Military Review

The National Interest: how Russia or China will be able to crush the American F-35 and F-22

166
The appearance of the so-called. Stealth technology at the time allowed developed countries to gain a certain advantage over the enemy in various fields. However, superiority in this area did not last too long. The appearance of a call in the face of subtle technology led to the beginning of work on the creation of promising means of countering it. The problem of detecting stealth aircraft or other military equipment is currently of interest to both their manufacturers and operators, as well as other countries that are at risk of being attacked using such machines.


20 February, The National Interest, in The Buzz, published a new article written by Dave Majumdar entitled “Stealth-Killer: F-35 or F-22 Raptor” (“Killer“ stealth ”: like Russia or China will be able to crush the American F-35 and F-22 ”). As is clear from the title, the subject of the article was the problem of combating modern aircraft built using stealth technology. The topic of detecting such a technique was considered in more detail. It should be noted that for the first time this material was published about a year ago. In connection with the heightened interest of readers in the subject, the editors of the American edition found it necessary to post it again.

D. Majumdar begins his article with an obvious thesis: the large size of the missile warhead reduces the required accuracy of hitting the target. As an example in favor of such a theory, he cites a rocket of the obsolete Soviet complex C-75 (NATO code SA-2 Guideline). Such a missile carried a high-explosive fragmentation warhead weighing 440 pounds (200 kg) capable of hitting a target up to 100 feet (30 m). Using Mike Pietruci's theory, the American author suggests that when using radar pulses of 20 microseconds duration, the moment of undermining of the warhead must be determined with an accuracy of up to 150 feet in range (45 m).

The National Interest: how Russia or China will be able to crush the American F-35 and F-22


The azimuth and altitude accuracy should be determined with a resolution of up to 20 angular minutes on nautical miles 30. It is required to remember that ground-based radars are the only means of controlling and pointing a missile. D. Majumdar notes that a rocket with C-75 characteristics and having its own target sensor, for example, an infrared one, capable of scanning space around 1 cubic km, will be particularly dangerous for aircraft, including the newest F-22 and F- 35.

The author recalls that the Pentagon has already managed to spend on the development of the newest fifth-generation fighters Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II, differing in low visibility for various means of detection, about 10 billions of dollars. However, relatively simple means can be used to effectively deal with such machines. To obtain such results, it is necessary to improve the means of signal processing from the radar complexes. In addition, you need to equip the rocket with a heavy warhead and its own guidance systems. Radar facilities using low-frequency signals can be an additional tool for solving existing problems.

It is known that the American command and defense industry are aware of the main features of low-frequency radar stations. Systems operating in the ultrashort or decimeter wavelengths are capable of detecting and tracking inconspicuous aircraft. At the same time, there is a characteristic problem: such radio equipment cannot fully solve the tasks of guidance weapons. This does not allow to use all the available potential in air defense, however, there are some “loopholes”.

The use of guided weapons with low-frequency radars is limited by two main factors. The first is the radar beam width. The second is the duration of the impulse. These restrictions may have the greatest impact on the operation of systems, however, with the correct processing of radio signals, both factors are leveled.

The width of the beam is directly dependent on the size of the radar antenna. The use of low-frequency waves, in turn, causes designers to increase the size of the antennas. D. Majumdar recalls some of the early Soviet VHF locators. Thus, the Lena П-14 system had a large parabolic antenna of enormous size. The newer Terek П-18 complex received the Yagi-Uda antenna or “wave channel”, which made it possible to reduce the size and weight to a certain extent. Both of these stations had noticeable limitations in determining the direction to the target and the distance to it. In addition, the beam with a width of several degrees in azimuth and tens of degrees in elevation did not allow to determine the height of the air target.

Another characteristic problem of UHF and UHF stations is related to the duration of the emitted pulse. The long duration of the pulse does not allow increasing its repetition frequency, which, in turn, impairs the ability to accurately determine the coordinates of the target. A former officer of the United States Air Force, Mike Pietrucha, previously engaged in radio-electronic systems, describes this situation as follows. An 20 microsecond pulse has a length of about 19600 feet (5974 m). The station resolution turns out to be two less than this distance. Thus, a radar with such a long pulse is not able to determine the coordinates of the target with an accuracy of more than 10000 feet. In addition, the opportunity to distinguish two different objects at a short distance from each other is lost.

The problem of accurate determination of the distance to the target was solved in the seventies with the help of appropriate data processing algorithms. The key to its solution was frequency modulation, which allowed the pulse to be compressed. With these methods, a pulse of 20 microseconds duration is only 180 feet long (less than 55 m). There are other methods of pulse compression, such as phase shift keying. According to M. Pietruch, such technologies have been known to the military and industry for several decades. Back in the eighties of the last century, American officers dealing with electronic warfare problems, carefully studied such problems. He also noted that to solve the existing problems a computer with an extremely small, by modern standards, performance is required.

The problem of determining the direction to the target was successfully solved by designers using phased antenna arrays. The presence of an array of individual emitters or receivers made it possible to abandon traditional parabolic mirrors. In addition, reminds D. Majumdar, phased arrays have certain advantages over traditional designs. HEADLIGHT can control the direction of its rays, which is why it does not need mechanical drives for scanning in different planes. In addition, the beam is controlled exclusively by means of electronics, making it possible to form a multitude of rays with the required parameters. The radar can control beam width, sweep speed and other characteristics.

The computing power needed to solve such problems was available to the military and industry as early as the late seventies. One of the most notable results of this was the equipping of Ticonderoga-type missile cruisers and Arleigh Burke class destroyers with the Aegis combat information control system, which includes high-performance radar with PAR. Further development of technologies led to the emergence of active phased antenna arrays, differing from their predecessors by enhanced characteristics, first of all, by greater accuracy in determining the coordinates of the detected object.

The author of The National Interest reminds that the large size and the corresponding power of an anti-aircraft missile warhead allow to a certain extent to compensate for the accuracy of the guidance. In confirmation, he again gives an example of the Soviet-designed C-75 anti-aircraft complex. Having a 200-kg high-explosive fragmentation warhead, the missile of this complex represents a great danger to various aircraft. With the use of modern radar systems, which emit a pulse of 20 microseconds in duration and allow obtaining a range resolution of up to 150 feet, such a rocket can in time receive a command to explode the warhead and effectively hit the target.

The azimuth and elevation resolution for obtaining the required characteristics should be at the 20 'level with a range of 30 nautical miles (55,56 km). However, this applies only to the C-75 missile, which uses third-party tools for guidance - ground tracking radar and a radio command system. An alternative to this would be to equip an anti-aircraft missile with its own target detection means and a non-contact fuse. With the possibility of tracking a large space around a rocket - again reminds D. Majumdar - can pose a threat even to modern F-22 or F-35 fighters.

***

From the moment of the appearance of preliminary developments on the topic of so-called stealth technologies that reduce the likelihood of detecting strike aircraft or solve other problems of this kind, scientists and designers began to look for ways to counter them. Timely detection of flying aviation allows you to take action and, at a minimum, reduce damage from a blow. The existence of several production aircraft with reduced visibility and the development of new such models make the creation of countermeasures a priority.

As Dave Majumdar writes, a few decades ago, the leading countries had some groundwork that made it possible in one way or another to level the advantages of low-profile aircraft. The progress of recent years, in turn, gives new opportunities in this matter. As a consequence, the creation of radar systems capable of detecting stealth aircraft has long been no longer a task that has no solution in principle. At the same time, the development of such stations can hardly be considered a fairly simple matter.

D. Majumdar and M. Pietrucha, examining the theoretical aspects of the struggle with unobtrusive aircraft, show the need for an integrated approach to this issue. In order to effectively accomplish the objectives, it is necessary to take measures aimed at the timely detection of the target, as well as to modify the means of destruction accordingly. The ideal system for dealing with stealth aircraft in this case is the anti-aircraft complex, which has a modern, advanced surveillance radar with the necessary signal processing algorithms, as well as missiles with powerful warheads.

The article "The National Interest", for obvious reasons, covers only the theoretical issues of the struggle with unobtrusive aircraft, the article "Stealth-Killer: How Russia or China Could Crush America's F-35 or F-22 Raptor". Nevertheless, it contains very interesting thoughts and facts that shed light on the actual problem. In addition, it shows that, to date, stealth technology has ceased to be a universal means of countering air defense, guaranteeing the implementation of combat missions. Ways of dealing with them have already been found, and perhaps even brought to practical use. The traditional "race of sword and shield" continues.


