible to track since it is moving

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 30 Sep 2019, 15:06

garrya wrote: On the other hand, intentionally attack civilian infrastructure is war crime.

Bull$hit.

krorvik · by **krorvik** » 30 Sep 2019, 15:46

David Cenciotti claims the F-35 had Luneberg lenses, and was transmitting ADS-B. Which means I could find it too...

https://twitter.com/cencio4/status/1178644572936790016

juretrn · by **juretrn** » 30 Sep 2019, 16:05

F-35 arrives at ILA 2018 by Luke AFB
https://www.luke.af.mil/News/Article-Di ... la-berlin/

Congrats guys, you tracked a Luni'd F-35 :doh:

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 30 Sep 2019, 16:58

Of course it tracked!
All that that's needed is that the F-35 had its transponder/IFF mode 3/A turned ON which I'm sure it did since it was flying over civilian air space and was not flying in a military mission.
Just like it happens with all and every other aircraft, BTW.

Bottom line:
- A two-in-one BS and publicity stunt! :roll:

swiss · by **swiss** » 30 Sep 2019, 20:36

hornetfinn wrote:This is one of the many reasons why powerful radio and TV transmitters are high in the target list in any conflict. Passive radar can very possibly give ability to track even VLO stealth aircraft, but they have very many drawbacks and limitations that they are not really changing anything.

Would interesting to now more about passive radars systems. What are exactly the pro cons of this systems?

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 01 Oct 2019, 02:15

The typical "pro" is that the antennas, receivers and processors are COTS and cheap since the illuminators
of opportunity are typically digital television transmitters. Being a wide bandwidth,
structured, digital waveform DTV has good resolution and can be demodulated and exploited to help in
cancelling multipath amongst other nice things.

But that's also a "con" since it's fairly easy for an adversary to build a deception jammer because
you have COTS antennas, receivers and a structured (and predictable) waveform.

That's why you tend to see a cadence for passive radar systems:

a. A new waveform becomes popular like DTV or GPS or 3GSM.
b. New passive radar systems that exploit those waveforms get developed and promoted.
c. Someone shows up with a cheap deception jammer
d. The passive radar community goes off hunting for the next "ideal" waveform (goto a)

nathan77 · by **nathan77** » 01 Oct 2019, 07:54

garrya wrote:On the other hand, intentionally attack civilian infrastructure is war crime.

Not at all - during Operation Desert Fox television and radio transmitters were taken out early:

"More than a dozen eavesdropping and jamming units, telephone exchanges, and radio and television transmitters were attacked in Baghdad, Basra and the south, Abu Ghraib, Rashidiya (just north of the capital) and Tikrit. Part of the goal of disrupting telephone and television service was to impede military communications and undermine Iraqi propaganda efforts. But attacking secret police archives and intelligence stations also has the purpose of disrupting Baghdad's ability to monitor the internal situation."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/i ... alysis.htm

hythelday · by **hythelday** » 01 Oct 2019, 08:09

Just like Eurofighters that could "track B-2 tens of miles away" with IRST, this is the case when they knew what, where and most importantly when to look for.

Maybe at some point low frequency and multistatic radars will reach the point where they "make stealth obsolete", but the reality is that neither F-22 nor F-35 are one trick ponies. Along with EA, decoys, superior SA, VLO is yet another ace up their sleeve, something eurocanards don't have. The next step would be to roll out hard kill self-defence lasers, just to be sure in the year 2060+.

What really is going to do stealth in is something much more exotic, like LiDAR micro sat constellation. However I think that until RF seekers/illuminators are used at any stage on kill chain, RF VLO shall stay highly relevant.

garrya wrote: On the other hand, intentionally attack civilian infrastructure is war crime.

It really is not.

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 01 Oct 2019, 08:14

nathan77 wrote:
garrya wrote:On the other hand, intentionally attack civilian infrastructure is war crime.

Not at all - during Operation Desert Fox television and radio transmitters were taken out early:

Very true. Just like bridges, roads, airfields, power stations, electrical substations, maritime ports etc. are civilian infrastructure but are usually major targets in any armed conflict. This is because they are also important for military operations and taking them out can have significant effect. I think war crimes are direct attacks against civilian population or clearly unnecessary suffering is inflicted. Like attacking against hospitals is definitely a war crime if done intentionally, be they civilian or military hospitals.