Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:

Even if B-2 was made out of stainless steel, it would still have about... 100 times less RCS than Tu-95, i really hope you are aware of that... Bear is turboprop, its reflecting so much back to reciever that it looks like flying building.

Sure, you sacrifice speed, and you gain range, loitering, stealth... let alone fact that B-2 in terms of avionics is about...lightyears than any other bomber in existence, might even keep being so till replacement arrives.

There is no perfect answer, something needs to be sacrificed. I personally prefer to sacrifice speed out of all above listed.

Who cares if it's supposed to lunch cruise missiles from 3000 km, it doesn't need stealth. If it's supposed to lunch unguided bombs from 5km from the target it will be seen by the air defence and shoot down.

Pilots care. You do not operate in vacoom, when you take off from Murmansk area and fly pass Sweden (lets go with it for purpose of explaining), they will see you flying Bear probably on EWRs stationed 3.000km away. Its not like you are evading SHORADs placed randomly somewhere, you are evading hundreds of radars, hundreds of aircraft.

Today, "meter" radars will probably detect B-2 on fairly reasonable range if conventional mission is in question, and then what? What will you launch aganist it when its appearing and disappearing on your guidance radar, when its jamming you...because your guidance radars are of far lower frequency, you know its there but you do not have the sling.

You launch fighters but you do not know if its followed by other stealth fighters or its alone, or if its even there where you see it or its you being spoofed and its actually 70km in other direction. Stealth is nasty business, our AD knows it very well.

Also why do you then need speed if you are launching cruise missiles from 3000km ? Speed is not an answer anymore, air defence systems became far more dangerous than they were 40 years ago.

Also B-2 is not all that slow either.

The B-2 aren't anywhere that effective now this isn't the 1990's or early 2000 those things can be tracked with zero problems.

also whats detecting it ground base radars? if so they will know if fighters are around.

I hate this myth about stealth planes. They are designed to hide their FRONTAl signature only from other planes Stealth is USELESS against Ground base defenses.

Belguim could detect the F-22 with their ground base systems back when the thing was brand new and the stealth was cracked on the B-2 over 10 years ago.

Mind you we only have about 20 of them. Hardly enough to use on a major nation.

Mmm.... no, B-2 has very extensive RCS reduction in all lobes, its doubtful there is any significant difference if you are radiating aganist it from front or sides, echo will be very small. Naturally this depends what kind of radar you use, meter can probably detect it however there are no meter guidance radars, hence as i pointed before already its sort of useless. You know its there but you cant guide anything aganist it.

Also again, you all imagine single bombers vs single something else, that is not how it looks. SEAD exists with fkn reason, they are not picking their noses. You cant move meter radar that easy around, they are big, require at least 20+ minutes to assemble, big generators, etc. And you radiate so much power they look like Vegas on 25th december for the enemy SEAD.

Stealth is not myth, however its not wonder solution, it has its advantages and disadvantages same as everything. But discarding it is just silly.

Everything US does is a step back around here, get used to it.

They don't bother making supersonic civilian transports... they use technology to kill first and foremost... it is only their propaganda machine that makes them look nice and a force for good.

Even if B-2 was made out of stainless steel, it would still have about... 100 times less RCS than Tu-95,

Even if the B-2 had a RCS of less than a paint chip... it can be detected and tracked... and the material it is made of is not really that important.

i really hope you are aware of that... Bear is turboprop, its reflecting so much back to reciever that it looks like flying building.

Why do you think a turboprop needs to have a large RCS?

Its propeller blades can be made of the same radar transparent material radar domes are made of and otherwise there are no reasons why the frontal RCS of a Bear needs to be the size of a building..

Sure, you sacrifice speed, and you gain range, loitering, stealth... let alone fact that B-2 in terms of avionics is about...lightyears than any other bomber in existence, might even keep being so till replacement arrives.

There is nothing wrong with the speed or range of a Bear and how much avionics does it need to carry and launch cruise missiles?

There is no perfect answer, something needs to be sacrificed. I personally prefer to sacrifice speed out of all above listed.

The design of the B-2 is skewed in the direction of stealth at the cost of everything else... if that feature is undermined then the whole concept is undermined.

Originally the B-2 was supposed to be the answer to Soviet truck mounted ICBMs... it was supposed to be able to fly at will over the Soviet Union dropping bombs precisely on every ICBM truck it found with impunity.

Obviously the conflict in Iraq was a real eye opener where in a much much smaller much safer much more controlled area such a concept failed miserably.

Then they started low flying tests to survive over Russian territory... which greatly shortened airframe lives and would make them equally vulnerable to ground based air defences of all types...

The idea was a super duper survivable bomber you could send in as a first strike weapon... the result is something that can do what a B-52 and Bear already does... secondary strike.... yeah... billions spent for fuck all.

Who cares if it's supposed to lunch cruise missiles from 3000 km, it doesn't need stealth. If it's supposed to lunch unguided bombs from 5km from the target it will be seen by the air defence and shoot down.

It was supposed to hunt Topols... and would have failed against Scuds.

and B-2 is faster then Tu-95 bear, its maximum speed is high subsonic 0,9 mach.

Actual cruise speeds would be the same at high altitude and at low altitude the Bear would be faster... same with the B-52.

Today, "meter" radars will probably detect B-2 on fairly reasonable range if conventional mission is in question, and then what? What will you launch aganist it when its appearing and disappearing on your guidance radar, when its jamming you...because your guidance radars are of far lower frequency, you know its there but you do not have the sling.

You launch fighters but you do not know if its followed by other stealth fighters or its alone, or if its even there where you see it or its you being spoofed and its actually 70km in other direction. Stealth is nasty business, our AD knows it very well.

A Metric radar detecting a B-2 will detect an F-22 or F-35 easily enough...

I'm not really following this thread, but if Pak Da is a new strategic bomber it's useless.

In the theatre role it will be a bomber... in the strategic role it will be a cruise missile carrier... 5,000km range Kh-101/102 missiles and long range hypersonic cruise missiles too.

There isn't lot of airfields where a B-2 can land if I'm correct. And they have just 21 of them (If pak Da is similar to it, Russia will produce 10 or so, not more) which can be targeted by submarine's cruise missiles.

They will likely make 100-150 PAK DA, which along with 60 odd Tu-160s will form their strategic bomber force replacing the Tu-95 in service in that role.

The US has 20 B-2s because they are so expensive and they are first strike bombers... OK to bomb the crap out of Libya or Syria or Serbia, but not much good against properly equipped countries like China or Russia.

They now realise to penetrate Russian airspace they need very high speed so their new bomber will be hypersonic... of course that will mean Russia will just raise their game too... most of their current SAMs can engage very high speed targets already.

Mmm.... no, B-2 has very extensive RCS reduction in all lobes, its doubtful there is any significant difference if you are radiating aganist it from front or sides, echo will be very small. Naturally this depends what kind of radar you use, meter can probably detect it however there are no meter guidance radars, hence as i pointed before already its sort of useless. You know its there but you cant guide anything aganist it.

Not true... you could guide a MiG-21 towards it and he could use his 23mm cannon...

The metric radar detecting the B-2 would easily detect any stealth fighters operating with it...

Stealth is not myth, however its not wonder solution, it has its advantages and disadvantages same as everything. But discarding it is just silly.

Who is talking about discarding it?

What we are talking about is misuse or obsolescence of stealth in certain applications... action reaction.

The US developed and built stealth bombers at great expense.

The Soviets and now the Russians have developed systems to counter stealth.

