NationStates Jolt Archive

Active Radar Cancellation can, when coupled with an already stealthy planes (such as the B2 or F-22), provide 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.

excellent work with your theory. Once again, AG has proven themselves to be at the forefront of cuttingedge technology.

Yeah, hopefully I am keeping Imitora on his toes...

ooc: Still a little angry about that Faggio Italian Tech comment!!

thank you Agrigento for this topic; long ago i developed 'active stealth,' which is basically ARC, and people using magic and flying battleships have been screaming god mode at me forever. i'm glad to see i'm not totally nuts here, and will be using this as a reference if anyone gives me any more static (hehehe). cheers.

thank you Agrigento for this topic; long ago i developed 'active stealth,' which is basically ARC, and people using magic and flying battleships have been screaming god mode at me forever. i'm glad to see i'm not totally nuts here, and will be using this as a reference if anyone gives me any more static (hehehe). cheers.

No problem :)

I dun know how NEs or Imi's Athena worked, but they probably utilised the speed theroy, meaning that their Athena's worked at near astronomical speeds in order to defeat the whole, switch the frequency. I was thinkning about using that for mine, and instead went with another Athena theory. Although the fact taht everyone flips out over it like its some godmod is so funny. I mean, you are all pouring billions of dollars into a program that, for most of you, already exists. All you gotta do is read Fortunes of War to learn how to defeat Athena.

I dun know how NEs or Imi's Athena worked, but they probably utilised the speed theroy, meaning that their Athena's worked at near astronomical speeds in order to defeat the whole, switch the frequency. I was thinkning about using that for mine, and instead went with another Athena theory. Although the fact taht everyone flips out over it like its some godmod is so funny. I mean, you are all pouring billions of dollars into a program that, for most of you, already exists. All you gotta do is read Fortunes of War to learn how to defeat Athena.

I hate Stephen Coonts' writing.

Now, this program is certainly not costing Billions, its actually quite simple.

In fact you should be thanking me. Now people will believe it exists and cease calling you a godmodder. The number one reason people call things godmods is because they don't know how to defeat.

Also: I assumed you were using Imitora's ATHENA, in which case he invented ways to get around the other detection methods that you are referring to, weather satellites and the such.

Another couple of fallacies about stealthing in general and ARC in particular.

Stealth technology as advertised by far too many players in NS makes an aircraft invisible to radar. This is completely untrue. The stealth aspects of the F-117 or the B-2 are mainly a function of the complex geometry of the plane's construction coupled with a radar-scattering coating. To further make the planes hard to detect, the exhaust geometry is altered to produce less heat signature (note that this only minimizes thermal signature, not eliminate it).

All of this technology- noteworthy as it is- simply makes the planes more difficult to detect by ground radar with a specific series of emitter frequencies by reducing the observable radar cross-section. This effect is less useful against airborne radar or certain archaic SAM missile guidance systems. Stealth is far less stealthy the closer the plane gets to the emitter. More powerful emitters also reduce the effectiveness of stealth technology.

Furthermore, radar from different angles will each show a different radar cross-section. Radar striking the aircraft from above or below will show a much larger radar image than one from a few degrees ahead or behind.

To add to the stealth aircraft's problems, weapons carried on external hardpoints are not covered by the stealth technology. These will continue to show up on most radar (and may have a larger radar cross-section that the aircraft carrying it). For the B-2, this means that the plane effectively quadruples its radar signature when the bomb doors open.

On to Active Radar Cancellation. As with radar jammers, ARC has a couple of serious flaws. The first flaw is similar to that of stealth: the closer the plane gets to the emitter, the less effective the ARC is. Also, multiple emitters will very quickly overload the onboard computer of the target aircraft- especially if they are all on different bearings with different frequencies.

If the tracking radars are powerful enough, they will be able to track the aircraft by tracking the EM distortion around it- similar to the methods used by radar detection stations to determine the rough location of active radar jammers.

None of what I just said means that stealth or ARC are useless- far from it. Stealth, ARC, jamming, chaff, etc, are all part of the ongoing duel between detection and antidetection technology (just like the duel between armor and weapons).

Here's a typical exchange on the subject in the game:

N1- 2 squadrons of Superior fighters fly toward your capital city.

N2- My radar stations on the border pick them up and Ultimate fighters scramble to intercept.

N1- Unh uh! My fighters are stealth fighters and use Active Radar Cancellation! You can't see them! Neener! Neener! Neener!