The Stealth-Killer F-35 or F-22 Raptor article:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/stealth-killer-how-russia-or-china-could-crush-americas-f-35-19511
Author:
166 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mystery12345
    Mystery12345 28 February 2017 06: 08
    +6
    it must be remembered that D. Majumdar, a journalist of the American publication, in itself implies a certain bias, which this gentleman has noted more than once.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 28 February 2017 06: 32
      +9
      Quote: Mystery12345
      it must be remembered that D. Majumdar, a journalist of the American publication, in itself implies a certain bias, which this gentleman has noted more than once.

      Journalist, and at the same time technically illiterate! What is the point of contrasting the 5 generation fighter with the C-75 anti-aircraft system, the first modification of which appeared at the end of the 50?
      1. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 28 February 2017 06: 47
        +9
        Quote: Bongo
        Quote: Mystery12345
        it must be remembered that D. Majumdar, a journalist of the American publication, in itself implies a certain bias, which this gentleman has noted more than once.

        Journalist, and at the same time technically illiterate! What is the point of contrasting the 5 generation fighter with the C-75 anti-aircraft system, the first modification of which appeared at the end of the 50?

        His task is to fill in the column. And he didn’t even invent the garbage that he writes.
      2. Titsen
        Titsen 28 February 2017 06: 54
        +3
        Quote: Bongo
        What is the point of contrasting the 5th generation fighter with the S-75 anti-aircraft complex, the first modification of which appeared in the late 50s?


        Yes, because they are still full and banana republics!
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 28 February 2017 07: 06
          +7
          Quote: Titsen
          Yes, because they are still full and banana republics!

          Certainly, it will not be difficult for you to list all the “banana republics", where the S-75 air defense systems are still in working condition?
          1. andj61
            andj61 28 February 2017 08: 46
            +4
            Quote: Bongo
            Quote: Titsen
            Yes, because they are still full and banana republics!

            Certainly, it will not be difficult for you to list all the “banana republics", where the S-75 air defense systems are still in working condition?

            Of the reliable ones, except in Kyrgyzstan (but bananas do not seem to grow there), it’s doubtful ... The air defense system requires very careful care, and the training of specialists for its operation should be at a very high level. So in the "banana" republics, without our specialists, this technique quickly deteriorated. Yes, and they are out of date almost forever. Still, 60 years have passed since the adoption.
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 28 February 2017 09: 46
              +6
              Quote: andj61
              Of the reliable ones, except in Kyrgyzstan (but bananas do not seem to grow there), it’s doubtful ... The air defense system requires very careful care, and the training of specialists for its operation should be at a very high level. So in the "banana" republics, without our specialists, this technique quickly deteriorated. Yes, and they are out of date almost forever. Still, 60 years have passed since the adoption.

              Workable C-75М2 / 3 except Kyrgyzstan are also available in Kazakhstan, Romania, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Vietnam. But all of them are at the limit of their operational resource and will be decommissioned in the near future. The Chinese clones C-75 - HQ-2 are much better. They are in addition to the PLA air defense in Iran and Pakistan. But in any case, these systems are outdated and can not even withstand 4-generation aircraft covered by electronic warfare stations.
              1. KKND
                KKND 28 February 2017 19: 37
                +1
                Let me remind you that in the Desert Storm C-75, the F-15E was shot down, which, according to some experts, belongs to 4+ generation aircraft.
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 28 February 2017 09: 49
              +3
              Quote: andj61
              Of reliably workable ones - perhaps in Kyrgyzstan (but there it seems like bananas do not grow

              In Cuba they are growing.
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 28 February 2017 10: 26
                +4
                Quote: Spade
                In Cuba they are growing.

                In working order in the 2015 year there were two divisions.
                Quote: Spade
                Only C-75?

                Well, the article is about C-75 ... request All modifications of this complex are examined naturally. By the way, the first 10-cm version was designated as CA-75.
                Quote: Spade
                Or later upgrades are also possible? For example, Cuban, Chinese, Iranian ...

                The transfer in Cuba of one S-75М3 submarine on the chassis of the T-55 tank does not mean an improvement in the combat characteristics of the complex. With fueled missiles, it is not possible to make marching throws.
                In China, and partly in Iran, on the basis of the Chinese HQ-2, its own developments were indeed underway, but the capabilities of a bulky liquid rocket were exhausted in the USSR.
                Quote: Spade
                By the way, “Almaz-Antey” was also honored, he showed “Volga-2А” on MAX-2001

                So how much water has since leaked? And there were no customers for this option.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 28 February 2017 10: 36
                  +3
                  Quote: Bongo
                  Well, the article is about C-75 ...

                  Not really. As I understand it, he is rather talking about the fundamental possibility of compensating for the relatively low accuracy associated with the use of low-visibility technologies by increasing the ability to hit a target due to a powerful warhead. Taking as an example the warhead S-75.

                  And frankly, his conclusions are very reasonable.
                  1. Bongo
                    Bongo 28 February 2017 10: 46
                    +4
                    Quote: Spade
                    Using the C-75 warhead as an example.

                    You know, I am quite poorly versed in artillery or in armored vehicles. But as regards air defense systems and partly aviation, I can argue here. Answer such a question, with what fright, as an example of a threat to fighters of the 5 generation, is an ancient single-channel air defense system with radio command guidance of SAMs? Moreover, the target is accompanied by an operator manually. belay
                    As you know, the radio command method is good because it allows you to save on the cost of the hardware of the complex and SAM. But it has a number of significant drawbacks. For example, missile guidance channels are very vulnerable to interference. In addition, in proportion to the range of the radio command missile, the pointing error increases.
                    By the way, the first SAM for the S-300PT was also a radio command, for this reason the range of destruction of air targets was a little more than 40 km.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 28 February 2017 11: 05
                      +5
                      Quote: Bongo
                      Answer this question, with what fright, as an example of a threat to fifth-generation fighters, is an ancient air defense system with radio command guidance of missiles?

                      Due to its giant warhead in modern times. 8))) In conditions when accuracy was elevated to the rank of a cult, when kinetic interceptor missiles begin to be used, requiring direct hit in fairly complex targets, such warheads look like an anachronism.

                      However, it turns out that measures to reduce the radio detectability of aircraft are most effective only when the enemy plays according to general rules, putting accuracy at the forefront.
                      If he acts on the principle of "... Alyosha, sprinkle him with chalk and give me my mace," everything does not look so rosy.

                      It’s like in artillery, if you have the exact coordinates of the target, you can gently wrap it with one shell. If the coordinates are determined approximately, the good old HE shells without any bells and whistles and shooting at an area with a good expense. It is not so elegant, but just as effective. laughing

                      And the S-75 is like that, just an example ...
                      1. Bongo
                        Bongo 28 February 2017 13: 14
                        +6
                        Quote: Spade
                        Due to its giant warhead in modern times. 8))) In conditions when accuracy was elevated to the rank of a cult, when kinetic interceptor missiles begin to be used, requiring direct hit in fairly complex targets, such warheads look like an anachronism.

                        Not a single Russian medium or long-range anti-aircraft missile is designed for a direct hit. No. And if you think that the mass of S-300P and S-400 warheads used in air defense systems is very different from the S-75 warheads, then you are very mistaken. And this is not like in artillery ... No.
                    2. Parsec
                      Parsec 28 February 2017 12: 23
                      0
                      Quote: Bongo
                      But as regards air defense systems and partly aviation, I can argue here.

                      Quote: Bongo
                      Ancient SAM with radio command guidance missiles? What does the rocket, the operator manually guides it.

                      The bottom of illiteracy.
                      So the spirits tell the young how they steer a rocket and bang! hit.
                      1. Bongo
                        Bongo 28 February 2017 13: 22
                        +5
                        Quote: Parsec
                        The bottom of illiteracy.
                        So the spirits tell the young how they steer a rocket and bang! hit.

                        I don’t know what you told the spirits there ... No. But tell me the “grams”, for what is this “helm” on the CHP-75? Is it not for manual tracking in angle, range and azimuth? Or am I wrong?
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 28 February 2017 13: 22
                        0
                        Radio command guidance does not necessarily involve direct control of the missile by the operator.
          2. Lopatov
            Lopatov 28 February 2017 09: 47
            +2
            Only exactly S-75? Or later upgrades are also possible? For example, Cuban, Chinese, Iranian ...

