Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Czech Passive Radar Detecting B-2 at 150 miles (2015)

defence-blog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 125 posts

Re: Czech Passive Radar Detecting B-2 at 150 miles (2015)

#81

Post by nradov »

sfifs wrote: post #58
JDulin wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More to the point, detecting a stealth aircraft is very different from shooting at a stealth aircraft. This radar would likely not have the location accuracy of where exactly the B-2 was to accurately engage it with a missile. Your accuracy would be limited by the rate of RF pings the B-2 is putting off, and then the margin-of-error of these RF waves and receiver. This is one difference between the B-2 and stealth fi…

If you can localize down to the range of a km? Can't you just shoot down optically? A giant dark plane blotting out the stars...

An airplane at altitude doesn't blot out stars. Optical sensors are nearly useless, especially against a black aircraft at night.

Re: Czech Passive Radar Detecting B-2 at 150 miles (2015)

#82

Post by DarkmSparks »

scurvy wrote: post #69
DarkmSparks wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Passive radar uses background RF, usually TV transmitters. Which is why they are the first to go everytime America decides to punish a nation for trying to use something other than the dollar to trade oil or decides to crack down on opium smuggling. Not really enough though, which is how they lost all the F117s over Serbia in the 90s. One of which I have a framed picture of on the wall along side an original "sorry w…

> Not really enough though, which is how they lost all the F117s over Serbia in the 90s. One of which I have a framed picture of on the wall along side an original "sorry we didnt know it was invisible" flyer. Only a single F117 was shot down over Serbia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk#Comba...

Perhaps choose a better source than wikipedia, like people who were there.

https://images.app.goo.gl/vUd8z2gkWEtKWKcJ8

even your source says they hit 2. They claim they downed 3. Americans denied they lost any for decades.

Re: Czech Passive Radar Detecting B-2 at 150 miles (2015)

#83

Post by audiometry »

dmix wrote: post #65
teruakohatu wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recently in DC they detected a plane that did not respond to warnings. The optical system then also detected the plane and panic ensued. Problem was the radar system was showing a phantom and the optical system saw a nearby plane and thought it was confirming the phantom. Tldr; it's complicated https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31222/mysterious-airsp...

As we saw with both Iran and Russian AA teams shooting down passenger jets...

Don’t forget USA navy vessels shooting down passenger plane.

Re: Czech Passive Radar Detecting B-2 at 150 miles (2015)

#84

Post by ClumsyPilot »

nradov wrote: post #38
chmod775 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Drop them on a military base If you can get close enough to drop a bunch of slow drones, you can get close enough to just drop a bomb on the whole thing instead. Much more bang for your buck. Let's also not forget that small drones might become 'banned' much like chemical weapons did, if they ever became viable.

Small drones will never be banned by international treaty. There is zero chance of that.

Lasers were banned. Where does your certainty come from?

Re: Czech Passive Radar Detecting B-2 at 150 miles (2015)

#85

Post by m4rtink »

nradov wrote: post #76
m4rtink wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could the adversary still just send cannon equipped fighters to the general that would locate the stealth bomber visually and shoot it to pieces ? Sure, could be rather hard to do in the night but once a stealth bomber is sighted visually, it is toast - B2 simply has no self defence weapons available at all. A stealth fighter could be better off if it can defend itself while still avoiding others getting a weapon loc…

That's the type of tactic that mostly only works in movies. In the real world interception is very, very hard just due to geometry. Fighters have limited fuel supplies and don't move much faster than bombers. Any no country can afford to keep a lot of them in the air or even on alert status at any given time. So the circumstances have to line up pretty well to get an interceptor in the right place at the right time.…

Well, existing stealth bombers (basically B2 at this point) are sub sonic while many fighters are super sonic.

As for range - that's a good point, if your low fregvency or passive radar gives you a big bounding box, your fighters could run out of fuel before they find the stealth bomber. Or it might drop/launch its payload before you catch it.

Re: Czech Passive Radar Detecting B-2 at 150 miles (2015)

#86

Post by clouddrover »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #73

Who wrote that article? It reads like Chinese that was put through a bad version of google translate. I mean really who uses 'cum' in an official article (even though it's not in an NSFW context and technically used correctly). It's a word that has fallen into disuse because its 'other' use has taken over its association entirely :) You won't find this in a serious publication. And this "Distance reconnaissance: 400…

> I mean really who uses 'cum' in an official article (even though it's not in an NSFW context and technically used correctly).

English speakers.

> You won't find this in a serious publication.

Won't I? Then let's search for such usage:

- Seems serious: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/09/02/whats-the-g...

- Seems philosophical: https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/how-to-be-a...

- Seems like all publicity is good publicity: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/26/braunau-spotl...

- Seems expensive: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-force-is-strong-inside-this...

- Seems fashionable: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2020/03/01/paris-fa...

- Seems Swiss: http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20170717-the-country-that-ca...

- Seems like a headline: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24960219

Re: Czech Passive Radar Detecting B-2 at 150 miles (2015)

#87

Post by openasocket »

thedance wrote: post #78
gsnedders wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's combat debut was during the Kosovo War, which was clearly _not_ people who are literally living in caves, during which the F-117 suffered its only combat loss, shot down by anti-aircraft missiles, successfully tracked by the radar.

OK, but what's it good for today? Kosovo was 20 years ago. If the B-2's role is to fly conventional missions, the MQ-9 can be armed with the same weapons that the B-2 carries.

Getting inside an integrated air defense network to take out strategic targets. It's got what is believed to be a better stealth profile than the f-22 or f-35, while having payload comparable to a b-52. The MQ-9 wouldn't be able to get anywhere close to an air defense network.

Re: Czech Passive Radar Detecting B-2 at 150 miles (2015)

#88

Post by sfifs »

ISL wrote: post #59
jdironman wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also, searching the top speed of a B-2 at 628mph, if detected at 150 miles out only gives them 14 minutes. Which is both a lot, or a little. Depending on how prepared for action someone is.

Or a lot less than that, if the B-2 isn't using gravity munitions.

Well since there are so few B2 and they are essentially irreplaceable, I imagine standard wartime doctrine for the adversary would be to ignore target protection as a concern and go straight for the plane even at the risk of losing several of yours by flying over territory you don't control.

In reality, what would make a difference is coordinating communications and decision making.

Re: Czech Passive Radar Detecting B-2 at 150 miles (2015)

#89

Post by thedance »

openasocket wrote: post #87
thedance wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but what's it good for today? Kosovo was 20 years ago. If the B-2's role is to fly conventional missions, the MQ-9 can be armed with the same weapons that the B-2 carries.

Getting inside an integrated air defense network to take out strategic targets. It's got what is believed to be a better stealth profile than the f-22 or f-35, while having payload comparable to a b-52. The MQ-9 wouldn't be able to get anywhere close to an air defense network.

OK I'm convinced. What's the 52 for, then?

Re: Czech Passive Radar Detecting B-2 at 150 miles (2015)

#90

Post by temac »

whalesalad wrote: post #3

The B2 is relatively ancient as far as stealth tech goes. Also, most stealth aircraft are detectable on radar. The question is how big or small is the radar cross section. That’s not something this blog post digs into. Meaning, most of the time a B2 looks like a goose or a small animal. Correction on my part: The B-2 and F-35 have radar cross sections roughly the size of a marble.

Well, in some frequency ranges, using a conventional radar, yes.

And for some applications, that is important.

But even state of the art modern stealth planes are way less stealth than some people expect.

Post reply on HN