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


+61
Backman
owais.usmani
JohninMK
Enera
PeeD
bojcistv
obliqueweapons
Isos
Arrow
miketheterrible
GarryB
MarshallJukov
marcellogo
Zastel
George1
Erlindur
hoom
Rmf
Azi
eehnie
SeigSoloyvov
Singular_Transform
kvs
Batajnica
moskit
victor1985
sepheronx
max steel
Mike E
Swede55
Werewolf
magnumcromagnon
Hannibal Barca
nemrod
AlfaT8
macedonian
Rpg type 7v
Hachimoto
Vann7
KomissarBojanchev
Sujoy
SACvet
Firebird
gloriousfatherland
Mr.Kalishnikov47
Russian Patriot
ali.a.r
Corrosion
coolieno99
Notio
Viktor
TheArmenian
ahmedfire
medo
Mindstorm
SOC
TR1
victor7
IronsightSniper
Stealthflanker
Austin
65 posters

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 1118
    Points : 1285
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Mindstorm Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:43 pm

    Militarov wrote:Even forum contributors writing load of shit. lol



    Oh yes sure Razz

    You can begin to sharpen your finger nails , the mirror climbing will be very long.

    I can add that initially i had get the impression that you was someone knowing its things; i was evidently wrong.

    Cruise missile carrier bomber's speed related with AD ability to down it ?  Absurd.

    B-2 spirit signature - JUST that of B-2- not variating significantly from perfect head-on axis ? Disturbing.

    34000 NATO "sorties".... and you SHOULD PERFECTLY know what this figure - anyhow totally out ballpark- mean......   cited as basis for the ratio of number of engagements of ,supposedly , your nation AD network ? That garbage by part of, supposedly, a Serbian AD operative ?  Simply : No Words
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 932
    Points : 918
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Singular_Transform Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:52 pm

    Militarov wrote:

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

    You description was about the feedback loop to adjust mid-course the missile trajectory.

    So?

    If you know the position of the aircraft then it can "follow " the target with active connection from the nebo radar.

    The stealth means that the passive seeker head will "see" the target illuminated by the guidance radar only from say few km or hundred meters , not from few ten km.





    Rmf
    Rmf

    Posts : 471
    Points : 452
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Rmf Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:54 pm

    judging by using that tu-160 central body probably 50% more range 8.000km+ ?
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Guest Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:02 am

    Rmf wrote:judging by using that tu-160 central body probably 50% more range 8.000km+ ?

    Probably loaded about 7-8.000 with 5% fuel reserve.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 2285
    Points : 2275
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  hoom Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:55 am

    if so will it have to count as intercontinental bomber and subject to start treaty.
    Of course it will be.
    Given the majority of Russias' current count for intercontinental bombers are Tu-95s & the point of PAK-DA is to replace those I don't see that as a problem.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30942
    Points : 31468
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  GarryB Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:27 am


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

    Who is the idiot...

    There are no stealth turboprop bombers because when turboprop bombers were made stealth was not an issue.

    Are you suggesting it is not possible to make propeller blades from radar invisible materials?

    A B-2 is a very large aircraft but because of shaping the radar returns from the aircraft in high frequency are not directed back to the source of the radar emissions.

    Its size is actually irrelevant to its RCS because it uses shaping techniques...

    It does not use a radar transparent external skin because that would expose internal components to radar waves which would greatly increase its RCS and not reduce it.

    Such shaping can be applied to a turboprop bomber design if needed.

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

    Any UHF radar site will have even the most basic SAM system and therefore also capacity to shoot down ARMs at will.

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

    Now who is talking shit.. more like a 10km range box of airspace at most.

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

    Russia has a range of radar types in different frequency ranges... a detection in one frequency range will attract attention in the others at higher power settings...

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

    In practical terms they are subsonic bombers with no better performance in any parameter than a Tu-95 in a third world war.... fly to launch position... launch cruise missiles... rinse and repeat.

    For the Tu-160 the design phase will be significantly shorter, the testing phase will be significantly shorter and the preparation for the serial production phase will be significantly shorter.

    You are confusing serial production with upgrades.

    The first Tu-160M2s will be upgrades of existing models because no new factory must be built to forge the main titanium box centre section... it is already made.

    If they had decided to make the PAK DA supersonic then only minor improvements to the Blackjack could be justified because in the end all strategic bombers could be replaced with the PAK DA... they clearly want both types in service... so why would they want to delay entry of the PAK DA to get more Blackjacks?


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

    Actually the best evidence is that the B-2 has changed from medium altitude penetration to low altitude penetration profiles and that they are not going to make anything like it in the future... neither new B-2s or new subsonic stealthy bombers... their next bomber will be hypersonic...

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

    20 years ago the Tu-95 and Tu-160 were strategic bomber/cruise missile carrying strategic aircraft only. The Tu-22M3 was a theatre bomber/missile carrier, though the missiles it carried were not strategic cruise missiles... they were mostly anti ship or anti radiation weapons or weapons designed to hit a specific ground coordinate.

    Today, they seem to have removed the bomb capability of the Tu-160s and the Tu-95 seems also to be a cruise missile carrier, but the big change is that both types now involve themselves in conventional warfare at theatre and strategic ranges as well as their strategic nuclear role, while the Tu-22M3 seems to be the theatre bomber of choice due to its range and payload.

    The production of more Tu-160s and the future production of the PAK DA suggests a dual role for the PAK DA. The Tu-160 is a supersonic bomber and would have rather higher operation costs than a subsonic flying wing type, so I suspect the PAK DA will operate in two different roles like the Tu-160 was supposed to.