            By the way, “Almaz-Antey” was also honored, he showed “Volga-2А” on MAX-2001
          3. sivuch
            sivuch 28 February 2017 11: 11
            +4
            C'mon. It’s just that there are no Raptors with Penguins
        2. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 28 February 2017 07: 23
          +6
          Quote: Titsen
          Yes, because they are still full and banana republics!

          Very rash statement, and starting on this occasion in a discussion with Sergei (Bongo) you embarked on a slippery slope.No.
          Quote: Bongo
          Of course, it will not make it difficult for you to list all the "banana republics", where the C-75 air defense systems remained in working condition?

          After all, you specifically asked such a provocative question, because you know the answer in advance and you are sure that you are right! tongue
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 28 February 2017 07: 28
            +3
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            After all, you specifically asked such a provocative question, because you know the answer in advance and you are sure that you are right!

            Well, if a person claims this, then he’s probably responsible for his words, right? request
      3. NEXUS
        NEXUS 28 February 2017 10: 47
        +8
        Quote: Bongo
        Journalist, and at the same time technically illiterate! What is the point of contrasting the 5 generation fighter with the C-75 anti-aircraft system, the first modification of which appeared at the end of the 50?

        Serega, welcome! drinks
        It must be understood that this mattress expert writes, let’s say, on order, in order to create the illusion of some greater advantage than it actually is. Our Sivkov is doing the same thing. Sorry, reading the articles of these authors, it seems that they are measured as small children by the reproductive organs. Therefore, no one takes these authors seriously for a long time.
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 28 February 2017 13: 24
          +6
          Quote: NEXUS
          Serega, welcome!

          Hi Andrew! drinks
          Quote: NEXUS
          It must be understood that this mattress expert writes, let’s say, on order, in order to create the illusion of some greater advantage than it actually is. Our Sivkov is doing the same thing. Sorry, reading the articles of these authors, it seems that they are measured as small children by the reproductive organs. Therefore, no one takes these authors seriously for a long time.

          It's a shame that they publish such crap on VO! negative
      4. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 28 February 2017 11: 09
        +4
        Quote: Bongo
        Quote: Mystery12345
        it must be remembered that D. Majumdar, a journalist of the American publication, in itself implies a certain bias, which this gentleman has noted more than once.

        Journalist, and at the same time technically illiterate! What is the point of contrasting the 5 generation fighter with the C-75 anti-aircraft system, the first modification of which appeared at the end of the 50?

        Yes, the point is not in C-75 and not in its “prescription”! Majumdar "sizes" warheads like it!
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 28 February 2017 13: 29
          +5
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          Yes, the point is not in C-75 and not in its “prescription”! Majumdar "sizes" warheads like it!

          Then it was necessary to be equal to the S-200 missiles, there are even larger “warheads” with ready-made slaughter elements (balls).
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 28 February 2017 14: 13
            +4
            Quote: Bongo
            Then it was necessary to be equal to the S-200 missiles, there are even larger “warheads” with ready-made slaughter elements (balls).

            Well, at first he turned up "by the arm" (infa), then he used it! wink
      5. vanek77
        vanek77 28 February 2017 14: 10
        +5
        The article is generally one-sided. Suffice it to say that a fifth-generation modern fighter is not only a stealth, but also good electronic warfare, an weapon for breaking through enemy air defense. And no one will send such fighters on the move, they will go after a couple of thousand drones and axes and modern high-speed cruise missiles. Everything is much more serious. We have enough modern means of air defense, only to cover Moscow and a couple more places. There is a huge gap in the north direction, and the MiG-31 (MiG-31BM) long-range interception systems, we have a little more than a hundred units, and now they are trying to block all directions, but this is a drop in the bucket. All our other fighters can fight only at medium and short distances and are very expensive to operate, chaotic actions to bring the MiG-35 fighter into operation as soon as possible, confirmation of this. And most importantly, you did not write Cyril that all weapons cost a lot of money. This is where the big problems begin. Twenty two trillion money spent, but the results are disappointing. The continuation of the tests of our fifth generation (fighters) depends on the money of the Hindus (if they do not, then the T-50 will be sent to the PAK DP in the next armament program). One must really look at things. But it’s good that the leadership still managed to step on the throat of its own pride and launch the program of light fighters of the MiG line of the fourth and fifth generation, which was supposed to be done ten years ago. But here, too, there is a huge need for foreign grandmothers. The mistake was laid down in the military doctrine, where the concept of "probable adversary" was blurred, because he was listed among our partners. Therefore, at the moment we do not have layered defense in the air and on land, the surface fleet of the distant sea zone is on the verge of extinction, and we are pressed to our shores. This is what we need to write about if we are aware of this, that is, a chance to catch up. But the defense industry is selling out and it does not inspire good thoughts.
  2. tchoni
    tchoni 28 February 2017 08: 02
    +2
    And also, the respected American Indian forgot to mention that for some air defense systems it is possible to equip a special warhead missile. Which gives a radius of destruction of more than two km. But this is a word.
    The bottom line is that fifth-generation American fighters are already flying in an amount of about 400 bt. Yes, not all of them are combat-ready, but nevertheless this is a serious force (for comparison, the Russian Air Force does not gain 4 ++ and hundreds of aircraft) and it’s stupid not to reckon with this force. It is clear that Voronezh-type radars solve the problem of detecting such aircraft, but I doubt very much that the radars of ordinary building 300 complexes have firing channels in dm and meter ranges. In addition, these ranges are quite sensitive to the influence of the underlying surface and are unlikely to give good detection ranges for low-altitude targets.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 28 February 2017 08: 12
      +5
      Quote: tchoni
      It is clear that Voronezh-type radars solve the problem of detecting such aircraft

      Excuse me, you want to say that the radar SPRN family "Voronezh" are an effective means of detecting aerodynamic targets? what
      1. andj61
        andj61 28 February 2017 08: 54
        +4
        Quote: Bongo
        Excuse me, you want to say that the radar SPRN family "Voronezh" are an effective means of detecting aerodynamic targets?

        good So these radars are actually completely sharpened for another! SPRN - missile attack warning system ... hi
        1. tchoni
          tchoni 28 February 2017 09: 03
          +1
          Here's a quote from VIKI (you can read it sometimes) 7X6 Voronezh is a Russian high-altitude stationary [2] [3] high-readiness radar station (VZG). Stations of this type are capable of detecting ballistic, space and aerodynamic objects, including ballistic and cruise missiles [4 "and in general the task of such radars as Voronezh is to monitor the air situation as a whole. And, yes, there is a decameter varic of this station because only at dm and m wavelengths it is possible to organize zagrizontnoy location
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 28 February 2017 09: 51
            +7
            Quote: tchoni
            Here's a quote from VIKI (you can read it sometimes) 7X6 Voronezh is a Russian high-altitude stationary [2] [3] high-readiness radar station (VZG). Stations of this type are capable of detecting ballistic, space and aerodynamic objects, including ballistic and cruise missiles [4 "and in general the task of such radars as Voronezh is to monitor the air situation as a whole. And, yes, there is a decameter varic of this station because only at dm and m wavelengths it is possible to organize zagrizontnoy location

            Sorry, but with all due respect, I can’t agree with you. The fact that stations of the Voronezh family can see high-altitude air targets in a certain sector does not mean at all that they are capable of issuing target designation to interceptors and air defense systems or to control air traffic. No. The main purpose of these radars is to detect ballistic missiles in predetermined directions. And the reference to “Vika” is, to put it mildly, incorrect, and among people who know it, it is considered bad form, there very often they write frank stupidity. request
            1. tchoni
              tchoni 28 February 2017 11: 56
              +1
              Actually this is stated in my previous comments. The presence of a radar capable of detecting a target is not a reason to consider this target hit. And you have to refer to the wiki exclusively as a public one (for the lazy, because in the first lines of the search) well. if not a storehouse, then at least a storehouse of information.
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 28 February 2017 13: 34
                +5
                Quote: tchoni
                Actually this is stated in my previous comments. The presence of a radar capable of detecting a target is not a reason to consider this target hit.

                But the radar of the Voronezh family was not designed to detect airborne targets; this is only a pleasant, very limited option.
                Quote: tchoni
                And you have to refer to the wiki exclusively as a public one (for the lazy, because in the first lines of the search) well. if not a storehouse, then at least a storehouse of information.

