Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+64
Deep Throat
Rpg type 7v
a89
BlackArrow
ali.a.r
Department Of Defense
gaurav
AlfaT8
eridan
collegeboy16
NickM
War&Peace
Djoka
Shadåw
Werewolf
psg
ricky123
Firebird
KomissarBojanchev
GJ Flanker
Dima
flamming_python
TheArmenian
Zivo
Sujoy
victor7
Mindstorm
Lycz3
George1
TR1
SOC
Igis
Cyberspec
KRATOS1133
adyonfire4
medo
AbsoluteZero
Ogannisyan8887
Hoof
Serbia Forever 2
ahmedfire
IronsightSniper
Captain Melon
Corrosion
coolieno99
Aegean
havok
nightcrawler
Austin
solo.13mmfmj
Robert.V
milliirthomas
GarryB
NationalRus
Stealthflanker
Jelena
Russian Patriot
Viktor
DrofEvil
AJSINGH
sepheronx
bhramos
Vladislav
Admin
68 posters

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    SOC
    SOC


    Posts : 565
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 46
    Location : Indianapolis

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  SOC Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:23 am

    Corrosion wrote:^^^ Little offtopic
    We can say that Stealth, Aesa, Supercruise, Internal weapon bays, electronics etc. define 5th gen. What you do think is 6th gen? What particular characteristics there are that will make a 6th gen fighter? Are there any such technologies??

    I'd say stealth by design, supercruise, and advanced digital avionics and systems make a 5th Gen fighter.

    Sixth gen technologies off the top of my head? Fluidic TVC (tested already). Physical or electronic VLO technology able to make something smaller than the B-2 stealthy in the VHF band (probably ridiculously secret if they've ever gotten it to work). DEW employment and countermeasures.
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  Austin Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:48 am

    SOC , Why do you think B-2 cannot be detected by VHF Radar ?

    Is there any evidence to show that B-2 cannot be deteted by L band and Meter Band Radar ?
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec


    Posts : 2904
    Points : 3057
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  Cyberspec Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:54 am

    Some speculation that T-50-4 might have a rear facing radar

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Th_850246133_01_01_01_054_122_16lo
    Zivo
    Zivo


    Posts : 1487
    Points : 1511
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  Zivo Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:39 am

    Why else would it have that symbol there?

    Have we got confirmation of cheek arrays yet?
    TR1
    TR1


    Posts : 5435
    Points : 5433
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  TR1 Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:44 am

    Radar (in the classical sense) is not the only thing that could have such a marking.
    Zivo
    Zivo


    Posts : 1487
    Points : 1511
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  Zivo Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:46 am

    Jammer?
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec


    Posts : 2904
    Points : 3057
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  Cyberspec Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:05 am

    Zivo wrote:Have we got confirmation of cheek arrays yet?

    Not that I'm aware off but it's a possibility on this prototype


    Zivo wrote:Jammer?

    That's one of the theories
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39156
    Points : 39654
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  GarryB Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:10 am

    I can't say I have ever seen a radiation symbol on a jamming pod of any kind.

    The most logical reason would be a rear facing radar.

    Especially considering jamming is a useful feature of new AESA radars I would think a radar antenna array that can search and track as well as jam would be rather more useful than a jammer.

    One of the goals of the PAK FA was situational awareness and a 360 degree radar view would aide that... even if it only ever listened for radar signals.
    SOC
    SOC


    Posts : 565
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 46
    Location : Indianapolis

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  SOC Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:06 am

    Austin wrote:SOC , Why do you think B-2 cannot be detected by VHF Radar ?

    "Cannot be detected" is inaccurate...any LO or VLO platform will be detected, the various stealth measures only reduce the effectiveness of sensors in certain wavelengths.

    The B-2 is large enough for VHF-band airframe shaping to make a difference. Something like the F-22 or PAK-FA is not large enough for shaping to make any difference against those wavelengths. Why is shaping important for VHF-bands? Because RAM coatings are applied in differing thicknesses and styles to deal with certain wavebands. RAM for the VHF bands would be very thick, prohibitively so.