The enormous cost of stealth means the US has 20 modern capable strategic bombers and lots of old bits of crap bombers.

The Russians seem to be building a huge interlinked IADS system incorporating stealth fighters and soon stealth bombers and SAMs and other systems.

Present day stealth technology is not as effective against radars using VHF. This was actually discovered back in the early 1960s by the Soviets and was the main reasons the Soviets never developed a fully-fledged stealth programme. Ironically, the technical details of this Soviet study were published and were in the public domain. It wasn’t until the 1980s that the US translated the papers and realized the problem.

More accurately the Russian guy developed the maths to calculate RCS... the US had been building stealth aircraft but had been guessing and testing and guessing and testing. With the mathematical model and algorithms the Russian developed they were able to design for stealth rather than guess and test...

All the system needs to do is to place a active radar homing missiles close enough that its radar can detect the aircraft. This distance is probably proportional to the power of the radar on the missile.

Not just power but direction... a SAM like an S-400 or an R-37M being fired on a lofted trajectory and diving down on the B-2 from high altitude would see a plan form of the B-2 which would not be that stealthy at all most likely.

New hybrid seeker designs that combine active and passive radar and IIR sensors could completely negate Stealth.

Fit an IIR seeker to a very long range missile like an R-37M and it can be scanning from launch looking for IR signatures. An onboard digital library of 3D IR models could be used by the guidance system to detect and identify an IR signature of a 3D object viewed from any angle... unlike ARH which turns on at the last minute when it has approached the target intercept area an IIR seeker can passively look during the entire flight so any other target detected could become the primary target if it is perceived as a serious threat....

They could make a few extra PAK DAs and load them up with 40-50 R-37Ms with IIR seekers to launch ahead of a flight of bombers to clear the way of F-22s and F-35s...

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

The B-2 will get 4-16 40N6 missile.

The active homing long range missiles has been desinged for the b2s I presume.

it needs 10 km box , and it will found the aircraft in that box on its own.

Woah.. woah... hold your horses, that is not how guidance works.

It is not the 60s any more.
The rocket doesn't need illumination , and it can has active radio guidance, even multi channel seeker and active radar .

The cost of the target justify it.

Militarov wrote:

Mmm.... no, B-2 has very extensive RCS reduction in all lobes, its doubtful there is any significant difference if you are radiating aganist it from front or sides, echo will be very small. Naturally this depends what kind of radar you use, meter can probably detect it however there are no meter guidance radars, hence as i pointed before already its sort of useless. You know its there but you cant guide anything aganist it.

Also again, you all imagine single bombers vs single something else, that is not how it looks. SEAD exists with fkn reason, they are not picking their noses. You cant move meter radar that easy around, they are big, require at least 20+ minutes to assemble, big generators, etc. And you radiate so much power they look like Vegas on 25th december for the enemy SEAD.

Stealth is not myth, however its not wonder solution, it has its advantages and disadvantages same as everything. But discarding it is just silly.

The long range s-400 missiles using ballistic path, so te B2 needs to have good stealth characteristic from above as well , not only from sides. : )


Maybe that meter thick coating should be usefull in the new productin batch.

Isos wrote:A B-2 won't go in Russia to drop bombs because it would be detected and destroyed. Neither a Tu-160 which is a strategic bomber meant to carry nuclear strikes will go Europe to drop bombs.

Kh-55 family have a range that put the bomber out of danger from ground and air threats. Their is no fighter that could intercept it from lets say 1500/2000 km from it shores. This means it could target 1500km inside the country and its low flying with a RCS of less than 0.01 m² for the last variants, good luck finding it.

What your saying is true for a bomber used like in WW II, not for a Tu-160 which from it's airbase can target all countries in europe and middle east and can go at 2000 km from US west coast and not be engaged if it avoids aircraft carriers. They have 15 of them, they won't send them to bomb like in Syria and be destroyed.

I'm not really following this thread, but if Pak Da is a new strategic bomber it's useless. Tu-160 is far enough. But if it's tactical bomber then yes they should make it stealth. But they already have Su-34, with Pak Fa, it is a nice tactical group which can penetrate deep in ennemy's territory. If they want to go deeper with bigger bombers then fighter won't be able to follow and they won't have air support and will probably be shoot down before reaching the target, stealth or not, US or Russian.

There isn't lot of airfields where a B-2 can land if I'm correct. And they have just 21 of them (If pak Da is similar to it, Russia will produce 10 or so, not more) which can be targeted by submarine's cruise missiles.

Also why do you then need speed if you are launching cruise missiles from 3000km Smile? Speed is not an answer anymore, air defence systems became far more dangerous than they were 40 years ago.

I don't get what you're talking about  I never talked about speed. Well if you know a patriot missiles was lunched, it's better to run at mach 1.5 than at mach 0.8  That's the main purpose of a supersonic speed for a bomber, to escape.

PAK-DA is supposed to be far less ambitious project than B-2 or B-21. Hence its doubtful it will be 700+ million a pop like B-2 was, i expect it to cost like latest "jumbo" sized commercial liners cca 300 million.

GarryB wrote:

Everything US does is a step back around here, get used to it.

They don't bother making supersonic civilian transports... they use technology to kill first and foremost... it is only their propaganda machine that makes them look nice and a force for good.

Even if B-2 was made out of stainless steel, it would still have about... 100 times less RCS than Tu-95,

Even if the B-2 had a RCS of less than a paint chip... it can be detected and tracked... and the material it is made of is not really that important.

i really hope you are aware of that... Bear is turboprop, its reflecting so much back to reciever that it looks like flying building.

Why do you think a turboprop needs to have a large RCS?

Its propeller blades can be made of the same radar transparent material radar domes are made of and otherwise there are no reasons why the frontal RCS of a Bear needs to be the size of a building..

Sure, you sacrifice speed, and you gain range, loitering, stealth... let alone fact that B-2 in terms of avionics is about...lightyears than any other bomber in existence, might even keep being so till replacement arrives.

There is nothing wrong with the speed or range of a Bear and how much avionics does it need to carry and launch cruise missiles?

There is no perfect answer, something needs to be sacrificed. I personally prefer to sacrifice speed out of all above listed.

The design of the B-2 is skewed in the direction of stealth at the cost of everything else... if that feature is undermined then the whole concept is undermined.

Originally the B-2 was supposed to be the answer to Soviet truck mounted ICBMs... it was supposed to be able to fly at will over the Soviet Union dropping bombs precisely on every ICBM truck it found with impunity.

Obviously the conflict in Iraq was a real eye opener where in a much much smaller much safer much more controlled area such a concept failed miserably.

Then they started low flying tests to survive over Russian territory... which greatly shortened airframe lives and would make them equally vulnerable to ground based air defences of all types...

The idea was a super duper survivable bomber you could send in as a first strike weapon... the result is something that can do what a B-52 and Bear already does... secondary strike.... yeah... billions spent for fuck all.

Who cares if it's supposed to lunch cruise missiles from 3000 km, it doesn't need stealth. If it's supposed to lunch unguided bombs from 5km from the target it will be seen by the air defence and shoot down.

It was supposed to hunt Topols... and would have failed against Scuds.

and B-2 is faster then Tu-95 bear, its maximum speed is high subsonic 0,9 mach.

Actual cruise speeds would be the same at high altitude and at low altitude the Bear would be faster... same with the B-52.

Today, "meter" radars will probably detect B-2 on fairly reasonable range if conventional mission is in question, and then what? What will you launch aganist it when its appearing and disappearing on your guidance radar, when its jamming you...because your guidance radars are of far lower frequency, you know its there but you do not have the sling.