                "Vika" in a number of articles refers to me, and so what? Does that mean I'm the ultimate truth? No. It's just a collection of unverified information.
  3. jonhr
    jonhr 28 February 2017 09: 11
    +5
    To be honest, I’m already a little tired of the topic of transfusion from empty to empty
    but just take it. stealth + low-altitude breakthrough + electronic warfare and who clearly draws advantage here? naturally in stealth cars
    but for years hat lovers have been proving that the su-35 is superior to the raptor. and not one does not recall that, with equal basic parameters, the Su-35 does not have such a small ESR as that of a raptor, and therefore the raptor is already in one, but receives an undeniable advantage. when the raptors launch rockets, the su-35 will only begin to see it
    1. andj61
      andj61 28 February 2017 09: 24
      +3
      Quote: jonhr
      but for years hat lovers have been proving that the su-35 is superior to the raptor. and not one does not recall that, with equal basic parameters, the Su-35 does not have such a small ESR as that of a raptor, and therefore the raptor is already in one, but receives an undeniable advantage. when the raptors launch rockets, the su-35 will only begin to see it

      In theory, you are absolutely right: with identical radars, the raptor will have an advantage. But in practice ... I don’t know how now and what about the raptors, but here’s no less publicized "stealth" bully F-117, produced in the 80's and then considered the peak of excellence, our radars saw perfectly. Accordingly, he did not have any advantage over our technology, although the Americans loudly declared it as having no analogous world. Therefore, comparisons of technology can only be made precisely knowing all its characteristics.
      1. jonhr
        jonhr 28 February 2017 09: 34
        +3
        and where did you see him perfectly? everyone knows that 117 were shot down with the help of the French OLS, or there is another version that the bomb gate did not close. and stories about the microwave are nothing more than nonsense. microwaves are good for the harmas of early modifications.
        and stealth sees all the radars, but only problems arise both with the capture of the target itself and with its subsequent guidance. stealth is translated as inconspicuous, secretive, but not invisible.
        and on radars, as far as I am aware of the regular raptor or f-35 radar, well, in no way inferior to the su-35 radar
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 28 February 2017 11: 19
          +6
          But the stories about the French OLS are also not necessary. We discovered it using the P-99 Terek radar of the meter range (wavelength -18 meters), quite ancient for 1.7, at a range of about 25 km. Of course, the figure is small, but we must remember that when This radar was created, then no one heard anything about stealths. Yes and the conditions of use were far from ideal. Radars were turned on periodically. And, one must think, not an OLS, but a thermal imager
          1. jonhr
            jonhr 28 February 2017 11: 37
            +1
            I wonder how the target capture was carried out? there’s just such a small nuance. here is an excerpt from the article. as I understand it, you have not read it.
            The newer P-18 Terek complex received an antenna of the Yagi-Uda system or a “wave channel”, which allowed to reduce the size and weight to a certain extent. Both of these stations had noticeable limitations in determining the direction of the target and the distance to it. In addition, a beam several degrees wide in azimuth and tens of degrees in elevation did not allow determining the height of an air target.
            by the way and one more question. even if you periodically turned on the radar. do you really think that you didn’t have time to detect such a colossus and release a harm or determine the exact location? there you can’t curl up in a couple of minutes. and even if you curl up you cannot go far. Did they hide a car with a radar in the bunker?
            1. sivuch
              sivuch 28 February 2017 11: 53
              +4
              I'm sorry, what ? Harm on a meter radar, please tell us in more detail
              1. jonhr
                jonhr 28 February 2017 12: 42
                +1
                I did not say what exactly on the meter. I generally put it. and as I understand it, you are now consciously taking individual words out of context so as not to admit that you have nothing to answer?
                I am aware, for example, that the harm is pointed at the radar with a certain frequency
                1. sivuch
                  sivuch 28 February 2017 14: 31
                  +4
                  Of course, I have nothing to answer to such a specialist.
                  It was specifically about Terek. Its curtailing time was about an hour (uv. Parsec will answer more precisely, I’m reluctant to go deeper into work at work)
                  But to detect and destroy this radar is somewhat more difficult precisely because the RTR stations of tactical aircraft do not look in the meter range.
                  for the S-125, the main problem is to detect a small target.
            2. sivuch
              sivuch 28 February 2017 11: 59
              +8
              And the capture is with the help of the usual SNR-125. She does not need to cut through the entire upper hemisphere. And the nonsense from the article of an Indian student can not be quoted
              1. jonhr
                jonhr 28 February 2017 12: 45
                0
                as I understand it, the CHP-125 cannot capture 117 due to the latter's low ESR. but there is no capture and a rocket means you will not launch. just the engineers made sure that some very successful ones did not accidentally launch all the rockets laughing
                1. sivuch
                  sivuch 28 February 2017 14: 32
                  +4
                  Misunderstand
            3. Parsec
              Parsec 28 February 2017 13: 26
              +3
              Quote: jonhr
              even if you periodically turned on the radar. do you really think that you didn’t have time to detect such a colossus and release a harm or determine the exact location? there you can’t curl up in a couple of minutes. and even if you curl up you cannot go far. Did they hide a car with a radar in the bunker?

              F-117 did not carry HARM. It does not fit into the compartment, and a 4 m long rocket suspended under the wing with a wingspan of one meter completely unmasks any stealth. F-117s were not accompanied by HARM carriers so as not to unmask the stealth group. (Well, isn't it funny?)
              In the bunker is possible, but difficult; in the trench easily.
              1. jonhr
                jonhr 1 March 2017 00: 03
                0
                Yugoslavia unless f-117 bombed what are you here about the inability to carry them a harm?
                1. Parsec
                  Parsec 1 March 2017 01: 19
                  +3
                  Watch the speech. You do not remember and do not really understand what you are arguing about. Here they explain to you on the fingers, and you pout your lips.
                  1. jonhr
                    jonhr 1 March 2017 12: 01
                    0
                    I see you understand very much. you deny yourself through a post
          2. Parsec
            Parsec 28 February 2017 12: 57
            +3
            Quote: sivuch
            And, one must think, not OLS, but a thermal imager

            There was no thermal imager there.
            It was in VO: "According to the American version," one hundred and seventeenth "changed the flight mode, at that moment a surge of pressure formed in front of the air intake grilles, which unmasked the plane." - i.e. it is still about radar detection.
            1. sivuch
              sivuch 28 February 2017 14: 19
              +2
              An opponent wrote about OLS
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 28 February 2017 12: 20
          0
          Quote: jonhr
          and stories about the microwave are nothing more than nonsense. microwaves are good for the harmas of early modifications.

          As far as I heard, microwave ovens are really bikes, they used the radar of decommissioned aircraft.
      2. Bongo
        Bongo 28 February 2017 09: 58
        +5
        Quote: andj61
        F-117, produced in the 80's and then considered the peak of excellence, our radars saw perfectly. Accordingly, he did not have any advantage over our technology, although the Americans loudly declared it as having no analogous world. Therefore, comparisons of technology can only be made precisely knowing all its characteristics.

        He was never the height of perfection ... No. But its detection by stations operating in the centimeter and decimeter ranges was really difficult. They certainly saw him, but at closer distances. And when the enemy interfered, it was impossible to track him down. Meter radars such as the P-14 F-117A were stably detected, but these stations had significant dimensions and, as a result, were limited in mobility. And the scourge of the military P-12 and P-18 was low noise immunity.
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 28 February 2017 11: 25
          +3
          Sergey, the only P-14 Yugovian radar station was annihilated very quickly. As for the interference, as far as I remember, they could be installed by naval Intruders and B-52. Ravens, it seems, did not have these units. Tactical fighters could not interfere with meter radars. By the way, they were usually destroyed by simple Mavericks with TV or TPV heads.
          1. Parsec
            Parsec 28 February 2017 12: 59
            0
            Quote: sivuch
            tactical fighters could not interfere with meter radars at all. By the way, they were usually destroyed by simple Mavericks with TV or TPV heads.

            They arrived in Iraq by helicopter at night and shot ATGMs with a range of 2.5 km.
      3. EternalStranger
        EternalStranger 28 February 2017 11: 09
        +4
        Quote: andj61
        although the Americans loudly declared him as having no equal world.

