Agrigento
14-12-2003, 18:18
Active Radar Cancellation can, when coupled with an already stealthy planes (such as the B2 or F-22), provides a very effective system limiting RCS and increasing the survivability of the plane substantially, But it cannot make an aircraft, especially a supersonic one, (stealth or not) completely invisible, as some seem to claim.
Active Radar Cancellation, or ARC, is no way perfect, nor will it ever be. There are serious problems that prevent it from being as effective as some on NS would make it seem.
Some people neglect to mention these setbacks and believe that their fighters, when coupled with other Über tech, are completely undetectable by conventional means.
I would like to blame one person in particular for all these common misconceptions and whole-hearted godmods: Dale Brown
Now,
A few years ago there were rumors that France's Dassault Rafale fighter may be using some form of active radar cancellation. To put this in the most primitive way, an air defense radar is transmitting at a certain frequency; the signal is bouncing off the aircraft; a receiver aboard the aircraft picks up the signal and a computer analyses its base frequency and modulations and an out-of-phase signal is generated by onboard systems to cancel out the enemy radar signal.
This is easier said than done, but theoretically it is possible. You can read more on one of my old pages here (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/9735/rafale1.htm). The main problem is that the incoming signal is complex and the reflection off the surface of the aircraft is even more complex. How do you cancel it out? How do you process so much information so quickly? But most importantly, how do you position transmitting antennae aboard the aircraft to cover the entire aircraft (since the enemy radar signal is reflected from a multitude of points on the airframe and it's reflected differently from every one of them).
What makes systems that utilize ARC effective in any capacity is the fact that most computers that process radar information just compose an average of the return wavelengths. This means that when the ARC system encounters an angle at which it is detectible, and the return signal is sent, the Radar doesn't acknowledge it as a plane, but merely background noise.
There are a few ways to get around this, and one of them is quite simple. By having many radar systems in any given area you can pierce through any kind of ARC system, or stealth for that matter. It is for this reason that pilots are taught to avoid radar arcs, by finding holes in their defense corridors, when flying planes as stealthy as the B2. Nothing is fail safe against radar, especially multiple ground stations with powerful systems.
Another way to get around ARC is through a computer program, which, instead of making an average of the radar wavelengths, finds each and every reflection, and finds a pattern, geographically like a flight path of the emissions. Now with any type of computer around today that can be placed in a plane or on a radar station this would be utterly impossible. BUT if they can produce a computer with enough power that systems like ATHENA run under, then this is entirely possible in the NS world.
Once again systems like this that counter ARC and many of the ARC systems used in NS are real, but cannot work as effectively as some claim.
Now many of my planes utilize ARC, mostly stealth bombers and the sort, but by no means are they invisible, and by no means are they perfect. The best they can do is increase surviviblity, but that is the best anything can do. Some people believe their technology to be infallible, and that is a terrible way to think. Something will always be able to defeat it, and no system, ever or anywhere produced, is perfect.
I am also sure that there are many other ways around ARC, like using satellites and stealth defeating radar that utilizes communication fields, but these are simply ideas presented to prove that nothing is perfect.
IC:
Agrigento and East Islandia have begun development on a computer program designed to defeat enemy ARC systems and our own ARCangelo system. This program is intitled ANTARCtic. It is scheduled to enter service on front line fighters and at radar stations by next fiscal year.
Active Radar Cancellation, or ARC, is no way perfect, nor will it ever be. There are serious problems that prevent it from being as effective as some on NS would make it seem.
Some people neglect to mention these setbacks and believe that their fighters, when coupled with other Über tech, are completely undetectable by conventional means.
I would like to blame one person in particular for all these common misconceptions and whole-hearted godmods: Dale Brown
Now,
A few years ago there were rumors that France's Dassault Rafale fighter may be using some form of active radar cancellation. To put this in the most primitive way, an air defense radar is transmitting at a certain frequency; the signal is bouncing off the aircraft; a receiver aboard the aircraft picks up the signal and a computer analyses its base frequency and modulations and an out-of-phase signal is generated by onboard systems to cancel out the enemy radar signal.
This is easier said than done, but theoretically it is possible. You can read more on one of my old pages here (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/9735/rafale1.htm). The main problem is that the incoming signal is complex and the reflection off the surface of the aircraft is even more complex. How do you cancel it out? How do you process so much information so quickly? But most importantly, how do you position transmitting antennae aboard the aircraft to cover the entire aircraft (since the enemy radar signal is reflected from a multitude of points on the airframe and it's reflected differently from every one of them).
What makes systems that utilize ARC effective in any capacity is the fact that most computers that process radar information just compose an average of the return wavelengths. This means that when the ARC system encounters an angle at which it is detectible, and the return signal is sent, the Radar doesn't acknowledge it as a plane, but merely background noise.
There are a few ways to get around this, and one of them is quite simple. By having many radar systems in any given area you can pierce through any kind of ARC system, or stealth for that matter. It is for this reason that pilots are taught to avoid radar arcs, by finding holes in their defense corridors, when flying planes as stealthy as the B2. Nothing is fail safe against radar, especially multiple ground stations with powerful systems.
Another way to get around ARC is through a computer program, which, instead of making an average of the radar wavelengths, finds each and every reflection, and finds a pattern, geographically like a flight path of the emissions. Now with any type of computer around today that can be placed in a plane or on a radar station this would be utterly impossible. BUT if they can produce a computer with enough power that systems like ATHENA run under, then this is entirely possible in the NS world.
Once again systems like this that counter ARC and many of the ARC systems used in NS are real, but cannot work as effectively as some claim.
Now many of my planes utilize ARC, mostly stealth bombers and the sort, but by no means are they invisible, and by no means are they perfect. The best they can do is increase surviviblity, but that is the best anything can do. Some people believe their technology to be infallible, and that is a terrible way to think. Something will always be able to defeat it, and no system, ever or anywhere produced, is perfect.
I am also sure that there are many other ways around ARC, like using satellites and stealth defeating radar that utilizes communication fields, but these are simply ideas presented to prove that nothing is perfect.
IC:
Agrigento and East Islandia have begun development on a computer program designed to defeat enemy ARC systems and our own ARCangelo system. This program is intitled ANTARCtic. It is scheduled to enter service on front line fighters and at radar stations by next fiscal year.