Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Vann7 wrote:

Hachimoto wrote:

Your link explain how RADAR work for detecting NEARBY asteroid !!

Its the same process for everything. Planets ,stars ,comets,planes.What changes is the configuration of radars and way of doing it. You need First to know the position of your target by sending a signal and measuring the time it takes to bounce back. Radio telescope designed to concentrate its focus in a particular place in galaxy while Military Radars designed to cover wider areas at the same time in country airspace. When radars pointing upwards they can observe Stars ,when pointing downwards they can be used to observe weather.When Pointing horizontally they can observe air traffic inside and outside their airspace.

Oh no i will not make a out of topic here but that way your 'signal' will return to eart ... let say not in short time hein

beside we don't have today and in any near future the capacity to reach those distances without signal disperation

The Key is Shaping , Dr Carlo Kopp once told me that B-2 can defeat any known radar due to its shape even a 30 m wavelength radar cant detect a B-2 and that purely because of its shaping.

Longer wave radar does not detect or reveal the shape of the object, so shaping would have no effect on the return... the entire aircraft would resonate a return in every direction.

I'd like to see someone try some sort of optical seeker. Try hiding from that!

I rather suspect that the R-77 family might include dual seekers as a successor to the R-27 family of seeker types.

We have already seen a dual radar seeker with ARH and ARM seeker design allowing the close range homing onto an active radar signal or the long range passive detection and homing.

This would be ideal for an anti AWACS missile that can home in in the terminal phase using active radar homing if the threat turns its radar off.

Newer radars created with stealth in mind could even easier see stealth planes and with much better ECCM capabilities track and shoot on stealth planes.

Even just fitting optical backup guidance could make an old system much more effective in the anti stealth role.

The newer systems tend to have more guidance channels so waves of cruise missiles will not so easily overwhelm them.

Garry this is what Dr Carlo Kopp told me in an email conversation

Read Rebecca Grant's Radar Game, many copies in PDF across the web. B-2 can beat any known radar, and likely be hard to see even with a 10 metre HF band radar.

This is a strange claim I wonder where you got it from: "But there is this notion that below 2Ghz nothing is invisible , so is it possible that meter wave radar from Early Warning systems could detect such aircraft since they tend have Over Horizon Capability and would bounce from atmosphere over a target and provide information on aircraft." - firstly VHF metre band does not do OTH-B and any making this claim is being silly. Secondly, any VLO aircraft with all cardinal feature sizes above 5-10 metres will beat VHF radar, period. The only reason why it is only the B-2 is because nobody built anything else that size.

From Wiki:

A radio telescope is a form of directional radio antenna used in radio astronomy. The same types of antennas are also used in tracking and collecting data from satellites and space probes. In their astronomical role they differ from optical telescopes in that they operate in the radio frequency portion of the electromagnetic spectrum where they can detect and collect data on radio sources. Radio telescopes are typically large parabolic ("dish") antennas used singly or in an array. Radio observatories are preferentially located far from major centers of population to avoid electromagnetic interference (EMI) from radio, TV, radar, and other EMI emitting devices. This is similar to the locating of optical telescopes to avoid light pollution, with the difference being that radio observatories are often placed in valleys to further shield them from EMI as opposed to clear air mountain tops for optical observatories.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_telescope

Everything in the universe is moving including space itself, and most things are rotating... to send a radar pulse to the nearest star (our sun) the reply would take about 17 minutes... 8.5 minutes each way... but the signal would be very very hard to pick up from all the noise already being emitted from the sun all the time.

To send a signal to a nearby star would take years for the signal to go out and come back and would be incredibly weak and lost in the stars own emissions.

Radio astronomy is passive listening for the most part.

Still no answer, i know it can carry 4 on the fuselage , but can pylons carry 2 more , or 4 more r-37?
Can it carry 4 R-77 (amraam equivalents) in total on wings?
Were talking about operational aircraft now.

Perhaps you have not noticed the BM upgrade? It can carry weapons on four wing pylons.

Take a look at the bottom of this page:

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Foxbat-Foxhound-92.html

There is a reason fighter carry radar and not just IRSTs.

Of course there is... low flying slow targets have much less detectible IR signatures... high flying supercruising targets however have hot fronts where friction heats their skin and the height they fly means cold air around them... so apart from the sun they are alone in being hot things in cold environments... and no clouds or moisture to hide behind...

