Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

GarryB wrote:The Russians are going to use F-15s to intercept F-22s.

There are only 189 F-22s and counting and it takes about 40 hours of maintainence for each flight hour.

Most long wave ground based Russian radars should detect F-22s from quite reasonable distances, but most importantly even if the F-22 is super invisible and can't be detected or shot down the most likely countermeasure would be to nuke all the airbases the F-22s are operating from.

The Russians have already said that some conventional weapons have the accuracy and capability to be comparable to nuclear weapons in performance and that a strategic strike against Russia will be met with a full nuclear response.

The truth is we have no idea unto it happens. The F-22 may absorb radar giving no return. You would need a receiver or the wave to be in space. You would only look for missing signal.

If you have radar on the ground and 1 in space "over your country" you can send up the signal and have a detector. You only detect the jet's if the radar is missing. It will work for deflecting radar or absorbing it / it's's energy.

The truth is that Russia is now testing Ideas to detect American f-22+ jets. It's why on the news 3 weeks ago they said how 2 F-22 intercepted a Russian plane. In that plane, is new weapons waves signals. It's learning how to detect them. America don't realise that yet. The truth is does that mean we know they cant detect it? Because they are now trying to detect them.

You don't need to be able to see an F-22 to kill it as such.

The MiG-35 and Su-35 as well as the PAK FA will have ESM sophisticated enough to make AMRAAM and Sidewinder pretty much ineffective... and the reverse is probably true too... so in the end it will come down to turning and fighting with cannon shells which can't be stopped by jamming.

My money is on the Russian aircraft as they have proven close in manouver capability with thrust vectoring engines and enough missiles to have lots of shots at western aircraft too.

That graphic is total horseshit. Is the radar using nebo m? Is it using passive systems? That is as generic as it can get.

Nebo-SVU have small enough cell for target location, that S-300PMU2 could launch missile on it without using S-300 tracking radar. Only link to missile to bring the missile to the cell of Nebo-SVU, where the missile could find the target itself. Nebo-M is far more capable complex than Nebo-SVU (both are AESA radars) with three different radars and S-400 is more modern complex. Nebo-M for sure have small enough cell, that S-400 could engage the target at max distance with ARH missiles using link guidance to bring missile to the cell.

GarryB wrote:You don't need to be able to see an F-22 to kill it as such.

The MiG-35 and Su-35 as well as the PAK FA will have ESM sophisticated enough to make AMRAAM and Sidewinder pretty much ineffective... and the reverse is probably true too... so in the end it will come down to turning and fighting with cannon shells which can't be stopped by jamming.

My money is on the Russian aircraft as they have proven close in manouver capability with thrust vectoring engines and enough missiles to have lots of shots at western aircraft too.

Yep on my fb page oblique weapons, it has a post saying to put them in artillery shells. It's also good because it get's next to them within seconds, not giving them time to turn. The fastest ever artillery round travelled at 6,000km/h. 3,000km/h would hit a dog fighting within a second. You get a lock-on warning and in 1 second it's all over.

You do know American jet's can lock-on before Russian jet's right? Are you saying you can Jam the missile 5 - 20 seconds after it's been fired? That's like saying a lock-on guided missile signal is cut at any time after it's fired. I have know idea about that.

That image shows one vehicle trying to track fighter sized aircraft targets... S-400 is not one radar vehicle type and can receive data from a range of sources including AWACS and ground and space based radar/sensors.

The IADS network will detect stealth aircraft fairly easily and at very long range... an IADS consists of hundreds of radar... a small percentage of which will be scanning and all will be listening... the stealthy design of the B-2 and F-22 and F-35 is designed to redirect the radar waves away from the source but other radars located around the place will detect radar reflections coming from empty space... two or more can be used to locate the stealth target fairly easily.


The S-400 is designed to intercept rather small RCS targets... most ballistic missile warheads are very very aerodynamic and have no forward flat faces so they have tiny RCS... that is what the S-400 is designed to intercept.

A mig-29/35 guided by the ground is as stealth as the F-22. When it comes to its 6, it's finish for the US fighter. Land based systems can jam X band so that the US fighter won't see anything while russian ground based radars operating in other frequency band can see them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasukha_EW_System

This thing as 300km range. Put 5 of them on the border of your country and no fighter in the air can use its radar. Add many more less sophisticated system that make more parasite and noise and it's even harder. The fight will be with guns and IR missile.

Ooh Kek, not again, this stealth vs anti-stealth thing simply has to many variables, we know that the U.S has stealth and we know Russia has put a lot of work over the years in there AD systems, network and radars in general, how it'll play out is anyone best guess, and the reality is, i don't think the U.S air-force wants to find out.

Can't you just put a radar wave reader is space, that sees the missing radar wave?

So F-22 and other stealth fighters deflect or absorb radar waves. If it deflects the up coming waves in space, it will see missing radar wave that got deflected from that spot or absorb?

So with a system over your country you can still detect stealth fighters.

