Rand Report

FriedRiceNSpice said:

So in essence, future AESAs have the potential to nullify stealth technology?

Click to expand...

Partially. Partially. Though stealth won't be reigning with absolute superiority.

There is a game going in between the stealth engineers and the detection engineers from now on, with tit for tat, there won't be unanimous superiority in either.

Also, what are your thoughts on the Mig-35's OLS and its ability to engage stealth platforms? The Russians are claiming the system to be effective at detecting up to 45km and engaging targets at 8-10km.

Click to expand...

OLS is a bit too weather situational to be used entirely alone in all situations. I would suggest paring that with an AESA. "Stealth" is also trying to reduce thermal signatures as well.

SampanViking said:

Simply use a Blimp or Barrage Balloon. This would be able to stay up far longer, could be powered by the contol cable and could go up to far greater heights etc.

Click to expand...

That's a good point. The body of the airship itself won't be too large -- maybe a 3-4 meter cube. It should feature a small under-slung turboprop engine.

You can carry about 5 of these things, along with helium tanks on a destroyer sized vessel. They can be launched from the helicopter pad.

They would do a slow, methodical patrol with relatively powerful radars (at least as powerful as those on naval helicopters) and return by landing in the sea (on a deployed balloon).

The main point is that if unmanned aerial vehicles can be used as for AEW and deployed on a destroyer, this gives the destroyer nearly the same ability as a CV at a fraction of the cost.

Roger604 said:

That's a good point. The body of the airship itself won't be too large -- maybe a 3-4 meter cube. It should feature a small under-slung turboprop engine.

You can carry about 5 of these things, along with helium tanks on a destroyer sized vessel. They can be launched from the helicopter pad.

They would do a slow, methodical patrol with relatively powerful radars (at least as powerful as those on naval helicopters) and return by landing in the sea (on a deployed balloon).

The main point is that if unmanned aerial vehicles can be used as for AEW and deployed on a destroyer, this gives the destroyer nearly the same ability as a CV at a fraction of the cost.

Click to expand...

You missed the point that such a radar would be fairly heavy, and so would the power generation unit as well... you will need significantly larger balloon to even lift the radar set, let alone a power source.

You missed the point that such a radar would be fairly heavy, and so would the power generation unit as well... you will need significantly larger balloon to even lift the radar set, let alone a power source.

Click to expand...

I think that is the reason SampanViking advocated for such a device to be tethered to the destroyer by a power cord.

I find the lifting capacity of an airship / blimp to be 1,02kg/m³ (Helium). To carry a 255kg Zhuk N010 that requires 250m³, or (6,3m)³.
An 900kg erieye would require 883m³, or (9,6m)³.
Using this method for extended detection of VLO targets seems a bit far off. But having a fighter type radar on a towed blimp may be a good way to extend the radar horizon against AShM and surface targets. Against a target 10m above the surface, raising the radar from 10 to 100m should roughly double the radar horizon range, according to:

Furthermore, those blimps have a realy low pressure inside, meaning upon skin penetration, they'll stay in the air for quiet some time. The "erieye blimp" is perhaps something for cruisers or costal defence.

Regarding side looking onto a VLO, modern tracking / FCRs are still mostly pulse-doppler, right? Does performance of those still decrease significantly when "notching" /turning perpendicular to those?
SARH might perhaps especially then be of a certain advanage when it's also TVM, where the reciever is much closer to the target.

There's also the theory that over populated areas, with a lot of civil radio transmission (mobile phones, TV, etc...) a VLO platform will reflect those in some way, wich can be detected. But that apperantly needs A LOT of computing power.

Scratch said:

I find the lifting capacity of an airship / blimp to be 1,02kg/m³ (Helium). To carry a 255kg Zhuk N010 that requires 250m³, or (6,3m)³.
An 900kg erieye would require 883m³, or (9,6m)³.
Using this method for extended detection of VLO targets seems a bit far off. But having a fighter type radar on a towed blimp may be a good way to extend the radar horizon against AShM and surface targets. Against a target 10m above the surface, raising the radar from 10 to 100m should roughly double the radar horizon range, according to:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

A simpler way is to have ground radar units situated on high ground.

Furthermore, those blimps have a realy low pressure inside, meaning upon skin penetration, they'll stay in the air for quiet some time. The "erieye blimp" is perhaps something for cruisers or costal defence.

Regarding side looking onto a VLO, modern tracking / FCRs are still mostly pulse-doppler, right? Does performance of those still decrease significantly when "notching" /turning perpendicular to those?
SARH might perhaps especially then be of a certain advanage when it's also TVM, where the reciever is much closer to the target.

Click to expand...

Anti notch measures have been used, so notching techniques are going to be less and less effective as time goes on. Notching does not work against radars using continuous wave, which a number of fire control radars use.

There's also the theory that over populated areas, with a lot of civil radio transmission (mobile phones, TV, etc...) a VLO platform will reflect those in some way, wich can be detected. But that apperantly needs A LOT of computing power.

Click to expand...

Its called coherent passive location. However, computing power is something that can obtained in abundance. Basically that's a variation of the multistatic principle. Its good for detection only, not fire control.

Scratch said:

But having a fighter type radar on a towed blimp may be a good way to extend the radar horizon against AShM and surface targets.

Click to expand...

Tethering an airship or towing it imparts a moment on the airship about its center of buoyancy, and the airship would end up floating in some odd angles. In other words, your radar would also be positioned at some odd angles. To prevent the above problem, multiple tethers could be used. However, this would require the airship to be close to the ground, which defeats the purpose of using an airship in the first place.

Yes, it does appear that a UAV would be too small to have a decent sized radar, and an airship would be too cumbersome and slow to have a decent sized radar.

It looks like there's no substitute for a naval helicopter on a destroyer.

Is a helicopter in the size class of the Z-15 too big for a destroyer?

If my understanding of the Z-15 is correct, isn't that a bit "civilian" for that purpose? I think it would be possible, although what I have more in mind would be something like Ka-31s.

Roger604 said:

Yes, it does appear that a UAV would be too small to have a decent sized radar, and an airship would be too cumbersome and slow to have a decent sized radar.

It looks like there's no substitute for a naval helicopter on a destroyer.

Is a helicopter in the size class of the Z-15 too big for a destroyer?

Click to expand...

Nope, many navies operate even bigger helicopters on destroyers; frigates even. The Canadian Forces plans to operate the CH-148 Cyclone (Sikorsky S-92 variant) off their Halifax class frigates. Canada is a pioneer in operating large helicopters off small warships in all weather conditions (through innovations such as a haul-down device).

crobato said:

If my understanding of the Z-15 is correct, isn't that a bit "civilian" for that purpose? I think it would be possible, although what I have more in mind would be something like Ka-31s.

Click to expand...

It would need significant navalization and militarization to work, but by then, a proper built from the ground up military helicopter would be more suitable (something in the 7-8 ton weight range).