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


    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    avatar
    Erlindur

    Posts : 6
    Points : 6
    Join date : 2016-05-13

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Erlindur on Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:36 pm

    Azi wrote:
    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!!!


    Sorry, I had to log for this. Just think this over from the Russian military perspective. You see NATO sending thousands of cruise missiles against you and you remain conventional?  You have no idea if and how many of them may have nuclear heads. You will do what? Wait till they hit their targets and decide later how you are going to retaliate? The scenario you describe goes nuclear from the moment you fire your first missile. And I don't know about you, but if I was in the Russian side, my nuclear retaliation would not be Europe in general but the real nuclear armed threats that have to be eliminated, USA,UK,France.
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 422
    Points : 416
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Azi on Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:46 pm

    Erlindur wrote:
    Azi wrote:
    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!!!


    Sorry, I had to log for this. Just think this over from the Russian military perspective. You see NATO sending thousands of cruise missiles against you and you remain conventional?  You have no idea if and how many of them may have nuclear heads. You will do what? Wait till they hit their targets and decide later how you are going to retaliate? The scenario you describe goes nuclear from the moment you fire your first missile. And I don't know about you, but if I was in the Russian side, my nuclear retaliation would not be Europe in general but the real nuclear armed threats that have to be eliminated, USA,UK,France.
    I wrote for the specifc scenario of a conflict in baltic states or Ukraine. Most realistic scenario ist the air base in Syria. Of course thousands of missilies flying to russian heartland is very ambivalent Wink

    But there are rules for the use of nuclear warheads! Russia will only react nuclear if enemy ICBM will start or russian territory is occupied, a conflict simply with Tomahawks and HARMS will not likely end instant in a nuclear confrontation, but still possible.

    And don't forget the doctrine of USA "prompt global strike"! The doctrine is to deliver a overwhelming conventional strike and to neutralize a nuclear retaliation strike with the missile shield. I know that's suicide, but some guys in USA believe it can work. The missile shield is definite not targeted for Iran and North Korea Wink
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 15495
    Points : 15990
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  George1 on Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:00 pm

    Off Topic
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 27363
    Points : 27895
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:28 am

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

    Interesting designs but still test designs.

    The podded design is poor because it makes no sense.

    Hanging a podded engine beneath an aircrafts wing makes it easier to reach to service and maintain... putting them on the back of an aircraft makes it harder to reach and maintain.

    The other design has the internally mounted engines likely taking up an enormous amount of internal space.

    The reality will likely be more like the Tu-22 or Tu-160 where engines are bunched together and either attached on top (Tu-22) or underneath (Tu-160) to keep the internal space as large as possible for fuel and weapons.

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

    Lets be totally clear a conflict between Russia and NATO IS WWIII.

    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.

    What safe distance? HARMS and Cruise missiles are fairly easy to shoot down except in enormous numbers and NATO does not have enormous numbers available... and if they did the retaliation would be nuclear.

    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!!!!!!!!!!

    That would be stupid to tie up the few B-2s you have to attack conventionally when russia will no doubt respond in kind against those NATO countries supporting the fight.

    Russian nuclear doctrine is to use nuclear wepaons only if key areas are threaten due to occupation or a nuclear attack.

    The enemy launching cruise missiles from B-2 strategic bombers is a threat... Russia wont know until those cruise missiles are either shot down or hit their targets whether they are nuclear or not... they will likely assume they are and launch a counter strike immediately while they still can.

    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!!!

    If the strike comes from B-2s then the response will be directed at the US too.

    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

    Saturation attacks don't come from thin air. The air bases launching the aircraft, the ports the ships are based at, the aircraft and command and communication centres supporting the attack can all be targeted to weaken the attack before it even arrives.

    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!

    Such an attack could not be mounted without giving the game away... NATO secrecy is full of holes... you see the problem for the west is that while it claims to be the good guy... most of the time it is the opposite and while they can hide that from the general public who believes their own mass media over everyone elses there are plenty of people on the inside of NATO who actually want to be able to sleep at night... Manning, Snowden, Assange... and there are plenty more names we don't hear.

    PAK DA wont make Russia super powerful and a real danger to the world... it already is.

    It is just a numbers plane that has different capabilities from the other plane they are going to build (ie Tu-160), but will be likely a lot cheaper to operate.

    They have called it a stealthy flying wing subsonic aircraft but I very much doubt they will be going for 0.0000000000001 m super stealth first strike bomber... its most important feature as noted above in the piece Austin posted will be range and low cost and the ability to carry a wide range of subsonic stealthy and hypersonic cruise missiles.

    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!

    Hahahahahaa... they will be paying 350 million per F-35 and their C-17s cost over 200 million a piece... that is peanuts.

    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!

    If NATO tries to focus its forces and attack NEBO one radar at a time then they will get the shit kicked out of them.

    NEBO is at the centre of an S-400 battery which is likely colocated with several other SAM batteries offering mutual coverage... and air power will support that coverage... A few cruise missiles in Libya can take out an old SAM site because that old SAM site can only target one low flying missile at one time and could only detect such a threat at the very last moment... 10km or so... and considering its minimum engagement range is probably like 6km or so then there are problems.

    With the Russian system there are aircraft that can shoot down dozens of cruise missiles all day, there are SAM sites with point defence SAMs supporting them and protecting them... not to mention jammers and decoys and other systems... even an Igla is a serious threat to a cruise missile if the Igla unit has warning...

    OSA brought down large numbers of cruise missiles in desert storm simply by being in the right place at the right time... cruise missiles are not wonder weapons.

    Not to mention that the Russian AF could then launch cruise missiles against NATO targets which will likely tie up a few of those thousands of fighters they have...

    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.

    That conflict showed that NATO was not used to fighting a competent enemy and its performance was pathetic in that conflict. It likely killed more tractors and friendlies than it did enemy forces.

    Equip the Serbs with weapons and systems can could not only reach NATO aircraft up at 20,000 ft but give them the means to attack Brussels and see how that turns out...

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

    Everything since SA-11 could shoot down HARM missiles... TOR and Pantsir are particularly good at it. Why do you think they are spending money on a replacement.

    For all the talk HARM was pathetic... ALARM was much more menacing...

    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...

    S-500 is irrelevant to the conflict scenario in question...

    S-350 will make NATO cruise missiles impotent due to numbers being able to match numbers.