I would also thing bout making a laser radar. A laser beam in space spreads out and is hit by lasers "that" or radar waves hit it showing it missing...what ever works.

Can't you just put a radar wave reader is space, that sees the missing radar wave?

So F-22 and other stealth fighters deflect or absorb radar waves. If it deflects the up coming waves in space, it will see missing radar wave that got deflected from that spot or absorb?

So with a system over your country you can still detect stealth fighters.

I would also think bout making a laser radar. A laser beam in space spreads out from a satellite. The laser beam goes all the way around the satellite, and comes out covering a huge area. Now radar waves can be read by it or a ground laser beam will scan the sky on good days.

Ether way it will detect stealth fighters before todays radar would.

It's all about detecting the missing radar wave or laser beam or a system like that, that works...Test it.

S-400 can engage balistic warhead from about 60 km. Stealth aircraft it can visible about 40km.

The effective range against ballistic targets is limited by the steep trajectory of long range ballistic weapons.

The equivalent range for PAC-3 against ballistic targets is about 12km.

With metric wave radar a small stealth aircraft can be detected at hundreds of kms.

A Pantsir-S1 could detect an F-22 or F-35 with IIR sensors and pass target data to the IADS network so anything could hit them.

For that to work the sensor in space would need to be between the stealth target and the ground emitter... even with billions of satellites you could not maintain coverage of your airspace...

GarryB wrote:

S-400 can engage balistic warhead from about 60 km. Stealth aircraft it can visible about 40km.

The effective range against ballistic targets is limited by the steep trajectory of long range ballistic weapons.

The equivalent range for PAC-3 against ballistic targets is about 12km.

With metric wave radar a small stealth aircraft can be detected at hundreds of kms.

A Pantsir-S1 could detect an F-22 or F-35 with IIR sensors and pass target data to the IADS network so anything could hit them.

You only need to defend your weapons, so you would only use 1 satellite to cover your weapons.

What's the first thing a F-22 will go for? Then you don't need billions of satellites but handfuls.

F-22 will go for S-400s and so on, so cover them near the border.

It would be good if you could make a laser base radar. 1 satellite in space could cover a huge distance. The satellite would have a laser all the way around it shining out covering a huge area. You then make earth bases lasers that flicker it the sky scanning an area at a time.

The enemy can't get deep into your country, because the laser will hit there jets.

Anyway if a Pantsir-s1 does the job so be it.

The picture you drew shows an emission from a ground based radar being absorbed or redirected and a space satellite behind it detecting the gap in the signal from the ground radar.

For this to work the space based satellite needs to be aligned with the stealth aircraft to detect the gap in the signal.

The odds of one satellite being in the right place at the right time is next to zero as the satellite is also moving very fast too.

400 Russian jets V 1,000 working U.S jets.

10min 10 seconds video link.

1, we work in packs of 50 and have clip on tanks that spray chemicals out in a dog fight, why dropping heat seeking missile that turn on in 3 or so seconds.....Behind enemy jets. .

2. We attack low and spray the sky with chemicals / particles and ash that charges the sky....More like a basic chemicals that do the same.

3. We make mass S-400 missiles that have 40 small lock-on inferred missiles in them also.

4. we spray and ionise air molecules, that flame up enemy jets engines. That or spray a chemical that does the same.

5. The chemicals / electrons and ash will heat the jets up instantly, and Inferred missiles will lock-on big time.

6. Can ever drop them off in artillery shells, that kick start its speed instantly to 2,000 - 6,000km/h. They lock on and turn back to the fighter instantly.

Volcanic ash, as seen on the flight going across Indonesia years ago, seen it's window flickering with light "distracting 1,000s of jet pilots" why jet motors flame up at the back. This means we can flame up American F-22 jet motors and frames, giving away massive heat signatures allowing all small inferred missiles to lock on.....Along with new missiles made to attack metal frames charged.

F-22 will be downed and will give off massive heat now.

When them come in masses, the sky will be flooded with chemicals seeing masses of heat seeking missiles locking onto 1,000s of jets and bombers. Russia can make missiles fly at 5,000km/h. F-22 fly at 1,700/h.

There would be many chemicals that can do this.

1. We make 1,000 missiles that hold 30 - 100 small infrared inside them. The bombers and jet fighters drop the ash / chemical lighting up their jet engines why blinding them. Missile are already getting there, spiting out 100ds of small inferred missiles "each" taking out 100,000 jet fighters from 1,000 missiles.

We can work in wolf packs and drop it on small numbers, setting up traps. They will not fly in 2,000 numbers, but hundreds or 1,000s tops. If they do, they are fucked.

If you can't get volcanic ash "that you can", make something the same "charged clouds" that do the same thing. Like a thick smoke with moisture in it charged.

We can now use 400 fighter jets and 100 new space jet bombers to dive down and drop the shit all over the sky around them. We dive as the lock on missiles go up seconds later.