    The Tu-160 can carry up to 40 tons of conventional bombs (45 tons reportedly in the upgraded model) but this would reduce range, while on strategic missions a payload of perhaps 12-16 tons would be more common in the form of strategic cruise missiles.

    I would expect something similar from the PAK DA... ie perhaps 40+ tons of bombs on theatre range missions... 5,000-7,000km range missions, and strategic range with a strategic payload of say 16 or so tons of cruise missiles.

    Hense, the PAK DA will likely replace the Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 in service and be counted as strategic weapons platforms.

    I don't think the new START will be replaced with anything with much teeth anyway.

    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 450
    Points : 442
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Azi Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:54 am

    @ all... calm down with your criticism of Militarov, he is in many aspects right!

    Stealth means not invisible, it means low observable. Stealth comes from 2 factors, shape and RAM coating, both must match. Sometimes shape of plane is more important than any RAM coating, for example B-2. That's why all stealth plane have weird shapes and are sometimes aerodynamic not perfect, even jets as F-35.

    The B2 bomber have less RAM coating, only some parts, most stealth comes from shape and a real smooth surface. This "perfect smooth" surface is the main problem of the B2, because it needs extra climatized hangars, this is a big disadvantage. B-2 reflects most radar, but not to the sender, because of the shape (angles). If the B2 is in wrong angle to the sender it glows like a christmas tree, so there is of course a small possibility to see a B-2 in short lenght radar from far disctance.

    To make a turboprob stealth is complete BULLSHIT! You need the right shape of blades, that lowers "thrust effeciency". The blades are even highly stressed, so RAM coating wouldn't last for long.

    Militarov is right, because how would a NATzO attack look like??? The first strike would not be a attack of F-35 and B-2 penetrating russian AD. The first strike would be a saturation attack with cruise missiles and conventional planes with HARM. And NATzO have not a few of them, they have thousands over thousands. The second wave would be carried out by stealth planes, in a weakend AD area they can travel relative freely. So please first thinking, than writing!!! A attack of NATzO and USA would not be 10 B-2 against the whole entire russian AD, it would be more like thousand cruise missiles and planes attacking at the same time.

    The concept of stealth and the B-2 in general makes sense. The B-2 or F-117 never replaced a system, it was only a addition, so why are some weird guys writing the B-2 was a failure? Only 1 stealth bomber ever was shoot down! The B-2 is simply too expensive! Stealth makes sense, it's only a component in a complete concept.

    PAK-DA will have 30 - 40 t of payload (source RT), so it's maybe between Tu-95 and Tu-22M. PAK-DA is in many ways important for Russia, the most important effect is psychological, because stealth bomber was a domain of USA and in all western countries they laughed about Tu-95 (of course still today a very capable and good cruise missile carrier). If Russia now occupies this domain, the West is fu*ked in this way. It can prove that Russia can do all the fancy stuff the West can do. Much like the Armata is know as the "super tank" in western media, respect and fear are the best deterrence. The strategic ability of PAK-DA is another point, it can do much more than Tu-22M and Tu-95 now. The PAK-DA can be the better "B-2" if it will be cheap!

    By the way...presentation of PAK-DA is end of 2018 (source RT, MoD from oct. 16)!

    And please forget speed over Mach 1, because a flying wing can't supercruise and it cant break the sonic barrier!!! It CAN'T! Simply it can't! If the design is more like a delta shaped conventional aircraft, this means NO flying wing, than it's possible. The T-4MS for example is NO flying wing, i repeat, NO flying wing! pirat
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30942
    Points : 31468
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  GarryB Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:47 am


    To make a turboprob stealth is complete BULLSHIT! You need the right shape of blades, that lowers "thrust effeciency". The blades are even highly stressed, so RAM coating wouldn't last for long.

    Who is talking about coatings? There are plenty of materials you can make into propeller blades that don't necessarily stop radar waves... stealth aircraft are never made of radar invisible materials because that would render their external shape meaningless... their external shape is calculated to redirect radar waves... letting radar waves through the outer skin would make the insides of the aircraft visible to radar with all those bumps and corners creating an enormous radar return.

    For your information I have seen several designs for stealthy turboprops... several were considered for the CAS role in both the US and the Soviet Union... the advantage of a turboprop being lower heat signature as well as low radar cross section.


    Militarov is right, because how would a NATzO attack look like??? The first strike would not be a attack of F-35 and B-2 penetrating russian AD.

    WRONG.

    If WWIII actually happened and NATO actually attacked Russia it would be a case of use it or lose it. F-35s would not have the range to attack Russia... aircraft like F-15Es would take on any conventional theatre strike in european Russia, while the B-2s and B-52s and B-1Bs for that matter would strike as early as possible... waiting for cruise missiles to clear the way would be totally pointless... the first sign there is an attack the russians will launch a full retaliation strike... the B-2s going in next to hit ICBM fields and large air bases would find their targets empty if they even reach them.

    The B-2 is a first strike weapon... and a weak one for use against a superpower.

    Against Iraq or Serbia it is fine.

    A attack of NATzO and USA would not be 10 B-2 against the whole entire russian AD, it would be more like thousand cruise missiles and planes attacking at the same time.

    And that attack wont be against one S-400 battery... it will be against the entire alerted Russian air defence system including SAMs and aircraft etc etc.

    NATO could not defeat the Serbs... what makes you think they could fight the Russians armed with weapons that can actually hurt NATO... rather badly.


    The concept of stealth and the B-2 in general makes sense. The B-2 or F-117 never replaced a system, it was only a addition, so why are some weird guys writing the B-2 was a failure? Only 1 stealth bomber ever was shoot down! The B-2 is simply too expensive! Stealth makes sense, it's only a component in a complete concept.

    No it does not.