B-2 can beat any known radar, and likely be hard to see even with a 10 metre HF band radar.

Then why did the US military change its flight profile to low level flight over Russia?

Surely medium and high altitude flight maximises speed and range and reduces buffeting on the airframe to extend structure life.

The only reason to go for low flight profiles is to hide from long range radar... but stealth is supposed to deal with this already... except they clearly don't think it will.

Rpg type 7v wrote:No they werent and their detection was much reduced- for old Neva was at 25ish kilometers ,it took some time to get a lock and fire 2 missiles ,one missed but second broke the wing and destroyed f-117 just withing missile engagement envelope at 15km distance and 8km height.

Yup, a plane that supposedly could not be even detected by Serbian air defense, got a lock on itself by ancient system and was shoot down.

Priceless.

So much about stealth.

Rpg type 7v wrote:The sam crew wouldnt dare to engage for so long, if the nighthawk had wildweasel supports nearby.

Or if SAMs had any protection no wild weasel tactics could be employ.

GarryB wrote:

B-2 can beat any known radar, and likely be hard to see even with a 10 metre HF band radar.

Then why did the US military change its flight profile to low level flight over Russia?

Surely medium and high altitude flight maximises speed and range and reduces buffeting on the airframe to extend structure life.

The only reason to go for low flight profiles is to hide from long range radar... but stealth is supposed to deal with this already... except they clearly don't think it will.

Not sure why they did that but i can think of any aircraft be a bomber or a fighter would have low level flight mode built into it , if B-2 really flies low then it runs much higher risk of being shot down by Ack Ack or Low Level SAM as its a Huge Aircraft and it is subsonic.

So flying high makes sense for an aircraft thats designed as flying wing.

B-2 remains a big mystery and the power that be wont talk about it.

B-2 can beat any known radar, and likely be hard to see even with a 10 metre HF band radar.

No, it can not. Maybe you remember, that US bomb Chinese embassy in Belgrade, officially by mistake with JDAMs. They bomb it, because they think Chinese have installed passive radar, which use TV and radio signals to detect stealth planes, because Serbs constantly track them although in very hard EW and SEAD environment. After this bombing situation was not much different. In this war both F-117 and B-2 have EW and SEAD escort, without them more stealth planes could be shot down.

The B2 can be detected , for the very simple reason that while designing a VLO platform a design penalty has to be paid in one form or the other .

Ben Rich , the leader of the Lockheed team that designed the F 117 had once stated that there are 6 disciplines in which an aircraft has to be stealthy in order to be considered a Stealth Aircraft : acoustic, contrail, infrared, radar, visual , smoke .

While I agree with what he said it is essential to point out that not all the 6 disciplines are equally important while designing a stealth aircraft. The thing with Radar is whether it is a radar on an AWAC or a police speed radar all employ the same principle .

The radar can detect a target ONLY when its antenna captures enough energy to rise above the electronic noise thatis invariably present in the receiver. Increasing the power of a radar will increase it’s range but the benefits are limited by the fact that much of the extra radiated energy is simply wasted on empty space.
VLO techniques can also be applied to 4th gen aircrafts that were initially not meant to be stealthy by :
(a) Aligning all major apertures with the wing leading and trailing edges .
(b) Aligning the antennae & vents with the main wing platform .
( c) Canting the fuselage sides and air intakes at the same angle as the fins .
(d) Serrated edges for the main undercarriage and engine bay doors .

The important thing about RCS is that a small , efficient reflector can reflect as much energy as a very large sphere,and will have a very large RCS. For example , a 20 X 20cm square plate has an actual physical area of 0.04 square meter. However, when it is normal to the radar beam it’s RCS is 100 times as large as it’s physical area. Aircraft shaping is useful over a wide range of radar frequencies but over a limited range of aspect angles. Of greatest interest is the forward cone & hence large returns can be shifted out of this sector into the broadside directions.

Now , take a close look at the frontal wing surface of the B 2 . A radar that illuminates the B 2 from anywhere in the front quadrant would produce only 2 strong glint reflections , one from each wing and generating these 2 spikes concurrently is impossible. That being said , this is where the drawback is . In order to make a useful difference , almost every straight line on the entire airframe has to be aligned in the direction of the few selected spikes , thereby throwing into a tailspin the design of virtually everything from access panels, stabilizers to landing gear doors and everything in between.