    This example is overly simplified, but it should start to get some of the basic point across without me having to use my brain at 3 AM: look at the intakes of the F-117A. They want to keep X-band FCR emitters from seeing the engine faces, so the intake grills have holes smaller than those wavelengths. Ergo, hostile X-band sensors basically treat that as a flat plate, another airframe facet. VHF-band wavelengths are large enough that they can basically ignore a lot of those smaller design attributes intended to counter much smaller wavelengths. That's a hugely simplified explanation, and I've left a lot out, such as sidelobes, airframe conductivity, edge diffraction, caustics...but it should do for 3 AM. The point is that the bigger the airframe, the easier it is to counter VHF-band sensors.

    The B-2 was intended to penetrate deep into the USSR during a nuclear exchange. We knew all about various developments in FSU VHF-band radar systems. Without the ability to design for VHF-band VLO, the jet would've been a non-stealthy ALCM shooter.

    I could go into this more, but I have been up killing Covenant way too late attack
    medo
    medo


    Posts : 4342
    Points : 4422
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  medo Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:18 pm

    It could be rear looking radar. Together with 6 EO sensors to cover whole sphere around PAK-FA it will be well protected against surprise missile attack from any direction.
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  Austin Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:37 pm

    SOC wrote:
    The B-2 was intended to penetrate deep into the USSR during a nuclear exchange. We knew all about various developments in FSU VHF-band radar systems. Without the ability to design for VHF-band VLO, the jet would've been a non-stealthy ALCM shooter.


    Thanks for that technical explaination , The debate on shaping and B-2 is good enough to beat Meter band is something i have come across before and Dr Carlo Kopp has mentioned to me that even a 10 m Meter band would not be capable of detecting B-2.

    Having said that on a serious note do you think USAF or SAC then thought they could penetrate Soviet Airspace using B-2 flying high and could hunt mobile Topol ICBM something they were designed for ? When Gulf War has shown that hunting mobile Scud in an airspace completely dominated by Allies could not hunt a single mobile scud or destroy it before they could fire BM.

    Current Russian Long Range New Generation Radar are the Voronezh-M and DM ( VHF and L band ) do you think B-2 can fly high and can enter Russian Airspace undetected overcoming these new generation LR Radar and other types ?

    I personally think B-2 is more of a Political Tool to keep Bomber Dream of Air Force Alive and keep the bomber pilots in business .....Kosovo was an example where B-2 was accompained with range of Stand Off Jammers during its mission i read in dozens to take out targets at stand off range ......iirc only in one mission B-2 went alone without its supporting aircraft due to bad weather but for all the rest they had dozens of Jammer package accompaining them.

    I recollect one of the argument USAF made in favour of B-2 was it would made the accompaining package like Jammers in dozens that are currently needed for non-LO Bombers redudant and its LO features did not need any supporting package and that it could hunt alone.

    I have nothing against B-2 and this argument can equally well applied to USAF NGB and Russian PAK-DA program ......these programs are currently funded to keep the Bomber Pilots and Bomber in business when its ROI against any body other then some 3rd world enemy are at best questionable.

    The whole idea that Stealth Bomber are golden bullets is highly exaggared.
    Shadåw
    Shadåw


    Posts : 86
    Points : 91
    Join date : 2012-07-29

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  Shadåw Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:52 pm

    Alright, in regards to the "rear-facing" radar folks i found this watch it at the 24 secound mark, taken from a russian TV-station reporting on the flight.


    PAK FA - radiation marking?

    I honestly belive its a rar-facing RADAR as well. as said by Garry, jammers dont tend to carry such marks, nor have i seen any one carrying it as well, but since its a protype anything is possible they might be testing it out.

    Zivo
    Zivo


    Posts : 1487
    Points : 1511
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  Zivo Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:23 pm



    054
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39156
    Points : 39654
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  GarryB Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:29 am

    Regarding the B-2 there are claims by the Aussies that their long range over the horizon radar they have detected the B-2 at thousands of kms range...

    Another aspect is clutter... most radars have clutter rejection systems that is designed to screen out "noise" and that noise has very specific parameters. For instance at very low altitudes anything that has a tiny RCS and is flying at very low speeds... ie 20-30km/s would be automatically screened out... otherwise cars on the road and even insects and birds would need to be processed.

    A high flying B-2 with a tiny RCS is hardly going to be ignored because insects don't fly at 600-800km/h at 10,000m.

