This radar would likely not have the location accuracy of where exactly the B-2 was to accurately engage it with a missile. Your accuracy would be limited by the rate of RF pings the B-2 is putting off, and then the margin-of-error of these RF waves and receiver.
This is one difference between the B-2 and stealth fighters like the F-22 & F-35: The latter are not necessarily designed to be invisible, only impossible to reliably hit. Their shapes and radar-absorbent paint deflect, diffuse, or absorb the high-frequency bands used in the terminal guidance of missiles. So they are hard to target. But they can be picked up at range by long-distance, long-wavelength VHF and UHF radars. These frequencies, used in early-warning radars, have too low-optical resolution* however to be any good at aiming guns or missiles. The B-2's "flying wing" shape is able to not-interfere with these wavelengths though, and hence hides from them. In that sense, this is somewhat interesting, if neutered for the reasons you mention.
*You can only localize the detection to a few sq hundred meters, even kms.
There are FLIR images of thr F22, nothing extraordinary about it in the IR spectrum.
Essentially the passive array in this article is in the class of "Early Warning Radar" which is used to alert Combat Air Patrol aircraft and SAM sites where to start looking for the contact.
If you wanted to use this with a networked radar guided missile you would have problems with terminal guidance. If the missile could acquire the target as it came into radar range for the radar cross section of a stealth aircraft, there is very little chance it would have the energy to track the target. It would essentially need to make a right turn midair to track on the target. All the while the missile's radar will be making the plane's RWR light up like a Christmas tree.
Tldr; it's complicated
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31222/mysterious-airsp...
At least the Russian team was merely operating a Buk in a clandestine op in the middle of a field in Ukraine (and the US ship was technically in Iranian territorial waters in 1988 during an actual war), I’m curious what Iran’s excuse was shooting it down in their own property?... maybe we’ll learn more about it eventually. Bellingcat was able to provide the actual team member names and wiretaps of the Russian soldiers.
The techniques they used to decrease the IR visibility are pretty neat. The engine nozzles are over the wings and there are a lot of airflow tricks used to cool it down faster so from below there might not be enough plume to track from a surface launched missile coming, from below at least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#In...
It's impossible to hide from long wave IR sensors, which detect the heat signature of the plane itself, and not its exhaust.
When you’re talking about terminal IR guidance on any modern missile, generally the IRCCM will be so good that the probability of defeat with a flare cocktail is below an acceptable risk threshold. DIRCM is the current answer to this problem and—to tie this in with the parent comment—renders terminal IR guidance much less effective than MMW or other RF guidance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_Infrared_Counter...
In reality, what would make a difference is coordinating communications and decision making.
Nope, it's a more sophisticated algorithm they're using. Our company held all the patents for locating GSM cell phones calling 911 using UTDOA. The U is uplink, meaning the network of receivers listens when the phone talks. The patents entail each receiver taking a sample of the signal they heard in that time slot on that frequency. They upload the sample to a processor which tries to correlate all the samples with some DSP math, sliding them around in time to see if they match. If they do correlate, the offsets of each one is your delay for doing trilateration.
So if you have multiple talkers at the same time, they can probably be subtracted out by the correlation step.
Not at all. Check out the VLBI technique from radio astronomy, it's not hard to tell that there are two discrete signals.
But that's not really the point: you can see stealth aircraft already with lower frequency radars, just not well enough to shoot them down. It's hard to imagine this passive technique being good enough to shoot them down, either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology#Low-frequen...
Not really enough though, which is how they lost all the F117s over Serbia in the 90s. One of which I have a framed picture of on the wall along side an original "sorry we didnt know it was invisible" flyer.
Tech has come a long way since then.
Only a single F117 was shot down over Serbia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk#Comba...
https://images.app.goo.gl/vUd8z2gkWEtKWKcJ8
even your source says they hit 2. They claim they downed 3. Americans denied they lost any for decades.
Also, the US didn't deny that they lost any for decades. I remember the news footage (in the US) of the night it was shot down.
You have a peculiar axe to grind here. Are you trying to sell radar systems or something?
Point is with AA missile is that getting them "on target" is almost as effective as a hit. target has to deploy its counter measures and return home, else next time they are destroyed.
I believe this is generally called multilateration (MLAT):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateration
* https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Multilateration
* https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/multilatera...
* https://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-and-services/Pages/on-b...
That's a fancy way to say 'triangulation'.
That said, they are "easy" to jam in the sense that when you have two radio signals on the same frequency, they will interfere with direction finding. And there is a lot of noise in the RF spectrum out there, especially during thunderstorms.