How good is the RADAR stealth of modern warships? I was thinking of a scenario where a navy vessel was maneuvering close to a merchant vessel, which may or may not be able to detect it with RADAR.
Basically my questions are these:
>How well can the S-band and X-band slotted waveguide antennas typically mounted on merchant vessels detect stealth vessels?
>Has there ever been an incident related to this?
probably negligible
commercial ships mount radars?
![1280px-Ship_radar_of_the_Scenic_Emerald[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/eIH65HY.jpg "1280px-Ship_radar_of_the_Scenic_Emerald[1].jpg")
>>29425591
Yes. They are very useful for navigating.
Radar signature info is held super close to the chest by the military. You won't get a good answer here. Dunno as to whether there have been incidents that have made the news.
Radar 'stealth' reduces your initial tracking range in radar and your plot size on their display, potentially confusing the operator or track processing software into thinking the track represents a lot smaller vessel
t. Conscript radar person
>>29425559
Stop capitalizing radar, it's annoying as fuck.
>>29425740
This true, most responses will be assumptions coming from people's asses. That said you should check FAS, globalsecurity, and Australia air power if you want good info on highly techical and often secret topics such a this.
>>29425790
It's also technically correct.
>>29425863
Ausairpower has its biases which are not obvious to people that aren't familiar with defense tech
>>29425740
Yeah, figures.
>>29425559
>How well can the S-band and X-band slotted waveguide antennas typically mounted on merchant vessels detect stealth vessels?
>Has there ever been an incident related to this?
Don't stealth warships use reflectors to increase their profile during peacetime to keep their actual profile secret?
>>29425559
USMM here I can tell at least when they are fresh from the yard 3 and 10mm radars don't see them at all unless they fly a reflector. but then the only time I have witnessed this was just outside ingles shipyard. could not see the burkes or the shore behind them. no return
>>29427157
Care to outline these biases?
>>29430661
They've been trying to make the Australian government buy Raptors and upgraded F-111s, regardless of the cost, so that the website owners' aerospace company could be the middleman and profit off such acquisitions. As such, they've always been biased against the existing plans to acquire the Super Hornet and F-35, creating BS comparisons, etc.
>>29425591
I wouldn't be surprised if navigation surface radar were mandatory for commercial ships.
>>29427157
>Not obvious to people that aren't familiar with defense tech
>>29430661
Pic related for both of you
Kopp knows his stuff but he is far from academically honest and clearly lets his biases interfere with objective and fair assessment.
>>29432288
>[
its called ECDIS and it is mandated by treaty on all vessels greater than 1600 gross tonnes
>>29425559
They say that the Zumwalt shows up the size of a fishing boat instead of the massive monstrosity they really are. This can be used in deceptive techniques. You can pretend you're a civilian boat.
>>29433339
Stealthiness would also multiply the effects of counter measures.
>>29433437
Not just countermeasures, it'd make it far more difficult for the seeker head to acquire you in the first place, especially in conditions of heavy EW.
>>29430661
Basically the F-111 is his plane waifu and he's super mad that they got rid of them.
He wants to get F22s to replace them
>HEY GUISE LETS GET A DEDICATED AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER WITH MINIMAL ATG CAPABILITY TO REPLACE OUR STRIKE BOMBER
>ALSO FUCK HAVING MONEY AND FUCK US CONGRESS
>>29433339
But if a sub would ping them, they would be able to see their shape on sonar right?
Which would then be used to identify the ship based on radar signature+shape on sonar.
>>29433658
No submarine captain is mad enough to use active sonar
>>29433718
But what if it it's ONE PING ONLY?
>>29433658
Anon, you're retarded. First of all, the question is about radar stealth. Second of all, you're assuming a sub is in the area checking on all possible radar contacts, while going slow enough to avoid detection, should the contacts prove to be hostile. Third of all, assuming the sub would use active sonar. That gets him killed. Now yes, it is possible that he could identify the ship using passive sonar, the entire scenario is completely unfeasible. Stop being retarded.
>>29433790
Well it's not a strange assumption.
If you consider that a "stealth" boat would be perfect for clandestine operations within the national waters of an enemy. Having passive or active sonar systems operational (not per definition a sub) within your own waters at a time of war is not a strange thing.
But still if a ship or sub could listen to the engine and blade sound. Wouldnt that be enough to positively ID the ship based on it's noise signature?
I dont claim to be a radar or naval expert. It just seems logical.
>>29433776
Kek
>>29433776
You get discovered. Although, in a ASW scenario, you can actually mask your ping to be almost identical to enemy sonars; however, its not very useful. At most it can be used for communications. Plus, a modern sonar operator will most likely detect it.
>>29433886
>Well it's not a strange assumption.
Yes, yes it is.
>If you consider that a "stealth" boat would be perfect for clandestine operations within the national waters of an enemy.
That's true, and they use boats for that. Unbeknownst to you, boats doesn't refer to a ship like the DDG-1000 Class. No, it refers to submarines. Submarines are far better for that kind of job, and are being used in this role as we speak. It's their most common peacetime mission.
With that being said,
>Having passive or active sonar systems operational (not per definition a sub) within your own waters at a time of war is not a strange thing.
Yes it would be. First of all, as I said earlier it implies that submarines are checking out literally every radar contact, even those the size of a small fishing boat. Do you have any idea how many fishing boats are out there? Do you have any idea how inconceivably large and wasteful such an operation would be?
As for using active sonar, don't. Not even in you own waters. That gets you killed. Lets say you use your active sonar on a Zumwalt. Because you did it, he knows where you are, and launches an ASROC on top of you. You die. You may have launched torpedoes quickly enough, but that doesn't matter, you're still dead. This is putting aside prowling USN submarines hearing your use of active sonar on every goddamn fishing boat in the South China Sea.