    Obviously detecting and identifying it is just part of the puzzle.
    TR1
    TR1


    Posts : 5435
    Points : 5433
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  TR1 Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:23 am

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 H060p0x7M0O2Q3N1
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  Austin Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:25 am

    Thanks looks like PAK-FA AESA going through testing in Anechoic Chanber.

    Just had this question , According to PAK-FA designer Davidenko ,F-22 Average RCS is 0.3 - 0.4 m2 and PAK-FA Average RCS is very close to it and its mentioned as 0.5 m2 link , I suppose these are X band RCS values

    This is what PAK-FA chief designer said to quote him
    Путин ознакомился с работой над Т-50 | ИноСМИ - Все, что достойно перевода

    Chief Designer of the aircraft, Alexander Davidenko indirectly hinted at the size of the effective area of scattering (ESR) of the future fighter. According to him, the ESR of the old generation aircraft (eg, Su-27) is about 12 m ², whereas the F-22A Raptor, it varies in the range of 0.3-0.4 m ². EPR PAK FA will not be higher than the F-22A, it will be very close to them. "
    So at what distance would a radar say with a range of 400 km operating in X band would detect PAK-FA with average RCS of 0.5 m2 and F-22 with average RCS of 0.3 m2 ?


    Last edited by Austin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
    havok
    havok


    Posts : 88
    Points : 83
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  havok Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:31 am

    GarryB wrote:Regarding the B-2 there are claims by the Aussies that their long range over the horizon radar they have detected the B-2 at thousands of kms range...

    Another aspect is clutter... most radars have clutter rejection systems that is designed to screen out "noise" and that noise has very specific parameters. For instance at very low altitudes anything that has a tiny RCS and is flying at very low speeds... ie 20-30km/s would be automatically screened out... otherwise cars on the road and even insects and birds would need to be processed.

    A high flying B-2 with a tiny RCS is hardly going to be ignored because insects don't fly at 600-800km/h at 10,000m.

    Obviously detecting and identifying it is just part of the puzzle.
    This has been explained before. But here it is again...

    Clutter rejection occurs BEFORE any attempt at data processing at radar returns that are above the rejection threshold.

    First...There is something called 'Detect Before Track' data processing...

    http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5655883&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5655883
    Radar track-before-detect algorithm of dim target based on track test

    This paper proposes a track test-based track-before-detect algorithm for radar target detection. Track test is used to estimate the target motion model. The implementation of this scheme on the search tracks and the detection strategy on the energy accumulation values of tested tracks are presented. Simulation results show the proposed algorithm have better detection performance and tracking performance, compared with the dynamic programming-based track-before-detect algorithm.
    Yes, I know the paper proposed a 'track before detect' algorithm for the purpose of tracking a radar 'dim' or low observable target. But if we have a 'track before detect' as a companion to 'detect before track' that mean there are significant statistical and structural differences in designing most radar systems.

    In radar detection, a 'detection' depends upon a set threshold or a set of many thresholds. Below this threshold are discarded signals. Why are they discarded? Because we arbitrarily determined they are of no value/utility to our purposes. Is cosmic background radiation (CBR) relevant to an air traffic controller? No, CBR is worthless to most of the world except to very highly trained professionals: astronomers. So radar engineers automatically insert known CBR characteristics into a clutter rejection threshold. And yes, pointing the antenna skyward does not eliminate 'junk' or 'no value/utility' signals. Signal amplitude is a major factor BEFORE other signal characteristics in determining value/utility.

    In order to detect CBR, gain is increased, or to put it another way, the threshold is dramatically lowered. But since CBR is already so low in amplitude, any threshold that allows CBR signal pass through will also allow other signals such as insects, birds, meteorological phenomena, and man-made signals such as television and assorted communication signals, to equally pass through.

    Such a system would overwhelm the human operator/interpreter. And that is why we have such a thing called 'clutter rejection' threshold. So if a signal's amplitude is automatically rejected, it does not matter to the system if the source of that amplitude has other characteristics such as the Doppler component. The Doppler component that says the source is moving across the antenna face at 1,000 km/hr or 1,000,000,000 km/hr is also discarded.