    An F-117 could carry two laser guided bombs less than 1,000km radius... for all the enormous costs they could do that with two tomahawks with a datalink.

    The B-2 is even more expensive and as there was no conflict in the last 30 odd years that involved the Russians and the US the Russians have had time to assess the problem and upgrade their systems and tactics to deal with the threat... now the US is not building any more B-2s because they know they would not be effective now on anything but a third world country.

    PAK-DA will have 30 - 40 t of payload (source RT), so it's maybe between Tu-95 and Tu-22M.

    30-40 ton payload is conventional weapons so there is nothing to discuss... the Tu-95 carrys cruise missiles and the PAK DA will carry bombs... the PAK DA will replace the Tu-95 and fulfil the conventional theatre and strategic role as well as the strategic nuclear role while the Blackjack will likely perform the nuclear role which will only be strategic. It might deliver cruise missiles in a theatre role but I doubt it as the subsonic PAK DA would likely do that cheaper.

    The strategic ability of PAK-DA is another point, it can do much more than Tu-22M and Tu-95 now. The PAK-DA can be the better "B-2" if it will be cheap!

    Russia does not need a first strike stealth bomber.

    The PAK DA is a design that borrows features of the Tu-160 to reduce costs and increase commonality to simplify production and operation. It will be subsonic and it will have stealth capability but I really doubt they will take the stealth to the same level... that will make it cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate.

    The PAK DA will allow them to retire both the Bear and the Backfire yet retain powerful accurate cheap bombing capability for conventional and nuclear conflicts.

    And please forget speed over Mach 1, because a flying wing can't supercruise and it cant break the sonic barrier!!! It CAN'T! Simply it can't! If the design is more like a delta shaped conventional aircraft, this means NO flying wing, than it's possible. The T-4MS for example is NO flying wing, i repeat, NO flying wing!

    Why.

    Is there a magic rule that says because the US does not have a supersonic flying wing then it can't be possible?

    Very simply to reach supersonic speed you need low drag (tick), high thrust potential (tick) but you also need a horizontal tail surface because during the transition from subsonic to supersonic flight the centre of gravity of the aircraft shifts signficantly so you need a horizontal tail surface to push the tail in the direction needed to keep the nose pointed forward.

    Thrust vectoring has the dual bonus of being able to control the aircraft even during stall or superstall conditions, but it also means less weight and drag and cost compared with a tail structure... not to mention improvements in RCS reduction of not having conventional control surfaces.

    During long range cruise flights thrust vectoring engines can also minimise drag by optimising trim...
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7618
    Points : 8015
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Austin Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:57 am

    PAK-DA will be integral Lifting Wing Design and not the T-4MS design

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 148702618358087175

    https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2016/12/27/10441301.shtml from defence ministry interview

    As for the PAK DA, life-is also not standing still and the nature of warfare is changing. As you can see, replacing conventional aircraft weapons come hypersonic airborne weapons with greater range and with greater accuracy. And future aircraft carrier at the turn of 2025-2030's not necessary to have such characteristics as supersonic speed. It should be as long as possible and unobtrusively to be on duty in the air, so that, without going into the affected area, to release their means of destruction on their targets.

    However, we are so coordinated with the industry organization of all work that the preparation for the production of the Tu-160 and a new image for the PAK DA is carried out simultaneously. The maximum number of process steps will be the same. Roughly speaking, the machines will be used are the same for the production of the Tu-160 and for the PAK DA. In fact, in the pre-production money
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 450
    Points : 442
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Azi Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:07 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Militarov is right, because how would a NATzO attack look like??? The first strike would not be a attack of F-35 and B-2 penetrating russian AD.

    WRONG.

    If WWIII actually happened and NATO actually attacked Russia it would be a case of use it or lose it. F-35s would not have the range to attack Russia... aircraft like F-15Es would take on any conventional theatre strike in european Russia, while the B-2s and B-52s and B-1Bs for that matter would strike as early as possible... waiting for cruise missiles to clear the way would be totally pointless... the first sign there is an attack the russians will launch a full retaliation strike... the B-2s going in next to hit ICBM fields and large air bases would find their targets empty if they even reach them.

    The B-2 is a first strike weapon... and a weak one for use against a superpower.

    Against Iraq or Serbia it is fine.

    A attack of NATzO and USA would not be 10 B-2 against the whole entire russian AD, it would be more like thousand cruise missiles and planes attacking at the same time.

    And that attack wont be against one S-400 battery... it will be against the entire alerted Russian air defence system including SAMs and aircraft etc etc.

    NATO could not defeat the Serbs... what makes you think they could fight the Russians armed with weapons that can actually hurt NATO... rather badly.

    Let's be correct in the discussion! We are NOT talking about WW3 with the use of ICBM and nuclear warheads.

    In the case of conflict, maybe in the baltic states or Ukraine the NATzO would hammer russian AD with cruise missiles and HARMS from "safe" distance. The B-2 would be in the first wave only a cruise missile carrier from safe distance!!! And there would be NO nuclear retaliation strike!!!!!!!!!! Russian nuclear doctrine is to use nuclear wepaons only if key areas are threaten due to occupation or a nuclear attack. The retaliation strike would hit Europe and USA giva a fuck about Europe, they can weaken Russia and Europe in one hit and stop the conflict if it's going too hot. We are not talking about a sane nation, we are talking about a hysteric miltaristic society in US that had in 200 years of history not a single year peace!!!

