User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 1:29:26 PM EDT
[#1]
Radar can't hear shit.
Do you mean sonar? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 1:29:53 PM EDT
[#2]
Classified
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 1:32:23 PM EDT
[#3]
Hmmmm......
I can see how this is possible, but under certain circumstances it may not be reliable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 1:33:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Radar antennas just sense radio waves being bounced back. They can't really hear anything.
If there was a military radar that could do this, it would be another system coupled with the radar, and definitely not the radar alone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 1:34:41 PM EDT
[#5]
I've heard rumors of sensor systems that use things like sound to detect flying objects.
Just rumors though 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 1:37:42 PM EDT
[#6]
The closest I've heard of is the one that can distinguish turbine blades and determine what the engine is based on the speed of the rotation and their size (radius, width, etc.). It would then use the engine type and the velocity and altitude of the aircraft to determine what type of aircraft was detected. I think that tech was designed in the 60s-70s.
...Or something like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 1:39:40 PM EDT
[#7]
I had a picture somewhere of a Japanese device from the 30's (??) Supposedly for listening for the sounds of aircraft.
Goggle Japanese War Tuba. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 1:40:06 PM EDT
[#8]
Early version
Although in theory it is possible, but sound propagation in air is marginal most of the time. There could be passive firefinder systems for up close, for aircraft, not so much. By measuring the difference of sound arrival times using multiple microphones, you could figure locations. Like a passive sonar system. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 1:45:07 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The closest I've heard of is the one that can distinguish turbine blades and determine what the engine is based on the speed of the rotation and their size (radius, width, etc.). It would then use the engine type and the velocity and altitude of the aircraft to determine what type of aircraft was detected. I think that tech was designed in the 60s-70s. ...Or something like that. I thought the Rooskies wrapped aluminum foil around their propeller blades and inside their jet turbines to counteract that. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 1:46:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Does anyone know of USAF or ARMY radar that can actually hear what a target sounds like? It can hear the prop wash, pulse jet, or other sounds from a target hundreds of miles away. This top secret radar was in use back in the late 60's. I'm trying to verify a story I heard. I can't find anything out on this subject from the net. Perhaps there is no such thing, (and the story is BS) but if someone has any info on this, I'm all ears. Find someone that used to be a CTT in the Navy and get them drunk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 1:46:03 PM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 2:06:58 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Classified <snort> Good one. Serious answer - not aware of one, and can't really think of the tactical usefulness of such data, even if you there was. Now, depending on the type of radar, you could, I suppose, theoretically extract some sort of sound from a returned radar signal, if you had enough signal processing power and the right algorithms. I'd think it would be easiest with a non-rotating beam radar (i.e. a fire control radar, not a search radar), and whatever you get would have Doppler distortion, so to identify a specific type of aircraft,you would need a large library of all known flying objects from all possible aspects, at all flying speeds to compare with. The radar frequency would bear on the effectiveness (or even the possibility) of that working. I'd also imagine that a maneuvering target would complicate the issue significantly. At the same time I would think that adding some sort of noise-generator that is never to be activated except in case of actual war, and then only when ordered to in certain circumstances, would be an effective countermeasure, which leads back to "not tactically useful". But it might be a fun thing to work on, from a science project point of view. Why don't you try pitching it to DARPA or one or the service Research Labs (ARL, AFRL, NRL)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 2:11:08 PM EDT
[#13]
It can hear beeps, the sweeps and the creeps. But it can be easily jammed, usually strawberry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 2:13:29 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Does anyone know of USAF or ARMY radar that can actually hear what a target sounds like? It can hear the prop wash, pulse jet, or other sounds from a target hundreds of miles away. This top secret radar was in use back in the late 60's. I'm trying to verify a story I heard. I can't find anything out on this subject from the net. Perhaps there is no such thing, (and the story is BS) but if someone has any info on this, I'm all ears. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 2:13:44 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It can hear beeps, the sweeps and the creeps. But it can be easily jammed, usually strawberry. Because after all, only Lone Starr would dare give the raspberry! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 2:21:24 PM EDT
[#16]
Story goes back to Southern Florida late 1967, (cold war / eyes watching Cuba and the USSR) several Land-Based Air Defense Radars were tracking something on radar. One of the radar operators then switched to this "listening type array" and were able to hear what the target sounded like.