        First, the Americans kept it secret until the last
        Secondly, about non-analogs, this is definitely not for them. If you know what I mean wassat
  4. Blind111
    Blind111 28 February 2017 10: 16
    +6
    Not tired of publishing translations of the illiterate footcloths of this Indian student? All runet is already polluted by them.
  5. Red_Hamer
    Red_Hamer 28 February 2017 11: 03
    +2
    Oh, again, the Indian Kumar got something in the "National Interest", was that already?
  6. uskrabut
    uskrabut 28 February 2017 11: 29
    +1
    All this is interesting and terribly informative - the author wrote many bukaf! wassat Only it seems to me that if the radar is turned on on the stealth airplane, it will be like a radio beacon - “I don’t want to aim!” And the F-117 was simply devoid of the radar constructively, but the south still shot it down with an old Soviet missile. That’s the end of the tale.
    1. jonhr
      jonhr 28 February 2017 11: 55
      +2
      The score is equal to one randomly shot down stealth-destroyed country.
      really victory air defense impressive
      1. uskrabut
        uskrabut 28 February 2017 12: 05
        +2
        Yugoslavia stupidly betrayed and betrayed her, as it is not bitter, Russia. Resisting the NATO bloc alone for Yugoslavia was not realistic. And the downed F-117 demonstrates the professionalism and determination of the Yugoslav military, honor and glory to them! Not that our former allies who rushed in bulk to join NATO in the hope of a freebie.
        1. jonhr
          jonhr 28 February 2017 12: 48
          +1
          one shot down for the entire conflict precisely indicates that this was an accident. if it were connected with professionalism, then every night they would have shot down several
          1. Parsec
            Parsec 28 February 2017 13: 30
            +2
            Quote: jonhr
            if it were connected with professionalism, then every night they would have shot down several

            The impression that you are fourteen years old. Look at the composition of the air defense of Yugoslavia and the NATO aviation group.
            1. jonhr
              jonhr 28 February 2017 19: 24
              0
              do you have pluralism of opinions in one head? then you yell that the stealth is garbage and it is knocked down by the 60s system. now you are already not satisfied with the air defense of Yugoslavia of the 60s. decide already, otherwise you are rushing between your opinions
        2. Parsec
          Parsec 28 February 2017 13: 31
          +2
          Quote: uskrabut
          Yugoslavia stupidly betrayed and betrayed her, as it is not bitter, Russia.

          The Yugoslavs were offered to renew their anti-aircraft defense strongly before the aggression. The answer is we are going to Europe, who will bomb us there ...
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 28 February 2017 14: 34
        +3
        Another Goblin was damaged about a month later, but got to Aviano a / b. About the degree of damage they write different things, from easy to write-off, but, most importantly, there was a second detection, switching to AC and starting.
    2. KKND
      KKND 28 February 2017 15: 21
      0
      Quote: uskrabut
      Only it seems to me that if the radar is turned on on the stealth airplane, it will be like a radio beacon - “I don’t want to aim!”

      In more detail, please, with which missile can you shoot down the F-22 with the radar on (that is, seeing its radiation), not seeing it with your radar, not seeing it warmly and not seeing it through the “eye”.
  7. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 28 February 2017 11: 53
    +6
    Pancake! With what "fumes" did C-75 begin to procrastinate here? This journalist’s article is an attempt to “answer” to the “previous” article, where he “narrated” how the brave F-22 and F-35 “wet” the F-16 under the cover of powerful radio interference A / F-18 (EW aircraft) that is, “on the face” —actic (“promising” to become not only tactical!) “move” (reception) —massed use of powerful radio interference; and in general, Mandatory Massive use of a variety of electronic warfare systems in order to suppress and successfully overcome the powerful layered multi-level air defense! The author is trying, although somewhat "tongue-tied", to bring to the public the idea that you can try "not by washing, so by skating"! That is: Subtle F-22 / 35 are detected by modern radars at a "reduced" distance. At this distance, it is difficult to detach from interference or to "launch" alternative detection / guidance systems (a little distance, a little time) And the author suggests using "wider" old "radars, for example, in the meter range (they say, they" farther "take" stealth "). But here is the "byad"! "Accuracy" is not enough! And here, in the author’s opinion, anti-aircraft ammunition with a powerful warhead can correct the problem! As an example, he cited C-75 ... he just got the info! Not the essence of C-75! And in powerful SAMs! So, end this flood! PS I tried to understand the author and, as it were, "translate" him. The opinion of the author of the article may not coincide with my personal opinion!
  8. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 28 February 2017 12: 35
    +4
    "As a result, the creation of radar systems capable of detecting stealth aircraft,
    is no longer a problem that has no solution in principle. At the same time, the development of such
    stations can hardly be considered a fairly simple affair. "////

    Key phrase: locators capable of detecting stealth fundamentally MAY be made,
    but making them is NOT easy.
    I completely agree with this conclusion. And I wrote about it. In 10-20 years, such locators will appear.
    In the meantime, you can live.
    1. Parsec
      Parsec 28 February 2017 13: 51
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      I completely agree with this conclusion. And I wrote about it

      You, by and large, do not care what to write about - that about the discovery of stealth, that about flying to Jupiter - you still don’t understand anything.
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 28 February 2017 14: 37
      +2
      Yes, they have long been. Questions on price / quantity / mobility / survivability
  9. Operator
    Operator 28 February 2017 13: 28
    +4
    Stealth aircraft are easily detected by radars of all ranges, ranging from centimeter (aircraft radar) to decameter (over-the-horizon radar).

    Another thing is that for their detection by centimeter and decimeter ranges, a large radiation power is required and, preferably, an AFAR for protection against electronic warfare equipment. To determine the maximum distance of detection of an air target with an EPR of 0,1 sq., It is enough to know the open data on the maximum distance of detection of an air target with an EPR of 1 sq. m, after which divide the last indicator by 1,78.

    For airborne radars of 4 ++ and 5 generations, the maximum distance of detection of an air target with an EPR of 0,1 sq.m is from 50 to 75 km, i.e. It is within the effective range of the use of air-to-air missiles of long-range air combat for ultra-maneuverable targets.

    As for modern ground-based air defense systems of the C-300 / 400 type with centimeter and decimeter range radars, they are equipped with even more powerful emitters and antennas of a larger area, which allows them to detect air targets with ESR 0,1 sq. M at a distance of up to 150 km (within effective range of anti-aircraft missiles for super-maneuverable targets).

    The actual range of use of ground-based air defense systems is limited not by the range of radar detection, but by the radio horizon (which ranges from 20 to 40 km for them), since tactical aircraft fly in low-altitude air defense zones.

    The issue of increasing the stealth detection range by ground-based air defense systems is not decided by switching to the meter range, but by deploying powerful air defense radars aboard UAVs and AWACS aircraft equipped with AFAR.

    The accuracy of the guidance of anti-aircraft missiles of modern S-300 / 400 air defense systems is completely unrelated to the radio range of the air defense systems of the air defense system, since all these missiles are equipped with an active radar seeker of the centimeter range, which provides homing to the target, starting from a distance of 20 km. This indicator determines the acceptable accuracy of missile guidance using radar air defense systems. In reality, the accuracy of guidance is several hundred meters, the accuracy of undermining warhead missiles is measured in meters.

    There are developments of active anti-aircraft missile systems of anti-aircraft missiles with AFM of the millimeter range, pointing at the target’s contour and providing a direct hit of the kinetic warheads in the target accurate to decimeters.

    So fixed meter radars are an obsolete type of armament that will be disabled even at the initial stage of an armed conflict.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 28 February 2017 14: 45
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      So fixed meter radars are an obsolete type of armament that will be disabled even at the initial stage of an armed conflict.

      Well, "on paper" is always "smooth"! And in real life ..... "shake" -maybe, and "see"! And so .... "in passing" .... firstly: radars, for example, in the meter range, can be used not "alone", but together with other (other ranges) radars as part of an echeloned, multi-level air defense (in the absence of "need" "MD-radar may not be used / reserve /). Secondly, for the construction of antenna systems can be applied to" unconventional "solutions such as ......" inflatable "designs. Flexible panels (such as" printed circuit boards "). Deployable by the type of protective "curtains" on store windows, doors ... "disposable" designs .. someone can offer more "exuberant" (that is, scream, "laugh bold ") ideas!
      1. Operator
        Operator 28 February 2017 17: 02
        0
        Inflatable structures of ground-based radar antennas do not expand the radio horizon, which limits the range of ground-based air defense systems in the meter, decimeter and centimeter ranges.

