First, a caveat. I am not an expert. I have an interested layman’s knowledge, certainly no more.

IMO, an aircraft with a low RCS will continue to be harder to detect than one with a high RCS.

Detection based on ambient EM emissions will only work where there are a lot of such emissions, & can therefore be evaded to some extent, in some places – and those places include most of the sea, & a very large proportion of the land area of the world. But anywhere with a moderate population of moderate income (i.e. not dirt poor), or even a pretty sparse rich population, this technique will be useful. Jamming will have to be very broad spectrum (so many & varied ambient EM sources), & as Trident says, that sort of jamming does make one rather conspicuous. I would expect to see expendable jammer drones, as mentioned by Amiga500.

That’s two techniques. There will be others.

But note that multistatic ’emitters of opportunity’ radar is not portable. It can not be put on aircraft or ships (at least, not with today’s or near future computing power, AFAIK). Nor can large OTH radars (which only give a very approximate position, of course) capable of detecting ‘stealthy’ targets. Detection directly by a mobile phone network works only if one has direct access to the network, i.e. if it’s within one’s own borders, & has various limitations.

None of these techniques, or the others I’ve not mentioned, means the end of stealth (yeah, Aussienscale, you’re right, I do know that it’s pointless isolating one aspect 😉 ). As Amiga500 says, “Continued networking”. You’ve got to tie stuff together. That needs technological sophistication & money. Poor or middling countries may get better at detecting hard to see targets, but they’ll still struggle against the big boys who can put together all the pieces. What it does mean is that just as none of the anti-stealth techniques makes it pointless, neither does a very low RCS against high frequency radar guarantee safety.

Well, that’s my (non-expert) opinion, for what it’s worth.

OK back to the discussion, yes agree, a lower RCS airframe will have a better chance/get closer than say a 4th gen which is obviously the point of the tech. This now is a natural evolution to such developments in VLO/LO airframes, as Spud mentioned the very company at the forefront of developing these plane’s did this ~10 years ago, this is now, that I am aware of ? the only other example of this, so we are talking a gap of 20 ish years from inception of the JAST competition. But I think from that period the pace and availability of computing power has outstripped the technology, so I think the smaller to mid sized countries could potentially surprise ? But putting it all together against the big boy’s, as you said, is definately another thing. Sorry about the shortness of my previous post, it was a pretty short way of showing that aircraft don’t operate in a vacuum

Cheers

What he’s trying to say is that you can make claims, but unless you can provide evidence then you can’t expect anyone to give those claims any credit.

If you work in the defence industry, it is very likely that you’re an academic, in which case this concept should be very clear to you.

I understand what he is saying, what would you suggest I quote ? plenty out there in the public domaim, but then he would go the very predictable way of pulling that apart as pure internet google searches, he very well knows I can’t quote anything official other than what is released in the public domain, I loose again, this is his MO.

I have in every post offered my credentials but alas no one has contacted me, when he is challenged he does not offer any in return, becuase he has none, so he goes off on another rant using slight of hand to try and take the heat away from himself.

Then he makes a post like that above but this time has been caught out for the fraud he is. He thought he was being smart, and all it has done is show yet another example of how he operates by only showing one single post by someone totally out of context to try and back up his very weak attempt to discredit me. What is has also done is put his foot in his mouth on how he operates and what I have been highlighting for the last half a dozen post’s.

The one very simple thing that he can do is as I have said, contact the Webmaster of any of the Moderators on the site and I am more than happy to supply my credentials/records of service and service history. But he won’t becuase he has backed himself into a corner and does not want to loose what little, if any, credibility he has on this site, I don’t see him openly offering to show his hand

And no I am not an academic, never pretended to be, nor as other people have tried to assert, at no time have I stated I am an expert in the field. I am an ex serviceman that has been lucky enough to work in varied roles not normally associated with my position, that has also been lucky enough to see and work with some really cool stuff

You were asked:

To which you replied:

Then you were asked:

From which you started your 002 and half impersonation. Shaken not stirred and all that.

You couldn’t even clear up whether you were talking about emission control or interrogating wave control.

