tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post5840631508446475215..comments2024-03-28T04:22:28.228-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: F-35 Broad Area Maritime SurveillanceComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85823611925104466612022-01-15T12:49:11.247-08:002022-01-15T12:49:11.247-08:00InSAR. Interferometric SAR.
Complex Targets have ...InSAR. Interferometric SAR.<br />Complex Targets have not one but multiple centroids which can be winkled out by using baselines which measure the phase overlaps between them as a length between features.<br />ISAR. Inverse SAR.<br />Works on doppler amplitudes instead of phase but uses a similar precept of creating multiple small, acceleration cells to respond to wave action rocking a target through a prime centroid and allow secondaries to peak through, denoting stacks, masts, deckhouses and so on.<br />AESA, because it can generate multiple submode 'spotlights', it should be good at all of these, provided it can pull a 20-40 square meter 'fishing boat' RCS from the surrounding wave harmonic.<br />EOTS can differentiate individual windows in a hotel from 43nm away. I would expect an imbedded MSS/IWS in a two of three naval variant jet fighters to do better, if only because the JSM is a 110nm ranged missile and LRASM is something like 200nm equivalent. With a 143kW/7m APY-9 having a surface detection threshold of 450km and the 2m/50kW APY-10 some 350km. It would stand to reason that a 15-20kW, 1m, APG-81 should be able extrapolatable to a first order guess, based on antenna gain and ERP numbers with similar generational capability. I would assume that MSS/SMTI would be something like 90nm. And MSS/SMTT about 80nm with IWS 'SEA-2' no less than 60nm. Because the APG-67 on the Tigershark could achieve 47nm and 40nm with a 27" planar mechanical array. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06718016045539788764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-27736893974184184862020-01-06T02:36:22.578-08:002020-01-06T02:36:22.578-08:00This is rather late to the party. Whilst the capab...This is rather late to the party. Whilst the capability of the APG-81 is classified, there is a general body of knowledge as to its detection range. AWST has reported it as in excess of 210 km against a 1m2 target. Using radar range equation one can extrapolate to mean it has a detection range of 650 kms to 1180 kms against a 100 m2 to 1000 m2 RCS target. This is what I would expect a warship RCS profile to be. A APG-81 operating in LPD/LPI mode does not diminish its detection range. One of the technology to achieve low LPD is the application of DSS in the broadcast. Direct spread spectrum is basically the ability to spread the single pulse across the whole frequency spectrum in which the X band operates and that could be as much as 3 GHz. Effectively the power is spread thinly across a wide spectrum making it extremely difficult to detect the broadcast. Additionally there are other sensors as part of the F-35 sensor fusion package that acts collectively. The ANQ-239 is reportedly able to pick up passively an emission in excess of 350 kms away and is able to geolocate that emission with sufficient fidelity for targeting purpose. <br /><br />The main downside IMO of an F-35 against a typical ISR asset is its lack of endurance comparatively.<br /><br />Finally there is a penetrating VLO ISR asset that likely can provide targeting data and has gone operational last year and that is the RQ-180. This was reported by AWST. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38152532469529902672019-12-24T21:28:03.442-08:002019-12-24T21:28:03.442-08:00China can do high volume deployments in their home...China can do high volume deployments in their home waters, which changes the game completely when you don't have to drag your log tail 5000 miles along with you.<br /><br />If you radiate, you die. This has been true since the cold war if not earlier. You can absolutely identify a radiating threat (even without fancy computer aids) in a couple of sweeps. Even right down to individual units in some cases. <br /><br />Somewhere from less than one second to maybe ten seconds. I'm told the new stuff does it in way under a second.<br /><br />So as long as you're passive you're golden, but it you have to go active to look for targets you have a problem, particularly in these days of long range missiles.<br /><br />Its also worth remembering that wide-band brute-force jamming is very effective, and it takes very little energy to completely screw up a good radar return. Deception repeating is more effort, but in these days of DSPs its a heck of a lot easier than it used to be to break a track.<br /><br />And flying at wave tops burns a heck of a lot of fuel in a turbofan. And you aren't going to tank at wave-top, the tanker might get really grumpy, really fast! LolGeorgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17731178888696691472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-22475780658344185312019-12-24T19:06:13.532-08:002019-12-24T19:06:13.532-08:00" why China is building so many of them, ... ..." why China is building so many of them, ... do they think they can use our playbook better than we can?"