        "Flying" radars with AFAR solve all the problems of ground-based air defense systems.
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 28 February 2017 17: 53
          +2
          Quote: Operator
          Inflatable structures of ground-based radar antennas do not expand the radio horizon,

          And I don’t argue with that! It was about mobility and speed of deployment of bulky antenna systems of a meter range.
          1. Operator
            Operator 28 February 2017 18: 48
            0
            Unfortunately, the speed of deployment of ground-based meter radars is in no way associated with their range limitation.
    2. KKND
      KKND 28 February 2017 17: 58
      0
      The operator seems to me you think correctly, only for the S-300 early modifications, according to my data, the MiG-21 was detected from a distance of about 250 km. And the EPR does not even have 1 sq.m. So your optimism about 0.1 sq.m. for 150 km. it seems to me inappropriate. Also infa slipped that in the US Congress when considering the procurement of F-22, senators were told that the F-22 could fly up to the S-300 (no modification was indicated) up to a distance of 30 km. Maybe advertising No.
      P.S. About radio triangulation was wrong. excuse me hi
      1. Operator
        Operator 28 February 2017 18: 57
        0
        I specifically made a reservation about "C-300 / 400 type air defense systems" plus AFAR, and not early modifications of the C-300.

        In any case, a simple rule is maintained - for a specific SAM, the target detection distance with an EPR of 1 sq.m (such as Rafal or Advanced Super Hornet) is recognized, after which the target detection distance of 1,78 sq.m (of type F is calculated using the 0,1 correction factor) -22).

        Similarly, you can calculate the target detection distance 0,3 sq.m (type F-35).
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 1 March 2017 00: 27
          +1
          To get an ESR of 0.1 - 0.3, you do not even need to smear a special coating. Enough shape glider. Divide by another 100 and fight with this difficult reality, not the EPRs invented by you.
          1. Operator
            Operator 1 March 2017 00: 39
            +1
            Where did you get this sacred knowledge? laughing
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 1 March 2017 12: 37
              +1
              This is TTX. A few years ago, they could be considered
              theoretical (laboratory, untested). But regular exercises in the USA
              "fighters against air defense", on which aircraft attack air defense systems
              from different angles and angles and the teachings "fighter against fighter" did these
              TTX real, checked by real radars (in the tone of the number of S-300 stations, which are US training grounds).
              An EPR, for example, the F-35 turned out BELOW than was stated in the passport specifications, and
              it is approximately equal to the EPR F-22.
              1. Operator
                Operator 1 March 2017 13: 16
                0
                Link to TTX F-35 do not give?
          2. Parsec
            Parsec 1 March 2017 01: 07
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Enough shape glider. Divide by another 100 and fight with this difficult reality, not the EPR you invented.

            Why not divide by 1000?
    3. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 1 March 2017 05: 50
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      So fixed meter radars are an obsolete type of armament that will be disabled even at the initial stage of an armed conflict.

      Meter range benefits:

      The phase shifters connected to the transceiver modules automatically change the shape of the antenna pattern for transmitting and receiving in the elevation plane from a narrow barrier beam with a maximum energy concentration in the region of small elevation angles to a wide-angle diagram, depending on the task
      - higher detection and measurement coordinates of modern and perspective airborne objects (AT) due to the greater effective reflective surface of targets, especially small and inconspicuous objects;

      - weak fluctuations in the level of signals reflected from the targets due to the small irregularity of the radiation pattern of secondary re-radiation (especially at courses close to radial), which ensures stable detection and tracking of HE;

      - low intensity of reflections from hydrometeorological formation, which virtually eliminates the dependence of the radar characteristics on weather conditions;

      - reduced closing angles in wooded areas;

      - the difficulties of creating anti-radar shells, jamming devices and the implementation of stealth technologies determine the widespread use of the meter wavelength radar as a means of information support for air defense and civil aviation. The main quality of such radars is the reliable detection of long-range objects of various classes, including small ones, as well as the stable tracking of detected targets in a difficult meteorological environment.

      Digital control of the spatial position of the antenna pattern eliminates the need to change the angular position of the speaker web in the vertical plane. Such a technical solution provides the detection of not only aerodynamic HE flying at altitudes not exceeding 30 000 m, but also ballistic, which in flight can reach heights of up to 150 km
      In the meter range, the Nizhny Novgorod Research Institute of Radio Engineering has developed a number of unique radars, many of which are world record holders. Among them are the ground-based two-coordinate standby radar of the standby mode 1Л119 (code "Sky-VCA").
      More details: http://www.vko.ru/oruzhie/pervaya-v-mire-mobilnay
      a-rls-metrovogo-diapazona
      1. Operator
        Operator 1 March 2017 12: 03
        0
        All these advantages of the meter range radars are leveled by the radio horizon of ground-based radars.
  10. Parsec
    Parsec 28 February 2017 13: 48
    +1
    Bongo,
    Quote: Bongo
    But tell me the “grams”, for what is this “helm” on the CHP-75? Is it not for manual tracking in angle, range and azimuth? Or am I wrong?

    Gramati like you write “manually” as “manually”, and they believe that missiles can be manually controlled.
    Two helmsmen are designed to control the antenna post in elevation and azimuth, the third - range strobe control. They are also used for manual tracking of the target in the PC mode "Manual tracking".
    You have no idea about the operation of the air defense missile system, but rush to argue, hence the blunders about the manual control of the medium-range SAM missile. Do not feel the difference between "Manual tracking in the corners" and "Manual control of the rocket", see above.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 28 February 2017 14: 43
      +4
      Quote: Parsec
      You have no idea about the operation of the air defense missile system, but rush to argue, hence the blunders about the manual control of the medium-range SAM missile. Do not feel the difference between "Manual tracking in the corners" and "Manual control of the rocket", see above.

      Of course, Seryozha gave up a significant part of his life to the air defense forces and is the author of more than 200 articles, including this one:
      https://topwar.ru/90322-zrk-s-75-v-xxi-veke.html
      The S-75 ADMS in the 21 century. Nothing in the air defense does not understand.
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 28 February 2017 14: 51
        +2
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        Of course, Seryozha who devoted a significant part of his life to the air defense forces and is the author of more than 200 articles, including this one

        Hi Olga! Do not pay attention, this is an ordinary Troll, which is special in any topics. yesterday I crossed with him, I no longer answer him.
        It makes no sense to communicate with a person who draws his knowledge at best from Wiki love
        1. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 28 February 2017 15: 00
          +3
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          Hi Olga! Do not pay attention, this is an ordinary Troll, which is special in any topics. yesterday I crossed with him, I no longer answer him.

          Hi Sasha! Yes, God bless him, although of course Seryozha almost never found the old complexes, and may not know something. request
          Something you really become rarely "on the air" appear?
          1. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 28 February 2017 15: 01
            +2
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            Something you really become rarely "on the air" appear?

            There was a lot of work, three days later back to work recourse
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 28 February 2017 15: 15
              +2
              Quote: Alexander Romanov
              There was a lot of work, three days later back to work

              Hi Sanya! Olga is already in the cut. It is unclear whether our Internet is buggy, or the site is junking again. Comments are not sent. sad Not bad you work, every three days to work. good
        2. Parsec
          Parsec 28 February 2017 15: 08
          0
          What was your nickname when we crossed?
      2. Parsec
        Parsec 28 February 2017 15: 03
        +3
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        Of course, Seryozha, who devoted a significant part of his life to the air defense forces and is the author of more than 200 articles,

        I look here the scrap criterion has become apparent - the number of articles. Although there were signals - a person who distinguishes the radiation pattern from the receiver, cited as an argument "I have an article on this topic in VO."
        I did not consider Serezha an article, but he blurted out stupidity at the level of absolute ignorance, and instead of admitting stupidity and getting better, he decided to check his opponent for knowledge, writer.
        With the development of the Internet and the presence of Ctrl + C Ctrl + V, the number of articles is an unreliable indicator.
  11. the47th
    the47th 28 February 2017 13: 52
    +2
    All articles about foreign weapons in NI have one essence: "We need more gold, My lord!"
  12. Lopatov
    Lopatov 28 February 2017 14: 37
    0
    Quote: Bongo
    Not a single Russian medium or long-range anti-aircraft missile is designed for direct hit

    How much do I, a non-specialist, know, not only Russia is developing and producing air defense systems, or am I still mistaken?

    Quote: Bongo
    And if you think that the mass of warheads for the S-300P and S-400 missiles is very different from the warheads for the S-75, then you are very mistaken. AND

    Oh, what am I talking about ???
    Yet it turns out exactly as in artillery, right? Low accuracy is compensated by a powerful warhead.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 28 February 2017 14: 52
      +2
      Quote: Spade
      How much do I, a non-specialist, know, not only Russia is developing and producing air defense systems, or am I still mistaken?

      American and European missiles used to combat aerodynamic targets also have powerful warheads and proximity fuses.
      Quote: Spade
      Oh, what am I talking about ???
      Yet it turns out exactly as in artillery, right? Low accuracy is compensated by a powerful warhead.