Of course, the wider used phrase for interrogating wave control is signature management, i.e.:

http://www.hollingsworth-vose.com/pdf/AFNBrochure.pdf

http://www.ursi.fi/2010/papers/P2_Tuohimaa.pdf

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/pic/docs/PIC_FactSheet_SignatureManagement.pdf

Whereas convention has signal management as intentional emissions from the control object.

At the minute, your in a hole and its only getting deeper.

Usually, the first thing you do is stop digging!

You can continue as much as you like, my reply to LO was in the same smart **** snide way as his pathetic attempt to take appart my post becuase I had typed “Signals” instead of “Signature” so keep beating your chest, im happy with where I sit 🙂 at least I have the guts to put up my credentials, something you all seem to tip toe around by google searches trying to assert your expertise in an attempt to pull someone down, keep it coming

Cheers

Cheers

P.S. Oh thanks for the DMO Link, looks very simular to material I did some work on in the 90’s, Unclassified version of course 🙂

Oh bull****.

Nothing is stopping you from saying whether it is signal emission management, signal reflection/refraction management, signal process management or signal communications management.

You’ve shown yourself up badly here. Knowing a few acronyms and buzzwords does not mean in-depth knowledge or wisdom in a particular field. Indeed, if you knew the field half as well as you’d like to portray, you’d know fine well that explaining that signal management can be either emission (emcon) or reflection/refraction (LO/VLO), although more traditionally the former, is not releasing any state secrets.

Wow, talk about buzz words 🙂 never said there was anything stopping me from saying what forms of management, just the information therein, not sure where I said I was an expert in it ? please do show ? What I have said is that I am ex Defence and have worked in numerous areas that has given me exposure to certain things 🙂 So if you have and problem and think I am bull****ting ? you are more than welcome to ask the Webmaster and Mods to request my information. What do you do ?

What MC said.

Mildave, I’d ask you to read my original post to Aussienscale in context. Since he seems to be trying an “appeal to authority” argument based on his personal knowledge of “signal management”, he does owe the group an explanation of what it is. And if you can find relevant references somewhere with your powerful Google-fu, clearly it would be enlightening to MC and myself.

But when Aussienscale is pressed he simply gets abusive and says that he is privy to all sorts of secrets we don’t understand – and yet, I don’t see too many posts in his history on this forum that contribute positively to the discussion.

And to that end my appologies for the typo in my haste 🙁

“Signature Management” is what I am speaking of. Abusive how ? You very well know that we can’t just pull out references just to appease you, there is such a thing as the Official Secrecy ACT, ever heard of it ? You however work your way around arguements by challenging people on things you very well know we can’t put into the public domain and try and discredit people because of it.

Once again I am the one willing to supply credentials to support that my side of the story comes from actual Defence experience, you still don’t appear to be willing to back up your expertise ?

“signal management”?

What does that exactly mean in this context? I google it and get stuff about traffic lights. 😀

Swerve has an important point. Time difference of arrival techniques provide instant and highly accurate location – targeting quality against emitters – from a single transmission. I don’t see any reason why TDOA could not be used in conjunction with passive bistatic radar, either.

Thanks for yet another in depth and insighful post LO 🙂
As usual you embarrass yourself by trying to make snide remarks on a subject you have no working experience in. You know very well what it means so stop trying to impress your followers and get over yourself.

Yes Swerve does have a point, but as pointed out it is but one fraction of the total equation

thing is, once you have their position more or less precisely (even a couple of km precision is enough) you can direct interceptors which will take a closer look.

as for the idea of “ranging”, these passive radars don’t need it as such. once you have three or more “reception radars” getting a bearing all you need to do is get the right position through triangulation ( their bearings will necessarily join in a unique point where the target is)… the same may work for elevation as well (to get the altitude)

And what is happening exactly while you are triangulating this position ?

The price of the F35 has nothing to do with the reductions as such, its just that the country’s dont have the money because the are all basically in recession due to the GFC. Not really an F35 issue, if the money was there and the GFC did not happen European orders would not have changed, they would have spent the money