As I read and managed to find, Russian high command has been dealing with stealth problem since 1984 according to vko.ru which is one

of most respectable air defense portals. I dont think they find stealth as particular problem given

- the type of SAM systems developed

- type of design and integration

- whole concept of VKO

Huh? I'd like to meet the "specialist" that didn't understand the difference between Frontal Aviation and the PVO.

Actually I think they mean specialist as in someone professionally involved in aviation in the west... not someone like yourself who is a specialist in Soviet Forces.

A friend of mines father in law used to serve on British air craft carriers in the 70s and earlier and used to work with Phantoms, and he wasn't familiar with the structure of the PVO and Frontal Aviation and Long Range Aviation etc etc that is known collectively as the Russian Air Force.

I'd like to see someone try some sort of optical seeker. Try hiding from that!

Very early model Soviet anti ship missiles came with a huge radar or an IR seeker as options for guidance for the export models. The domestic models had IR and Radar seekers fitted.

With rather more modern QWIP based IIR seekers and the sort of lock on after launch electronics needed for missiles like Morfei such designs are very likely... and with the sensor being passive it has enormous advantages over active radar homing options.

As you well know an ARH R-77 is launched on a flight path to a projected intercept point with the target. A datalink ensures if the target changes course or speed the new intercept point is calculated and if outside the detection box of the missiles ARH seeker a new intercept path is transmitted to the missile which will change course slightly to allow for the new interception point. When the missile reaches the new interception point it will activate its onboard radar seeker which will scan an area in front of the missile... acquire the target and lock on and then the missile will manouver to intercept the tracked target.
With IIR seekers the seeker can be active all the way constantly looking for targets in the IR spectrum... if the target deviates a lot from its previous course then new course data can be sent and the missile can change course to get closer to the target but with the seeker active all the way it can look for other targets the radar of the launch platform might not have detected. As it flys along it might detect the IR signature of an F-22 and compare that with the 3D IR images in its threat library and realise the F-22 is a very high priority target and override the original target and attack the new target with a two way datalink sending back information about the F-22 and where it is.

Now imagine such a seeker on a 300km range RVV-BD for export...

Newer radars created with stealth in mind could even easier see stealth planes and with much better ECCM capabilities track and shoot on stealth planes.

Indeed older radars work because stealth is designed to work against high frequency radar in the terminal seekers of missiles and high resolution tracking and search radars on small platforms.

New radars designed after stealth planes were a known entity have their designs changed to improve their performance against such threats... and will only be better because of that.

Not sure why they did that but i can think of any aircraft be a bomber or a fighter would have low level flight mode built into it , if B-2 really flies low then it runs much higher risk of being shot down by Ack Ack or Low Level SAM as its a Huge Aircraft and it is subsonic.

But that doesn't make sense... flying low reduces performance and brings you into range of smaller lighter air defence systems that are harder to detect and therefore harder to fly around.

If its stealth worked then making the B-2 fly low would be as dumb as making the U-2 fly low, or the SR-71 fly low... it takes away all the supposed benefits of the design.

The only benefit from making the B-2 fly low is to reduce the effective range of large powerful long range Ground based radar due to the curvature of the earth... now why would that be a concern?

It should also be noted that flying low requires terrain avoidance radar to be used to prevent 2 billion dollar holes being dug into the ground... such radar can be detected despite its low power.

Ben Rich , the leader of the Lockheed team that designed the F 117 had once stated that there are 6 disciplines in which an aircraft has to be stealthy in order to be considered a Stealth Aircraft : acoustic, contrail, infrared, radar, visual , smoke .

I would add emission control... no point spending lots of money making a plane stealthy and then having it talk on its network all the time... datalink emissions and terrain avoidance radar emissions can be detected and used to locate the source.

A radar that illuminates the B 2 from anywhere in the front quadrant would produce only 2 strong glint reflections , one from each wing and generating these 2 spikes concurrently is impossible.