      The accuracy of pointing modern missiles with a semi-active and active seeker is several times higher, but a powerful warhead has not bothered anyone. But for some reason, the author decided to look up to the obviously outdated S-75 air defense system.
    2. KKND
      KKND 28 February 2017 15: 10
      0
      Quote: Spade
      Yet it turns out exactly as in artillery, right? Low accuracy is compensated by a powerful warhead.

      Not special in artillery and air defense, but it is strange that Bongo does not want to answer simple questions and this gives the right to doubt his level of competence.
      Indeed, radars detect a target only with approximate accuracy, and therefore the rocket tries to explode with the maximum damaging effect. To do this, they give her a powerful warhead.
      But the article does not understand what the accuracy of target detection with low ESR is. After all, the stealth tries to absorb or direct as much of the radar radiation energy as possible from the receiving antenna. If too little energy is reflected on the antenna reflected from the stealth, then naturally it does not see the stealth. Once the stealth flies closer, it will see it and determine the coordinates with accuracy as for a normal non-stealth object. Correct if I am wrong.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 28 February 2017 16: 14
        +3
        "It’s worth the stealth to fly closer, it will see it and determine the coordinates with
        accuracy as for the usual non-stealth object "////

        But stealth something, not Winnie the Pooh. He also shoots, and with the maximum
        possible distance.
        1. KKND
          KKND 28 February 2017 18: 05
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          But stealth something, not Winnie the Pooh. He also shoots, and with the maximum
          possible distance.

          Yes, yes, stealth was discovered and he was such a bang-bang in response. He is not Winnie the Pooh.
      2. Bongo
        Bongo 1 March 2017 09: 43
        +2
        Quote: KKND
        Not special in artillery and air defense, but it is strange that Bongo does not want to answer simple questions and this gives the right to doubt his level of competence.

        You can doubt anything, but you did not ask a single intelligible question. fool
  13. Parsec
    Parsec 28 February 2017 15: 21
    +4
    Quote: zyablik.olga
    Serezha almost did not find the old complexes, and may not know something.

    Quote: zyablik.olga
    Of course, Seryozha who gave a significant part of his life to the air defense forces

    A significant part of life, in this case, must be assumed eight years?
    If a person from air defense does not know the basics of building an air defense system (it’s like a philologist not to know the alphabet), why does ignorance multiply? His ignorance, in and in abundance.
    1. KKND
      KKND 28 February 2017 15: 29
      +1
      Quote: Parsec
      If a person from air defense does not know the basics of building an air defense system (it’s like a philologist not to know the alphabet)

      The funny thing is that in Russia people who gave years of life to some kind of business, but who don’t understand anything in it, just scare how much. And the simplest explanation for the blat was attached (the military has a strong “mafia”). I do not claim that Sergei refers to them, but the reluctance to answer simple and not very simple questions, as well as the easy technical level of his articles, makes him doubt his competence.
    2. Bongo
      Bongo 1 March 2017 09: 47
      +2
      Quote: Parsec
      If a person from air defense does not know the basics of building an air defense system (it’s like a philologist not to know the alphabet), why does ignorance multiply? His ignorance, in and in abundance.

      Dear, if you have a complaint about the quality of publications, let's talk in detail about what and where I am wrong. As for the CHP-75, you will agree that the level of automation there is significantly less than on the radar of the C-200 complex. By military profession, I am a signalman, but really served in the 11 Air Defense OA.
  14. utyutkin
    utyutkin 28 February 2017 15: 31
    0
    recalling the affairs of bygone days, I should note that in the first warhead s-75 weighed 300 kg. and secondly, in addition to the standard radar, it had a radio range finder and a reconnaissance and target designation center srts. and it seems like they all work on different frequency ranges. and also some kind of altimeter clung to him (I don’t remember which one). And with 75 he had camouflage posts in which the shriki were supposed to fly. and he also had body guidance. And finally, the complex is not killable by itself and is fantastically simple and maintainable. the only cant is rockets. here it is difficult. and everything else is a fairy tale! and on the ground it can work on the airship as well :). Well, noise immunity is certainly not ice, but as an addition it will do something else.
  15. Parsec
    Parsec 28 February 2017 15: 57
    0
    Quote: Operator
    The accuracy of guidance of anti-aircraft missiles of modern S-300/400 type air defense systems is completely unrelated to the radio range of the air defense systems of air defense systems, since all these missiles are equipped with an active radar seeker of the centimeter range, which provides homing to the target,

    Active radar seeker ...
    People come to your senses!
    1. Operator
      Operator 28 February 2017 17: 32
      0
      Still in nature there are semi-active and passive RGSN, honest pioneer.

      PS F-117 in Yugoslavia was shot down in manual mode by radio command missile guidance (SAM systems kept a “cross” on target). The aircraft was detected by a divisional survey radar of a meter range at a distance of 20 km, taken to escort a battery target radar of a centimeter range at a distance of 13 km. The launch of a pair of anti-aircraft missiles was carried out at a range of 10 km with a target altitude of 3 km in the direction of the SAM position.

      The F-117 pilot visually observed the flight of rockets in front along the course from the moment they broke through the clouds. The first missile passed over the plane, the second hit the target. The pilot ejected, the plane in unmanned mode at an angle of 30 degrees began to decline and crashed into the ground at a distance of 5 km from the position of the air defense system.
      1. Parsec
        Parsec 28 February 2017 17: 51
        +1
        Quote: Operator
        Still in nature there are semi-active and passive RGSN, honest pioneer.

        Ndya.
        Quote: Operator
        Guidance accuracy anti-aircraft missiles of modern S-300/400 type air defense systems are not connected at all with the radio range of air defense systems of air defense systems, since all these missiles are equipped with active centimeter range radar seeker,

        Is it more visible and understandable about the active S-300 / S-400 seeker?
        1. Operator
          Operator 28 February 2017 19: 00
          +1
          Trying to troll? laughing
          1. Parsec
            Parsec 28 February 2017 19: 44
            +1
            Quote: Operator
            Trying to troll?

            What for? You write without trolling, waste. I indicate that there are no and were not active GOS on the S-300/400.
            1. Operator
              Operator 28 February 2017 22: 03
              +1
              You will be indicated elsewhere.

              "Up to 4 40Н6Е ultra-long-range missiles (up to 400 km) that are designed to destroy DLRO aircraft, EW aircraft, enemy airborne aircraft, strategic bombers and ballistic missiles with speeds up to 4 800 m / s can be installed on one launcher. capable of destroying targets beyond the radio visibility of ground guidance locators. The need to defeat horizontal targets led to the installation of the latest homing head (GOS) created by NPO Almaz on the rocket. This GOS works in semi-active and in active modes. In active mode, the rocket, after gaining the required altitude, is transferred to the search mode and, having found the target, is aimed at it independently "

              https://topwar.ru/5071-sovremennye-sistemy-pvo-s-
              400-chast-1.html
              1. Parsec
                Parsec 28 February 2017 22: 35
                0
                I am not discussing 40N6 yet.
                The rest concerning "all of these missiles are equipped with an active head" is valid.
                1. Operator
                  Operator 28 February 2017 22: 49
                  0
                  Then do not discuss the 9М96М, 9М96Е and 9М96Е2 missiles bully
                  1. Parsec
                    Parsec 28 February 2017 22: 59
                    +1
                    Quote: Operator
                    Then do not discuss the 9М96М, 9М96Е and 9М96Е2 missiles bully

                    I did not discuss these missiles, I pointed out - softly and correctly - to your blunder.
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 28 February 2017 23: 09
                      0
                      The active GSN of the 40Н6 rocket completely fits into place in the 48Н6-2 and 48Н6E3 missiles. Their re-equipment depends only on financing.

                      Then what rockets of the C-300 / C-400 complexes are you ready not to discuss - the development of the 1980's?