You launch fighters but you do not know if its followed by other stealth fighters or its alone, or if its even there where you see it or its you being spoofed and its actually 70km in other direction. Stealth is nasty business, our AD knows it very well.

A Metric radar detecting a B-2 will detect an F-22 or F-35 easily enough...

I'm not really following this thread, but if Pak Da is a new strategic bomber it's useless.

In the theatre role it will be a bomber... in the strategic role it will be a cruise missile carrier... 5,000km range Kh-101/102 missiles and long range hypersonic cruise missiles too.

There isn't lot of airfields where a B-2 can land if I'm correct. And they have just 21 of them (If pak Da is similar to it, Russia will produce 10 or so, not more) which can be targeted by submarine's cruise missiles.

They will likely make 100-150 PAK DA, which along with 60 odd Tu-160s will form their strategic bomber force replacing the Tu-95 in service in that role.

The US has 20 B-2s because they are so expensive and they are first strike bombers... OK to bomb the crap out of Libya or Syria or Serbia, but not much good against properly equipped countries like China or Russia.

They now realise to penetrate Russian airspace they need very high speed so their new bomber will be hypersonic... of course that will mean Russia will just raise their game too... most of their current SAMs can engage very high speed targets already.

Mmm.... no, B-2 has very extensive RCS reduction in all lobes, its doubtful there is any significant difference if you are radiating aganist it from front or sides, echo will be very small. Naturally this depends what kind of radar you use, meter can probably detect it however there are no meter guidance radars, hence as i pointed before already its sort of useless. You know its there but you cant guide anything aganist it.

Not true... you could guide a MiG-21 towards it and he could use his 23mm cannon...

The metric radar detecting the B-2 would easily detect any stealth fighters operating with it...

Stealth is not myth, however its not wonder solution, it has its advantages and disadvantages same as everything. But discarding it is just silly.

Who is talking about discarding it?

What we are talking about is misuse or obsolescence of stealth in certain applications... action reaction.

The US developed and built stealth bombers at great expense.

The Soviets and now the Russians have developed systems to counter stealth.

The enormous cost of stealth means the US has 20 modern capable strategic bombers and lots of old bits of crap bombers.

The Russians seem to be building a huge interlinked IADS system incorporating stealth fighters and soon stealth bombers and SAMs and other systems.

Present day stealth technology is not as effective against radars using VHF. This was actually discovered back in the early 1960s by the Soviets and was the main reasons the Soviets never developed a fully-fledged stealth programme. Ironically, the technical details of this Soviet study were published and were in the public domain. It wasn’t until the 1980s that the US translated the papers and realized the problem.

More accurately the Russian guy developed the maths to calculate RCS... the US had been building stealth aircraft but had been guessing and testing and guessing and testing. With the mathematical model and algorithms the Russian developed they were able to design for stealth rather than guess and test...

All the system needs to do is to place a active radar homing missiles close enough that its radar can detect the aircraft. This distance is probably proportional to the power of the radar on the missile.

Not just power but direction... a SAM like an S-400 or an R-37M being fired on a lofted trajectory and diving down on the B-2 from high altitude would see a plan form of the B-2 which would not be that stealthy at all most likely.

New hybrid seeker designs that combine active and passive radar and IIR sensors could completely negate Stealth.

Fit an IIR seeker to a very long range missile like an R-37M and it can be scanning from launch looking for IR signatures. An onboard digital library of 3D IR models could be used by the guidance system to detect and identify an IR signature of a 3D object viewed from any angle... unlike ARH which turns on at the last minute when it has approached the target intercept area an IIR seeker can passively look during the entire flight so any other target detected could become the primary target if it is perceived as a serious threat....

They could make a few extra PAK DAs and load them up with 40-50 R-37Ms with IIR seekers to launch ahead of a flight of bombers to clear the way of F-22s and F-35s...

They could this, they could that, but they wont deal with it. Stop living the God damn dream already sometimes i feel like i am discussing stuff with 7 year olds here.

And yes, turboprops NEED to have HUGE RCS, and you cant make blades from same materials, dont even try suggesting that as its stupid. Blade design is being dictated by laws of physics hence they will always end up being perfect reflective MOVING surfaces. Sometimes you really start talking BS really.

Sure, meanwhlie SEAD slams few 88s on your UHF radar and you continue being blind.

Guiding MiG-21 aganist B-2? How do you exactly imagine MiG-21 finding such target in dark may i ask? I mean please do tell since resolution of UHF radars will put it somewhat like 30-40 miles from the target (if lucky and its actually a target) and.. then what?

UHF radars have very low resolution, hence if you detect one target which is supposedly stealthy, its doubtful you would actually see 2 or 3 targets tailing it in close proximity. You could probably hide whole squadron in one reflective surface that UHF radar would present on panoramic display.

Ah ye... Lancers and B-52Hs are junk... or wait... they are not, got more modernisations though decades than Russian bombers got their tires changed. Stop downplaying others it looks sad.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

The B-2 will get 4-16 40N6 missile.

The active homing long range missiles has been desinged for the b2s I presume.

it needs 10 km box , and it will found the aircraft in that box on its own.

Woah.. woah... hold your horses, that is not how guidance works.

It is not the 60s any more.
The rocket doesn't  need illumination , and it can has active radio guidance, even multi channel seeker and active radar .

The cost of the target justify it.

It doesnt matter if its 60s, 70s or 2020s, there are few guidance methods used and it wont change for a bit while. What happens in terminal phase with passive seekers, or what resolution of your radar is, or how resilient are you to jamming is another story, however some things will not change.

Russian school has 3 base guidance methods, this includes all variants of S-300 and its derivates too.

Method "two dots" or TT/method "three dots", method "full interception" and "semi interception". This are basic mathematical solutions basically for guidance and interception of the target, basically sort of software solution, now, what kind of hardware this software gets to work with is another story (so called guidance systems).

Guidance systems can be IR, command guidance, radar guidance, optical guidance, with one or two radar beams, active, semi-active, dopler guidance and what not, many categories and subcategories.

Now these methods got few sub-methods that depend on particular system or revision in question, but it all comes down to these 3.



TT method



Overtaking or as we call it "clear interception"



Semi-overtaking/interception

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Militarov wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:

Even if B-2 was made out of stainless steel, it would still have about... 100 times less RCS than Tu-95, i really hope you are aware of that... Bear is turboprop, its reflecting so much back to reciever that it looks like flying building.

Sure, you sacrifice speed, and you gain range, loitering, stealth... let alone fact that B-2 in terms of avionics is about...lightyears than any other bomber in existence, might even keep being so till replacement arrives.

There is no perfect answer, something needs to be sacrificed. I personally prefer to sacrifice speed out of all above listed.

Who cares if it's supposed to lunch cruise missiles from 3000 km, it doesn't need stealth. If it's supposed to lunch unguided bombs from 5km from the target it will be seen by the air defence and shoot down.

Pilots care. You do not operate in vacoom, when you take off from Murmansk area and fly pass Sweden (lets go with it for purpose of explaining), they will see you flying Bear probably on EWRs stationed 3.000km away. Its not like you are evading SHORADs placed randomly somewhere, you are evading hundreds of radars, hundreds of aircraft.

Today, "meter" radars will probably detect B-2 on fairly reasonable range if conventional mission is in question, and then what? What will you launch aganist it when its appearing and disappearing on your guidance radar, when its jamming you...because your guidance radars are of far lower frequency, you know its there but you do not have the sling.