bla bla bla I never heard of such a thing. Perhaps it's not "Radar" but the item was at the controls of the Radar operators?? Did the US have such hearing magnifiers like in the pictures? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 6:16:49 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Story goes back to Southern Florida late 1967, (cold war / eyes watching Cuba and the USSR) several Land-Based Air Defense Radars were tracking something on radar. One of the radar operators then switched to this "listening type array" and were able to hear what the target sounded like. bla bla bla I never heard of such a thing. Perhaps it's not "Radar" but the item was at the controls of the Radar operators?? Did the US have such hearing magnifiers like in the pictures? Back before and during WWII, acoustic detection systems were used by every country. But the US was a early adopter of radar and acoustic detection systems were phased out early in the war in favor of radar systems. However many acoustic detection systems were kept operating with searchlight units and anti-aircraft gun units to hide the American use of radar from German spies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 6:22:31 PM EDT
[#18]
Actually I think that can be done. But you would probably need to continually send out the signal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 6:28:57 PM EDT
[#19]
Not acoustic but the High Powered Illuminating radars for Hawk Missiles had a way of telling if it was rotor wing or fixed coming at you. I was not a radar guy but hanging out with them when we were in the field they could "hear" the difference. There was a Doppler effect from the target coming towards you or going away and Rotary had a flutter of both advancing and retreating sounds as well as the sound of return from the fuselage of the AC.
They did not hear the actual air craft but a sound in their headsets of the radar ping returning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 7:00:32 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Does anyone know of USAF or ARMY radar that can actually hear what a target sounds like? It can hear the prop wash, pulse jet, or other sounds from a target hundreds of miles away. This top secret radar was in use back in the late 60's. I'm trying to verify a story I heard. I can't find anything out on this subject from the net. Perhaps there is no such thing, (and the story is BS) but if someone has any info on this, I'm all ears. I'll guess that someone read something about Doppler RADAR and confused that with the Doppler Effect with audible sound commonly described in textbooks. But. If I wanted to build a machine like that, I would use it to measure the modulation of the moving parts superimposed on the basic return. Except Bear bombers, their props cancel the effect from each other, so instead I would look for the lack of sound, a big 'ol hole of sound. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 7:02:45 PM EDT
[#21]
Back in the late 80's and early 90's during the Aurora craze, there were several sonic booms heard by the USGS earthquake sensors in several states. They were able to track whatever was flying over the PRK to it's landing site in SW NV, approximately where Area 51 is located.
Aurora American sighting claims |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 7:04:17 PM EDT
[#22]
There are certain systems in use by certain militaries that combine multiple types of sensors to do what you are describing OP. Have been for some time, but in specific situations for specific uses. It is not radar specifically.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 7:04:57 PM EDT
[#23]
I wonder if this thread will be as good as the aircraft carrier anchoring thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 7:05:24 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Early version https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7oEvvNiFKmw/TY48li7KPeI/AAAAAAAAB_0/rmmxnNnFkcY/s1600/b4radar-2.jpg Although in theory it is possible, but sound propagation in air is marginal most of the time. There could be passive firefinder systems for up close, for aircraft, not so much. By measuring the difference of sound arrival times using multiple microphones, you could figure locations. Like a passive sonar system. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/GeneralSchematic.png  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 7:08:26 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder if this thread will be as good as the aircraft carrier anchoring thread. In. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 7:10:17 PM EDT
[#26]
Obama replaced that technology with Gaydar.
Now we can detect how gay our enemy is and invite him over for hot chocolate and discuss healthcare reform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 7:16:43 PM EDT
[#27]
 They are listening... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 7:44:42 PM EDT
[#28]
AN/PPS-15, used to work on them, man portable, could hear a rabbit twitching its ears at 1.5km.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 7:47:42 PM EDT
[#29]
AN/PPS-5, bigger, longer range, could track vehicles, planes, personnel...used to paint the local forklifts with it, a very distinctive whoop, whoop, sound when they bounced on their hard forklift tires.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 7:50:24 PM EDT
[#30]
Radar, Radio Direction and Ranging. It can tell you where a target is. If it is vertically oriented it can tell you how high something is.With appropriate software it can tell you the course and speed of the target along with closest point of approach and time to CPA. It can differentiate between fast and slow targets and based on that rule out threats that don't fall within certain perimeters. It can tell the difference between a big target and a small target. It can be set to enhance echos from weather or reject them.