    Saturation attack means to use more cruise missiles, HARMS etc. when russian AD can handle at a time. Russian AD is very good and if NATzO would attack, it would suffer huge losses, but look at psychopathic idiots like Mc Cain and Co, they want the WW 3. There are some idiots in US administartion who thinks they can control a conflict and think themselves as superior, with the option to stop the conflict if it's going hot (nuclear). It is not about destroying Russia, it's about weaken Russia, due to conflict direct or indirect with NATzO. NATzO have still more assets, than Russia, take a look at the sheer number of US Forces. There are 1000 F-16 only, than add to that number the F-15, F-22, F-18 and so on. Of course NATzO is not the ultimate superpower able to do everything without losses, but they are mighty, powerful and complete crazy![/quote]
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 450
    Points : 442
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Azi Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:19 pm

    GarryB wrote:Why.

    Is there a magic rule that says because the US does not have a supersonic flying wing then it can't be possible?

    Very simply to reach supersonic speed you need low drag (tick), high thrust potential (tick) but you also need a horizontal tail surface because during the transition from subsonic to supersonic flight the centre of gravity of the aircraft shifts signficantly so you need a horizontal tail surface to push the tail in the direction needed to keep the nose pointed forward.

    Thrust vectoring has the dual bonus of being able to control the aircraft even during stall or superstall conditions, but it also means less weight and drag and cost compared with a tail structure... not to mention improvements in RCS reduction of not having conventional control surfaces.

    During long range cruise flights thrust vectoring engines can also minimise drag by optimising trim...
    This magic rule is named physic!

    In supersonic area the flying wing becomes critical, as you wrote. The aerodynamic stats for a flying wing are perfect uplift in subsonic area. Of course you can make everything supersonic, maybe your car with enough power and thrust from a rocket engine can become hypersonic, but in reality the cost-benefit ratio say it's bullshit. In supersonic area a flying wing would be critical, so you must compense it with thrust vector, it would eat too much kerosine because due to it's shape. Don't forget you need for supersonic area a sharp sweep of the design, a bit problematic for flying wing, but good for a delta shaped conventional aircraft.

    So let's be realistic! No fantasy please.


    Last edited by Azi on Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 450
    Points : 442
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Azi Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:26 pm

    GarryB wrote:No it does not.

    An F-117 could carry two laser guided bombs less than 1,000km radius... for all the enormous costs they could do that with two tomahawks with a datalink.

    The B-2 is even more expensive and as there was no conflict in the last 30 odd years that involved the Russians and the US the Russians have had time to assess the problem and upgrade their systems and tactics to deal with the threat... now the US is not building any more B-2s because they know they would not be effective now on anything but a third world country.
    You know that a single B-2 costs around 750 million US-$??? The program cost were 45 billion US-$. Maybe that's the reason they have only 21!? It has nothing to do with effectiveness!
    Rmf
    Rmf

    Posts : 471
    Points : 452
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Rmf Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:01 pm

    Austin wrote:PAK-DA will be integral Lifting Wing Design and not the T-4MS design

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 148702618358087175

    https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2016/12/27/10441301.shtml   from defence ministry interview

    As for the PAK DA, life-is also not standing still and the nature of warfare is changing. As you can see, replacing conventional aircraft weapons come hypersonic airborne weapons with greater range and with greater accuracy. And future aircraft carrier at the turn of 2025-2030's not necessary to have such characteristics as supersonic speed. It should be as long as possible and unobtrusively to be on duty in the air, so that, without going into the affected area, to release their means of destruction on their targets.

    However, we are so coordinated with the industry organization of all work that the preparation for the production of the Tu-160 and a new image for the PAK DA is carried out simultaneously. The maximum number of process steps will be the same. Roughly speaking, the machines will be used are the same for the production of the Tu-160 and for the PAK DA. In fact, in the pre-production money
    where you got those pictures from? 1st looks like some transport , second like bomber ,.... so they will use same machines and/or construction elements?
    here is good write up about tu-160 with good images ,parts 1 & 2
    https://topwar.ru/24662-slozhnaya-sudba-tu-160-chast-1.html
    https://topwar.ru/24713-slozhnaya-sudba-tu-160-chast-2.html
    Rmf
    Rmf

    Posts : 471
    Points : 452
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Rmf Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:17 pm

    Azi wrote:
    GarryB wrote:No it does not.

    An F-117 could carry two laser guided bombs less than 1,000km radius... for all the enormous costs they could do that with two tomahawks with a datalink.

    The B-2 is even more expensive and as there was no conflict in the last 30 odd years that involved the Russians and the US the Russians have had time to assess the problem and upgrade their systems and tactics to deal with the threat... now the US is not building any more B-2s because they know they would not be effective now on anything but a third world country.
    You know that a single B-2 costs around 750 million US-$??? The program cost were 45 billion US-$. Maybe that's the reason they have only 21!? It has nothing to do with effectiveness!
    oh please you listen to militarov a welder is serbian sam team. tongue  20 most powerful countries gang up on isolated small country ,of course they lose. Rolling Eyes
    russia assymetricaly invested instead of f-35 type plane into new radars , aesa VHF radar has so precise beams its accuracy is amazing ,and i dont know any tactical aircraft who can jam in VHF ,and with high power. nebo-aesa is a beast. just listen to gas turbines noise in sam cabins on those videos producing power. and they keep saying how radome of this fighters is selective for some frequencies ! - well then they cant jam in broadband then, there will be gaps to exploit.... and second jamming exposes them to home on jam missiles. they wont know what hit them.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 932
    Points : 918
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Singular_Transform Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:29 pm

    Azi wrote:

    Militarov is right, because how would a NATzO attack look like??? The first strike would not be a attack of F-35 and B-2 penetrating russian AD. The first strike would be a saturation attack with cruise missiles and conventional planes with HARM. And NATzO have not a few of them, they have thousands over thousands. The second wave would be carried out by stealth planes, in a weakend AD area they can travel relative freely. So please first thinking, than writing!!! A attack of NATzO and USA would not be 10 B-2 against the whole entire russian AD, it would be more like thousand cruise missiles and planes attacking at the same time.