    Hence, the source or target is NOT detected. Or to put it another way: Radar detection occurs when a target does not meet the conditions for rejection.

    Then once the target is detected, other thresholds are in place to qualify the target for the 'Track' section of the system. Distance between radar and target is one such qualification, for example. For both the civilian air traffic controller and his military counterpart, the closer the target, the higher the demand for attention. The civilian controller needs to land his charge as soon as possible. The military controller may assume the target to be hostile and may call for help to deter attack.

    Hence, there is 'Detect Before Track' algorithm or a complete radar system. The majority of the world's radars are DBT systems. Even after the exposure of 'stealth'.

    The 'Track Before Detect' system is the complete opposite and is much much more data processing intensive. Practically speaking, the clutter rejection threshold is dramatically lowered sometimes to the point of allowing CBR to pass through and this would includes insects, birds, and assorted meteorological phenomena. Then once the entire field of view is in the system, other thresholds would be applied to filter out unwanted or 'clutter' signals. For example, if the Doppler component of a target is below 100 km/hr, discard it. So now the operator/interpeter would be looking at a Cessna 152 as well as the B-2. The B-2's amplitude would be much lower than the Cessna but it would be its Doppler component that made it stand out. So now, the system is essentially 'Track Before Detect/Track' because the operator/interpeter would want to monitor the B-2.

    Data processing is the primary reason why the TBD system is rare. Every single return must be monitored, threshold-ed, then monitored again at every single sweep. The narrower the main beam, the less data processing demand per sweep, but at the cost of volume search. Sweep cycle or cycling must be slower as well because the initial threshold is so low, hence so much returns, that the system must have 'persistence' per target in order to qualify it for detection and subsequent tracking. The word 'persistence' mean duration of view.

    There are all kinds of data processing techniques and even major structural configurations of TBD systems in trying to speed up the entire system.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165168411003070
    With widely separated transmitter and receiver pairs, the algorithm utilizes the Radar Cross Section (RCS) diversity as a result of target illumination from ideally uncorrelated aspects. Furthermore, a multiple sensor TBD is proposed in order to process the received signals from different transmitter-receiver pairs in the MIMO radar system.
    The above example is of a multi-static radar system utilizing TBD algorithms for each bi-static transmitter-receiver pairs.

    For those who do not understand 'multi-static' and 'bi-static' systems...

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Bi-static_sys

    The above is a simplified visual explanation of a 'multi-static' radar system. Each transmitter-receiver pair, Transmitter-A and Transmitter-B, is a 'bi-static' configuration. Because of physics, Receiver B will receive the most reflected signals compared to A. Each relationship is called the 'bi-static triangle'.

    And just in case anyone thinks am making this stuff up...

    http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=47611&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D47611
    Synchronization techniques used in the Bistatic Alerting and Cueing (BAC) program are examined. Particular attention is given to illuminator search, target search synchronization, RF synchronization, PRF (pulse repetition frequency) synchronization, range gate synchronization, and solution of the bistatic triangle.

    To sum it up, the argument 'no insect flies at 1000 km/hr' does not fly in the real world. That 'insect' is ALREADY discarded as 'junk' or clutter. The B-2 will not be detected, let alone tracked.
    havok
    havok


    Posts : 88
    Points : 83
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  havok Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:50 am

    SOC wrote:This example is overly simplified, but it should start to get some of the basic point across without me having to use my brain at 3 AM: look at the intakes of the F-117A. They want to keep X-band FCR emitters from seeing the engine faces, so the intake grills have holes smaller than those wavelengths. Ergo, hostile X-band sensors basically treat that as a flat plate, another airframe facet.
    Not exactly...

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Em_wavelengths

    The X-band is centimetric. The above illustration is not to scale, of course, but to give comparative perspective.

    Some scattered signals off the individual openings will make it to the engine's front face.

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 F-117_rcs_intake_grill

    The grill itself is much more sophisticated in design intending to attenuate any entrant signals than appearance would present.
    havok
    havok


    Posts : 88
    Points : 83
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  havok Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:54 pm

    Austin wrote:I personally think B-2 is more of a Political Tool to keep Bomber Dream of Air Force Alive and keep the bomber pilots in business .....
    Pilots? Nonsense. Every pilot-in-training want to be a fighter pilot. Or something to that effect. If we can do away with the class of military aircraft call 'bomber' and put every pilot into the smaller 'fighter' size class, we would.