Except with an IADS where some radar are transmitting scans while others are just listening... data could be collected and shared with a bit of processing... especially with coded radar beams so its signal can be distinguished and isolated you can easily isolate the target... with GLONASS improving in accuracy and every ground unit using it a single 360 degree scan from one large radar with a dozen radars just listening for returns in what appears to be otherwise empty air space... you could be a piece of paper and plot the positions of the radars and the angles of the returns and locate targets all over the place... a computer could do it in miliseconds... there is probably already an App for mobile phones to do it...

of most respectable air defense portals. I dont think they find stealth as particular problem given

- the type of SAM systems developed

- type of design and integration

- whole concept of VKO

Indeed you could also say that they have added passive channels for guidance for their SAMs and also added capability to engage any weapons the stealth aircraft might use against the air defence forces like HARM, in addition to introducing long wave radar and integrating them into their SAM sites... as well as the obvious decoys and jammers and defensive systems of their own like Pantsir-S1 and Tor.

Q

Indeed you could also say that they have added passive channels for guidance for their SAMs and also added capability to engage any weapons the stealth aircraft might use against the air defence forces like HARM, in addition to introducing long wave radar and integrating them into their SAM sites... as well as the obvious decoys and jammers and defensive systems of their own like Pantsir-S1 and Tor.

Russian air defense have meany means to copunter anti-radar missiles, not only shoot down with Tor or Pantsir or even larger system like Buk. They have also many other means for protection like various devices to immitate actual radar placed away from the real comples and system like Gazetchik, which work as MAWS and decoy launcher as well as jammer to protect against anti-radar misiles. Modern air defense have many ESM elements like planes have, that they could freely use all capabilities without fear of EW and SEAD / DEAD attacks.

http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/1219/1241/1337 

Q
Q

GarryB wrote:A friend of mines father in law used to serve on British air craft carriers in the 70s and earlier and used to work with Phantoms, and he wasn't familiar with the structure of the PVO and Frontal Aviation and Long Range Aviation etc etc that is known collectively as the Russian Air Force.

OK, but somebody like a mechanic or whatever has no reason to know those details either.  So either way the author is playing to the crowd.

GarryB wrote:With IIR seekers the seeker can be active all the way constantly looking for targets in the IR spectrum... if the target deviates a lot from its previous course then new course data can be sent and the missile can change course to get closer to the target but with the seeker active all the way it can look for other targets the radar of the launch platform might not have detected. As it flys along it might detect the IR signature of an F-22 and compare that with the 3D IR images in its threat library and realise the F-22 is a very high priority target and override the original target and attack the new target with a two way datalink sending back information about the F-22 and where it is.

Now imagine such a seeker on a 300km range RVV-BD for export...

Workable but I'm skeptical because of the work being done to mask objects in IR.  The Brits have demoed a system where they can make any object look like something else on an IR scanner.  They had tanks looking like trash bins, the effect was hilarious.  That's potentially a way to spoof an IIR system.  What if all the F-22s appeared to be Tu-204s or 747s, or even birds?  And had decoys that could look like F-22s?

If I had the money and the power I'd be examining satellite-based EW radar.  Viewed from directly above the B-2 is not going to hide from crap. 

GarryB wrote:Then why did the US military change its flight profile to low level flight over Russia?

Because of all of the fun new toys being deployed in the USSR at the time, like various S-300s.  The altitude change was related to survivability, yes, because you also have to remember that a fire control radar like TOMB STONE is still going to be able to find it at a certain range.  Drop the altitude, and you drop the potential engagement ranges of the system.  That gives you the ability to find gaps to get through.  Plus, low altitude helps you to hide better from things like FOXHOUND as well. 

GarryB wrote:Longer wave radar does not detect or reveal the shape of the object, so shaping would have no effect on the return... the entire aircraft would resonate a return in every direction.

Shaping works to a degree if the aircraft is the size of a B-2, although not quite in the same manner as things like serrating door edges and whatnot.  The issue of bandwidth vs. LO aircraft relates to the size of the aircraft in relation to the size of the emitter wavelength.  The B-2 is large enough to accomodate measures workable against metric band radars like VHF systems, while something like the F-117 or F-22 is not.  The B-2 also has to worry about smaller wavelength radars like TOMB STONE or BILL BOARD at certain ranges, which is why you see "traditional" LO measures taken like serrating door panels, aligning smaller panels, etc. 

Put another way, the wavelength of a VHF-band signal is large enough that it just sees "airplane" instead of seeing, say, "F-117".  The F-117's airframe faceting measures do squat for it against a long wavelength signal, that's just basic physics, because the wavelength itself is bigger than all of the little serrated panels.  Another example of wavelength vs. airframe is the F-117's intake.  The grid is sized to not allow shorter wavelengths to enter the intake inlet trunk and get a reflection off of the compressor face.  Since the wavelength of such a radar is too big to penetrate, it just "sees" that as a flat panel.  There really wasn't any need for the F-117 to have to be too worried about VHF band signals anyway, when the whole faceting concept was being trialled on HAVE BLUE your average VHF-band radar was not very accurate at all, and therefore was basically useless to try and actually guide an interceptor or missile towards an LO target.  Digitizing things, of course, changed that pretty damn fast.