    Second picture is very interesting! Looks like a good hybrid between flying wing and conventional aircraft. I know it's just a concept but...

    Reminded me of a Victor...

    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.

    You called me a 7 year old and now less intelligent than a highschool dropout...

    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.

    Of course... there is absolutely no connection between a new Russian stealth bomber and WWIII... it is just fantasy...

    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.

    Actually rather less because existing large aerospace forces radar to detect incoming ICBMs and SLBMs should also help detecting incoming threats too.

    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.

    Long wave radar cannot detect the shape of aircraft... only its existence/presence.

    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!

    No. the discussion here is that stealth is a measure so aircraft like B-2 and F-22 and F-35 who put all their design into stealth will be vulnerable when stealth is defeated as a countermeasure.

    I wrote for the specifc scenario of a conflict in baltic states or Ukraine. Most realistic scenario ist the air base in Syria. Of course thousands of missilies flying to russian heartland is very ambivalent

    But what is the point of it?

    every air defence system can be overwhelmed, but the Russia system is amongst the largest and likely most effective and I rather doubt NATO countries could even afford enough missiles to threaten to defeat it before retaliation ruins their day.

    In fact you are proving our point... it is numbers that will prevail... not 20 B-2s that are the problem... it is the reportedly 2,500 odd F-35s they claim they want to make. Of course even if they make half the operational costs will mean they wont be able to afford much else so that is a good thing too.
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 422
    Points : 416
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Azi on Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:15 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Hahahahahaa... they will be paying 350 million per F-35 and their C-17s cost over 200 million a piece... that is peanuts.
    The price for one F-35, next batch, is a bit above 100 million!

    GarryB wrote:That conflict showed that NATO was not used to fighting a competent enemy and its performance was pathetic in that conflict. It likely killed more tractors and friendlies than it did enemy forces.

    Equip the Serbs with weapons and systems can could not only reach NATO aircraft up at 20,000 ft but give them the means to attack Brussels and see how that turns out...

    Sorry that's bullshit! You could gave Serbia a few dozens S-300 and we have still lost the conflict. It was simply a overwhelming force. With modern systems we have shot a few more NATzO aircrafts, but not important for the conflict.

    If Serbia had attacked Brussels in retaliation, they had erdidacted Serbia from earth, with conventional weapons!

    GarryB wrote:Everything since SA-11 could shoot down HARM missiles... TOR and Pantsir are particularly good at it.  Why do you think they are spending money on a replacement.

    The replacement should be stealth and hardened, so harder to shoot down! And they working on it.

    GarryB wrote:S-500 is irrelevant to the conflict scenario in question...

    That's true Wink

    GarryB wrote: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.

    No one will call you idiot! But you are bullheaded Wink

    GarryB wrote: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.

    Third WW will definite come, due to some special facts. In the mid of 21. century the price for oil and phosphat minerals will explode, because the fossil and mineral deposits will be plundered to this time. Now our agriculture is producing 6 times more than 100 years before, due to mineralic fertilizer. But without the fertilizer the production will collapse, so we will have more people (around 11 billion) with less food. What do you think will happen? You should think in longer terms. So the race for land, mineral deposits and oil has now begun! That's also the reason why so shit heaps like Ukraine are important for western countries Wink agriculture land will be an important factor in future. Russia is for USA definite the enemy, because it has everything, vast space for agriculture, mineral deposits, oil, gas....it's perfect for the mid of 21. century.

    Why do you think USA is developing systems like missile shield and prompt global strike? For fun or for use? They are aware that a great next conflict is coming, maybe lead by themselve.

    By the way...
    A conflict don't go nuclear so fast? What you are thinking about Russia??? Do you think they are psychopathic idiots pushing the red button for the first tomahawk that reaches russian soil??? There is a specific doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons and they are only used if the existence is in danger!!! The same for the USA or China.

    Favored technique of USA was to destabilize a land and insert a puppet government.
    For Russia means this, drag Russia in a big bloody conflict, next isolate it and harm it's economy massive. After a few years people are unhappy and try to overthrow the administration, that's the point they support massive opposition politician and fighters. If the administration is overthrown good, if not and the land is in civil war they will intervene with military and install a puppet regime. That' exactly how they want and how it can happen, of course no WW3 out from nothing, thats of course bullshit. They tried it everywhere, but they failed in past sometimes, see Ukraine Wink

    GarryB wrote:Long wave radar cannot detect the shape of aircraft... only its existence/presence.
    No radar can detect the shape of a aircraft, but shape determines the ability to reflect radar waves in a certain direction in dependance of wavelenght.

    Stealth vs. UHF radar - ausairpower
    from text wrote:Most stealth design features are intended to scatter incoming illumination in a controlled fashion, evidenced by the use of edge alignment, faceting and other geometrical shaping features, supplemented by the use of absorbent materials. All of these techniques are intended to defeat radars operating in the geometrical optics and less frequently, resonance regimes of scattering. The precondition for this to work is that the wavelength be much shorter than the cardinal dimensions of the shaping feature of interest. An edge aligned engine inlet of typical dimensions will perform best in the centimetric Ku- and X-bands, and less so with increasing radar wavelength.

    The Russian approach has been to invest in the further development of low band radars, especially operating in the VHF band. With wavelengths of the order of a metre or more, only very large stealth aircraft (e.g. B-2A) satisfy the physics requirement for geometrical optics regime scattering. A fighter sized aircraft such as the JSF will see most of its carefully designed shaping features fall into the resonance or Raleigh scattering regions, where shaping is of little or no import, and skin depth penetration of the induced electrical surface currents defeats most absorbent coatings or laminates.

    GarryB wrote:No. the discussion here is that stealth is a measure so aircraft like B-2 and F-22 and F-35 who put all their design into stealth will be vulnerable when stealth is defeated as a countermeasure.
    Stealth works, it makes aircrafts low observable and not invisible. How would they be vulnerable??? A bomber is everytime vulnerable! Do you think a Tu-160M2 or a Tu-22M without escort is not vulnerable? If F-22 and F-35 lose their stealth feature, they are still capable fighters and dangerous. By the way, countermeasures against incoming missiles are still onboard!

    GarryB wrote:In fact you are proving our point... it is numbers that will prevail... not 20 B-2s that are the problem... it is the reportedly 2,500 odd F-35s they claim they want to make. Of course even if they make half the operational costs will mean they wont be able to afford much else so that is a good thing too.
    The problem will be even the successor to B-2 the B-21 and yes of course the thousands of F-35.