    The concept of stealth and the B-2 in general makes sense. The B-2 or F-117 never replaced a system, it was only a addition, so why are some weird guys writing the B-2 was a failure? Only 1 stealth bomber ever was shoot down! The B-2 is simply too expensive! Stealth makes sense, it's only a component in a complete concept.


    And what happens if russia strike first, and thee won't be left enough rocket/air-plane for saturation attack?

    How will the B-2 and all other aircraft survive if not the US dictating the speed of the fight, like as happened in Vietnam example, and they can only react to the enemy movement?


    The above attack is an ideal consideration, where the US has the upper hand.

    But how the NATO can withstand a long range attack from Russia with a lot of rockets?
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 450
    Points : 442
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Azi Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:12 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Azi wrote:

    Militarov is right, because how would a NATzO attack look like??? The first strike would not be a attack of F-35 and B-2 penetrating russian AD. The first strike would be a saturation attack with cruise missiles and conventional planes with HARM. And NATzO have not a few of them, they have thousands over thousands. The second wave would be carried out by stealth planes, in a weakend AD area they can travel relative freely. So please first thinking, than writing!!! A attack of NATzO and USA would not be 10 B-2 against the whole entire russian AD, it would be more like thousand cruise missiles and planes attacking at the same time.

    The concept of stealth and the B-2 in general makes sense. The B-2 or F-117 never replaced a system, it was only a addition, so why are some weird guys writing the B-2 was a failure? Only 1 stealth bomber ever was shoot down! The B-2 is simply too expensive! Stealth makes sense, it's only a component in a complete concept.


    And what happens if russia strike first, and thee won't be left enough rocket/air-plane  for saturation attack?

    How will the B-2 and all other aircraft survive if not the US dictating the speed of the fight, like as happened in Vietnam example, and they can only react to the enemy movement?


    The above attack is an ideal consideration, where the US has the upper hand.

    But how the NATO can withstand a long range attack from Russia with a lot of rockets?
    Whoever strikes first has the momentum, that's right! But which side is more sane? Wink My fear is that USA is full of psychopathic idiots and I consider D. Trump as a sane person, but if he is knocked out pray to god! Of course this is an ideal consideration, but USA was in past the aggressive side, Russia just reacted. No one knows the future, so it's best to be prepared and stealth is still a interesting concept!


    Last edited by Azi on Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 450
    Points : 442
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Azi Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:32 pm

    Rmf wrote:
    Azi wrote:
    GarryB wrote:No it does not.

    An F-117 could carry two laser guided bombs less than 1,000km radius... for all the enormous costs they could do that with two tomahawks with a datalink.

    The B-2 is even more expensive and as there was no conflict in the last 30 odd years that involved the Russians and the US the Russians have had time to assess the problem and upgrade their systems and tactics to deal with the threat... now the US is not building any more B-2s because they know they would not be effective now on anything but a third world country.
    You know that a single B-2 costs around 750 million US-$??? The program cost were 45 billion US-$. Maybe that's the reason they have only 21!? It has nothing to do with effectiveness!
    oh please you listen to militarov a welder is serbian sam team. tongue  20 most powerful countries gang up on isolated small country ,of course they lose. Rolling Eyes
    russia assymetricaly invested instead of f-35 type plane into new radars , aesa VHF radar has so precise beams its accuracy is amazing ,and i dont know any tactical aircraft who can jam in VHF ,and with high power. nebo-aesa is a beast. just listen to gas turbines noise in sam cabins on those videos producing power. and they keep saying how radome of this fighters is selective for some frequencies ! - well then they cant jam in broadband then, there will be gaps to exploit.... and second jamming exposes them to home on jam missiles. they wont know what hit them.
    But AESA Nebo is reserved for fancy high end AD Systems like S-400. Even other systems work in UHF area like Panzir, but never forget the crazy dudes in NATzO are good in bringing destruction, don't think AESA Nebo will survive that long. NATzO will try to destroy the fancy radar systems at first, so they will focus at small areas and saturate them with cruise missiles and HARM. With the loss of the "big eye" the fight against enemy air planes will be much harder. Never forget every weapon system is beatable. S-300, S-350 and S-400 are still very good, I said nothing against this systems, western countries have nothing in the same category. But in quantity lies quality, never forget!

    Serbia? Yes, Serbia was good in evading a huge destruction of AD Systems by simply turning them off and move away if they recognized being targeted by HARM, but this resulted in the fact that most AD systems were offline most time and not able to shot down enemy aircraft. Serbia was not that small and poor country, it had a good military hardware (old but still effective!) and really good trained crews! Of course you can't compare Serbia with Russia, but Serbia (Yugoslavia) showed that it is very easy for NATzO to surpress effective AD systems.

    By the way...
    USA is trying to create new weapons for SEAD missions! cousin of JDAM and Co. - air force mag

    I think S-500 will be a great game changer, it will be a system effective to destroy everything big enough and very very far away! Especially the ability to kill enemy ICBM warheads is vital for Russia!!! Russia must develop very fast a shield against enemy ICBM warheads, the current around Moskow is good but not good enough! But wrong thread...

    So let's go back to PAK-DA!!!
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 450
    Points : 442
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Azi Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:02 pm

    Austin wrote:PAK-DA will be integral Lifting Wing Design and not the T-4MS design

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 148702618358087175

    https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2016/12/27/10441301.shtml   from defence ministry interview

    As for the PAK DA, life-is also not standing still and the nature of warfare is changing. As you can see, replacing conventional aircraft weapons come hypersonic airborne weapons with greater range and with greater accuracy. And future aircraft carrier at the turn of 2025-2030's not necessary to have such characteristics as supersonic speed. It should be as long as possible and unobtrusively to be on duty in the air, so that, without going into the affected area, to release their means of destruction on their targets.