    Austin wrote:Kosovo was an example where B-2 was accompained with range of Stand Off Jammers during its mission i read in dozens to take out targets at stand off range ......iirc only in one mission B-2 went alone without its supporting aircraft due to bad weather but for all the rest they had dozens of Jammer package accompaining them.
    The fact that one mission the B-2 flew unescorted and successful is significant. Low radar observable or not, if we have ECM resources, why not use them? If anything, it make the uncertainty factor on the enemy even greater.

    Austin wrote:The whole idea that Stealth Bomber are golden bullets is highly exaggared.
    Would silver do?
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  Austin Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:49 pm

    havok wrote:Pilots? Nonsense. Every pilot-in-training want to be a fighter pilot. Or something to that effect. If we can do away with the class of military aircraft call 'bomber' and put every pilot into the smaller 'fighter' size class, we would.

    There is a Bomber Lobby in Airforces much like there is fighter lobby reason they survive

    Austin wrote:The fact that one mission the B-2 flew unescorted and successful is significant. Low radar observable or not, if we have ECM resources, why not use them? If anything, it make the uncertainty factor on the enemy even greater.

    Yah like one mission for a Bomber that was suppose to fly deep in to Soviet Airspace Undetected and hunt Mobile Topol's Laughing

    I am sure the Pentagon must be very happy with that one missile that flew sole mission due to non availability of other assets due to bad weather and against AD system that is so infinitely inferior than what B-2 would have experienced when entering Soviet Airspace Twisted Evil

    I am sure the Single Kill by SA-3 of F-117 would by the same logic would mean Pentagon feel Stealth could be shot down by 60's SAM Razz

    Viktor
    Viktor


    Posts : 5796
    Points : 6429
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 43
    Location : Croatia

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  Viktor Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:16 pm

    Good, so that basically means that when Russia makes PAK-DA in numbers as well as PAK-FA they will be able to fly over the US all over, in and out, undetected Very Happy Very Happy just as same judging by your opinion B-2 does now in Russia Very Happy Very Happy

    That would further mean that two opposing stealth fighters would never managed to find each other in the battlefield cozz Very Happy Very Happy radar waves scattering signals of stealth fighter surfaces and RAM will make them undetected by conventional means.

    It is also interesting to know how in the hell did S-125 search radar managed to find F-117 and direct its fire control radar and managed to
    guide missiles at F-117 for more than 10min if there is scattering and all and F-117 from bottom up looks like a flat surface which radar waves hit under angle that are all under your point of view deflected by that same angle/surface. Engines does not count as they are placed on the on the top.

    It is also interesting how old Russian analog S-125 search and fire control radar did not managed to reject F-117 signal return, if there ever was one, as clutter ? How did that old Russian radar ever managed to do anything as there was no bistatic radars around to catch reflecting signals from flat bottom surface of the F-117?

    Now here you are questioning every statement of the Russian scientists, Russian defense ministers, defense companies and all just because
    you posted picture of 2 vector hitting flat surface Very Happy. Nice, you must be proud of yourself.

    Also I must refer to your statement about B-2 accompanied by jammer, I did not know, but Austin posted. Don`t you find strange that plane that can NOT be detected nor tracked or anything and against who thousands of radar systems are of no use need to be protected by jammers and non VLO planes that will be picked out miles away? I mean If you have ultimate weapon, weapon that is non traceable or detectable and as such not destroyable than why in the hell do you need to protect it by detectable and destroyable fighters which stand no chance to survive in such environment?

    According to you Russians must have been fools for not rejecting radar systems and rebuilding listening device systems like the ones that existed in WW1/2 as they would have more chance of success to detect VLO than by radar system. Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
    avatar
    Mindstorm


    Posts : 1133
    Points : 1298
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  Mindstorm Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:03 pm

    In military field , anyone attempt to corrupt the information's flow of the enemy and/or attempt to sell ,to the potential opponents, as outstanding achievements the product of development's programs that had instead, produced deluding results (or also the exact opposite).