It is not SONAR , Sound Navigation and Ranging. it can't hear shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 8:10:12 PM EDT
[#31]
Actually RADAR and SONAR work pretty similarly, just different frequencies, SONAR is much lower i.e "sound" RADAR much higher, both use detection circuitry and different ways of presenting the detected object. Pulsed Doppler radar uses visual and audible indicators ie "hears" the target, it's all about the end product, the theory/application is very much related. The rabbit twitching his ears was our final test of receiver sensitivity, if we could target a rabbit, then we painted it green (the radar, not the rabbit) and shipped it off to supply.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 8:22:30 PM EDT
[#32]
Not hearing per se, but sophisticated radar processors can identify aircraft by the JEM, or jet engine modulation of the pulse by fan blades. There is a lot of other cool shit going on, but that is all you get from this "old Crow".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:19:50 PM EDT
[#33]
I worked on the AN/SPG-51C(d) Missile Radar and there was an audio output which was based on the doppler shift of the airborne target. So, while not "hearing" the target per se, it provided an audio tone based in the motion of the target relative to the ship. Funny thing: we fired a Standard SM-1 at an inbound target drone. If memory serves, the "noise" of the drone was relatively even until our outbound missile killed it. Apparently a good sized chunk of drone was left spinning as it fell into the ocean, making a distinctive "wonk wonk wonk wonk" sound, kind of like helicopter blades slowing down.
Oh, and this audio was all fed through our super-SWEET Sansui stereo system that we all pitched in to buy. Gotta rock out while on watch in Missile Radar.   |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:33:17 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
AN/PPS-15, used to work on them, man portable, could hear a rabbit twitching its ears at 1.5km. You may have heard a sound, but it wasn't your target's audio. It was a tone generated by the radar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:40:52 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll guess that someone read something about Doppler RADAR and confused that with the Doppler Effect with audible sound commonly described in textbooks. But. If I wanted to build a machine like that, I would use it to measure the modulation of the moving parts superimposed on the basic return. Except Bear bombers, their props cancel the effect from each other, so instead I would look for the lack of sound, a big 'ol hole of sound. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Does anyone know of USAF or ARMY radar that can actually hear what a target sounds like? It can hear the prop wash, pulse jet, or other sounds from a target hundreds of miles away. This top secret radar was in use back in the late 60's. I'm trying to verify a story I heard. I can't find anything out on this subject from the net. Perhaps there is no such thing, (and the story is BS) but if someone has any info on this, I'm all ears. I'll guess that someone read something about Doppler RADAR and confused that with the Doppler Effect with audible sound commonly described in textbooks. But. If I wanted to build a machine like that, I would use it to measure the modulation of the moving parts superimposed on the basic return. Except Bear bombers, their props cancel the effect from each other, so instead I would look for the lack of sound, a big 'ol hole of sound. Umm, Doppler RADAR and The Doppler effect in sound work the same way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:12:17 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Umm, Doppler RADAR and The Doppler effect in sound work the same way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does anyone know of USAF or ARMY radar that can actually hear what a target sounds like? It can hear the prop wash, pulse jet, or other sounds from a target hundreds of miles away. This top secret radar was in use back in the late 60's. I'm trying to verify a story I heard. I can't find anything out on this subject from the net. Perhaps there is no such thing, (and the story is BS) but if someone has any info on this, I'm all ears. I'll guess that someone read something about Doppler RADAR and confused that with the Doppler Effect with audible sound commonly described in textbooks. But. If I wanted to build a machine like that, I would use it to measure the modulation of the moving parts superimposed on the basic return. Except Bear bombers, their props cancel the effect from each other, so instead I would look for the lack of sound, a big 'ol hole of sound. Umm, Doppler RADAR and The Doppler effect in sound work the same way. Except for the fact you can hear sound and not x-band. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:18:12 PM EDT
[#37]
I think the OP may be using "hear" in the sense to detect sound waves.
Doppler radar should be able to, but you would still get a far stronger return off the target. Should be possible, not sure it's practical at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:23:37 PM EDT
[#38]
Back in the 80's we had Ground Surveillance Radar (GSR). It was a doppler radar that was used to cover a wide area. I believe it could detect vehicles out to 3k and humans out to 1,500 feet. There was no radar scope, instead you listen to the doppler return and you could tell what was in your sector. If you heard a "whoosh, whoosh, whoosh" sound that was someone walking. The noise was their legs moving back and forth. If you heard more of a harmonic whine, then it was probably a vehicle. The sound would be coming from their tires. And if you were good you could tell if it was a larger vehicle or smaller one based on the wheel radius and how fast it was turning. We had a readout that would tell us which way the radar was facing and then we had to "dial" in radar to listen to a target. We were training at Davis-Monthan AFB and one day on base a couple of A-10's were taking off so we aimed it at the jets and heard the high pitched whine of the turbine blades as they took off.