<br /><br />I have no idea what their thinking is about that. However, they certainly have a different view about survivability then we do. Just as the Soviets used to believe that a large number of Bear search planes were worth the inevitable losses if they could find a carrier group, so too, may the Chinese believe that losses are perfectly acceptable if they can accomplish the mission through numbers. <br /><br />We, on the other hand, find losses undesirable and unacceptable. Their approach, if you can stomach the losses, is completely logical and effective. Our approach is, currently, ineffective. In the cold, harsh reality of combat, their approach will work and ours will not. We need a different approach, as I've described in various posts.<br /><br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-40554872013244990332019-12-24T17:09:02.363-08:002019-12-24T17:09:02.363-08:00Hmmm. True. Shoukd be Good for getting in range fo...Hmmm. True. Shoukd be Good for getting in range for prosecuting tho, that wavetop flying.<br /><br />You gotta wonder though, if MPAs and drones are so unsurvivable, why China is building so many of them, and why they're doing a lot of the dame things America is doing... are we truly so dumb? Or do they think they can use our playbook better than we can?JMDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06778087255730724657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-35813651212556932812019-12-24T17:08:22.013-08:002019-12-24T17:08:22.013-08:00More unrelated news:
Not sure if this is such a b...More unrelated news:<br /><br />Not sure if this is such a bad thing, losing 4 LCSs sounds bad when USN is trying to make numbers BUT this might be the only time when losing hulls actually INCREASES combat efficiency!<br /><br />https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/12/24/us-navy-proposes-decommissioning-first-4-lcs-more-than-a-decade-early/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Socialflow+DFNNICOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14567491909555759918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-42292225288343820712019-12-24T16:53:22.457-08:002019-12-24T16:53:22.457-08:00"assumption has always been that MPAs are gon..."assumption has always been that MPAs are gonna be easily detected - well, look how far in that B-52 penetrsted."<br /><br />The story is that it did so by flying wavetop. While that might enable penetration, it would eliminate the ability to scan large areas which is, of course, the purpose of BAMS. Flying wavetop, sensors can only see a dozen miles to the horizon so, no, it doesn't really work both ways.<br /><br />If the only goal of a P-8 (or any MPA aircraft) is survival then, sure, fly wavetop but you won't see anything. If the goal is surveillance, there's no way around it - you have to fly fairly high and then you will be easily detected.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-45901162505666279372019-12-24T16:21:25.891-08:002019-12-24T16:21:25.891-08:00And by the way, ComNavOps, that B-52 example goes ...And by the way, ComNavOps, that B-52 example goes both ways. Your assumption has always been that MPAs are gonna be easily detected - well, look how far in that B-52 penetrsted. Maybe P-8s aren't so helpless against Chinese warships then?<br /><br />They'll still be turbofucked once China has carriet groups and fighters at sea tho. The only way I can see BAMS working once that happens is with more nodal, shorter ranged zones of surveillance.JMDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06778087255730724657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-86985893241536649592019-12-24T16:16:06.539-08:002019-12-24T16:16:06.539-08:00And WG maybe next time you wanna link a source, tr...And WG maybe next time you wanna link a source, try something in a language we can all understand, please.JMDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06778087255730724657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-50788509964406168882019-12-24T16:14:47.795-08:002019-12-24T16:14:47.795-08:00Y'all are letting whatever personal acrimony y...Y'all are letting whatever personal acrimony you have bias your interactions. Grow up a little.<br /><br />ComNavOps maybe WG might be a pain in your ass, but he had a premise that was based on data. Now, maybe the data was faulty - like Pierre Sprey's modeling for the F-16 - but the methodology was sound.<br /><br />Do you speak Russian? Because to me it looks like you're simply rejecting a source out of hand, based on your dislike of a particular poster. Sure, it's his fault for tossing up a source in a language you dont speak, but like I said, I know people and i can have them check out the requirements you want, to determine how credible the source was.<br /><br />Yes, this is your house and you're the arbiter of fact here, and his data might be suspect, but give the man his due - his workings were sound.JMDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06778087255730724657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14083059212891131812019-12-24T14:15:56.560-08:002019-12-24T14:15:56.560-08:00"SecNav has put everyone on notice"
No...."SecNav has put everyone on notice"<br /><br />No. No he hasn't. At least not according to that article. He simply stated a timeline that he wants. The last SecNav also stated a timeline that he wanted and that didn't happen and no one paid a price. If you want to put someone 'on notice', you lay out the goals AND THE ASSOCIATED CONSEQUENCES. The article lists no consequences for failure to meet the timeline. Without consequences, it's just wishful thinking.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-17423510448338773182019-12-24T13:27:56.329-08:002019-12-24T13:27:56.329-08:00Completely unrelated news:
Looks like new SecNav ...Completely unrelated news:<br /><br />Looks like new SecNav has put everyone on notice....interesting that we haven't heard much about the week long cruise in late October, maybe the results weren't bad but not great either? <br /><br />https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/12/23/navy-secretary-sets-new-deadlines-major-fixes-supercarrier-ford.htmlNICOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14567491909555759918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28126179354163020032019-12-24T11:25:23.407-08:002019-12-24T11:25:23.407-08:00"I still think that thrust of my premise ... ..."I still think that thrust of my premise ... is just as intellectually sound as your premise"<br /><br />No, it isn't. Not by a long shot. I laid out an extensive premise based on logic and what little actual data there is. You threw out a totally unsupported [gut feeling?] based on nothing and it flies in the face of logic. <br /><br />You're welcome to believe anything you want, no matter how stupid and unsupported, but when you put it in a comment it becomes my responsibility to decide whether it has any basis in fact or logic at all and … it doesn't. I'm bending over backward by not deleting it out of hand.<br /><br />This waste of time is over.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57753995382333499452019-12-24T11:16:44.319-08:002019-12-24T11:16:44.319-08:00"An example with a tired, combat-weary crew w..."An example with a tired, combat-weary crew with zero fucks to give."<br /><br />The radar wasn't tired and a B-52 should have shown up like a blimp. The Hawkeye (or any radar) is not the infallible, all-seeing sensor that so many people want to believe it is.<br /><br />I can't believe I'm wasting time on this.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10112033984104736532019-12-24T10:18:32.037-08:002019-12-24T10:18:32.037-08:00Anyway ComNavops if you don't believe the figu...Anyway ComNavops if you don't believe the figures it's no skin off my teeth, it was just an idea put forth with a certain set of assumptions in play. I still think that thrust of my premise - that it is possible for a margin to exist where MPA and AEW can detect warships outside of the engagement envelope of SAM - is just as intellectually sound as your premise that the MPA is guaranteed to be detected and engaged by SAM. That whole issue of actual detection/identification range being shorter than the claimed maximum works both ways. <br /><br />We'll only know for sure who's right once a shooting war happens and all these details get declassified in maybe 50 years from now. *shrug*<br /><br />That said, I do think it's a little ironic and amusing that the USN's plan of using MPA and drones for broad area maritime surveillance to cue shooters is also being pursued by the PLAN, who look to be a lot more able to sucessfully pull that off than the USN - of course, it helps that they're deploying these sensor assets from airbases and flying within their own backyard, which does wonders for transit and patrol time, and if any Chinese MPAs or drones are shot down, well, their replacements don't have to fly across an ocean from the factory!WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9218422855921907072019-12-24T10:04:40.273-08:002019-12-24T10:04:40.273-08:00An example with a tired, combat-weary crew with ze...An example with a tired, combat-weary crew with zero fucks to give.<br /><br />...which apparently does actually seem match up with the performance of USN crews, if the McCain and Fitzgerald collisions, so okay, that does pan out I guess.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-52133190282223763622019-12-24T09:23:08.949-08:002019-12-24T09:23:08.949-08:00I have zero obligation and even less interest in &...I have zero obligation and even less interest in 'rebutting' an unsubstantiated number from a Russian source. That's about the very definition of unreliable. The salient point is that the actual detection/identification range for any radar is going to be a small fraction of the claimed maximum, as demonstrated in the post.<br /><br />I would remind you of the real world example we recently discussed in comments of the B-52 that penetrated to within ten miles or so of a carrier during an exercise with Hawkeyes and Tomcats looking for it.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9402100048944899332019-12-24T08:49:04.986-08:002019-12-24T08:49:04.986-08:00Well, absent that, do you have any open source dat...Well, absent that, do you have any open source data to rebut the argument? At least he's shown data - my understanding of your position is that you believe that MPA cannot detect warships outside of SAM engagement rsnge?<br /><br />If you like, as a third party, I could touch base with some Russian-speaking friends and have them look into the article's methodology? It would take a long minute or two for that to happen though - I don't have enough vodka to bribe them to do it on christmas day, haha.JMDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06778087255730724657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47665760151946986482019-12-24T08:01:35.475-08:002019-12-24T08:01:35.475-08:00A credible source is one that says where it came f...A credible source is one that says where it came from. I see nothing that says that source is from Russian military. I mean, think about it. Does the US military issue data on enemy weapon systems performance? Of course not! That's classified data. So, the source is almost certainly not actual Russian military data. That means the source and credibility is completely unknown.