Viktor wrote:Yup, a plane that supposedly could not be even detected by Serbian air defense, got a lock on itself by ancient system and was shoot down.

Priceless.

So much about stealth.

There was a lot more to it than just that, or else you would've seen Saddam shoot some down in 1991, or the Serbs getting more than just one.

Also, in general, nobody with half a brain has ever claimed that stealth aircraft are invisible.  Anyone who really understands how this all works will tell you that LO reduces the detection range of a given emitter.  The idea is to get it reduced to a range that you can exploit militarily.  Are there counters to LO aircraft?  Yes.  Does that mean the concept no longer works at all?  No.  Besides, if LO technology was entirely useless right now, then there should be a long line of people protesting Russia wasting money to develop an LO fighter in the T-50.  They want one for a reason:  LO can give you an advantage when used properly.  But the advantage you get today might not be the advantage you get tomorrow, because countermeasures always appear, forcing the next iteration of design evolution.

And as for using SEAD/DEAD/EW assets to support LO aircraft in combat...well why the hell not?  You don't go to war half-cocked, you take all the measures you can to ensure that what you want to do gets done. 

We save the half-cocked measures for when the bombing stops

Workable but I'm skeptical because of the work being done to mask objects in IR.  The Brits have demoed a system where they can make any object look like something else on an IR scanner.  They had tanks looking like trash bins, the effect was hilarious.  That's potentially a way to spoof an IIR system.  What if all the F-22s appeared to be Tu-204s or 747s, or even birds?  And had decoys that could look like F-22s?

And Russian designers working on 5th gen image intensifier scopes have found that reflected light from natural objects like leaves and rocks is different from reflected light from man made things like painted objects or coloured camouflage clothing... with a bit of computer processing a man standing amongst vegetation but coloured with clothing and face paint to merge perfectly and be almost impossible to see with the naked eye glows and clearly stands out with this technology.

A QWIP based sensor could be viewing a scene in long, medium, and short wave IR, as well as UV and visible frequencies to humans all at the same time with real time image processing capacity to detect fakes and frauds... remember the Russians will also be working on IR and radar signature concealment... like Nakidka...

SOC wrote:

  What if all the F-22s appeared to be Tu-204s or 747s, or even birds? 

S-300 radar operator: "Kommander, we have a flock of birds flying at supersonic speed"
S-300 Kommander: "Let's shoot them down and have them for dinner"

S-300 radar operator: "Kommander, we have a flock of birds flying at supersonic speed"
S-300 Kommander: "Let's shoot them down and have them for dinner"

Or Missile seeker... to itself... IR signature match with Tu-204 but incredibly weak radar signal... Hmmm what would fuzzy logic tell me to do?

Rpg type 7v wrote:

Russian Patriot wrote:
I am sorry but do not underestimate other countries. Russia more than capable of denying F--22 access to its borders.

I know ,this is pro-russian forum , some sacred cows are not to be disturbed    
But question yourself, to whom do you pay taxes?-that IS your country.

There are 44 members of the U.S. Congress who hold dual citizenships (mostly to Israel). They are most likely more loyal to Israel than to the U.S.

Rpg type 7v wrote:

TheArmenian wrote:

GarryB wrote:
No... actually what will happen is that the Mig-31 will shoot down all the USAF tanker aircraft  flying over the north pole from 300km range and can the turn around and go home safe in the knowledge that the F-22s wont have enough fuel to get to Russia or Canada... that is if the oxygen system hasn't already suffocated the pilots sooner.

Best post of the thread.

actually the dumbest  
because you see the Mig-31 will light up on radar like a beacon in midnight, thanks to its huge RCS , and F-22 pilot will not read the newspaper in the cocpit while its supports are decimated ,but tell the tankers to turn and use stealth and LPI AESA to creep up on mig-31 and blast it from the sky without its pilot knowing what the hell happened (if they eject in time).
Then the tankers will again turn around for attack and F-22 will complete its mission only this time adding expensive Russias AD Interceptors to its list of destroyed targets ...

the biggest threat to the F-22 is the BUK-M2  SAM,  not the MiG-31.