You launch fighters but you do not know if its followed by other stealth fighters or its alone, or if its even there where you see it or its you being spoofed and its actually 70km in other direction. Stealth is nasty business, our AD knows it very well.

Also why do you then need speed if you are launching cruise missiles from 3000km ? Speed is not an answer anymore, air defence systems became far more dangerous than they were 40 years ago.

Also B-2 is not all that slow either.

The B-2 aren't anywhere that effective now this isn't the 1990's or early 2000 those things can be tracked with zero problems.

also whats detecting it ground base radars? if so they will know if fighters are around.

I hate this myth about stealth planes. They are designed to hide their FRONTAl signature only from other planes Stealth is USELESS against Ground base defenses.

Belguim could detect the F-22 with their ground base systems back when the thing was brand new and the stealth was cracked on the B-2 over 10 years ago.

Mind you we only have about 20 of them. Hardly enough to use on a major nation.

Mmm.... no, B-2 has very extensive RCS reduction in all lobes, its doubtful there is any significant difference if you are radiating aganist it from front or sides, echo will be very small. Naturally this depends what kind of radar you use, meter can probably detect it however there are no meter guidance radars, hence as i pointed before already its sort of useless. You know its there but you cant guide anything aganist it.

Also again, you all imagine single bombers vs single something else, that is not how it looks. SEAD exists with fkn reason, they are not picking their noses. You cant move meter radar that easy around, they are big, require at least 20+ minutes to assemble, big generators, etc. And you radiate so much power they look like Vegas on 25th december for the enemy SEAD.

Stealth is not myth, however its not wonder solution, it has its advantages and disadvantages same as everything. But discarding it is just silly.

First their radars give them away instantly. If something can transmit over a wide bandwidth, then something else can also receive these transmissions. And since the radar needs to code the transmission in order to detect jamming, it is abundantly clear what it is. Present day stealth technology is not as effective against radars using VHF. This was actually discovered back in the early 1960s by the Soviets and was the main reasons the Soviets never developed a fully-fledged stealth programme. Ironically, the technical details of this Soviet study were published and were in the public domain. It wasn’t until the 1980s that the US translated the papers and realized the problem.

That's nice for the B-2 but again The Russian's cracked it's signature over ten years ago. Even then there is other ways to guide munitions towards a B-2. Current grade Russians radars and missiles can detect and gun them down easy. If you insist on continuing this, provide me with evidence they can't other than what you think has I have told other people on here what you think isn't fact.

At best you are telling me your theory and opinion which is fine.

You do realize unless they are going against a 3rd world military SEAD is utterly impossible the planes will be exhausted before the AA defenses are. Proper AA defenses operate in highly condensed layers of protection. It's not just a couple of launchers here and there.

That more planes crap also is a myth.

you misunderstand here, I am not saying stealth has a whole is a myth. Just the whole "they can't hurt you shit" Like your saying the B-2 can fly around safe from AA defenses that is a myth has has been for over ten years.

The rear and sides of all stealth planes can be picked up EASY. The B-2 is just a tad bit better at hiding it's signature but that day has long passed.

for example.

All the system needs to do is to place a active radar homing missiles close enough that its radar can detect the aircraft. This distance is probably proportional to the power of the radar on the missile.

Yes, stealth requires distance to work its magic.

That's just one way of dozens to gun down Stealth aircraft. So please do not lecture on how the B-2 is invincible because that shit is funny.

Not sure if stupid or trolling. First i was thinking not to dignify this with a response, but i will.

Radars reveal whom and where, your sentence is very, very confusing. Dam man if only Iraqis had you to tell them they should layer their air defences they would have won Or wait.. they did.

Stop making shit up please. I served in Air defence i dont need you to tell me how it works because every sentence of yours in this post is just brain damaging, bunch of half truths, bunch of bad educated guessing and similar, so please just dont.

These stories "US translated papers", "Cracked B-2 Code" and similar shit, this is not Tom Clancy, go away with this shit. Go talk with kvs, he might be interested in bedtime stories.

Pile me once more with BS like this i will just block you, do we have an agreement?

And wait aint you the guy that claimed he fought ISIS and similar shit in one post then claimed something totally different in another, go back to Call of Duty, i am personally not interested in what poster like you has to say.

Best regards.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Militarov wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:

Even if B-2 was made out of stainless steel, it would still have about... 100 times less RCS than Tu-95, i really hope you are aware of that... Bear is turboprop, its reflecting so much back to reciever that it looks like flying building.

Sure, you sacrifice speed, and you gain range, loitering, stealth... let alone fact that B-2 in terms of avionics is about...lightyears than any other bomber in existence, might even keep being so till replacement arrives.

There is no perfect answer, something needs to be sacrificed. I personally prefer to sacrifice speed out of all above listed.

Who cares if it's supposed to lunch cruise missiles from 3000 km, it doesn't need stealth. If it's supposed to lunch unguided bombs from 5km from the target it will be seen by the air defence and shoot down.

Pilots care. You do not operate in vacoom, when you take off from Murmansk area and fly pass Sweden (lets go with it for purpose of explaining), they will see you flying Bear probably on EWRs stationed 3.000km away. Its not like you are evading SHORADs placed randomly somewhere, you are evading hundreds of radars, hundreds of aircraft.

Today, "meter" radars will probably detect B-2 on fairly reasonable range if conventional mission is in question, and then what? What will you launch aganist it when its appearing and disappearing on your guidance radar, when its jamming you...because your guidance radars are of far lower frequency, you know its there but you do not have the sling.

You launch fighters but you do not know if its followed by other stealth fighters or its alone, or if its even there where you see it or its you being spoofed and its actually 70km in other direction. Stealth is nasty business, our AD knows it very well.

Also why do you then need speed if you are launching cruise missiles from 3000km ? Speed is not an answer anymore, air defence systems became far more dangerous than they were 40 years ago.

Also B-2 is not all that slow either.

The B-2 aren't anywhere that effective now this isn't the 1990's or early 2000 those things can be tracked with zero problems.

also whats detecting it ground base radars? if so they will know if fighters are around.

I hate this myth about stealth planes. They are designed to hide their FRONTAl signature only from other planes Stealth is USELESS against Ground base defenses.

Belguim could detect the F-22 with their ground base systems back when the thing was brand new and the stealth was cracked on the B-2 over 10 years ago.

Mind you we only have about 20 of them. Hardly enough to use on a major nation.

Mmm.... no, B-2 has very extensive RCS reduction in all lobes, its doubtful there is any significant difference if you are radiating aganist it from front or sides, echo will be very small. Naturally this depends what kind of radar you use, meter can probably detect it however there are no meter guidance radars, hence as i pointed before already its sort of useless. You know its there but you cant guide anything aganist it.

Also again, you all imagine single bombers vs single something else, that is not how it looks. SEAD exists with fkn reason, they are not picking their noses. You cant move meter radar that easy around, they are big, require at least 20+ minutes to assemble, big generators, etc. And you radiate so much power they look like Vegas on 25th december for the enemy SEAD.

Stealth is not myth, however its not wonder solution, it has its advantages and disadvantages same as everything. But discarding it is just silly.

First their radars give them away instantly. If something can transmit over a wide bandwidth, then something else can also receive these transmissions. And since the radar needs to code the transmission in order to detect jamming, it is abundantly clear what it is. Present day stealth technology is not as effective against radars using VHF. This was actually discovered back in the early 1960s by the Soviets and was the main reasons the Soviets never developed a fully-fledged stealth programme. Ironically, the technical details of this Soviet study were published and were in the public domain. It wasn’t until the 1980s that the US translated the papers and realized the problem.

