That is in non jamming environment, in the jamming hostile scenario it is berely 57 kms for stealth birds.
Introduce a jammer to improve the chances of the F-22s and an S-400 will shoot down the jammer. The effectiveness of jammers is determined largely by their power, which is turn is determined by their distance to the thing being jammed.
Jamming from 400km is just making yourself a target... you are emitting noise but are too far away to be effective.
Get close enough to be effective and get shot down.
Pakfa has 100 times bigger RCS so it can be detected at longer ranges. True?
In practical terms no.
An anti stealth radar optimised to see very small targets will likely see both.
It is like looking at objects in the night sky... to get a pair of binoculars to see a faint object you usually see more than one faint object... you see a lot of them.
It is a bit like tank armour, the tank armour in service doesn't need to stop things that are on your enemies drawing board, it just needs to stop stuff in general service with your enemies forces. By the time your enemy gets that new ammo that can penetrate your armour of today you will have improved it so as he introduces the new ammo you start introducing the new add on armour to counter the new anti armour ammo he has developed.
Look at Kontact... by the time the west got hold of it and tested it and realised it defeated most of their anti armour weapons and they developed and introduced into service new stuff to defeat it the Russians had already developed new ERA that was even more effective...
Regarding Pantsirs conducting the point defense, they have been compromised by BAE Suter when Israel attacked the Syrian nuke labs in 2007.
That must be a very capable system because Pantsirs had not been delivered to Syria in 2007 in time for the Israeli attack.
No Pantsir-S1s in Syria
In September, the system made the headlines when Israel conducted an air strike on Syria. According to Israelis, some military targets deep in Syrian territory were hit despite being protected by Pantsirs. The media was calling the system ineffective.
The head of the construction bureau, Aleksandr Ribas, says at the moment there were no Pantsir system in Syria at the moment: “I assure you that if it was there, none of the planes would have reached the target. More than that, they simply would not even dare go there,” he says.
BTW Suter is a hacking program that allows access to an enemies air defence network. In the case of the Israeli raid they redirected radars to look where the attack force of aircraft wasn't.
A Pantsir-S1 located near the target would likely be operating autonomously and would have been able to shoot down both the aircraft used and the weapons they released.
It is likely the Israelis timed their attack because they knew the Syrians were getting Pantsir-S1 and their window of opportunity was closing.
However 15km engagement altiitude not good enough for aircrafts as AAA also reaches that level. It might be good to deal with missiles and bombs released.
Not many aircraft routinely operate above 15,000m, because it takes fuel to reach that altitude and most larger aircraft like bombers and JSTARS can't operate at that sort of altitude. The only aircraft which operate higher than that are fighters using the high ground.
Pantsir-S1 is not the only SAM a country would use, it is used together with a range of SAMs. Its main purpose is short range defence of important targets including larger SAM bases.
The altitude of the missile used by Tunguska was 3.5K m, while the first Pantsir could reach about 5km or so with its slightly longer range missiles.
The 15km operating altitude for the Pantsir-S1 was specifically because of the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo/Serbia.
Not only the ability to reach that high it also got multiple target engagement capability (one optical guidance channel and three radar guidance channel so it can engage 4 targets at once... including while moving...
The larger SAM can deal with threats operating at higher altitudes and much longer ranges.
If all Pantsir-S1 can do is force enemy aircraft to fly above 15km then it has made ground attack much harder and also made it easier for radars to detect threats at longer ranges.
The fact that it can also engage any weapons directed at the target it is protecting is a huge bonus.
Against Russia, F22s operating without AWACS, JSTARS and Refuellers is point truly realistic. This will reduce their operation theatre to 1.5 hours I think. Big relief.
Lack of inflight refuelling will also restrict their basing options which puts the airbases they are operating from much closer to Russian ballistic and cruise missiles.
On the other hand, F22s should have some secret techs going that we do not know about. But same would be true about Pakfa as it will come out 3 years from now so more time to add goodies.
It is ongoing and both will get lots of changes and updates during their operational lifetimes.
However, the point that Russia cannot detect, track and kill F22s and F35s (to some extent) beyond the range of 60kms in a jamming hostile environment, holds as it was.
Regrading triangulation radars like Kolchuga, (what i heard) is detection is possible but tracking might be an issue. Hope not.
Russia can track paint chips in space at ranges of 8,000km, the claims of 0.0000001 or whatever RCS for F-22s are peak RCS from very specific angles at very specific frequencies... and assuming proper maintainence which is not always possible during conflicts.
Take the ARH seeker off an RVV-SD and fit it with an IIR seeker with a 3D thermal image of an F-22 in its internal database and use long wave ground based radar to detect an F-22 or F-35 and launch that missile in its general direction and start closing on the target.
If claims of AESA radars defeating S-300 radars is even half to be believed that means the AESA radar in the PAK FA should have no trouble defeating the tiny radar antenna of an AMRAAM at 10km, so it becomes a fight between a Russian stealth fighter with IRST and 5 radar antennas in the X and L bands and IR guided BVR missiles and a 30mm gun and a US stealth fighter with one radar antenna and Sidewinders and a 20mm gun...