SOC wrote:If I had the money and the power I'd be examining satellite-based EW radar. Viewed from directly above the B-2 is not going to hide from crap.

Vote to intuition : 10

Naturally you can acquire much, much ,much more than simple EW and in a way immensely more discreet (remembering that any body radiate electromagnetic waves and its position is always inserted in electromagnetic fields of different frequency).


The word МРИС say something to you ?

Unfortunately ussr/russian airspace has always been vulnerable to USA bombers.
Fist it was high flying U-2 ,then high and fast Sr-71 ,after that stealth F-117 and now B-2. 
Sure they spent allot of money to close the gap but russians were always behind the game.
On the other hand the only operational aircraft they could fly over USA and stay  alive was?

....

hmmm....







Maybe supersonic dash Tu-160 ,even that actually outside of conus borders delivering cruise missiles and late in the cold war and in even fewer numbers then the B-2 itself.
USA was invulnerable to Russias mediocre bombers .
only thanks to icbm and cruise missiles was Russia able to keep up with the might of USA ,but in aviation they were inferior.

Well yeah, Russia didn't have a giant tanker force + bases all over EUrope and Asia.
Russian aviation was more concered with the EUropean front, then uselessly spending money to fly over the US.

You can go back to masterbating over the mighty USA though, nobody cares.

Oh and S-125 made F-117 irrelivant, if we use your logic
Great return for spent money that turned out!

Unfortunately ussr/russian airspace has always been vulnerable to USA bombers.
Fist it was high flying U-2 ,then high and fast Sr-71 ,after that stealth F-117 and now B-2.

    


Your is an horrible mixture of the most typical western inferiority complex and pathetical attempt of provoking.

Don't worry, guy, all of us here are perfectly aware of what really and inadmissibly hide under your skin (and that of majority of western people that , like you, attempt to cover deep, rational perception of vulnerability with a childish and irrational show of false bravery and will to provoke    :

You are totally aware that , taking into account the immense difference in size, sophistication and efficiency of IADS between URSS/Russian Federation and "that" of CONUS  - literally the same difference between, respectively, Mount Everest and a low hill  -  in the event of a war your airfields , C4 and industrial complex would be easily reduced to amass of smoking rubbles before being even only capable to arrange the logistical preparations necessary for the first air mission useful at being........massacred  by the most external layer of enemy IADS    (according to well know relation of "exponential degradation" of Air Force's potential vs enemy IADS  when one of the belligerent sides enjoy a substantial edge in size, density , sophistication and efficiency in IAD covering the integrity of the structures necessary to Air Force operations and hosting the same aircraft) .



Sorry guy but your self-conscious attempts at provocation (or “trolling” if you want)  will now change or soothe of a bit the situation in the Reality this unsolvable strategic puzzle for your side....

 

Fist it was high flying U-2 ,then high and fast Sr-71 ,after that stealth F-117 and now B-2.

The rare and...... very risky and often deadly-...... US reconnaissance missions over URSS was a thing of....'50 years,  all involved special modified not-combat airplanes , often taking-off from complaisant nations airfields placed outside of the at-time URSS early warning radar net's coverage and above all capitalizing altitude limits of SAM and interceptors of the time in some sectors
From the '60 years on URSS airspace became ,at impressive rate, a true "suicide" area , forbidden even to those purposely stripped-out reconnaissance airplanes.

 
SR-71 in particular became one of the most self-embarrassing humiliation for USAF command (in particular since MiG-31 induction in service) and widely laughed at by ПВО generals in its pathetic unsuccessful attempts to close URSS airspace ,  before the same concept of the feasibility of similar reconnaissance over URSS, with purposely built aircraft, was completely abandoned with ZERO intrusions by part of the SR-71 in URSS airspace.   


Obviously since then up to today the situation is enormously worsened for USAF , its aircraft, its undefended airfields, C4 installations and ammunition/fuel storage assets inserted in simply pathetical IAD ; so, at now, it is nothing more than a mean to bully and exert influence ,with very low material and live losses ( low political cost in terms of internal PO's support) , over some undefended third world nation . 

Unfortunately ussr/russian airspace has always been vulnerable to USA bombers.