Now let us take a look at a far more realistic exchange:

N1- 2 squadrons of Superior fighters fly toward your capital city.

N2- You are aware of the multiple-emitter phased-array radars I have for Distant Early Warning, aren;t you?

N1- My Intelligence people have warned us of this. The Superior fighter uses stealth technology and ARC.

N2- Read my lips: Multiple-emitter phased array radar

N1- We have the frequencies plotted. You might get a few readings, but the ARC will negate your ability to track.

N2- Fair enough. Station Zebra, up on the Gholad Plateau, gets a weird reading on his radar. The technician follows SOP and notifies his team leader, who authorizes a frequency shift for the emitter

N1- Eep! You can do that?

N2- Your ARC will not be able to match 30 or so widely seperate frequencies. The alert goes out and Ultimate fighters scramble to intercept.

N1- Curse you, Red Baron!

This was- of course- an extremely simplified series of events. There are a wide variety of proven ways to penetrate an enemy radar network. None of them are particularly subtle, and all of them warn the enemy that you're on the way. A little forethought and cleverness on your part, and you can be N2. Not that you'll have exact coordinates or even a raid count, but multiple emitters, phased-array radars, frequency-hopping, and more powerful emitters all make it more difficult to sneak in.

I refuse to go into more detail right now, because I'll be going to war with one of my neighbors pretty soon, and I plan on being N2.

TEO

Well, yeah, you basically said the same things as me, albeit in much greater detail. thanks.

OOC: Excellent posts to both (Agrigento/Evil Overlord).

While I ICly do not really focus on any kind of "stealth technologies" (i.e. ARC, Athena, even those "optical cloaking" some people use for their modern tech aircraft), I do apply several methods to foil it, similar to what Agrigento and Evil Overlord mentioned (using multiple radars with multiple frequencies). To counter stealth and ARC, many of my SAM radars are also low-frequency. Lastly, some other nation and I are both using a system that essentially takes civilian communications signals (such as cell phone signals) and other ordinary radar signals to detect the stealth aircraft, and use special passive sensors to receive the signals, therefore essentially "shaping" the aircraft's position. But I won't really go into a bunch of details about it for now.

Defeating "stealth" doesn't cost much after all. What's the use for my military to spend billions to outfit my aircraft with these systems when they can be countered by systems and methods much inexpensive (some even costs less than millions) after all?

[OOC: Very interesting.

However, I thought you might be interested to know that a few NS nations (including mine, EOTED) now implement a newish form of detection: blanket radar interference detection (BRID). BRID works in any high-tech nation that has a high proportion of citizens posessing radio-wave based personal communications devices (like cell phones). Essentially, it works by commandeering private/public (for example) cellular antennae. A simple computation device uses existing radar systems to analyze 'gaps' in the blanket RF radiation that lies over modern countries. Indeed, television antenna can be utilized to perform the same function. There is no possible way to evade detection using this system; the aircraft cannot help but disperse radio waves as it flies, and it is this dispersal that the system detects. Specialized backscatter radar systems or other detection equipment can then 'zero in' on the area known to contain the aircraft, and pinpoint its location with greater accuracy.

This technology is already utilized by the RAF in Britain, and has had great success in detecting US stealth aircraft.

Of course, there are other methods of detecting aircraft; thermal emissions or ultrasonic emissions are just two other ways.

EOTED utilizes a vast array of detection equipment, ranging from orbital and ground-based laser sweeps, to thermal imaging equipment, to ultrasound detection systems. We also have a stealth aircraft, the X#, which depends on having an extremely small RCS (radar cross section) rather than technological prowess. The X#'s shape is largely based on the Boeing 'Bird of Prey'; the Bird of Prey was an experimental aircraft that had an RCS roughly the size of a sparrow in straight-and-level flight - as does the X#. Whilst performing maneuvers, the RCS increases to approximately the same rough 'size' of RCS that the Nighthawk enjoys.]

Great work on this thread. Tagging it for future refrence since I use both active and passive stealth and have heard more than one cry of Godmodding.

Great work on this thread. Tagging it for future refrence since I use both active and passive stealth and have heard more than one cry of Godmodding.

taggage.

Thanks all. Just trying to help.

Thanks all. Just trying to help.
Glad to see someone finally explains how these Athena systems, etc. can be fooled by much cheaper technologies after all.