    However, we are so coordinated with the industry organization of all work that the preparation for the production of the Tu-160 and a new image for the PAK DA is carried out simultaneously. The maximum number of process steps will be the same. Roughly speaking, the machines will be used are the same for the production of the Tu-160 and for the PAK DA. In fact, in the pre-production money
    Second picture is very interesting! Looks like a good hybrid between flying wing and conventional aircraft. I know it's just a concept but... thumbsup
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Guest Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:10 pm

    Rmf wrote:
    Azi wrote:
    GarryB wrote:No it does not.

    An F-117 could carry two laser guided bombs less than 1,000km radius... for all the enormous costs they could do that with two tomahawks with a datalink.

    The B-2 is even more expensive and as there was no conflict in the last 30 odd years that involved the Russians and the US the Russians have had time to assess the problem and upgrade their systems and tactics to deal with the threat... now the US is not building any more B-2s because they know they would not be effective now on anything but a third world country.
    You know that a single B-2 costs around 750 million US-$??? The program cost were 45 billion US-$. Maybe that's the reason they have only 21!? It has nothing to do with effectiveness!
    oh please you listen to militarov a welder is serbian sam team. tongue  20 most powerful countries gang up on isolated small country ,of course they lose. Rolling Eyes
    russia assymetricaly invested instead of f-35 type plane into new radars , aesa VHF radar has so precise beams its accuracy is amazing ,and i dont know any tactical aircraft who can jam in VHF ,and with high power. nebo-aesa is a beast. just listen to gas turbines noise in sam cabins on those videos producing power. and they keep saying how radome of this fighters is selective for some frequencies ! - well then they cant jam in broadband then, there will be gaps to exploit.... and second jamming exposes them to home on jam missiles. they wont know what hit them.

    I am not welder.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Guest Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:23 pm

    GarryB wrote:

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

    Who is the idiot...

    There are no stealth turboprop bombers because when turboprop bombers were made stealth was not an issue.

    Are you suggesting it is not possible to make propeller blades from radar invisible materials?

    A B-2 is a very large aircraft but because of shaping the radar returns from the aircraft in high frequency are not directed back to the source of the radar emissions.

    Its size is actually irrelevant to its RCS because it uses shaping techniques...

    It does not use a radar transparent external skin because that would expose internal components to radar waves which would greatly increase its RCS and not reduce it.

    Such shaping can be applied to a turboprop bomber design if needed.

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

    Any UHF radar site will have even the most basic SAM system and therefore also capacity to shoot down ARMs at will.

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

    Now who is talking shit.. more like a 10km range box of airspace at most.

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

    Russia has a range of radar types in different frequency ranges... a detection in one frequency range will attract attention in the others at higher power settings...

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

    In practical terms they are subsonic bombers with no better performance in any parameter than a Tu-95 in a third world war.... fly to launch position... launch cruise missiles... rinse and repeat.

    For the Tu-160 the design phase will be significantly shorter, the testing phase will be significantly shorter and the preparation for the serial production phase will be significantly shorter.

    You are confusing serial production with upgrades.

    The first Tu-160M2s will be upgrades of existing models because no new factory must be built to forge the main titanium box centre section... it is already made.

    If they had decided to make the PAK DA supersonic then only minor improvements to the Blackjack could be justified because in the end all strategic bombers could be replaced with the PAK DA... they clearly want both types in service... so why would they want to delay entry of the PAK DA to get more Blackjacks?


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

    Actually the best evidence is that the B-2 has changed from medium altitude penetration to low altitude penetration profiles and that they are not going to make anything like it in the future... neither new B-2s or new subsonic stealthy bombers... their next bomber will be hypersonic...

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

    20 years ago the Tu-95 and Tu-160 were strategic bomber/cruise missile carrying strategic aircraft only. The Tu-22M3 was a theatre bomber/missile carrier, though the missiles it carried were not strategic cruise missiles... they were mostly anti ship or anti radiation weapons or weapons designed to hit a specific ground coordinate.

    Today, they seem to have removed the bomb capability of the Tu-160s and the Tu-95 seems also to be a cruise missile carrier, but the big change is that both types now involve themselves in conventional warfare at theatre and strategic ranges as well as their strategic nuclear role, while the Tu-22M3 seems to be the theatre bomber of choice due to its range and payload.

    The production of more Tu-160s and the future production of the PAK DA suggests a dual role for the PAK DA. The Tu-160 is a supersonic bomber and would have rather higher operation costs than a subsonic flying wing type, so I suspect the PAK DA will operate in two different roles like the Tu-160 was supposed to.

    The Tu-160 can carry up to 40 tons of conventional bombs (45 tons reportedly in the upgraded model) but this would reduce range, while on strategic missions a payload of perhaps 12-16 tons would be more common in the form of strategic cruise missiles.

    I would expect something similar from the PAK DA... ie perhaps 40+ tons of bombs on theatre range missions... 5,000-7,000km range missions, and strategic range with a strategic payload of say 16 or so tons of cruise missiles.

    Hense, the PAK DA will likely replace the Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 in service and be counted as strategic weapons platforms.

    I don't think the new START will be replaced with anything with much teeth anyway.


    You can call me idiot all you like you are well aware i am right, not sure why you keep posting stuff that highschool dropout wouldnt.

    B-21 supersonic? Someone inform US MoD that they are getting supersonic bomber because they are not aware of that themself.