    Exist a moment, in any development program where in-work validation tests of the real object in metal say to you if mere secondary modifications can still let the final product to respect initial requirements or if the basis design concept was utterly flawed form the beginning ( a B-1B bomber can start having a requirement for RCS reduction of 100 times in respect to B-52 and finish to deliver a final product with an RCS only 1,8 times lower .....recall something ? Wink ).


    As previously said, anyone can...or even must....attempt to negate to the enemy important data and over/under sell (at second of the military doctrine of the nation involved) the results achieved by its programs ; what instead none at world can mask or twist are the forced choices and the conditioned measures taken to respond to the real findings about the real performances and operational capabilities of the products in its possession.

    The information formally portrayed, to not insiders, is that B-2 is undetectable, at operational useful ranges, by any known radar and that it was conceived to penetrate in plain URSS's air space to go to the "hunt of soviet mobile ICBM launchers".... Laughing Laughing Razz Razz oh sorry ,but this comical ,harebrained idea ,sold usually around, is so utterly wronged under any POV that even repeat it cause uncontrollable bursts of laughers.

    Now let examine the completely not disguisable “hard” measures effectively taken by US military authorities in the course and after B-2's development and try to assess if those are compatible with the notion portrayed :

    1) B-2 in its initial design and CONOPS was,OBVIOUSLY ,intended as an high-altitude bomber capable, in this way, to remain well outside radar detection and engagement range of mobile low altitude ,IR/optronic equipped, Air Defense Systems and ground vehicles while cruising at very high altitude ....supposedly undetectable …..to long range IAD's elements.
    At the end stages of its development phase its main flight profile was urgently shifted from high altitude to low altitude terrain-following profile , that caused ,among others
    - An increase of the development phase of about two years and half with Executive Independent Review Team tasked to validate an efficient forward looking radar integrated terrain following and terrain avoidance system.
    - An increase of the costs for the final product , accounting final number produced, of about 350 millions (2009 US dollars) for each single bomber !
    - A lowering of the flight specifications to comply with very low altitude buffeting and turbulence action.
    That change of flight profile ,with the linked enormous cost and time of development’s increases and design compromises, have the effect to cause, among others :
    - This 2,1 billion dollar bomber …..supposedly undetectable….. to instead remain well within radar detection range to even the most outdated enemy SHORAD (for not say ANY of theirs TV/IR/optronic systems or even NVG goggles of a MANPAD’s operator !!) and let almost ANY enemy battlefield element –from a simple BMP-3 to an attack helicopter to play target practice with missiles or 30mm cannons .
    - Enemy emission locating/jamming systems (some of which optimized for the task) to have the chance to easily track and triangulate the point of origin of the close range emissions of the SAR/TF-TA radar and pass the coordinates to any other element of the IADs.
    - Enemy high altitude AWACS and look-down/shot down capable interceptors and patrol aircraft to have the chance to receive radar returns from the top side of the B-2’s airframe.

    Anyone is perfectly capable to realize that ,under any possible rational point of view, a similar very low altitude flight profile would be not merely a wrong option for a 2,1 billion dollars bomber...supposedly...undetectable for any enemy radar ,but even a suicide one; that until someone envisage that, at a point during development and validation phase, RCS measurements on real B-2 bombers and the linked models of representation of intrusion in airspaces defended by the most advanced SAM system of the time don’t had provided a picture so black for B-2 chance of survival that old fashioned low altitude intrusion had appeared even the most advantageous option .

    2) Initially (taking into account the planned capabilities to be offered by B-2 “Spirit”) US’s analysts had computed that 165 B-2 was the minimum necessary number for fight a major war .
    Now the sudden choice to terminate the program at only 21 airframes completed (moreover after the previous sudden change of its main flight profile to low altitude/terrain following) would appear totally irrational if we want to believe to the fairy tal...cough..cough...i wanted to say the hypothesis that the B-2’s CONOPs was really to attempt to penetrate deep in URSS’s airspace to hunt mobile ICBM launchers and destroy strategic targets with.....nuclear gravity bombs, because sensor coverage/variety and data processing capabilities of IAD ‘s elements defending Russian Federation’s airspace continued to grow exponentially since beginning of ’90 years.
    To the contrary the unique real war element that really vanished with URSS’s dissolution was the chance of a massive ground invasion of Europe ,with the need to stop the high mobile fronts of Soviet advance with precision delivery of tactical nuclear bombs (strangely just the type of missions where a relatively close range delivery of tactical nuclear bombs would be effectively required instead of safe -thousands-km-long stand-off delivery of nuclear tipped cruise missiles) Very Happy .