Where is this American uber superiority... it likely wont be in numbers...
Russia could just send up UCAVs armed with Iglas... The US will run out of F-22s before the Russians will run out of UCAVS..
Btw, any chance of detecting stealth via radio telescope type technologies.
Bistatic radar is the obvious choice... one S-400 radar scanning with high power and lots of other S-400 sites around the place just listening. The stealth design of the F-22 is designed to redirect the radar energy so very little returns to the source of the signal but a network of radars around the place just listening passively will get signals from the F-22.
In a proper network it should be easy to get a precise enough location to launch missiles that use optical or IR terminal guidance for the kill.
Why have they not thrown lots of research into MANPADs that can reach 30K feet and are pretty resistant to jamming.
Aircraft at 30K are not the average soldiers problem, it is the A-10s and Apaches and the odd F-16 flying at 5K feet looking for ground targets to attack that are the problem. High altitude long range threats are problems for higher level SAMs and the Russian Air Force to deal with.
Or is it that if RF makes such MANPADs available at even $250K, then they would nullify the sales of other high ticket items like S-300s, Tor and Buk etc. One battery of Tor costs good $25M for example.
The key part of MANPADs is man portable. A soldier on the ground is very unlikely to see aircraft at more than 10K most of the time so there is little point in making 40kg MANPADS that can reach places the guy operating it can't even see let alone target.
Any country having MANPADs reaching 30K feet, ofcourse mobile and tough to jamming can negate the whole air war concept of the USAF.
Why MANPADS? Surely the Pantsir-S1 is the obvious solution? Enemy aircraft trying to operate above such systems make themselves visible to radar to very long ranges.
After stealth, radar, the engines tech is another area where Russia is behind.
And don't forget arrogance and ego, and not to mention aggression in terms of regime change agendas.
I would say the US is behind in terms of air to air weapons, and IRSTs.
Average MANPAD goes to 15K but Igla-S can go to 20K feet and Stringer to 26K......all info from wikipedia. Even if it takes 2 or 3 men to carry a heavier MANPAD that reaches 30-33K feet, then it makes sense if they can keep aggressor air force away.
Or it makes them wait for cloudy days... an aircraft operating at 30K is a speck that makes no noise and would be impossible for man on the ground to detect.
One Igla costs $50K and Stringer even less at $32K. One battalion of S-300 costs $600M, 1 Battery of Tor-Ms costs $25K. The maths seems to be favoring the shoulder fired surface to air. 1 JDAM costs $30K, so killing 1 Igla with 1 JDAM is not too efficient mathematics. This might not even include the aircraft operating costs which is $50K/hour in F22s case.
Where are you getting your figures from? There is no way a Stinger is cheaper than Igla... even in the latest S model igla.
And a battery of TOR-Ms for $25K??? what are you smoking?
The 3D search radar and phased array tracking radar alone would make one vehicle worth that... a single T-90AM costs over 4 million and you think a TOR battery costs 25K? You think an Igla costs twice what a TOR battery costs?
Sorry my friend but those numbers are wrong.
I also look forward to rail guns being used as anti aircraft replacing AAAs which can only reach 15K feet i.e. 5km ceiling. Rail guns can fire 100s of miles horizontally so am sure would reach good 30 miles vertically even with some late stage motor kick in. Same for direct energy and laser based point defenses. They might prove to be more cost effective with further fine tuning.
Very high velocity EM guns would be very interesting, especially if it is used to launch guided shells...
According to wikipedia Igla-S the most modern of Russian MANPAD has weight of roughly 30kgs include 1 missile + warhead.
Then Wiki is wrong. The weight of the missile is about 12kgs and the launcher is about another 6kgs or so. Total weight is about 18kgs.
Adding guns to a missile does not make sense. You are adding lots of dead weight that does nothing to damage the target, with lots of moving parts and points of potential failure.
Simple is easier... replace the gun and the ammo with a big lump of HE with metal balls and metal cubes pressed into the outside of it and put about 10 small detonators in it.
With the help of the built in proximity fuse you can determine where the target is in relation to the missile so have the detonator opposite where the target is explode which will direct the explosion towards the target and pepper it with fragments.
The purpose of MANPADS is to deal with small low flying threats. Threats high up are dealt with by larger systems higher up the food chain.
The problem of reaching higher altitude means more weight and not just double. It is also an issue with seekers... can the seeker of a Manpads actually lock on to a real target flying at high altitude?
Most will not.
Doubling the weight of the fuel does not double the performance envelope of a missile.
The extra fuel means the rocket motor can burn for longer, but it also means it has more weight to shift so its acceleration and top speed are reduced too.
Another aspect is that Manpads are small weapons and by definition will have small control surfaces. Above 10K Metres the air is thin and those small control surfaces will reduce manouvering performance to the point where it is a straight flying missile that is no danger to anything.
Garry , is this anew system ? i don't know it, any link ?
L370-5 Vitebsk or President-S is an ESM/DIRCM suite including IR Laser ball turrets seen on Ka-52s and will likely be fitted to a range of Russian aircraft as a defence suite.
Note I believe the President-S designation is for the system designed for helicopters and the President M is for fixed wing aircraft including cargo aircraft.