    ---

    What I don't understand is that some guys are writing that stealth is obsolete, but hyping PAK-DA!? Suspect Wut??? I dont get it! PAK-DA is very similar to US B-2 concept. So they guys should be honest in matters of stealth! Of course is stealth for Russia not deadly, as it was for Serbia and Iraq, no one was talking about this. But George1 is right the discussion is Off Topic
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 837
    Points : 823
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Singular_Transform on Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:15 pm

    Interesting article from 1086 about anty stealth radars from new scientist.

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=izoqCqIesA0C&lpg=PA25&ots=niGmPcj8Sy&dq=hawkeye%20stealth%20uhf%20radar%20range%20detection&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q=hawkeye%20stealth%20uhf%20radar%20range%20detection&f=false
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 27363
    Points : 27895
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 22, 2017 9:12 am

    The price for one F-35, next batch, is a bit above 100 million!

    Hahahahahaa... have you bought the bridge they were selling at the same sale?

    Numbers I have seen are at least 170 million per aircraft on average... and aircraft don't get cheaper... just like they don't get lighter...

    Sorry that's bullshit! You could gave Serbia a few dozens S-300 and we have still lost the conflict. It was simply a overwhelming force. With modern systems we have shot a few more NATzO aircrafts, but not important for the conflict.

    You seriously overestimate NATO... they will jump over themselves to get a fighter in theatre to shoot down some outnumbered aircraft, but once pilots come home in body bags they will cut and run like the cowards they are.

    If Serbia had a few dozen S-300 then nothing would have happened... Kosovo would be an official part of Serbia they way it should be...

    The huge irony is that what those Albanians did to Serbia some North Africans are currently doing to Europe... Smile

    If Serbia had attacked Brussels in retaliation, they had erdidacted Serbia from earth, with conventional weapons!

    If Serbia had the capacity to hit Brussels then Serbia would be safe.

    The replacement should be stealth and hardened, so harder to shoot down! And they working on it.

    HARM has an IR signature that glows... make it as stealthy as you want... they will shoot it down optically.


    Why do you think USA is developing systems like missile shield and prompt global strike? For fun or for use? They are aware that a great next conflict is coming, maybe lead by themselve.

    Any conflict will be short and solve the population problem fairly rapidly.

    A conflict don't go nuclear so fast? What you are thinking about Russia??? Do you think they are psychopathic idiots pushing the red button for the first tomahawk that reaches russian soil??? There is a specific doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons and they are only used if the existence is in danger!!! The same for the USA or China.

    They are not psychopaths but if they don't use their nuclear weapons they risk the other side destroying their capacity to use them.

    When the other side starts firing cruise missiles at your military and economic infrastructure it is not for shits and giggles... it means war so why fuck around with a conventional counterstrike hitting their airfields or HQs.

    No radar can detect the shape of a aircraft, but shape determines the ability to reflect radar waves in a certain direction in dependance of wavelenght.

    High frequency radar can. MMW radar can determine if an armoured vehicle has a turret or tracks... how could it do that without seeing the shape of the target?

    I remember in the 1980s the US boasting their AEGIS class cruisers could identify an aircraft by counting its turbine blades in its engines... of course they shut up about that when they shot down an Iranian airbus mistaking it for an F-14.

    The piece you copy and pasted was talking about long wave radar frequencies and about how the shaping of a small aircraft like an F-35 is not relevant to such long waves that cannot detect such small shape features.

    An X band or Ku band radar can see shape and that is why shaping the aircraft is effective in reducing the detection range of said radar.

    The problem will be even the successor to B-2 the B-21 and yes of course the thousands of F-35.

    WWIII wont be determined by fighters and strategic bombers... they will just ensure everyone dies.

    What I don't understand is that some guys are writing that stealth is obsolete, but hyping PAK-DA!? Suspect Wut??? I dont get it! PAK-DA is very similar to US B-2 concept. So they guys should be honest in matters of stealth!

    Stealth is not obsolete, but it is not the uber war winning super capability the US likes to pretend it is.

    It is the colonial machine gun to keep the natives in order...
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 1052
    Points : 1219
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:41 am


    GarryB wrote:High frequency radar can. MMW radar can determine if an armoured vehicle has a turret or tracks... how could it do that without seeing the shape of the target?

    I remember in the 1980s the US boasting their AEGIS class cruisers could identify an aircraft by counting its turbine blades in its engines... of course they shut up about that when they shot down an Iranian airbus mistaking it for an F-14.

    The piece you copy and pasted was talking about long wave radar frequencies and about how the shaping of a small aircraft like an F-35 is not relevant to such long waves that cannot detect such small shape features.

    An X band or Ku band radar can see shape and that is why shaping the aircraft is effective in reducing the detection range of said radar.



    If someone is interested in a more serious approach to the thing, i have provided a link in mine previous intervention to a full pubblication.

    I reproduce here for convenience Wink

    http://radar.dinos.net/


    If someone is interested in knowing how much water hold the asssertions of our friend Militarov ...sadly parroting the low level phantasious garbage circulating on those subjects present in public media....on the average RCS of B-2 bomber : " Mmm.... no, B-2 has very extensive RCS reduction in all lobes, its doubtful there is any significant difference if you are radiating aganist it from front or sides" you can go directly at the page 264 281 and take note of average and median RCS merely from 0 to 20 and 20 to 40 degrees radar illumination even only for wave lenght of 10 cm Wink

    Exist obviously works also more advanced and recent than this one, of classified or proprietary nature, which bring back a picture of the overall scattering field of those "VLO object" even more distant from the comical figures usually circulating about them.

    Fact is simply that the technology - both in its theoretical and application side -for the management of the EM redirecting cones toward a point outside a scattering body exist and saw the light in the today Federation's Institutes more than 50 years ago; it can surely provide a noticeable tactical advantage if applied correctly and against opponents lacking the scientifical know-how and the necessary counter-systems and is therefore extensively pursued by nations in search of military projection ability over minor regional players in reason of the fact that the last will see a marked decraese of theirs ability to defend themselves from air aggression.

    In general today an equilibrated integration of some of those sacttering managing features in a design incorporating solutions assuring increased performances in far more important and decisive metrics give the better result.