That's nice for the B-2 but again The Russian's cracked it's signature over ten years ago. Even then there is other ways to guide munitions towards a B-2. Current grade Russians radars and missiles can detect and gun them down easy. If you insist on continuing this, provide me with evidence they can't other than what you think has I have told other people on here what you think isn't fact.

At best you are telling me your theory and opinion which is fine.

You do realize unless they are going against a 3rd world military SEAD is utterly impossible the planes will be exhausted before the AA defenses are. Proper AA defenses operate in highly condensed layers of protection. It's not just a couple of launchers here and there.

That more planes crap also is a myth.

you misunderstand here, I am not saying stealth has a whole is a myth. Just the whole "they can't hurt you shit" Like your saying the B-2 can fly around safe from AA defenses that is a myth has has been for over ten years.

The rear and sides of all stealth planes can be picked up EASY. The B-2 is just a tad bit better at hiding it's signature but that day has long passed.

for example.

All the system needs to do is to place a active radar homing missiles close enough that its radar can detect the aircraft. This distance is probably proportional to the power of the radar on the missile.

Yes, stealth requires distance to work its magic.

That's just one way of dozens to gun down Stealth aircraft. So please do not lecture on how the B-2 is invincible because that shit is funny.

Not sure if stupid or trolling.    First i was thinking not to dignify this with a response, but i will.

Radars reveal whom and where, your sentence is very, very confusing.  Dam man if only Iraqis had you to tell them they should layer their air defences they would have won   Or wait.. they did.

Stop making shit up please. I served in Air defence i dont need you to tell me how it works because every sentence of yours in this post is just brain damaging, bunch of half truths, bunch of bad educated guessing and similar, so please just dont.

These stories "US translated papers", "Cracked B-2 Code" and similar shit, this is not Tom Clancy, go away with this shit. Go talk with kvs, he might be interested in bedtime stories.

Pile me once more with BS like this i will just block you, do we have an agreement?  

And wait aint you the guy that claimed he fought ISIS and similar shit in one post then claimed something totally different in another, go back to Call of Duty, i am personally not interested in what poster like you has to say.

I couldnt care less about B-2, i am just fighting bias that is starting to be annoyingly widespread here. So widespread ppl are using this forum as laughing stock and i dont like that as i am a member.

Best regards.

Militarov wrote:
It doesnt matter if its 60s, 70s or 2020s, there are few guidance methods used and it wont change for a bit while. What happens in terminal phase with passive seekers, or what resolution of your radar is, or how resilient are you to jamming is another story, however some things will not change.

Russian school has 3 base guidance methods, this includes all variants of S-300 and its derivates too.

Method "two dots" or TT/method "three dots", method "full interception" and  "semi interception". This are basic mathematical solutions basically for guidance and interception of the target, basically sort of software solution, now, what kind of hardware this software gets to work with is another story (so called guidance systems).

Guidance systems can be IR, command guidance, radar guidance, optical guidance, with one or two radar beams, active, semi-active, dopler guidance and what not, many categories and subcategories.

Now these methods got few sub-methods that depend on particular system or revision in question, but it all comes down to these 3.

[img..]https://i.imgur.com/fqNhwYn.jpg[../img]

TT method

[img..]https://i.imgur.com/LAzQfSW.jpg[../img]

Overtaking or as we call it "clear interception"

[img..]https://i.imgur.com/ldtwzC4.jpg[../img]

Semi-overtaking/interception

For those who want to know more about how S-300/400 works, this is a link to an other forum about a simulation game where there is this guy, Hpasp, who served air defense in Hungary and he explains very well with nice pictures how all these things works.

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3900842/all/S-300PS/PMU_(SA-10B_Grumble)

I know it's forbidden but it's far better explained than what we can found on this forum.

I'll put it in the S-300 thread.

Isos wrote:

Militarov wrote:
It doesnt matter if its 60s, 70s or 2020s, there are few guidance methods used and it wont change for a bit while. What happens in terminal phase with passive seekers, or what resolution of your radar is, or how resilient are you to jamming is another story, however some things will not change.

Russian school has 3 base guidance methods, this includes all variants of S-300 and its derivates too.

Method "two dots" or TT/method "three dots", method "full interception" and  "semi interception". This are basic mathematical solutions basically for guidance and interception of the target, basically sort of software solution, now, what kind of hardware this software gets to work with is another story (so called guidance systems).

Guidance systems can be IR, command guidance, radar guidance, optical guidance, with one or two radar beams, active, semi-active, dopler guidance and what not, many categories and subcategories.

Now these methods got few sub-methods that depend on particular system or revision in question, but it all comes down to these 3.

[img..]https://i.imgur.com/fqNhwYn.jpg[../img]

TT method

[img..]https://i.imgur.com/LAzQfSW.jpg[../img]

Overtaking or as we call it "clear interception"

[img..]https://i.imgur.com/ldtwzC4.jpg[../img]

Semi-overtaking/interception

For those who want to know more about how S-300/400 works, this is a link to an other forum about a simulation game where there is this guy, Hpasp, who served air defense in Hungary and he explains very well with nice pictures how all these things works.

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3900842/all/S-300PS/PMU_(SA-10B_Grumble)

I know it's forbidden but it's far better explained than what we can found on this forum.

I'll put it in the S-300 thread.

This guy Hpasp is probably legit. First time i saw someone actually saying that hit probability is calcualted in "clean environment".

Militarov wrote:

Azi wrote:

eehnie wrote:Your ardent defense of a US B-2 like aircraft for Russia, trying to make successful the failed US stealth strategy thanks to make Russia a late follower of the US, is not working. Russia seems not to buy the argument and will not make a subsonic war aircraft for the role of strategic bomber. It is to return one step back. It is a non-sense (also looking at the trends on maritime patrol tant give room to increase the number of fast strategic bombers in the future).

Where B2 or stealth technology failed? China and Russia are adopting stealth technology for their 5. generation fighters, so stealth is a step back?!

Everything US does is a step back around here, get used to it.

No this is not right. As example I like their use of small supersonic trainer aircrafts, and I think a supersonic variant of the Yak-130 would be good for Russia (mach 1.1 or 1.2, not more).

But the US military development has been dominated by the private contractors interests and it leads to big mistates sometimes, like in this case. This is a fact.

The problem here is not in those that see the mistakes of the US, is in those that see not them and want Russia to follow the same way.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Azi wrote:

eehnie wrote:Your ardent defense of a US B-2 like aircraft for Russia, trying to make successful the failed US stealth strategy thanks to make Russia a late follower of the US, is not working. Russia seems not to buy the argument and will not make a subsonic war aircraft for the role of strategic bomber. It is to return one step back. It is a non-sense (also looking at the trends on maritime patrol tant give room to increase the number of fast strategic bombers in the future).

Where B2 or stealth technology failed? China and Russia are adopting stealth technology for their 5. generation fighters, so stealth is a step back?!

Everything US does is a step back around here, get used to it.

No this is not right. As example I like their use of small supersonic trainer aircrafts, and I think a supersonic variant of the Yak-130 would be good for Russia (mach 1.1 or 1.2, not more).

But the US military development has been dominated by the private contractors interests and it leads to big mistates sometimes, like in this case. This is a fact.

The problem here is not in those that see the mistakes of the US, is in those that see not them and want Russia to follow the same way.

The problem in western countries most politicians are military noobs and are sometimes seduced by big companies to buy shit they don't need. For example the F-35 is on paper perfect, but in reality a specialized plane is always better than a plane for nearly EVERY role. So in consequence the F-35 is still a good jet but older specialized jets have in their specific role better characteristics.

