04:00 GMT10 July 2020
Listen Live
    Military & Intelligence
    Get short URL
    8821
    Subscribe

    Despite its apparent limitations, the new radar system can potentially be used in conjunction with other radar systems to strip enemy stealth aircraft of the very capabilities that give the latter their edge.

    It appears that stealth aircraft, one of the most potent tools in the NATO countries’ arsenal, may become not-so-potent in the near future as a new radar system developed by Russia’s Almaz-Antey JSC – the same company that manufactures Tor-M1 and S-400 air defence systems – could turn out to be quite good at detecting these planes.

    According to National Interest, the system in question, Struna-1, is a bistatic radar, i.e. its transmitter and receiver are positioned in different locations, unlike those of a conventional radar, which helps it to counter the methods used by stealth aircraft to mitigate radar returns, “effectively acting as a radar tripwire”.

    The system’s setup also helps increase the target’s effective radar cross section and ignores anti-radar coatings, being able to detect not just stealth aircraft but objects like hand gliders and cruise missiles.

    The new radar’s setup can incorporate up to 10 mobile receiver/transmitter tower pairs that emit less energy than conventional radars, thus making them “less vulnerable to anti-radiation weapons”, that can create a “maximum theoretical perimeter of 500km”.

    The radar system, however, has a number of drawbacks as well, such as a relatively low detection altitude (about 7 kilometres), along with a limited transverse size of its detection zone and inability to provide “constant radar illumination tracking a target”.

    Nevertheless, if used in conjunction with other “stealth-defeating” radar systems, Struna-1 “could provide critical information to an adversary on the position and movement of stealth aircraft”, the article’s author warns.
    Tags:
    detection, stealth aircraft, radar, Almaz-Antey, Russia
    Community standardsDiscussion