    The technology do NOT involve RCS figures at the radiating point, neither boasted capabilities, even only by far near to the ridiculous fairy tales usually circulating on it in the public area or among scarcely informed PR agents - both aware or not aware of that, including people on uniforms.



    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 422
    Points : 416
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Azi on Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:02 am

    GarryB wrote:Numbers I have seen are at least 170 million per aircraft on average... and aircraft don't get cheaper... just like they don't get lighter...

    I know BI is crap, but was fastest to find What a Face F-35 price tags -BI


    BI wrote:Here are the price tags for the latest batch of F-35s:

    • F-35A model aircraft: $94.6 million a jet

    • F-35B model aircraft: $122.8 million a jet

    • F-35C model aircraft: $121.8 million a jet

    Deliveries for these 90 aircraft will begin in early 2018.

    GarryB wrote:You seriously overestimate NATO... they will jump over themselves to get a fighter in theatre to shoot down some outnumbered aircraft, but once pilots come home in body bags they will cut and run like the cowards they are.

    First...I think you underestimate NATzO! In the NATzO 930 million people are living, 6 times more than in Russia. NATzO consists of the biggest economies worldwide. In the ecomomy is going to war economy NATzO is incredible fearsome, but now that's true most countries spend only 1 % of GDP for weapons, that's a joke.

    In past the population in NATzO countries was not prepared for war, yes it was some propaganda for example Serbia (Milosevic was Serbian Hitler) but it was more at slow level. I live in Germany and I recognize a massive propaganda camapign, like "it's an honour to die for our allies" something that i never heard in the past 30 years and also something that was taboo, because after WW 2 germans are really enjoying their peace! So something in NATzO countries is changing, accompanied by a huge propaganda camapign against Russia. So population in NATzO countries are more ready to accept dead sons in conflicts, due to long year propaganda.

    GarryB wrote:HARM has an IR signature that glows... make it as stealthy as you want... they will shoot it down optically.
    The discussion was general about the development of new weapon systems against high end AD systems. Not special HARM, because HARM is old, that's true!

    GarryB wrote:Any conflict will be short and solve the population problem fairly rapidly.
    Why? For example a conflict with China...

    In a prompt gobal strike China would be saturated with conventional missiles, cruise missiles etc. destroying the nuclear capacity (estimation 250 - 400 warheads). Reaction time with an ICBM retaliation strike would be a few minutes, USA would be prepared. So the assignment of the missile shield would be the interception of let's say 50 warheads, that's not a hard task. Let's further say that 90 % hit, so we have 5 warheads with around 150 - 300 kT hitting targets in USA, if aimed at military targets with loss collateral damage, aimed at big cities with around 1 - 3 million dead max (without warning!). So this is just a imaginary scenario (let's hope it will never happen). Some psychopaths in Washington could think that's a good deal 1 million dead for destroying and dominating a superpower like China.

    GarryB wrote:They are not psychopaths but if they don't use their nuclear weapons they risk the other side destroying their capacity to use them.
    That's absolutely right! So it's important for Russia to hold enough second strike capabilities, submarines, mobile ICBM trucks, ICBM trains and now that will be task for PAK DA a mobile, stealthy cruise missile carrier with enough loiter time. So Russia can be relaxed not pushed to a strike nuclear if a enemy just makes a silly move, knowing that second strike ability is enough to destroy the enemy complete!!!

    GarryB wrote:High frequency radar can. MMW radar can determine if an armoured vehicle has a turret or tracks... how could it do that without seeing the shape of the target?

    I remember in the 1980s the US boasting their AEGIS class cruisers could identify an aircraft by counting its turbine blades in its engines... of course they shut up about that when they shot down an Iranian airbus mistaking it for an F-14.

    The piece you copy and pasted was talking about long wave radar frequencies and about how the shaping of a small aircraft like an F-35 is not relevant to such long waves that cannot detect such small shape features.
    That's semiright! In archeology radars are used to find structures under the earth in some meters deepth, with radar waves. The pictures are with computing methods nice rendered 3D pictures.

    With short wave radar you can estimate the shape, that's true. Short wave radar is much more like EM in light area.

    But with radar used in aircraft detection (UHF for example) it is impossible to observe the shape. One point is the long disctance, another point are longer wavelenghts. It's a hard task to distinguish two aircraft flying next to each other from a distance of a few hundred km.  

    The point was that in UHF area a F-35 and F-22 is soo small that is subject to Rayleigh scattering, so it's special stealth geometry (shape) is useless. The B-2 is larger and it's shape will still retain the stealth effect. By the way Rayleigh scattering is the reason why the sky is blue Wink

    GarryB wrote:Stealth is not obsolete, but it is not the uber war winning super capability the US likes to pretend it is.

    It is the colonial machine gun to keep the natives in order...
    I'm absolute with you! No one said it's the absolute "Überwaffe" and super duper...it's just part of a whole concept.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 837
    Points : 823
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:31 pm

    Azi wrote:




    Why? For example a conflict with China...

    In a prompt gobal strike China would be saturated with conventional missiles, cruise missiles etc. destroying the nuclear capacity (estimation 250 - 400 warheads). Reaction time with an ICBM retaliation strike would be a few minutes, USA would be prepared. So the assignment of the missile shield would be the interception of let's say 50 warheads, that's not a hard task. Let's further say that 90 % hit, so we have 5 warheads with around 150 - 300 kT hitting targets in USA, if aimed at military targets with loss collateral damage, aimed at big cities with around 1 - 3 million dead max (without warning!). So this is just a imaginary scenario (let's hope it will never happen). Some psychopaths in Washington could think that's a good deal 1 million dead for destroying and dominating a superpower like China.
    Means that Chine pumping out/will start pump out new warheads with 1000/year speed.

    I think the US doesn't understand any more the concepts of game theory.
    Azi wrote:

    That's semiright! In archeology radars are used to find structures under the earth in some meters deepth, with radar waves. The pictures are with computing methods nice rendered 3D pictures.

    With short wave radar you can estimate the shape, that's true. Short wave radar is much more like EM in light area.

    But with radar used in aircraft detection (UHF for example) it is impossible to observe the shape. One point is the long disctance, another point are longer wavelenghts. It's a hard task to distinguish two aircraft flying next to each other from a distance of a few hundred km.  