Here's a photo of the receiver. You can see the headphones we used to listen to the radar 
This was taken while I was training with the GSR (I'm not in the photo) You can see the antennas on their tripods. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:27:26 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except for the fact you can hear sound and not x-band. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does anyone know of USAF or ARMY radar that can actually hear what a target sounds like? It can hear the prop wash, pulse jet, or other sounds from a target hundreds of miles away. This top secret radar was in use back in the late 60's. I'm trying to verify a story I heard. I can't find anything out on this subject from the net. Perhaps there is no such thing, (and the story is BS) but if someone has any info on this, I'm all ears. I'll guess that someone read something about Doppler RADAR and confused that with the Doppler Effect with audible sound commonly described in textbooks. But. If I wanted to build a machine like that, I would use it to measure the modulation of the moving parts superimposed on the basic return. Except Bear bombers, their props cancel the effect from each other, so instead I would look for the lack of sound, a big 'ol hole of sound. Umm, Doppler RADAR and The Doppler effect in sound work the same way. Except for the fact you can hear sound and not x-band. Except for the fact that sound waves have nothing to do with radio waves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:32:36 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:One of the radar operators then switched to this "listening type array" and were able to hear what the target sounded like.
Someone is telling tall tales. Or maybe you misinterpreted some of the jargon/slang when they said they "listened". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 11:06:09 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the OP may be using "hear" in the sense to detect sound waves. Doppler radar should be able to, but you would still get a far stronger return off the target. Should be possible, not sure it's practical at all. The correct term would be "detect", not "hear". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 11:18:33 PM EDT
[#42]
DEW line up here had more than just radars. Also some other shit I can't relay.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 12:11:54 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Does anyone know of USAF or ARMY radar that can actually hear what a target sounds like? It can hear the prop wash, pulse jet, or other sounds from a target hundreds of miles away. This top secret radar was in use back in the late 60's. I'm trying to verify a story I heard. I can't find anything out on this subject from the net. Perhaps there is no such thing, (and the story is BS) but if someone has any info on this, I'm all ears. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 12:24:46 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<a href="http://s129.photobucket.com/user/zwvirtual/media/glcmtraining1.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/zwvirtual/glcmtraining1.jpg</a> Are they the Tuskegee Earmen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 12:30:57 AM EDT
[#45]
oops.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 12:44:45 AM EDT
[#46]
First post
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 12:53:32 AM EDT
[#47]
Careful and subtle analysis of RF signals can tell you a great deal, much more than simple alt/vector.
A great deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:49:19 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Classified dude, NDA mean anything. you're supposed to deny knowing anything. now you're screwed! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:58:00 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Story goes back to Southern Florida late 1967, (cold war / eyes watching Cuba and the USSR) several Land-Based Air Defense Radars were tracking something on radar. One of the radar operators then switched to this "listening type array" and were able to hear what the target sounded like. bla bla bla I never heard of such a thing. Perhaps it's not "Radar" but the item was at the controls of the Radar operators?? Did the US have such hearing magnifiers like in the pictures? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Story goes back to Southern Florida late 1967, (cold war / eyes watching Cuba and the USSR) several Land-Based Air Defense Radars were tracking something on radar. One of the radar operators then switched to this "listening type array" and were able to hear what the target sounded like. bla bla bla I never heard of such a thing. Perhaps it's not "Radar" but the item was at the controls of the Radar operators?? Did the US have such hearing magnifiers like in the pictures? OP I'm going to help you out here. My radar had something similar to what you were told. Quoted:
I'd think it would be easiest with a non-rotating beam radar (i.e. a fire control radar, not a search radar), and whatever you get would have Doppler distortion, so to identify a specific type of aircraft,you would need a large library of all known flying objects from all possible aspects, at all flying speeds to compare with. The radar frequency would bear on the effectiveness (or even the possibility) of that working. I'd also imagine that a maneuvering target would complicate the issue significantly. At the same time I would think that adding some sort of noise-generator that is never to be activated except in case of actual war, and then only when ordered to in certain circumstances, would be an effective countermeasure, which leads back to "not tactically useful". It basically worked just like Mariner82 said. We could plug in headsets to the console and we could "hear" the doppler. Now, we weren't hearing sound from the aircraft. The doppler from the radar was converted by the radar into a sound representing the doppler, just as it converted the radar return into a visual display. My radar was a naval radar, and it was based on a family of radars that were quite old. I think this technique was favored in the 1950s and 60s, but soon went out of favor for reasons Mariner82 posted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:45:50 AM EDT
[#50]
Thanks for scratching my interest. The story then is plausible.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