We will see the enemy in shock, not able to see, and their jet motors flaming at the back big time, seeing 1,000s of lock on heat missile hitting there targets.

500 craft v packs of 100drs. If they use 20,000, we will destroy them all.

We can take on America to. Add 30,000 more craft who cares.

Put charges in the ash / smoke and dump it all around them. Them charges will do the above....Heat the jet's up then fire them missiles. Bonus if the F-22 jets stat flaming like that lol....Fuck them 2.

You can 100% make clouds of shit like that, so start working on it.

We divide them up, and take them out.

This is to prevent nuclear war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpuxqBp-CXw

In the future all missiles are jammed. It down to canon ro

unds and bullets.

GarryB wrote:The picture you drew shows an emission from a ground based radar being absorbed or redirected and a space satellite behind it detecting the gap in the signal from the ground radar.

For this to work the space based satellite needs to be aligned with the stealth aircraft to detect the gap in the signal.

The odds of one satellite being in the right place at the right time is next to zero as the satellite is also moving very fast too.

Not if you use lasers.

A satellite can have a laser beam coming out in all directions, that reads the incoming laser beam. This way it covers the hole area. It can be coded 2.

It is not about numbers... it is about using forces efficiently and effectively...

The Russian AF does not operate on its own in a vacuum.

Together with aerospace defence and the Russian Army and Russian Navy it would be a very formidable foe for any force.

Even with 20,000 stealth fighters the US would struggle because losing hundreds or even thousands of aircraft is not something they could stomach.

Against third world countries that cannot retaliate it is much easier to get local superiority in numbers and mop up the enemy force. When the enemy force can strike back however at your airfields where you stage forces for attacks then you start to have real problems... problems the US would have no solutions for.

A single satellite would overfly one point in Russia for about 6 minutes and come past again 90 minutes later... a stealth aircraft moving at 800km/h would be an impossible target for even the most capable laser equipped satellite...

It would make rather more sense to mount lasers in an aircraft like an AWACS aircraft... no... actually it would make more sense to mount long wave radars around the perimeter of Russia to detect targets coming from long range... which they already have.

"

GarryB wrote:It is not about numbers... it is about using forces efficiently and effectively..."

Witch is numbers. WW2 proved that numbers would out do faster jets. Nazi made the jet that could fly much faster "but yet" they lost because of the shear numbers.

What is efficiently and effectively for you? what would you do.


"Together with aerospace defence and the Russian Army and Russian Navy it would be a very formidable foe for any force."

why? What's the weapons difference....Who would win?

"Even with 20,000 stealth fighters the US would struggle because losing hundreds or even thousands of aircraft is not something they could stomach."

That's right. Are you saying spraying out a chemical will work?

Do you think a chemical added might even make the jet motors over heat and burnt out? If so do you think that will be a disaster for America in dog fights? Because it will be weapons jammed, electronics jammed "so" it will be ww2 stile warfare/ dog fighting?

"Against third world countries that cannot retaliate it is much easier to get local superiority in numbers and mop up the enemy force. When the enemy force can strike back however at your airfields where you stage forces for attacks then you start to have real problems... problems the US would have no solutions for.

"

But what if America has weapons that can cut off guided bombs signal? It will be like Wernher von Braun missiles, aiming it and ruffle hitting an airfield. Russia won't be able to hit the enemy airfields. Would/could they?

Spraying out a chemical might even burn out their jet engines? How hot do they burn to what they can take? I would say this idea would not only see inferred missiles lock on from the extra heat coming off of it "but" It may drop all Americas jet's like fly's because it overheated then engine.

Like you said and I already new. ww3 will be cannon rounds and bullet's, because missiles will be jammed. Is that jammed from launching? What if America can launch it before Russia can jam the launcher? Is that the way it works.

Russia would float up jamming dives all around their country in a time of war. That stops Americas missiles from locking on first.

American jet's missiles can lock on way before Russian jammers are in range. So putting jammers all in the sky will keep them jammed.

That means it will be like ww2 fighting.

miketheterrible wrote:That graphic is total horseshit. Is the radar using nebo m? Is it using passive systems? That is as generic as it can get.

I have no idea about that area. You are talking to the worlds best strategist. Ill have you know Putin went into Syria thanks' to me.

Oblique weapons on fb.

GarryB wrote:A single satellite would overfly one point in Russia for about 6 minutes and come past again 90 minutes later... a stealth aircraft moving at 800km/h would be an impossible target for even the most capable laser equipped satellite...

It would make rather more sense to mount lasers in an aircraft like an AWACS aircraft... no... actually it would make more sense to mount long wave radars around the perimeter of Russia to detect targets coming from long range... which they already have.

kool cheers.

Ps the satellite doesn't point lasers down. It spreads the beam out in space covering a huge area to read the up coming laser beam that hit's it. It can be coded to.

So 1,000 laser beams flicker the sky scanning it. The laser beams go up and hit the satellites laser beam.

Does not matter if Russia already have that capability to detect them.