But some weapons in western countries are really good, much better than their russian counterparts and simple bashing leads to nothing!

Russia has a different philosophy of buying weapons, because the armaments companies are owned by the state. And politicians try to fulfill the wishes of the army and not otherwise. That's a real advantage for Russia. Second is the research in fields of technology that are in western countries taboo, for example nuclear propulsion of maritime vessels. But Russia lacks a few points, due to Yeltsin era Russia lost in some areas 10 years. Another point is the industrial capacity, to build weapons fast and in vast numbers. This was the intention of USA and partner in the Maidan, to cut Russia off from traditional suppliers. So Russia is on a good way, but it's still a long and hard way!

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Azi wrote:

eehnie wrote:Your ardent defense of a US B-2 like aircraft for Russia, trying to make successful the failed US stealth strategy thanks to make Russia a late follower of the US, is not working. Russia seems not to buy the argument and will not make a subsonic war aircraft for the role of strategic bomber. It is to return one step back. It is a non-sense (also looking at the trends on maritime patrol tant give room to increase the number of fast strategic bombers in the future).

Where B2 or stealth technology failed? China and Russia are adopting stealth technology for their 5. generation fighters, so stealth is a step back?!

Everything US does is a step back around here, get used to it.

No this is not right. As example I like their use of small supersonic trainer aircrafts, and I think a supersonic variant of the Yak-130 would be good for Russia (mach 1.1 or 1.2, not more).

But the US military development has been dominated by the private contractors interests and it leads to big mistates sometimes, like in this case. This is a fact.

The problem here is not in those that see the mistakes of the US, is in those that see not them and want Russia to follow the same way.

Militarov is a whiny NATO fanboi who gets all indignant when someone does not worship the ubermenschen technology of his gods.
That statement is the cheapest of strawman arguments.

He clearly has no understanding of physics and zero intuition based on experience and education. Anyone who claims the RCS of a B-2
is 100 times less than the Tu-95 is a certifiable ignoramus and poser. The only relevant comparison point is the cross section from various
angles. The cross section of the B-2 is enormous from the bottom, while its frontal cross section is bad as well since it spans a large horizontal
stretch compared to the Tu-95 (the propellers are angled already and photons see stationary blades and not solid discs). The myth is being
peddled by Militarov and his ilk that some mystical RAM coating exists that can totally nullify EM reflections so all the cross sectional aspects
do not apply. This is obvious bunk. We know the periodic table of the elements and we know the basic vibration and rotation mode degrees
of freedom of molecules composed out of the elements. No chemical species exists that does not scatter EM and fully absorbs it without
any re-emission.

For the fanboi grade school dropouts, go and read some spectroscopy books and articles and in particular pay attention to the emission-absorption
spectra: you will see a vast collection of broadened lines. The whole concept of a RAM coating that cancels out the total radar wavelength range
is absurd. Any coating you concoct will be like a sieve and there will always be frequencies (wavelengths) where the mystical RAM coating
does not perform. The RAM concept was created to defeat radars that operate on fixed frequencies. This was relevant back in the 1950s and
into the 1960s but is irrelevant today since the modern radars can scan over a continuously tuned band and in fact even bands that do not
conform to the radar range. The magic is in the phased array receivers that can digitally process even super-weak backscatter and re-emissions.

kvs wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Azi wrote:

eehnie wrote:Your ardent defense of a US B-2 like aircraft for Russia, trying to make successful the failed US stealth strategy thanks to make Russia a late follower of the US, is not working. Russia seems not to buy the argument and will not make a subsonic war aircraft for the role of strategic bomber. It is to return one step back. It is a non-sense (also looking at the trends on maritime patrol tant give room to increase the number of fast strategic bombers in the future).

Where B2 or stealth technology failed? China and Russia are adopting stealth technology for their 5. generation fighters, so stealth is a step back?!

Everything US does is a step back around here, get used to it.

No this is not right. As example I like their use of small supersonic trainer aircrafts, and I think a supersonic variant of the Yak-130 would be good for Russia (mach 1.1 or 1.2, not more).

But the US military development has been dominated by the private contractors interests and it leads to big mistates sometimes, like in this case. This is a fact.

The problem here is not in those that see the mistakes of the US, is in those that see not them and want Russia to follow the same way.

Militarov is a whiny NATO fanboi who gets all indignant when someone does not worship the ubermenschen technology of his gods.
That statement is the cheapest of strawman arguments.  

He clearly has no understanding of physics and zero intuition based on experience and education.   Anyone who claims the RCS of a B-2
is 100 times less than the Tu-95 is a certifiable ignoramus and poser.   The only relevant comparison point is the cross section from various
angles. The cross section of the B-2 is enormous from the bottom,  while its frontal cross section is bad as well since it spans a large horizontal
stretch compared to the Tu-95 (the propellers are angled already and photons see stationary blades and not solid discs).   The myth is being
peddled by Militarov and his ilk that some mystical RAM coating exists that can totally nullify EM reflections so all the cross sectional aspects
do not apply.   This is obvious bunk.   We know the periodic table of the elements and we know the basic vibration and rotation mode degrees
of freedom of molecules composed out of the elements.   No chemical species exists that does not scatter EM and fully absorbs it without
any re-emission.  

For the fanboi grade school dropouts, go and read some spectroscopy books and articles and in particular pay attention to the emission-absorption
spectra: you will see a vast collection of broadened lines.    The whole concept of a RAM coating that cancels out the total radar wavelength range
is absurd.   Any coating you concoct will be like a sieve and there will always be frequencies (wavelengths) where the mystical RAM coating
does not perform.   The RAM concept was created to defeat radars that operate on fixed frequencies.   This was relevant back in the 1950s and
into the 1960s but is irrelevant today since the modern radars can scan over a continuously tuned band and in fact even bands that do not
conform to the radar range.   The magic is in the phased array receivers that can digitally process even super-weak backscatter and re-emissions.

Go away already and drop dead whiner. Still waiting for day when you bring arguments and not random wall of text full of sewer content.

P.S. You even fail at gasping the difference between RCS and CSS, i am sorry but that disqualifies you from right to discuss anything further...about anything basically.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Azi wrote:

eehnie wrote:Your ardent defense of a US B-2 like aircraft for Russia, trying to make successful the failed US stealth strategy thanks to make Russia a late follower of the US, is not working. Russia seems not to buy the argument and will not make a subsonic war aircraft for the role of strategic bomber. It is to return one step back. It is a non-sense (also looking at the trends on maritime patrol tant give room to increase the number of fast strategic bombers in the future).

Where B2 or stealth technology failed? China and Russia are adopting stealth technology for their 5. generation fighters, so stealth is a step back?!

Everything US does is a step back around here, get used to it.

No this is not right. As example I like their use of small supersonic trainer aircrafts, and I think a supersonic variant of the Yak-130 would be good for Russia.

But the US military development has been dominated by the private contractors interests and it leads to big mistates sometimes, like in this case. This is a fact.

The problem here is not in those that see the mistakes of the US, is in those that see not them and want Russia to follow the same way.

Yeah, because B-2 was shot 50 times and has horrible service record. Or not.

Supersonic trainer gives you nothing for major cost you need to cover compared to high subsonic advanced trainers. Literally nothing, it gives you mediocre increase in combat capabilities, capabilities it will never get to use anyways.

From high subsonic advanced trainer you switch to two seat multirole fighter, there is simply no reason to do something like that. At this moment there is only one supersonic advanced trainer in existence and its operational cost are almost double compared to its competition.