    Sure, turboprop stealth aircraft are totally viable, lets see who makes one first. Wanna place some bets? I say noone, ever.

    Third world war, third world war, third world war... do you people have anything else on your mind except stupid shit like WW3. Could you possibly land on the ground and discuss things that are.... realistic.

    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2610
    Points : 2594
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:51 pm

    With all respect, you aren't right while I agree with you on some matters on this one you are mistaken on the B-2.

    no data supports your theory, while you can call it an EDUCATED theory it's still your opinion on how things would go and how things work in regards to the B-2.

    Now if you have access to all information regarding Russian AD and the B-2 that others do not have. Then you are right and by all means share with us these tech details, however what we do know and what I know says you are wrong.

    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Guest Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:54 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:With all respect, you aren't right while I agree with you on some matters on this one you are mistaken on the B-2.

    no data supports your theory, while you can call it an EDUCATED theory it's still your opinion on how things would go and how things work in regards to the B-2.

    Now if you have access to all information regarding Russian AD and the B-2 that others do not have. Then you are right and by all means share with us these tech details, however what we do know and what I know says you are wrong.


    Yo, Delta Force guy, go bother someone who cares.
    Rmf
    Rmf

    Posts : 471
    Points : 452
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Rmf Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:56 pm

    Azi wrote:
    Rmf wrote:
    Azi wrote:
    GarryB wrote:No it does not.

    An F-117 could carry two laser guided bombs less than 1,000km radius... for all the enormous costs they could do that with two tomahawks with a datalink.

    The B-2 is even more expensive and as there was no conflict in the last 30 odd years that involved the Russians and the US the Russians have had time to assess the problem and upgrade their systems and tactics to deal with the threat... now the US is not building any more B-2s because they know they would not be effective now on anything but a third world country.
    You know that a single B-2 costs around 750 million US-$??? The program cost were 45 billion US-$. Maybe that's the reason they have only 21!? It has nothing to do with effectiveness!
    oh please you listen to militarov a welder is serbian sam team. tongue  20 most powerful countries gang up on isolated small country ,of course they lose. Rolling Eyes
    russia assymetricaly invested instead of f-35 type plane into new radars , aesa VHF radar has so precise beams its accuracy is amazing ,and i dont know any tactical aircraft who can jam in VHF ,and with high power. nebo-aesa is a beast. just listen to gas turbines noise in sam cabins on those videos producing power. and they keep saying how radome of this fighters is selective for some frequencies ! - well then they cant jam in broadband then, there will be gaps to exploit.... and second jamming exposes them to home on jam missiles. they wont know what hit them.
    But AESA Nebo is reserved for fancy high end AD Systems like S-400. Even other systems work in UHF area like Panzir, but never forget the crazy dudes in NATzO are good in bringing destruction, don't think AESA Nebo will survive that long. NATzO will try to destroy the fancy radar systems at first, so they will focus at small areas and saturate them with cruise missiles and HARM. With the loss of the "big eye" the fight against enemy air planes will be much harder. Never forget every weapon system is beatable. S-300, S-350 and S-400 are still very good, I said nothing against this systems, western countries have nothing in the same category. But in quantity lies quality, never forget!

    Serbia? Yes, Serbia was good in evading a huge destruction of AD Systems by simply turning them off and move away if they recognized being targeted by HARM, but this resulted in the fact that most AD systems were offline most time and not able to shot down enemy aircraft. Serbia was not that small and poor country, it had a good military hardware (old but still effective!) and really good trained crews! Of course you can't compare Serbia with Russia, but Serbia (Yugoslavia) showed that it is very easy for NATzO to surpress effective AD systems.

    By the way...
    USA is trying to create new weapons for SEAD missions! cousin of JDAM and Co. - air force mag

    I think S-500 will be a great game changer, it will be a system effective to destroy everything big enough and very very far away! Especially the ability to kill enemy ICBM warheads is vital for Russia!!! Russia must develop very fast a shield against enemy ICBM warheads, the current around Moskow is good but not good enough! But wrong thread...

    So let's go back to PAK-DA!!!
    this is my last post about this, if you want it that way , old analog p-12 detected f-117 at 23km (and that was in presence of jamming which is easy for old p-12 to degrade ,there was no dedicated jammer with f-117 but stand off jamming from larger distance). how far do you think much more powerfull digital aesa nebo can detect it? 100+ km. if you want to look at it actually tacit blue was most stealth, small, intake at top ,no visible exaust ,not even bombbay. pure recon unit with no protrusions nore sensors, totaly smooth ,and we know its rcs.
    f-117 ,f-22, f-35 that is more or less same level of stealth, change is in speed manuevrability surepcruise etc.
    you can look at ram thickness of these planes when they open their bays ,only b-2 has more think ram but not by much as thick as like your smallest finger . hows that going to absorb 2-5 meter long waves beats me. you can always have nebo decoys and shorad to protect real asset ,and nebo is mobile so no cruise missile will get it so easy.
    with improvement in photonic radar and even more importantly quantum radar ,than its game over for stealth. when f-117 was shotdown every nato plane left serbian airspace immediatelly.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 932
    Points : 918
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Singular_Transform Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:12 pm

    The radar absorbent material control the reflection around the edges.

    If you leave that from the airplane the stealth characteristic degraded only slightly.

    Of course slight degradation means that the SAM rocket see the aircraft from 5 km instead of one. Or whatever ratio it has : )


    I calculated uickly, it need 400 NEBO radar to cover the whole russian federation, and to sense all stealth aircraft, if we expect 200 km range for each to see the B-2 without jamming.

    In that scenario the jamming doesn't matter, the radars can triangulate the source.

