Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Share

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Russian Patriot on Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:16 pm

    Rpg type 7v wrote:
    medo wrote:
    Austin wrote:What Kind of Radar are they talking about operating in 10 m wavelength ? Can such radar detect Stealth Aircraft of B-2 types ?

    Defense will create a new network-horizon radar
    http://lenta.ru/news/2013/06/10/rls/

    It's over the horizont radar, which is usually in metric wave (low frequency), that it waves could use ionosphere to follow the Earth curve. And yes, they could easily detect stealth planes, because non have 1 meter thick RAM cover, that is why stealth F-117 and B-2 were easily seen on old Soviet VHF radars.
    actually the wave bounces back ,it goes the same path twice ,so the thickness can be half the wavelength , eg. 0,5m.
    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.

    Link proving this?

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:19 pm

    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%89%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_F-117_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%91%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%86%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8

    http://books.google.rs/books?id=qZlrReU-cMkC&pg=PT47&lpg=PT47&dq=how+thick+ram+stealth&source=bl&ots=NsaVkNZcUe&sig=WqCUFjYsuqfIszmsCynpTfcjFyo&hl=sr&sa=X&ei=2gq2Uf3GG7Hd7Qa9hYDwBQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Russian Patriot on Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:26 pm

    Rpg type 7v wrote:http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%89%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_F-117_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%91%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%86%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8

    http://books.google.rs/books?id=qZlrReU-cMkC&pg=PT47&lpg=PT47&dq=how+thick+ram+stealth&source=bl&ots=NsaVkNZcUe&sig=WqCUFjYsuqfIszmsCynpTfcjFyo&hl=sr&sa=X&ei=2gq2Uf3GG7Hd7Qa9hYDwBQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ

    spasibo, we just encourage every claim to be confirmed from sources, note I am not saying you are wrong, but by providing the sources, you will start to get positive rep and be considered seriously.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  SOC on Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:53 pm

    "The fact that 3,000 combat aircraft, among them some of the most advanced, have no operational, financial, administrative or any other connection with the Air Forces, has not been grasped by ordinary individuals in the West, nor even by Western military specialists."

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

    "Then, to replace these, two rockets, the S 125 (low-altitude and short-range) and the S 200 (high-altitude and long-range), were developed."

    Or not. S-125 was intended to counter the low-altitude shortcomings of the S-75. S-200 was designed as a complementary long-range system, not an S-75 replacement. The S-75 replacement was the S-300P, and it's performance led to the replacement of the S-200 gradually as well.

    Austin wrote:Using Dual Mode Guidance compromising IIR Seeker and Ku/J band seeker.

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

    Austin wrote:Can SAGG employ a Ku band on board seeker operating in CW mode and also let GRAVE STONE/BIG BIRD track the target ?

    That's basically how SAGG works, the missile seeker is technically a SARH head homing on reflected energy from the target. If you mean an active seeker head, then if the missile seeker can see the target there isn't really any need for offboard targeting support.


    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  medo on Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:08 pm

    http://congressionalresearch.com/RL30639/document.php

    This report show, that F-117 in Serbia was lost, because its EA-6B escort was not properly near. Both F-117 and B-2 in 1999 war use EW SEAD escort and Serbia have only ancient SAM-2, SAM-3 and SAM-6. 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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:26 pm

    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Austin on Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:37 pm

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:09 pm

    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Viktor on Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:13 pm

    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.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Austin on Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:25 pm

    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.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  medo on Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:19 pm

    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.

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Sujoy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:59 pm

    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.


    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Viktor on Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:50 am

    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




    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:50 pm

    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... Twisted Evil

    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  medo on Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:28 pm

    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

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  SOC on Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:03 pm

    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 silent

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:14 am

    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...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1518
    Points : 1681
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  TheArmenian on Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:07 am

    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"

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 14, 2013 8:44 am

    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?


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:54 am

    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 ?

    dino00
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 116
    Points : 161
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Location : portugal

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  dino00 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:05 pm

    The antey 2500 can destroy missiles with 2500 km,so
    In what missiles range can the s-300v4 destroy a missile?
    And who have that missiles.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5675
    Points : 6081
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:41 pm

    ^^^ on S-300V4



    After modernization, the S-300B provided: increase in the range of aerodynamic destruction of aerial targets up to 400 km, increasing the area covered up to strokes operational-tactical and tactical missiles - in 3-4 times, and defeat short-range missiles and medium range ballistic missiles - with range of start-up to 3,500 km.



    http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?93561-Russian-Space-amp-Missile-News-Discussion-Part-4&p=1838119#post1838119

    dino00
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 116
    Points : 161
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Location : portugal

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  dino00 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:01 pm

    So 3500 km thanks.
    And who have that missiles to threat Russia

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  medo on Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:13 pm

    Iran, North korea, China,...

    dino00
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 116
    Points : 161
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Location : portugal

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  dino00 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:52 pm

    Thanks for the answer

    Sponsored content

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:59 am


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:59 am