    The point was that in UHF area a F-35 and F-22 is soo small that is subject to Rayleigh scattering, so it's special stealth geometry (shape) is useless. The B-2 is larger and it's shape will still retain the stealth effect. By the way Rayleigh scattering is the reason why the sky is blue Wink

    You give the answer for your own complain.

    60s vintage monopulse radars can't see the shape /type of the aircraft, but frequency modulated radars will see the Rayleigh signature of the aircraft, by modulating the pulse and observe the relative strength of the reflected signal..


    Means that the NEBO-M or even a modern VHF radar can see the difference between an f-35, su35,b-2 , B-21 , tomahawk or a simple flesh and blood bird.

    The radar even can see the direction of the aircraft, not only its type : )

    We are not in the 60s any more.

    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Guest on Wed Feb 22, 2017 9:19 pm

    Shoot it down optically with what? Strela-1 that chooses rather to guide aganist Moon if full rather than anything else possible in the sky during night Smile?
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 837
    Points : 823
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:15 pm

    I have to mention that the Serbian air defence during the NATO raids was quite successful.


    They had inferior equipment and was against extreme overwhelming power, but even with that they tied up third of the nato airforces.

    Just for reference, during the first gulf war this ratio was 6%.

    So, the well trained personnel is the key for any system.


    Without "stealth" planes the nato should have next to 0 chance to penetrate any modern air defence system.

    From the other side, the current nato air defence system is not capable to give protection against any low observation aircraft.


    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 837
    Points : 823
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:17 pm

    Militarov wrote:Shoot it down optically with what? Strela-1 that chooses rather to guide aganist Moon if full rather than anything else possible in the sky during night Smile?

    Who is the addressee of this question?
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 422
    Points : 416
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Azi on Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:04 am

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Means that Chine pumping out/will start pump out new warheads with 1000/year speed.

    I think the US doesn't understand any more the concepts of game theory.
    Why they should? Nuclear warheads are not for free and costs money. By the way, if China starts a big nuclear programm, with the aim of obtaining thousands of warheads, USA will definite strike before that happens and even Russia will not be amused of China. Chinese diplomacy was in past to avoid difference, let's see what future holds Wink I like chinese diplomacy.

    Singular_Transform wrote:60s vintage monopulse radars can't see the shape /type of the aircraft, but frequency modulated radars will see the Rayleigh signature of the aircraft, by modulating the pulse and observe the relative strength  of the reflected signal..


    Means that the NEBO-M or even a modern VHF radar can see the difference between an f-35, su35,b-2 , B-21 , tomahawk or a simple flesh and blood bird.

    The radar even can see the direction of the aircraft, not only its type : )

    We are not in the 60s any more.
    No, no and no again! It depends on many factors. For example, if max. detection range is 400 km you will not see every aircraft exact at 400 km!!! You understand this? Some you can see before, for example Tu-95 wich is reknown to have excellent radar reflecting qualities, some you will see later for example B-2. Radar absorbing materials are less effective at longer wavelenghts, but they still absorb. If a Tu-95 is in 1 km range you can count the blades of the aircraft in 500 km distance you will only know there is something but not what exactly, maybe a UFO!? Of course you see the diretion of planes, they normally don't fly backwards!

    By the way RAM coating...some RAM coating degenerates with time What a Face if enough birds shit on F-35 it will not be stealth anymore Laughing and I mean this not as a joke, because harsh conditions leads to destruction of RAM coating.

    Singular_Transform wrote:Without "stealth" planes the nato should have next to 0 chance to penetrate any modern air defence system.
    You set the hit ratio to 100 % that's complete unrealistic, even for the best AD system. Every jet has still countermeasures against radar or IR guided rockets. With evasive maneuver it's possible to avoid a missile hit. That's the advantage of more agile fighters against stealth jets, they can avoid to radical maneuvers missile hit, because stealth jets lacks agility.

    In NATzO campaigns stealth jets are not often used, because maybe they are too expensive. Workhorse are still 4gen fighters!

    Russian AD systems like S-400 use 150 - 180 kg warheads on their bigger missiles, that's fu*king impressive! So they create a big boom and smaller missiles are more agile. But, but don't set the kill ratio to 100 %, that's fanboyism!

    Singular_Transform wrote:From the other side, the current nato air defence system is not capable to give protection against any low observation aircraft.
    That's correct! So let them pay for new radar systems, greece debt crisis, refugees...money don't grow on trees!
    avatar
    Zastel

    Posts : 4
    Points : 6
    Join date : 2015-06-23

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Zastel on Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:26 am

    Mindstorm wrote:

    If someone is interested in a more serious approach to the thing, i have provided a link in mine previous intervention to a full pubblication.

    I reproduce here for convenience  Wink

    http://radar.dinos.net/

    Thank you. The diagrams are very interesting, even though I can't read Russian. Could you explain a couple of things to me?

    What units are they using? It doesn't make sense to me on the face of it that an object the size of a plane or tank could have an RCS of ~1000 square meters. I'm obviously missing something fundamental.

    The diagrams have RCS 'horns' where the incoming radar is perpendicular to one of the straight surfaces of the aircraft. For the B2 and presumably all other stealth aircraft those horns are very high in amplitude, but narrow. Given the relatively slow speed with which I see large radar dishes sweeping the sky, couldn't the stealth aircraft time their maneuvers so that the 'horns' only face the enemy radar transmitters when they are lighting up another sector of the sky? I'm assuming they have fairly sophisticated RWR on board. Is that made irrelevant by the large number of radar transmitters sweeping a well defended sector, or some other thing I am not considering?





    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 837
    Points : 823
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:07 am

    Azi wrote:
    Why they should? Nuclear warheads are not for free and costs money. By the way, if China starts a big nuclear programm, with the aim of obtaining thousands of warheads, USA will definite strike before that happens and even Russia will not be amused of China. Chinese diplomacy was in past to avoid difference, let's see what future holds Wink I like chinese diplomacy.
    So, based on your logic Russia should make preventive nuclear strike on the US before they will develop a fully working missile defence system.

    China not simply can afford the warheads, but it needs something that can use up at least one percent of this GDP.

    Actually, with a full scale , 1000/warhead/year spending they won't hit the US military spending level in % term : )

    Azi wrote:
    No, no and no again! It depends on many factors. For example, if max. detection range is 400 km you will not see every aircraft exact at 400 km!!! You understand this? Some you can see before, for example Tu-95 wich is reknown to have excellent radar reflecting qualities, some you will see later for example B-2. Radar absorbing materials are less effective at longer wavelenghts, but they still absorb. If a Tu-95 is in 1 km range you can count the blades of the aircraft in 500 km distance you will only know there is something but not what exactly, maybe a UFO!? Of course you see the diretion of planes, they normally don't fly backwards!

