3 ms·

> I've never been in the military aviation community. But I'd assume that ID'ing radars is so basic that you'd want to carry it around with you all the time. Yo

> I've never been in the military aviation community. But I'd assume that ID'ing radars is so basic that you'd want to carry it around with you all the time. You know, just in case. You do carry that basic capability around all the time. Without going into too much detail, what is causing concern is the development of files that accurately describe areas of operation. It's the difference between having a general ability to identify things and having detailed knowledge of what you can expect. > I've never been in the military aviation community. Most people haven't, which is why this all looks and seems so strange to them.

tehmaco 11y ago
Presumably something that would tell the avionics that: 'Radar system X (location ...), working on frequencies (...), using these waveform patterns (...), is effective out to range Y, is only effective above altitude Z' Which would prompt the pilot with a warning if it's detected in operation (as you can detect radar before it can detect your return signature) to reduce altitude if needed?
- sandworm101 11y ago
  >> ... you can detect radar before it can detect your return signature. That's old thinking. Cutting edge radar tech involves transmitting in way that is very very hard to detect. It's basically a strong signal spread thin across a wide band so it looks like background noise to the target. The radar receiver then relies on a massive, literally heavy, computer system to differentiate the returns mathematically from the background. I've even heard this called "encrypted radar" as it adds creates an asymmetric situation not unlike public key cryptography. The days of assuming that the target will always hear the radar before detection are over. This works particularly well for aircraft viewed from the ground. They, looking down at the ground, see a much noisier background than those looking up at them against the sky. Also, much work is being done on very long wavelength radars, with the possibility that an aircraft might not be able to carry a dish large enough to detect the incoming signal while remaining stealthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-frequency_radar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-frequency_radar

tehmaco 11y ago

Presumably something that would tell the avionics that: 'Radar system X (location ...), working on frequencies (...), using these waveform patterns (...), is effective out to range Y, is only effective above altitude Z' Which would prompt the pilot with a warning if it's detected in operation (as you can detect radar before it can detect your return signature) to reduce altitude if needed?

sandworm101 11y ago
>> ... you can detect radar before it can detect your return signature. That's old thinking. Cutting edge radar tech involves transmitting in way that is very very hard to detect. It's basically a strong signal spread thin across a wide band so it looks like background noise to the target. The radar receiver then relies on a massive, literally heavy, computer system to differentiate the returns mathematically from the background. I've even heard this called "encrypted radar" as it adds creates an asymmetric situation not unlike public key cryptography. The days of assuming that the target will always hear the radar before detection are over. This works particularly well for aircraft viewed from the ground. They, looking down at the ground, see a much noisier background than those looking up at them against the sky. Also, much work is being done on very long wavelength radars, with the possibility that an aircraft might not be able to carry a dish large enough to detect the incoming signal while remaining stealthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-frequency_radar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-frequency_radar