No bang for your bucks there, hence useless.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Azi wrote:

eehnie wrote:Your ardent defense of a US B-2 like aircraft for Russia, trying to make successful the failed US stealth strategy thanks to make Russia a late follower of the US, is not working. Russia seems not to buy the argument and will not make a subsonic war aircraft for the role of strategic bomber. It is to return one step back. It is a non-sense (also looking at the trends on maritime patrol tant give room to increase the number of fast strategic bombers in the future).

Where B2 or stealth technology failed? China and Russia are adopting stealth technology for their 5. generation fighters, so stealth is a step back?!

The wrong part of the US stealth strategy begins when they decided to sacrifice other key features, like speed, in order to increase the stealth capabilities of their stealth aircrafts. Stealth technologies only give a temporary advantage, for a limited timeline, until detection technologies are improved. In this moment, the warfare that loses its stealth advantage and has sacrified other key features becomes highly obsolete.

As example the B-2. When the aircraft loses its stealth advantage, becomes a B-52 or Tu-95 like aircraft, fairly under the features of the older Tu-160.

The US is facing now the reality of the failure of their stealth strategy approach, with the design of the F-35. Just because on fighters they can not sacrifice key features. Doing it the weakness of the project is clear and evident.

Even if B-2 was made out of stainless steel, it would still have about... 100 times less RCS than Tu-95, i really hope you are aware of that... Bear is turboprop, its reflecting so much back to reciever that it looks like flying building.

Sure, you sacrifice speed, and you gain range, loitering, stealth... let alone fact that B-2 in terms of avionics is about...lightyears than any other bomber in existence, might even keep being so till replacement arrives.

There is no perfect answer, something needs to be sacrificed. I personally prefer to sacrifice speed out of all above listed.

No, the B-2 has not a better range than other strategic bombers. Taking homogeneous data from a single source we can see easily what I said:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/

Including only the data available for at least four of them, best data marked in red, second best in purple, and in case of tie the older first (bigger merit to achieve it first):

TU-160 PERFORMANCE:

Max Level Speed at altitude: 1,380 mph (2,220 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,200 m), Mach 2.05
at sea level: 640 mph (1,030 km/k)
Service Ceiling 52,495 ft (16,000 m)
Range 6,650 nm (12,300 km)

B-1B PERFORMANCE:

Max Level Speed at altitude: 1,000 mph (1,600 km/h) at 36,090 ft (11,000 m), Mach 1.5
at sea level: 750 mph (1,205 km/h), Mach 0.99
Service Ceiling unknown
Range 6,090 nm (11,265 km)

TU-22(M) PERFORMANCE:

Max Level Speed at altitude: 1,240 mph (2,000 km/h) at 36,090 ft (11,000 m), Mach 1.88
at sea level: 650 mph (1,050 km/h)
Service Ceiling 43,635 ft (13,300 m)
Range typical: 2,755 nm (5,100 km)

B-2 PERFORMANCE:

Max Level Speed at altitude: 530 mph (850 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m), Mach 0.8
at sea level: 485 mph (780 km/h), Mach 0.65
Service Ceiling 50,000 ft (15,240 m)
Range typical: 6,000 nm (11,110 km)

TU-95 PERFORMANCE:

Max Level Speed at altitude: 575 mph (925 km/h) at 40,010 ft (12,205 m), Mach 0.87
at sea level: 405 mph (650 km/h), Mach 0.53
Service Ceiling 39,370 ft (12,000 m)
Range 8,110 nm (15,000 km) with max fuel

B-52 PERFORMANCE:

Max Level Speed at altitude: 595 mph (955 km/h) [B-52H]
at sea level: 405 mph (650 km/h), Mach 0.53
Service Ceiling 50,000 ft (15,240 m)
Range typical: 6,380 nm (11,800 km)

Losing its initial stealth advantage, the B-2 becomes very mediocre strategic bomber.

Militarov wrote:Even if B-2 was made out of stainless steel, it would still have about... 100 times less RCS than Tu-95, i really hope you are aware of that...

Oh, that is very ironical Militarov, because it could mean that B-2 bomber is probably made entirely with stainless steel because it average aft sector signature is only a bit less than that

I can assure you that not even in one instance in the latest 70 years one of leading Federation's Institutes engaged in the theorethical and modeling studies of EM diffraction field was ever i need to adopt foreign developed theories and computation models, rather .......

The same obviously cannot be said for foreign scientifical institutions with our achievements where that was often the same fundamental basis of theirs programs. It was so in the past and is so today and reason is simple: we occupied and still occupy with a wide edge the leading field position when theoretical physics representation of the phenomena involved is concerned.

Militarov wrote:
Mmm.... no, B-2 has very extensive RCS reduction in all lobes, its doubtful there is any significant difference if you are radiating aganist it from front or sides, echo will be very small.

Oh yes sure

I am sure you can check for yourself from chapter 3 (pag 264 281 in the Russian version) of О.И. Сухаревский, В.А. Василец, С.В. Кукобко, С.В. Нечитайло, А.З. Сазонов work "РАССЕЯНИЕ ЭЛЕКТРОМАГНИТНЫХ ВОЛН ВОЗДУШНЫМИ И НАЗЕМНЫМИ РАДИОЛОКАЦИОННЫМИ ОБЪЕКТАМИ" where just B-2 is taken into computation

http://radar.dinos.net/

Militarov wrote:What will you launch aganist it when its appearing and disappearing on your guidance radar, when its jamming you...because your guidance radars are of far lower frequency,

Disappearing from an multi-band integrated guidance radar ? Evidently you do not know what you talk about.

You should very well aware that knowing the "presence" in an specific air volume of a flying object, with consequetial statistical distibution of its vectorial line in that portion of space- allow to lower of some orders of magnitude the established signal-to-noise exclusion threshold level at the receiving radar in the reason of the immense easing of the processing operations, allowing the achievement of a very stable target tracking with those guidance radars.

Even more in an integrated multiband system that, by itself, not only allow to even largely outdated radar systems to achieve a stable lock-on on targets otherwise largely falling under theirs standard signal processing over-noise threshold (as the so called "low observable" objects -anyhow characterized by real RCS figures some orders of magnitude greater the the phantasious ones usually circulating around in the PR-media land ) but also to differentiate airborne decoys of different kind with a chance next to 1.

With big enough processing power (leaving even a part the inpending revolution in the MW based sensor suit) even half of '60 years radars could achieve a stable lock on the most advanced low observable existing today worldwide.

It is not a chance that domestic aerospace design approach (oriented at confrontation with a peer/near peer enemies instead of "power/influence projection" against inferior entities) put also today for perspective designs "low observability" way way lower in the requirement priority than western designers.

Militarov wrote:Also why do you then need speed if you are launching cruise missiles from 3000km Smile? Speed is not an answer anymore, air defence systems became far more dangerous than they were 40 years ago

Why you need speed if you are launching cruise missiles from 3000km ? Are you serious ?
Do you believe that the utility of speed for a strategic or sub-strategic bomber would reside in its ability to avoid or out-run AD missiles ?
That is truly beyond ridiculous.