    So, if the US face stealth aircrafts then it will need to buy few hundreds expensive radar, each of them cost as much as an attakc aircraft.


    Russia ants to buy 100 nebo by 2020 (22)?
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 450
    Points : 442
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Azi Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:31 pm

    Rmf wrote:
    Azi wrote:
    Rmf wrote:
    Azi wrote:
    GarryB wrote:No it does not.

    An F-117 could carry two laser guided bombs less than 1,000km radius... for all the enormous costs they could do that with two tomahawks with a datalink.

    The B-2 is even more expensive and as there was no conflict in the last 30 odd years that involved the Russians and the US the Russians have had time to assess the problem and upgrade their systems and tactics to deal with the threat... now the US is not building any more B-2s because they know they would not be effective now on anything but a third world country.
    You know that a single B-2 costs around 750 million US-$??? The program cost were 45 billion US-$. Maybe that's the reason they have only 21!? It has nothing to do with effectiveness!
    oh please you listen to militarov a welder is serbian sam team. tongue  20 most powerful countries gang up on isolated small country ,of course they lose. Rolling Eyes
    russia assymetricaly invested instead of f-35 type plane into new radars , aesa VHF radar has so precise beams its accuracy is amazing ,and i dont know any tactical aircraft who can jam in VHF ,and with high power. nebo-aesa is a beast. just listen to gas turbines noise in sam cabins on those videos producing power. and they keep saying how radome of this fighters is selective for some frequencies ! - well then they cant jam in broadband then, there will be gaps to exploit.... and second jamming exposes them to home on jam missiles. they wont know what hit them.
    But AESA Nebo is reserved for fancy high end AD Systems like S-400. Even other systems work in UHF area like Panzir, but never forget the crazy dudes in NATzO are good in bringing destruction, don't think AESA Nebo will survive that long. NATzO will try to destroy the fancy radar systems at first, so they will focus at small areas and saturate them with cruise missiles and HARM. With the loss of the "big eye" the fight against enemy air planes will be much harder. Never forget every weapon system is beatable. S-300, S-350 and S-400 are still very good, I said nothing against this systems, western countries have nothing in the same category. But in quantity lies quality, never forget!

    Serbia? Yes, Serbia was good in evading a huge destruction of AD Systems by simply turning them off and move away if they recognized being targeted by HARM, but this resulted in the fact that most AD systems were offline most time and not able to shot down enemy aircraft. Serbia was not that small and poor country, it had a good military hardware (old but still effective!) and really good trained crews! Of course you can't compare Serbia with Russia, but Serbia (Yugoslavia) showed that it is very easy for NATzO to surpress effective AD systems.

    By the way...
    USA is trying to create new weapons for SEAD missions! cousin of JDAM and Co. - air force mag

    I think S-500 will be a great game changer, it will be a system effective to destroy everything big enough and very very far away! Especially the ability to kill enemy ICBM warheads is vital for Russia!!! Russia must develop very fast a shield against enemy ICBM warheads, the current around Moskow is good but not good enough! But wrong thread...

    So let's go back to PAK-DA!!!
    this is my last post about this, if you want it that way , old analog p-12 detected f-117 at 23km (and that was in presence of jamming which is easy for old p-12 to degrade ,there was no dedicated jammer with f-117 but stand off jamming from larger distance). how far do you think much more powerfull digital aesa nebo can detect it? 100+ km. if you want to look at it actually tacit blue was most stealth, small, intake at top ,no visible exaust ,not even bombbay. pure recon unit with no protrusions nore sensors, totaly smooth ,and we know its rcs.
    f-117 ,f-22, f-35 that is more or less same level of stealth, change is in speed manuevrability surepcruise etc.
    you can look at ram thickness of these planes when they open their bays ,only b-2 has more think ram but not by much as thick as like your smallest finger . hows that going to absorb 2-5 meter long waves beats me. you can always have nebo decoys and shorad to protect real asset ,and nebo is mobile so no cruise missile will get it so easy.
    with improvement in photonic radar and even more importantly quantum radar ,than its game over for stealth. when f-117 was shotdown every nato plane left serbian airspace immediatelly.
    Are you ignoring my posts? The B-2 bomber has nearly NO special RAM coating!!! Only to radar vital spots are covered with RAM coating, the rest of the plane is simply composite material. It's stealth effect results from a real "smooth" surface, with a tolerance of 0,025 mm! The B-2 bomber acts like a mirror, it is not absorbing radar waves, it is reflecting radar waves, but not to sender. That's why the course of B-2 must be planned and adapted to active AD systems. The B-2 flies a zigzag course to avoid reflecting radar waves to sender.

    Yes, you can of course detect stealth airplanes with Nebo AESA, but not at the max. detection range of the radar. UHF negates most of RAM coating but it can't negate stealth resulting from shape and a lot of stealth is resulting from the shape and geometry of the aircraft.

    You are right with around 100 km for a F-22 or F-35 (my expectation, only russian military knows it better), but this is near the deadly range of some HARM (~80 km in some versions, normally 30 km in A version). AD systems have a short time frame to react! Of course russian AD systems are dangerous and even stealth planes would suffer huge losses, but the main point is that stealth is still to present day a good concept for planes and fighters! The discussion here was about "stealth is shit, speed is better", that's the point and that's not true. If stealth is complete shit, why is Russia developing stealth planes???? No one answered to this point! I heard only simple "Russia *****, stealth obsolete and shit" and that's simply bullshit!

    PAK-DA will be a great plane, it will be subsonic and stealth, from all what we know!!! But some user mean to put their fantasy in and make PAK-DA hypersonic, stealth, with a payload of An-225 and whatever. We are not in kindergarden!!! Sorry!

    Sponsored content

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 22 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:11 pm