<br /><br />A credible source lists where the data came from, how it was obtained, specifics about the methodology, etc.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-34585174037709377052019-12-24T07:53:14.847-08:002019-12-24T07:53:14.847-08:00Chinese and Russia make use of the longer wave ban...Chinese and Russia make use of the longer wave band radars, the great advantage is that it negates the fifth generation fighters stealth small RCS capability, F-22/F-35s. On the latest Type 052D/E destroyers Chinese fit an updated large bedstead VHF radar, HJ-JM2, ~1.3m wavelength, limitation with the long waveband VHF it has a range resolution of ~900m, meter long wave radars can only see roughly an object's general direction, not its exact location - long range surveillance is better at lower frequencies and precision tracking is better at higher frequencies. <br /><br />The long waveband can also avoid attacks from anti-radiation missiles due to the waves wide beams, because such missiles cannot carry antenna large enough to track them. In response to Chinese and Russian low frequency radars USN developing the NGJ/LWJ pod for the EA-F18 Growler, IOC planned 2024/2025?<br /><br />Chinese claim with their new large land based longwave radars they have the first practical meter wave sparse array synthetic impulse and aperture radar, with multiple transmitting and receiving antennas tens of meters high, scattered in a range of tens to hundreds of meters they can continuously cover the sky as the radar receives echoes from all directions that this significantly enhances the radar's ability to track an aerial target, pinpointing the stealth aircraft's exact coordinates by synthesizing parameters and data gathered by the radar under the support of advanced algorithms to give accuracy capability of guiding long-range knock offs of the Russian S400 anti-aircraft missiles and the very long range BVR PL-15 AAM. Claims might be believable considering stealth tech now a generation plus old and so research into negating its operational use well understood.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12567148391327455726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-89351624337763839642019-12-24T07:37:48.321-08:002019-12-24T07:37:48.321-08:00@NICO & @George: if you gaventhese fish boats ...@NICO & @George: if you gaventhese fish boats MANPADs and autocannon, there's little they can do to threaten aircraft at search altitude. Plus, that assumes the USN is incompetent enough to allow fishing boat scouts to get in eyeball range...<br /><br />...i'll give you guys that.JMDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06778087255730724657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-46823960002369333642019-12-24T07:26:44.438-08:002019-12-24T07:26:44.438-08:00Curious: what would you consider a credible source...Curious: what would you consider a credible source? I'd think an adversary's assessments ought to be closer to reality than the manufacturers claims.JMDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06778087255730724657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5525135959061716382019-12-24T06:55:47.497-08:002019-12-24T06:55:47.497-08:00Just a couple of observations going thru published...Just a couple of observations going thru published info on Triton, Navy Global Hawk version. Interesting to note that even though it's made and job to fly high altitude observation, its structure was reinforced and wing deicing was installed so it could fly lower and get in closer which tells me you just cant do high altitude ISR of ships and consider it a done job, you need to get in close and low! Looks like even USN feels like its necessary? or better? to keep Triton at high altitude and use new P8s to get close...at least for now or until I hear otherwise, seems that's how USN is working it out now. I guess you still need a manned jet to maybe deal with all the variables of the mission?<br /><br />Come to think of it now, wasnt this how USN was operating when Iran shot down a GH, there was a navy patrol plane around at lower altitude which Iran was also aware of? Tells me you need a lot more standoff range for all these ISR planes or maybe need fighter escorts? Nobody knows yet but how many F35s would u need to cover the same area for hours instead of 1 GH and-or P8? Got a factor that in too, highly doubt 1 F35 would do the same job for the same amount of TIME as GH or dedicated manned ISR platform....NICOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14567491909555759918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-1656589893407359292019-12-24T05:31:02.620-08:002019-12-24T05:31:02.620-08:00A table from a Russian source with no apparent ref...A table from a Russian source with no apparent reference to a data source????? Pass. Come back when you have something at least semi-authoritative.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-29241799664297197722019-12-24T04:44:02.841-08:002019-12-24T04:44:02.841-08:00"For those discussing uhf/hf radar. the vesse..."For those discussing uhf/hf radar. the vessel simply gives its position away and the f35 can sit 200km away and relay targeting data."<br /><br />I expect these radars to be on the islands and the mainland. The antennas are required are quite large. It would also not be out of the question to deploy on civilian ships or barges.Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17731178888696691472noreply@blogger.com