    3) During pasted conflicts B-2 has always received support from not stealthy assets such as EA-6B "Prowlers," F-15s and F-16s.
    Anyone can easily realize how a similar support from those aircraft ,moreover against enemies with antediluvian level of air defenses, should be not merely totally unnecessary, but even dangerous for the safety of a bomber as B-2....supposedly...undetectable by any enemy radar from X to VHF band ,because enemy could easily track the escort’s package and ,from that, infer the restricted area of presence of B2 bombers for scramble interceptors.
    That ,obviously, unless someone envisage that even against those enemies ,equipped with few prehistoric air defense systems US analysts had computed that B-2 was at risk to be tracked and downed. Very Happy


    At this point someone could ask to himself what kind of advanced radar ,in possession of USA, could have caused those not-coverable measures and decisions on B-2 program to be carried-on.
    The response arrive from the words of Admiral John W. Nyquist and Assistant Secretary of the Navy Gerald Cann .

    From the article "Aegis radar can detect stealth technology" :


    When asked how a U.S. carrier battle group would defend itself against a Soviet stealth aircraft, Nyquist told Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.), "...The Aegis radar can do the job ... That's why we're fielding the Aegis in our cruisers and in the Arleigh Burke class destroyers."

    Bumpers, who said he formerly backed the B-2 bomber, questioned the need for building stealth planes. He said, "If it is true that the Aegis is capable of picking up stealth technology, then isn't it also true that they (the Soviets) can establish such a technology?"

    Assistant Secretary of the Navy (R&D and Acquisition) Gerald Cann said that was a complicated question. However, he said that the issue in such a case is at what cost can the Soviets overcome that technology. Bumpers stated that cost was also an issue in the U.S.
    Cann defended the development of stealth technologies saying, "We have to make sure our forces are survivable and stealth is something I'd like to have."


    On a final personal note i could add that the quicker someone begin to leave behind the mindset, intentionally focused on some not really central elements of the question, induced by some internet publications....the quicker it will realize that rayleigh and resonance scattering regions represent only a very little part of the picture (and not even the most critical one Wink ) for the particular subject in question Wink .


    havok
    havok


    Posts : 88
    Points : 83
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  havok Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:39 pm

    Austin wrote:There is a Bomber Lobby in Airforces much like there is fighter lobby reason they survive
    There is a 'bomber lobby' because there is a 'bomber' type aircraft. But the reality is that if there is no need for a bomber, then it will be phased out of existence, the same way the battleship was.

    Austin wrote:Yah like one mission for a Bomber that was suppose to fly deep in to Soviet Airspace Undetected and hunt Mobile Topol's
    Why are you so fixated on hunting mobile launcher? If that is the only thing you think the B-2 is capable of doing, then I hope the entire Russian military establishment thinks like you do.

    Austin wrote:I am sure the Single Kill by SA-3 of F-117 would by the same logic would mean Pentagon feel Stealth could be shot down by 60's SAM
    The -117 flew about 1,000 sorties over Yugoslavia. NATO flew about 40,000 sorties. One -117 and one -16 lost. That is not an air defense combat record record to boast about at the bar.
    havok
    havok


    Posts : 88
    Points : 83
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  havok Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:09 pm

    Viktor wrote:Good, so that basically means that when Russia makes PAK-DA in numbers as well as PAK-FA they will be able to fly over the US all over, in and out, undetected Very Happy Very Happy just as same judging by your opinion B-2 does now in Russia
    Radar detection is 75% data processing system and processes. Keep in mind that it was the Soviet Union who discarded Ufimtsev's work and the Americans picked it up. We are now at least two generations ahead of Russia in terms of low observable designs and how to counter it. We never had any problems being ahead of the Soviets in the first place.

    I will explain...And NOTHING I post here are any sort of 'classified'...

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Airliner_rcs_01

    In radar detection, targets usually are generators of clusters of scattered signals, even with LO targets. In the above example, only parts of the aircraft is above a certain threshold, with the rear section with its vertical stab produced that highest spike.