>But still if a ship or sub could listen to the engine and blade sound. Wouldnt that be enough to positively ID the ship based on it's noise signature?
Generally speaking, yes. However, this has been addressed decades ago. The Prarie-Masker system both quietens the signature of the ship and masks its identity somewhat. It's not a perfect solution, however, and sonar can probably hear through it, depending on computing power.
>I dont claim to be a radar or naval expert. It just seems logical.
Educate yourself. Clancy is a decent starting point.
>>29433946
Not so much the operator as the computers. These computers are the real powerhouses, and are insanely powerful. It's important to remember that even in the late 70s and early 80s, submarines possessed immense computing power. Some of the most powerful computers in the world were on submarines. These computers would filter through information like lightning. Now, think of the size to computing power ratio back then. Compare that to the present day, or even a decade old technology. Imagine the same amount of volume dedicated to computers back then was dedicated to modern computers. It's truly mindboggling advances.
>>29433968
True, but the concept of "pinging" is still pretty basic, and it will be the operator that classifies it. The computer nowadays will give a much better picture, but it does not know what its drawing. Pic related, its a ping recorded 1982 by a mine line in the swedish archipelago of a (probably western) submarine.
>>29433995
I can't really say much about modern sonars.
>>29434031
Well, frequency and signals can change, but as long as you're talking about sonars, it's really very basic. You send out a signal and listen for the echo. As technology progresses, the visualisation becomes much, much better but the overall concept doesn't change at all.
>>29434037
I don't think you got what I was saying.
>>29434074
I think you meant to say that you don't know that much about modern sonars and i meant that sonars hasn't really changed, the systems around and usage of the sonars has.
>>29432330
I was absurdly losing my shit over that pic until I saw the filename.
>>29425559
It basically comes down to the radar cross section of the vessel, the size of waves at the time, the way the vessel handles/rolls in the water etc.
A merchant vessel picking a stealth ship up on radar would likely think it's just a small vessel?
>>29433339
does anybody have the picture where the zum-zum is in the background of a a tow boat getting towed out of harbor or something? it's almost grotesque how fucking huge they are
>>29434118
This?
I know it's not totally related to OP but can i ask a question?
Assume theres 2 submarines running passive sonar. and 1 surface vessel running active sonar.
The submarines detect the ship but does the active sonar increase the likelihood of the subs detecting each other.
>>29434166
No. Probably less likely as resources will be used to monitor the surface vessel.
>>29434090
Still wrong. Let me put it this way- while the basics remain the same, computers have come quite a distance. I can't say anything more than that.
>>29434220
Yeah, alright bro
>>29434166
That's a confusing answer. The active sonar can dull the senses elsewhere, at least with less advanced filtering, but you can get the sound bouncing off the hull of the other submarine towards you.
>>29434227
>but you can get the sound bouncing off the hull of the other submarine towards you.
yeah thats kinda what i thought might happen.
I was essentially wondering if it was possible for a friendly sub to take advantage of a friendly active sonar or if it was more disadvantageous to the sub to operate in any area with active sonar.
I guess it depends on multiple factors like the subs position and other how much sonar is absorbed etc.
I was thinking along the lines of how an active radar is used alongside passive radar in some instances and if something similar could be adapted to sonar.
>>29428555
they sure should, like the F22 and(i think?) the F35
>>29434113
As a US merchant marine I have seen a burke sitting at the Ingals shipyard with no return for either the 3 or 10mm radars.
>>29425639
This picture is of an IFF radar antenna. IFF sends/receives a transponder signal to/from another ship or aircraft. They do not operate the way traditional radar work of bouncing a signal off a surface and measuring the reflected signal. An aircraft carrier could have its IFF shut-off (not squawking an IFF transmission) and be sitting right next to the merchant ship, and would be invisible to the merchant ship's IFF radar.
>>29434695
>Saying IFF when you actually mean AIS transponder
>>29434736
Fair enough
>>29427720
What's the white ice-y looking thing the Missile smashes through on launch?
(3rd picture down, leftmost side.)
>>29428555
I don't know if there are any specific reflectors involved, but the Visby class has various railings, flags, masts and so on out when it doesn't need to be stealthy. That should increase the radar profile considerably.
>>29434931
pic
op here. Thanks for some good replies. I figures this is classified, but interesting still.
>>29434335
thanks
>>29434845
I would guess it's some sort of material to keep the water out when the hatch is opened.
When it was released from dock, the Norwegian plane tasked to shadow it remarked that the radar signature of the Kirov battlecruiser is comparable to a small corvette.
>>29425740
I'm a Merchant Marine Officer. Even very basic "stealth" tchnology works well. A San Antonio Class ship has the radar blip of a fishing boat.
>>29430510
The Burke aren't even stealthy though...
>>29432288
They are.
>>29432535
That's not what ECDIS is. Electronic Charting Display and Information System is digital charts. Yes you can radar overlay, but it's typically shit and gimmicky.
>>29434113
This is correct, but navy ships can be fairly obvious, even at night based on course and speed. Plus during daylight, depending on visibility, we can see you at 12 or so miles, depending on the ship.
>>29434695
That picture is an X-band, 3cm radar (assuming because of the size and it's on a yacht).
AIS is run though a typical VHF whip antenna.
>>29425790
Autism: The Post
>>29434938
How many refugees are housed there?
>>29437293
Really is should be RADAR (Radio Detection and Ranging)
>>29437895
Don't you mean RaDAR?