Not as vulnerable as the west likes to think... the west is very air force oriented and their experience with Germany and Japan led them to believe that the bomber will always get through.

The problem for the US was that their superiority in bomber numbers resulted in the Soviets developing and deploying ICBMs which the US had and still has no real defence against...

Fist it was high flying U-2 ,then high and fast Sr-71 ,after that stealth F-117 and now B-2.

Yes, aggressive imperial US constantly trying to find a way to break international law and violate Soviet/Russian airspace with impunity... works for a couple of years and then that option is closed off... in fact the solutions to stop high flying U-2s were likely to be just as effective against the SR-71 so the latter never even tried to fly over the Soviet Union or Russia and it was designed from the outset to fly parallel to borders and look sideways deep into territory.

A direct consequence of such activity of course was the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians on KAL007... but of course the US wont accept any responsibility for that.

Sure they spent allot of money to close the gap but russians were always behind the game.

Perfectly understandible considering they were not the aggressor.

On the other hand the only operational aircraft they could fly over USA and stay  alive was?

Russian satellites pass over the US every day and the warheads of their ICBMs and likely their cruise missiles could do the same.

Maybe supersonic dash Tu-160 ,even that actually outside of conus borders delivering cruise missiles and late in the cold war and in even fewer numbers then the B-2 itself.

Why would you need a Tu-160 for standoff launching of long range cruise missiles?

Tu-95MS16 could carry 16 cruise missiles each plus 12 for each Tu-160... these days every corvette and frigate as well as cruiser not to mention carrier and sub will be carrying Kalibr...

USA was invulnerable to Russias mediocre bombers .

US bombers were pointless. By the time they arrived to deliver their bombs the targets would have already been hit by ICBM or SLBM.

US bombers were rubble spreaders... and very expensive ones.

only thanks to icbm and cruise missiles was Russia able to keep up with the might of USA ,but in aviation they were inferior.

The might? What good did the might of the US do?  Has it cured cancer? Has it saved the world from famine? Has it ensured basic human rights to all people?

Or has it used its money and position and power... to maintain its wealth and position and otherwise talk a lot of sht about rights and the truth and justice while ignoring the rights of non US citizens, ignoring the truth and of course ignoring justice and just seeking revenge.

By its own morals and standards it has failed... and continues to fail... and its greatest fear is not that it will or is failing... but that everyone will recognise the façade for what it is... all the bad guys we were supposed to fear that were a threat to world peace and democracy and truth and justice... there was only ever one threat to world peace and democracy and truth and justice and that was and is the US of A... or more accurately its successive governments... republican and democratic.

Rpg type 7v wrote:Unfortunately ussr/russian airspace has always been vulnerable to USA bombers.
Fist it was high flying U-2 ,then high and fast Sr-71 ,after that stealth F-117 and now B-2. 
Sure they spent allot of money to close the gap but russians were always behind the game.
On the other hand the only operational aircraft they could fly over USA and stay  alive was?

....

hmmm....







Maybe supersonic dash Tu-160 ,even that actually outside of conus borders delivering cruise missiles and late in the cold war and in even fewer numbers then the B-2 itself.
USA was invulnerable to Russias mediocre bombers .
only thanks to icbm and cruise missiles was Russia able to keep up with the might of USA ,but in aviation they were inferior.

I don't know whom exactly you're trying to convince, yourself or others?
Judging by that excessive use of emoticons, I'd say your failing both.
Simple truth is that 'the west' (a term coined to describe the elite/politicos in US & Satellite regimes) is in fact better, but NOT at producing weapons, no they are better at PROPAGANDA. The facts don't usually find their way to the public even when declassified (which is usually decades later than the occurrence of events), so we'll have to guesstimate the loses of 'the west' during wars/conflicts.

TR1 wrote:Well yeah, Russia didn't have a giant tanker force + bases all over EUrope and Asia.
Russian aviation was more concered with the EUropean front, then uselessly spending money to fly over the US.

You can go back to masterbating over the mighty USA though, nobody cares.

Oh and S-125 made F-117 irrelivant, if we use your logic
Great return for spent money that turned out!    

But the western  "expert" will always find  excuses, for example  the "explanation" of the F117 incident  is that it wasn't shot down because stealth isn't some miracle technology but because  it "had rain droplets on its fuselage  thus  increasing RCS"  and  that "it was taking the same flight path all the time and the serbs were prepared"      [/quote]