    By the way RAM coating...some RAM coating degenerates with time What a Face if enough birds shit on F-35 it will not be stealth anymore Laughing and I mean this not as a joke, because harsh conditions leads to destruction of RAM coating.


    It is mixing up of different things.

    The radar imaging work like making a photo : ) That I'm talking about is not that.

    The radar emitting an FM modulated signal, and the returned signal spectrum will be frequency depended, and it is due to the Rayleigh scattering of the different elements of the airplane.

    So, say if you emit a signal that 270-350 mhz, and the aircraft has one vertical thingy that behave like the resonator on the 301.11MHz then the received signal will show a power peak at that frequency.

    Of course the typical aircraft has a lot of shape, convex and concave , means that the returned signal will have very complex and specific spectrum, depend on the orientation of the airplane.

    It has NO business with the radar imaging.

    Azi wrote:
    You set the hit ratio to 100 % that's complete unrealistic, even for the best AD system. Every jet has still countermeasures against radar or IR guided rockets. With evasive maneuver it's possible to avoid a missile hit. That's the advantage of more agile fighters against stealth jets, they can avoid to radical maneuvers missile hit, because stealth jets lacks agility.

    In NATzO campaigns stealth jets are not often used, because maybe they are too expensive. Workhorse are still 4gen fighters!

    Russian AD systems like S-400 use 150 - 180 kg warheads on their bigger missiles, that's fu*king impressive! So they create a big boom and smaller missiles are more agile. But, but don't set the kill ratio to 100 %, that's fanboyism!


    Doesn't need to e 100%.

    Anything more than 5% means that the aggressor will run out of airplanes in short notice, and practically can not do anything else than SEAD missions.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 27363
    Points : 27895
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:14 am


    First...I think you underestimate NATzO! In the NATzO 930 million people are living, 6 times more than in Russia. NATzO consists of the biggest economies worldwide. In the ecomomy is going to war economy NATzO is incredible fearsome, but now that's true most countries spend only 1 % of GDP for weapons, that's a joke.

    The number of people they have is irrelevant.

    When the first 10 NATO aircraft get shot down rapidly people in the west will start to ask why are they sending in military forces... the west has its fancy morals, but at the end of the day no stomach for equal enemies in war, and certainly not for spending a lot on wars despite their governments love of war.

    So something in NATzO countries is changing, accompanied by a huge propaganda camapign against Russia. So population in NATzO countries are more ready to accept dead sons in conflicts, due to long year propaganda.

    Yet no suggestion of boots on the ground in Syria or the Crimea or Ukraine... or Kosovo.

    The discussion was general about the development of new weapon systems against high end AD systems. Not special HARM, because HARM is old, that's true!

    The west is developing new attack strategies and new techniques... I believe one option is the swarm. Russia is developing countermeasures too. My personal money would be on a fully integrated and funded defence structure that has the added bonus of being able to strike back and hard... unlike the third world countries the NATO forces are used to dealing with.

    USA would be prepared. So the assignment of the missile shield would be the interception of let's say 50 warheads, that's not a hard task. Let's further say that 90 % hit, so we have 5 warheads with around 150 - 300 kT hitting targets in USA, if aimed at military targets with loss collateral damage, aimed at big cities with around 1 - 3 million dead max (without warning!).

    Sorry... what?

    Chinese missiles are not first strike missiles... they would have very little chance of taking out Americas ability to launch a nuclear strike on China... Chinese missiles will be for megadeath body count kills. They will target the major population centres in the US.

    With a 90% hit rate that means that of the tens of thousands of targets the Chinese missiles deliver into space on a trajectory to the US they will most likely knock out about 45 targets... the odds are the vast majority of those 45 targets hit will be decoys and most of their 200-300 warheads will vapourise US cities on the west coast...

    Some psychopaths in Washington could think that's a good deal 1 million dead for destroying and dominating a superpower like China.

    I agree... the idiots in washington might think they could eliminate China with acceptable losses... even if they are wrong.

    The problem then is that Russia has just seen the US take out a country because it felt threatened... what would you do if you were in charge of Russia?

    I personally would launch an immediate strike on the US while I had the advantage of surprise before they did the same to me.

    But with radar used in aircraft detection (UHF for example) it is impossible to observe the shape. One point is the long disctance, another point are longer wavelenghts. It's a hard task to distinguish two aircraft flying next to each other from a distance of a few hundred km.

    Short wave radar can be used for detection too. And one of the main reasons is to be able to detect targets flying close together in formation.

    The point was that in UHF area a F-35 and F-22 is soo small that is subject to Rayleigh scattering, so it's special stealth geometry (shape) is useless. The B-2 is larger and it's shape will still retain the stealth effect. By the way Rayleigh scattering is the reason why the sky is blue

    NEBO isn't UHF... it is longer wave... a VHF AESA... not by accident either... what do you think it is intended to track?

    Shoot it down optically with what? Strela-1 that chooses rather to guide aganist Moon if full rather than anything else possible in the sky during night

    TOR, BUK, Tunguska, Pantsir all have optical backup guidance channels... plus of course Igla, and Verba, and soon SOSNA-R.

    Even Kornet-EM.

    Why they should? Nuclear warheads are not for free and costs money. By the way, if China starts a big nuclear programm, with the aim of obtaining thousands of warheads, USA will definite strike before that happens and even Russia will not be amused of China. Chinese diplomacy was in past to avoid difference, let's see what future holds Wink I like chinese diplomacy.

    Even without thousands of new nuclear warheads I think the US underestimates the impact of a few hundred Su-35s and some S-400 batteries and of course their own stealth fighters...

    You set the hit ratio to 100 % that's complete unrealistic, even for the best AD system. Every jet has still countermeasures against radar or IR guided rockets. With evasive maneuver it's possible to avoid a missile hit. That's the advantage of more agile fighters against stealth jets, they can avoid to radical maneuvers missile hit, because stealth jets lacks agility.

    Air defence systems consist of multiple rings of sensors and weapons... weapons including ground based missiles and guns and air based missiles and guns.