Also in this forum i have wrote several times and extensively just on the subject; you will instantly realize how much unsophisticated a similar line of reasoning is (points and line of reasoning strangely collimating and strongly "promoted" by the IW operatives of those nations that for mere scientifical limits has been uncapable to produce working items with such kinematical capabilities ).
Anyhow if you want something more complete you can readily search for models and studies just for this subject at 30-й ЦНИИ Минобороны России



Do you see Militarov, you have said that you was in service with Serbian Air Defence Forces, but strangely continue cite clearly deceiving or totally out of proportion figures also for the conflict involving your same Nation (only as an example: the total number of NATO Coalition declared sorties in Kosovo War - the mythical 34000 figure - against the registered number of SAM engagements or downed aircraft/missiles/UAV ) in the same naive way of some scarcely informed "common guy" merely parroting odd assumptions and false theorems conceived by western PR's spin doctors and totally disconnected with factual reality.

Militarov wrote:

It doesnt matter if its 60s, 70s or 2020s, there are few guidance methods used and it wont change for a bit while. What happens in terminal phase with passive seekers, or what resolution of your radar is, or how resilient are you to jamming is another story, however some things will not change.

Russian school has 3 base guidance methods, this includes all variants of S-300 and its derivates too.

Method "two dots" or TT/method "three dots", method "full interception" and "semi interception". This are basic mathematical solutions basically for guidance and interception of the target, basically sort of software solution, now, what kind of hardware this software gets to work with is another story (so called guidance systems).

Guidance systems can be IR, command guidance, radar guidance, optical guidance, with one or two radar beams, active, semi-active, dopler guidance and what not, many categories and subcategories.

Now these methods got few sub-methods that depend on particular system or revision in question, but it all comes down to these 3.


TT method


Overtaking or as we call it "clear interception"


Semi-overtaking/interception

It is a nice description of "don't shoot the bird, but the air in the front".

So?

The nebo can pin down the aircraft position to a few hundred big box, and can calculate the speed of it.

The X radars illumnating it, and even a passive seeker would see it in the box defined by the nebo.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

It doesnt matter if its 60s, 70s or 2020s, there are few guidance methods used and it wont change for a bit while. What happens in terminal phase with passive seekers, or what resolution of your radar is, or how resilient are you to jamming is another story, however some things will not change.

Russian school has 3 base guidance methods, this includes all variants of S-300 and its derivates too.

Method "two dots" or TT/method "three dots", method "full interception" and  "semi interception". This are basic mathematical solutions basically for guidance and interception of the target, basically sort of software solution, now, what kind of hardware this software gets to work with is another story (so called guidance systems).

Guidance systems can be IR, command guidance, radar guidance, optical guidance, with one or two radar beams, active, semi-active, dopler guidance and what not, many categories and subcategories.

Now these methods got few sub-methods that depend on particular system or revision in question, but it all comes down to these 3.


TT method


Overtaking or as we call it "clear interception"


Semi-overtaking/interception

It is a nice description of "don't shoot the bird, but the air in the front".

So?

The nebo can pin down the aircraft position to a few hundred big box, and can calculate the speed of it.

The X radars illumnating it, and even a passive seeker would see it in the box defined by the nebo.

Those are guidance methods all air defence systems use. If you have better solution, Almaz Antey is ready to pay you fat amount of money.

Mindstorm wrote:

Militarov wrote:Even if B-2 was made out of stainless steel, it would still have about... 100 times less RCS than Tu-95, i really hope you are aware of that...

Oh, that is very ironical Militarov, because it could mean that B-2 bomber is probably made entirely with stainless steel because it average aft sector signature is only a bit less than that

I can assure you that not even in one instance in the latest 70 years one of leading Federation's Institutes engaged in the theorethical and modeling studies of EM diffraction field was ever i need to adopt foreign developed theories and computation models, rather .......

The same obviously cannot be said for foreign scientifical institutions with our achievements where that was often the same fundamental basis of theirs programs. It was so in the past and is so today and reason is simple: we occupied and still occupy with a wide edge the leading field position when theoretical physics representation of the phenomena involved is concerned.  

Militarov wrote:
Mmm.... no, B-2 has very extensive RCS reduction in all lobes, its doubtful there is any significant difference if you are radiating aganist it from front or sides, echo will be very small.

Oh yes sure

I am sure you can check for yourself from chapter 3 (pag 264 281 in the Russian version) of  О.И. Сухаревский, В.А. Василец, С.В. Кукобко, С.В. Нечитайло, А.З. Сазонов work "РАССЕЯНИЕ ЭЛЕКТРОМАГНИТНЫХ ВОЛН ВОЗДУШНЫМИ И НАЗЕМНЫМИ РАДИОЛОКАЦИОННЫМИ ОБЪЕКТАМИ" where just B-2 is taken into computation

http://radar.dinos.net/

Militarov wrote:What will you launch aganist it when its appearing and disappearing on your guidance radar, when its jamming you...because your guidance radars are of far lower frequency,

Disappearing from an multi-band integrated guidance radar ? Evidently you do not know what you talk about.

You should very well aware that knowing the "presence" in an specific air volume of a flying object, with consequetial statistical distibution of its vectorial line in that portion of space- allow to lower of some orders of magnitude the established signal-to-noise exclusion threshold level at the receiving radar in the reason of the immense easing of the processing operations, allowing the achievement of a very stable target tracking with those guidance radars.

Even more in an integrated multiband system that, by itself, not only allow to even largely outdated radar systems to achieve a stable lock-on on targets otherwise largely falling under theirs standard signal processing over-noise threshold (as the so called "low observable" objects -anyhow characterized by real RCS figures some orders of magnitude greater the the phantasious ones usually circulating around in the PR-media land ) but also to differentiate airborne decoys of different kind with a chance next to 1.

With big enough processing power (leaving even a part the inpending revolution in the MW based sensor suit) even half of '60 years radars could achieve a stable lock on the most advanced low observable existing today worldwide.          

It is not a chance that domestic aerospace design approach (oriented at confrontation with a peer/near peer enemies instead of "power/influence projection" against inferior entities) put also today for perspective designs "low observability" way way lower in the requirement priority than western designers.

Militarov wrote:Also why do you then need speed if you are launching cruise missiles from 3000km Smile? Speed is not an answer anymore, air defence systems became far more dangerous than they were 40 years ago

Why you need speed if you are launching cruise missiles from 3000km ? Are you serious ?
Do you believe that the utility of speed for a strategic or sub-strategic bomber would reside in its ability to avoid or out-run AD missiles ?
That is truly beyond ridiculous.

Also in this forum i have wrote several times and extensively just on the subject; you will instantly realize how much unsophisticated a similar line of reasoning is (points and line of reasoning strangely collimating and strongly "promoted" by the IW operatives of those nations that for mere scientifical limits has been uncapable to produce working items with such kinematical capabilities ).
Anyhow if you want something more complete you can readily search for models and studies just for this subject at 30-й ЦНИИ Минобороны России



Do you see Militarov, you have said that you was in service with Serbian Air Defence Forces, but strangely continue cite clearly deceiving or totally out of proportion figures also for the conflict involving your same Nation (only as an example: the total number of NATO Coalition declared sorties in Kosovo War - the mythical 34000 figure - against the registered number of SAM engagements or downed aircraft/missiles/UAV ) in the same naive way of some scarcely informed "common guy" merely parroting odd assumptions and false theorems conceived by western PR's spin doctors and totally disconnected with factual reality.

Even forum contributors writing load of shit. lol

pak-da will be flying wing with huge range, will it be longer ranged then tu-22m? if so will it have to count as intercontinental bomber and subject to start treaty.

Rmf wrote:pak-da will be flying wing with huge range, will it be longer ranged then tu-22m? if so will it have to count as intercontinental bomber and subject to start treaty.

Probably significantly longer range than Tu-22M. However having in count how current international agreements are looking... i dont think they care.