    If you take two cubes of different sizes but identical proportions, you would have the same radar return characteristics with only the difference in amplitude. You can bury the smaller cube inside (or below) a threshold and those signal characteristics would not change. Keep in mind that these signals are not known 'natural' phenomena such as an insect swarm, a flock of birds, or a rain storm. All three of them are called 'volumetric' returns, meaning that you do not detect a single bird but only if there is a flock of birds. If one bird drop out of formation, it would not return an echo, and the flock's radar return is diminished by one bird. Flora (leaves) is also a 'volumetric' radar signal. A man-made metallic body, no matter how low is its radar observability, can only be masked by surrounding clutter, but hardly destroyed, aka 'destructive interference'.

    We know what an aircraft look like in terms of radar return, meaning what a cluster of radiation generators (wings, fuselage, etc.) will create what pattern when the aircraft is viewed head on, from the side, rear, and just about every aspect angles between. The greater the complexity of the body, the more complex its radar returns no matter what maneuvers it does. The problem is the extraction processes of that cluster out of the clutter rejection threshold. We know how to have a clutter rejection threshold while at the same time examine it for unique anomalies and this is the line I will not cross. You really think we left alone this area once we built the F-117? Just because Russia cannot do <something>, that does not mean no one else can.

    Viktor wrote:That would further mean that two opposing stealth fighters would never managed to find each other in the battlefield cozz Very Happy Very Happy radar waves scattering signals of stealth fighter surfaces and RAM will make them undetected by conventional means.
    We know how. But I doubt the same can be said for Russia.

    Viktor wrote:It is also interesting to know how in the hell did S-125 search radar managed to find F-117 and direct its fire control radar and managed to guide missiles at F-117 for more than 10min if there is scattering and all and F-117 from bottom up looks like a flat surface which radar waves hit under angle that are all under your point of view deflected by that same angle/surface. Engines does not count as they are placed on the on the top.
    Sheer luck via the 'spray and pray' method. If whatever Zoltan Dani did worked so well, then why only one -117 was lost?

    Viktor wrote:Now here you are questioning every statement of the Russian scientists, Russian defense ministers, defense companies and all just because you posted picture of 2 vector hitting flat surface Very Happy. Nice, you must be proud of yourself.
    I only debunk popular misconceptions. I guess you have a hard time with that?

    Viktor wrote:Also I must refer to your statement about B-2 accompanied by jammer, I did not know, but Austin posted. Don`t you find strange that plane that can NOT be detected nor tracked or anything and against who thousands of radar systems are of no use need to be protected by jammers and non VLO planes that will be picked out miles away? I mean If you have ultimate weapon, weapon that is non traceable or detectable and as such not destroyable than why in the hell do you need to protect it by detectable and destroyable fighters which stand no chance to survive in such environment?
    They are ruses. Ever heard of that? No one said our 'stealth' aircrafts are ultimate weapons. So far only YOU have. In radar detection, nothing is 'invisible' and only media commentators used that word.

    Viktor wrote:According to you Russians must have been fools for not rejecting radar systems and rebuilding listening device systems like the ones that existed in WW1/2 as they would have more chance of success to detect VLO than by radar system. Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
    They did reject Ufimtsev's work.
    avatar
    Djoka


    Posts : 13
    Points : 13
    Join date : 2013-01-21

    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty F-117

    Post  Djoka Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:20 am

    Well they didnt shot down any more of f-117,because afther serbs destroyed one and damaged the other f-117,pentagon grounded the entire fleet of f-117.As for only two aircarft lost,thats debatable because we dont know the number of aircraft that were damaged beyond repair,or the ones that landed or fell in nearby countrys like croatia,bosnia,macedonia.I personally seen a-10 that had an emegrency landing in macedonia,he lost an engine.And many drones including predators were shut down.The primary reason why didnt the serbs shot down more is because nato pylots were ordered to fly very high,and thus their results were poor.They did destroy ststionary targets(buildings)but VERY few tanks in Serbia.

    Sponsored content


    PAK FA, T-50: News #1 - Page 26 Empty Re: PAK FA, T-50: News #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat May 18, 2024 3:26 am