    A stealth fighter is only as powerful as its weapons... an Su-35 with an AESA radar able to jam the tiny radar seeker in an AMRAAM and render it useless means an F-22 or F-35 is armed with short range heat seekers and cannon. DIRCMs defeat the IR guided missiles so it comes down to guns... and with 3D thrust vector control a lightly loaded Su-35 or MiG-35 will be in a very good position to gun fight with a US stealth fighter let alone a stealth bomber.

    In the 1980s the MiG-29 has a computer system connected to its cannon... the pilot looks at the target aircraft which locks the radar and IRST and the onboard laser rangefinder onto the enemy aircraft which will continue to track the target... the MiG pilot can then pull the trigger on the 30mm cannon and turn the aircraft to superimpose the aiming pipper onto the target. When the laser range finder and ballistics computer determines the shells will hit the target the gun fires automatically. the computer even stops the gun firing when enough shells have been fired to kill the target.

    It was reported in the west that the designer found in tests that the gun/sensor/aiming system was so accurate that the gun was stopped after a burst of 4-5 rounds but the test targets were still being destroyed. When they found that out the designer is reported to have said if he knew it was going to be that effective he would have reduced the ammo capacity from 150 to 100 rounds, because 150 rounds was too many.

    Russian AD systems like S-400 use 150 - 180 kg warheads on their bigger missiles, that's fu*king impressive! So they create a big boom and smaller missiles are more agile. But, but don't set the kill ratio to 100 %, that's fanboyism!

    The S-400 is the long range SAM... the S-350 will be the numbers system with 12 missiles per vehicle. The BUK will have 6 missiles per vehicle too.

    Lighter systems like Pantsir could have 40 tubes in a hybrid system combined with the Hermes system... and of course the SOSNA-R is a super light cheap laser beam riding missile system and Morfei short range fire and forget system is also to be introduced to replace strela-10M.

    China not simply can afford the warheads, but it needs something that can use up at least one percent of this GDP.

    China could simply demand the US pays the foeign debt the Chinese have bought up over the years.

    One system wont have anywhere near a 100% hit rate, but the entire system can achieve that... even more so when you include the capacity to hit back and those forces attacking them... further blunting the attack before it has even started.

    I have seen US videos showing F-35s operating with unmanned C-130 drones carrying fuel and weapons to support the operations of the F-35 which is clearly lacking in both areas on its own.

    Obviously such drones would be very expensive and very juicy targets for very long range missiles like S-400 and S-500...
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Guest on Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:57 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:I have to mention that the Serbian air defence during the NATO raids was quite successful.


    They had inferior equipment and was  against extreme overwhelming power, but even with that they tied up third of the nato airforces.

    Just for reference, during the first gulf war this ratio was 6%.

    So, the well trained personnel is the key for any system.


    Without "stealth" planes the nato should have next to 0 chance to penetrate any modern air defence system.

    From the other side, the current nato air defence system is not capable to give protection against any low observation aircraft.



    We were successful? How comes none of my commanding officers felt that way i wonder, they just participated in that war. But i suppose you are right, what do they know.

    We tied up shit, we were barely able to keep equipment going around to preserve it from destruction, all fixed sites we had were demolished. We shot 2 manned targets in 78 days. Ratio, right.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6918
    Points : 6908
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Isos on Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:22 am


    We were successful? How comes none of my commanding officers felt that way i wonder, they just participated in that war. But i suppose you are right, what do they know.

    We tied up shit, we were barely able to keep equipment going around to preserve it from destruction, all fixed sites we had were demolished. We shot 2 manned targets in 78 days. Ratio, right.

    Same as Russia vs Georgia ... 1 Tu-22M (i.e F-117 for US) and some fighters Su-27/25 (i.e Mirage 2000 and f-16 + drones for the coalition) Big armies won, the little one can't do anything.
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 422
    Points : 416
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Azi on Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:04 am

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    So, based on your logic Russia should make preventive nuclear strike on the US before they will develop a fully working missile defence system.
    Please google "prompt global strike". It's a new concept to deliver a deadly strike in a time frame of a hour, with conventional warheads. The weapons for PGS are still in planning and include hypersonic weapons. Russia and China are working on same concepts simultaneously.

    So USA will be in near future able to deliver a deadly conventional strike, destroying nuclear second strike capacities for example of China. The strike is conventional and NOT nuclear. In US administration are sitting some real idiots, but no idiot want to destroy and radiate parts of the world for hundreds of years. No one will do a nuclear first strike, not China, not USA, not Russia!!!

    This is only my personal opinion for long future terms (around 2050), that USA will become real dangerous, because it's a dying superpower. A lot of migrants, bad demographic of white population, dwindling worldwide ressources, exploding worldwide population...that can be the mix of a apocalyptic scenario. I hope a apocalyptic scenario never come true. It's even possible that USA see the problems for future and work with Russia, China and India peaceful together.

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Doesn't need to e 100%.

    Anything more than 5% means that the aggressor will run out of airplanes in short notice, and practically can not do anything else than SEAD missions.
    5 % mean that your AD systems will die fast! Of course it's more than 5 % and less than 100 %, but I don't have data, maybe someone else in the forum?!

    ---

    @GarryB
    With most of the topics I agree with you!

    GarryB wrote:Chinese missiles are not first strike missiles... they would have very little chance of taking out Americas ability to launch a nuclear strike on China... Chinese missiles will be for megadeath body count kills. They will target the major population centres in the US.
    No I was writing about a chinese retaliation strike, not a first strike. Chinese military is very defensive.

    GarryB wrote:The west is developing new attack strategies and new techniques... I believe one option is the swarm.
    Swarm is a good option for future, but still not mature in next decade.

    GarryB wrote:NEBO isn't UHF... it is longer wave... a VHF AESA... not by accident either... what do you think it is intended to track?
    I mean VHF. Sorry was my mistake!!! pwnd

    GarryB wrote:...the odds are the vast majority of those 45 targets hit will be decoys and most of their 200-300 warheads will vapourise US cities on the west coast...
    China...at all China have only very few ICBM, it's very hard to threaten USA with that few ICBM they now have. I don't know what will survive in China after a conventional first strike attack on chinese ICBM. On other hand China has a vast and complex tunnel system able to hide conventional and nuclear weapon systems.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Guest on Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:45 am

    Isos wrote:

    We were successful? How comes none of my commanding officers felt that way i wonder, they just participated in that war. But i suppose you are right, what do they know.

    We tied up shit, we were barely able to keep equipment going around to preserve it from destruction, all fixed sites we had were demolished. We shot 2 manned targets in 78 days. Ratio, right.

    Same as Russia vs Georgia ... 1 Tu-22M (i.e F-117 for US) and some fighters Su-27/25 (i.e Mirage 2000 and f-16 + drones for the coalition) Big armies won, the little one can't do anything.

    During 1999. they in direct combat lost only F-117 and one F-16. And number of UAVs. We preserved what we could, harrased as much as we could to interrupt raids, thats about that.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 5294
    Points : 5268
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:49 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:I have to mention that the Serbian air defence during the NATO raids was quite successful.


    They had inferior equipment and was  against extreme overwhelming power, but even with that they tied up third of the nato airforces.

    Just for reference, during the first gulf war this ratio was 6%.

    So, the well trained personnel is the key for any system.


    Without "stealth" planes the nato should have next to 0 chance to penetrate any modern air defence system.

    From the other side, the current nato air defence system is not capable to give protection against any low observation aircraft.



    We were successful? How comes none of my commanding officers felt that way i wonder, they just participated in that war. But i suppose you are right, what do they know.

    We tied up shit, we were barely able to keep equipment going around to preserve it from destruction, all fixed sites we had were demolished. We shot 2 manned targets in 78 days. Ratio, right.

    well, Serbia like the other states of former Yugoslavia relied on each other for a proper iads. Once the union split, so did the capabilities of each region. If it was a US vs Yugoslavia scenario, we would be having a different discussion. But since that isn't the case, oh well. And even in the war, US managed to destroy little in terms of troops and overall equipment. They were better at killing civilians or having their missiles steer off course.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 8260
    Points : 8405
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  kvs on Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:22 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    GarryB wrote:High frequency radar can. MMW radar can determine if an armoured vehicle has a turret or tracks... how could it do that without seeing the shape of the target?

    I remember in the 1980s the US boasting their AEGIS class cruisers could identify an aircraft by counting its turbine blades in its engines... of course they shut up about that when they shot down an Iranian airbus mistaking it for an F-14.

    The piece you copy and pasted was talking about long wave radar frequencies and about how the shaping of a small aircraft like an F-35 is not relevant to such long waves that cannot detect such small shape features.

    An X band or Ku band radar can see shape and that is why shaping the aircraft is effective in reducing the detection range of said radar.



    If someone is interested in a more serious approach to the thing, i have provided a link in mine previous intervention to a full pubblication.

    I reproduce here for convenience  Wink

    http://radar.dinos.net/


    If someone is interested in knowing how much water hold the asssertions of our friend Militarov ...sadly parroting the low level phantasious garbage circulating on those subjects present in public media....on the average RCS of B-2 bomber : " Mmm.... no, B-2 has very extensive RCS reduction in all lobes, its doubtful there is any significant difference if you are radiating aganist it from front or sides" you can go directly at the page 264 281 and take note of average and median RCS merely from 0 to 20 and 20 to 40 degrees radar illumination even only for wave lenght of 10 cm  Wink

    Exist obviously works also more advanced and recent than this one, of classified or proprietary nature, which bring back a picture of the overall scattering field of those "VLO object" even more distant from the comical figures usually circulating about them.

    Fact is simply that the technology - both in its theoretical and application side -for the management of the EM redirecting cones toward a point outside a scattering body exist and saw the light in the today Federation's Institutes more than 50 years ago; it can surely provide a noticeable tactical advantage if applied correctly and against opponents lacking the scientifical know-how and the necessary counter-systems and is therefore extensively pursued by nations in search of military projection ability over minor regional players in reason of the fact that the last will see a marked decraese of theirs ability to defend themselves from air aggression.

    In general today an equilibrated integration of some of those sacttering managing features in a design incorporating solutions assuring increased performances in far more important and decisive metrics give the better result.

    The technology do NOT involve RCS figures at the radiating point, neither boasted capabilities, even only by far near to the ridiculous fairy tales usually circulating on it in the public area or among scarcely informed PR agents - both aware or not aware of that, including people on uniforms.      





    Thank you for the link. This is a very nice book and demonstrates that the cross section is the key parameter. The other important
    parameter is the overall size of the object.

    The T-50 must have the smallest RCS from the sides of all aircraft on the planet.
    avatar
    Austin

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

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Austin on Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:38 am

    what does it say in Russian language for B-2 , I see they are using wavelength from 10cm to 30 cm but not really sure what does it say about B-2 RCS

    Can any one post synopsis , Thanks
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 27363
    Points : 27895
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:24 am

    During 1999. they in direct combat lost only F-117 and one F-16. And number of UAVs. We preserved what we could, harrased as much as we could to interrupt raids, thats about that.


    The worlds only superpower and its lynch mob of elites... the best of the best of former colonial nations that raped and pillaged the known world for several centuries had complete control of the skies over Kosovo and Serbia for more than two months and with all their super high tech uber machines they managed diddly squat against a tiny force of dedicated professionals who did a job I rather doubt any NATO force would front up and take on if they were in such a position.

    In terms of performance and tactics they should be writing the book on how David should deal with Goliath... they just needed better stones and bigger slings.

    This strategic bomber, and operational-tactical missile bomber, even a long-range interceptor and a possible platform for spacecraft launches, "

    So clearly the PAK DA is to be a strategic bomber replacement (ie Tu-95), a theatre bomber replacement (ie Tu-22M3)... a long range interceptor!!! (Tu-160P type heavy interceptor) and a platform for launching spacecraft.... (if it is subsonic then it must be able to carry a large payload to altitude to be worth it...).

    It says the PAK DA will replace the Tu-160 based on cost but I suspect the Blackjack will offer a few features that compliment a subsonic flying wing to make it still useful to use both.

    Some capacity for super cruising to increase range and reduce fuel burn would go a long way to reducing operational costs, and newer systems with self testing and smart logistics could also reduce maintainence bills.

    I would suspect the interceptor and space launcher versions would be better based on the faster Tu-160s than the PAK DA... but the strategic and theatre bomber models would be most efficient in subsonic low cost bomber designs. IMHO.


    Last edited by GarryB on Sat Feb 25, 2017 3:10 am; edited 1 time in total

    Sponsored content

    Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 23 Empty Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:53 pm