                      Not for discussion - 40Н6 adopted in the 2015 year https://topwar.ru/70777-na-vooruzhenie-prinyata-n
                      ovaya-zenitnaya-raketa-bolshoy-dalnosti.html
                      1. Parsec
                        Parsec 1 March 2017 00: 43
                        +1
                        You are far from the question.
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 28 February 2017 20: 24
        +1
        Such a heated debate, but no pictures. The mess ... smile

        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 28 February 2017 20: 27
          +3
          And here is what Almaz-Antey hides in the heads of its missiles belay :
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 28 February 2017 20: 42
            +2
            And here are all kinds of GOS, developments of Russia:
            active, semi-active, passive.
            1. KKND
              KKND 28 February 2017 20: 46
              +1
              Well, please fill in the pictures, you look at the clever you will come down ... wink
          2. Operator
            Operator 28 February 2017 22: 05
            0
            voyaka uh

            Almaz-Antey did not hide anything using the first stand, but simply hung noodles on the ears of potential opponents (see the second stand) laughing
            1. jonhr
              jonhr 1 March 2017 00: 15
              +1
              GOS naturally do not work in the meter range.
              But after all, everyone knows that detection in the decimeter and centimeter ranges of the stealth is difficult. where is the guarantee that the rocket simply does not lose purpose?
              but you don’t care. you should throw a hat away laughing
              1. Operator
                Operator 1 March 2017 00: 44
                0
                Damn, you know how to read - a decrease in EPR by ten times is compensated by an increase in radar power by only 1,78 times, and in any range from cm to dtsm.
              2. Parsec
                Parsec 1 March 2017 01: 03
                +2
                Quote: jonhr
                But after all, everyone knows that detection in the decimeter and centimeter ranges of the stealth is difficult. where is the guarantee that the rocket simply does not lose purpose?

                A full guarantee is provided only by the insurance policy (s)
                You see, a rocket flies toward a target; it means that it is approaching it with every second, which means that with every second the stealth effect - a decrease in the signal reflected from the target - is weakening. There are nuances at missile target ranges of the order of the first units of kilometers, when individual parts of the aircraft begin to glare in the range of operation of the GOS; but these nuances have been successfully resolved, and for a long time.
                1. jonhr
                  jonhr 1 March 2017 12: 07
                  0
                  oh yes here in the homing head such a powerful radar. yes the rocket coming out of the launcher is immediately lost
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 1 March 2017 13: 26
                    +1
                    It's simple - an anti-aircraft missile flies to the target most of the way under radio command control and only when approaching the target at a distance of 20 km it switches to homing with the help of a semi-active or active RPG. At this distance, such RGSN have enough opportunities to see any stealth.

                    In the near future (after testing the production of a new PPM element base), it is expected to switch to millimeter-wave ARGNSs with AFAR capable of detaching themselves from electronic warfare interference and aiming at the target circuit.
            2. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 1 March 2017 00: 35
              +1
              Almaz-Antey - cool guys, of course. But I have the impression that in the fight against stealth, they hang noodles on the ears of potential opponents so far.
              I have no doubt that over time they will come up with something. But for now - they are bluffing (which is also useful to gain time in the competition).
              1. Operator
                Operator 1 March 2017 00: 46
                +1
                Almaz-Antey does not bluff, he and his allies have proven technical solutions for every taste. The problem is in the budget - there is not enough money for the most advanced solutions.

                However, everything flows, everything changes.
              2. Parsec
                Parsec 1 March 2017 00: 53
                +1
                Quote: voyaka uh
                But I have the impression that on the issue of fighting stealth, they hang noodles on the ears of potential opponents so far.

                The objective reality given in sensations? What impressed you?
  16. Operator
    Operator 28 February 2017 16: 53
    0
    F-117, shot down in Yugoslavia, flew at an altitude of more than 3 km in the conditions of continuous cloud cover located at an altitude of 1 km. So what about the use of any optical detection means such as thermal imagers, etc. out of the question.

    In addition, the self-made inclusion of a thermal imager into the Soviet air defense system without designing it for an automatic radio command anti-aircraft missile guidance system (which can be done only in case of modernization at the factory) is absolutely pointless.

    The commander of the Yugoslav anti-aircraft battery that shot down the F-117, in his interviews with the press, always talked about some ways to accomplish this task (dispersal of air defense systems, quick change of positions, limiting the radar’s operating time, often putting them into operation without signal emission, etc.) and never about using a thermal imager.
  17. Parsec
    Parsec 28 February 2017 17: 11
    +2
    Quote: Bongo
    ancient single-channel SAM with radio command guidance missiles? Moreover, the target is accompanied by an operator manually.

    Little by little, comment on the results of the discussion ...
    Modes of target tracking of complexes of the S-75 family:
    - automatic maintenance; main way.
    - automatic tracking in corners, manual in range;
    - manual in the corners and manual in range;
    And this ... "by hand", not "by hand". Well, from the first hint about “gramatey” one could catch it.
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 28 February 2017 17: 25
      +2
      Quote: Parsec
      Little by little, comment on the results of the discussion ...

      - it’s technically impossible, cool down ...
      - the site makes it possible to correct errors in comments for a very, very short time
      - then the comment for editing is closed ... which, in a stump, "following the discussion"? stop

      Quote: Parsec
      Target tracking modes for C-75 family complexes ...
      ... "manually", not "manually"

      - I do not know your level as a specialist in the matter
      - but for some reason I feel sorry for you laughing
      1. Parsec
        Parsec 28 February 2017 18: 02
        +3
        Quote: Today, 10:56 Bongo
        "an ancient air defense system with radio command guidance of missiles? What does the missile have to be manually guided by the operator."
        Fixed:
        Quote: Bongo
        is an ancient single-channel air defense system with radio command guidance of missiles? Moreover, the target is accompanied by an operator manually

        Technical capabilities of the user and the moderator are different.
        Quote: Cat Man Null
        but for some reason I feel sorry for you

        Crying helps.
        1. KKND
          KKND 28 February 2017 18: 17
          +1
          As a witness, I can subscribe, at the beginning there was in the beginning "an ancient SAM with radio command guidance of missiles? What does the missile target the operator manually."
          Cat man null You are a programmer, type a quote in Google, take away the creation time, namely 12 hours ago.
          Those. fixed!
          1. KKND
            KKND 28 February 2017 18: 27
            +1
            Here’s a proof from Google’s cache
            1. Parsec
              Parsec 28 February 2017 18: 36
              +2
              Quote: KKND
              Here’s a proof from Google’s cache

              The Internet remembers everything (c)
              I did not give a screenshot of the cache.
              Do not understand, s (s)
              Yes, somehow it was thought that they did not distort it at such a level that they would have to prove the cache.
              1. KKND
                KKND 28 February 2017 18: 48
                +1
                You yourself would have written something, otherwise the level of the site is below the baseboard. You look and serious people pulled themselves together (what am I talking about? belay ), the clowns would have fled (??? they are something more difficult than the Ukrainians do not read).
                Enlightened those interested. repeat
                1. Parsec
                  Parsec 28 February 2017 18: 55
                  +2
                  Serious issues are not the format of the site, require the reader to be prepared, and boring to lay people. And everything has already been popularly described, with different verisimilitude. If only frank noodles to unwind from the ears of a respected audience; and then the masters are offended, they distort the map.
                  1. KKND
                    KKND 28 February 2017 19: 01
                    0
                    Well noodles rewind too business. Go ahead, I would honor you. smile
  18. Sleeping hedgehog
    Sleeping hedgehog 28 February 2017 18: 56
    0
    I’ll add a little detail to the respected commentators, or rather the name

    Ufimtsev Peter Yakovlevich

    Those who know here will smile, unknowingly recommend the fascinating story of the "stealth parent" to find on the network

    If we stood at the origins of stealth, then anyone (except Americans) understands that we are able to resist stealth. After all, like any military technology, stealth and radar are fighting the sword and shield. And after moving one, there remains a scientific school in which he worked. So, for any concealment technology, we will have detection technology on time. These are just the basics of logic.

    However, it is naive to expect logic from a nation accustomed to living in an ideological fog.
    1. jonhr
      jonhr 28 February 2017 19: 39
      0
      Germans knew about stealth during World War II.
      and so that I’ll calm everyone down. raptor drank it dough, and f-35 it drank generally dough
      that there is an air defense of 60 years that has no analogues. I'm interested in how many caps fit on the s-75 rocket?
      1. KKND
        KKND 28 February 2017 20: 07
        +1
        Quote: jonhr
        that there is an air defense of 60 years that has no analogues. I'm interested in how many caps fit on the s-75 rocket?

        And what without caps we have weak air defense? Tell this to the Vietnam War veterans.
        1. jonhr
          jonhr 28 February 2017 20: 17
          +1
          yes no not weak. but where without hats. the bigger, the better
      2. Parsec
        Parsec 28 February 2017 20: 21
        +1
        Quote: jonhr
        Germans knew about stealth during World War II

        I wonder on what basis is this conclusion?
        1. KKND
          KKND 28 February 2017 20: 48
          +1
          Based on the fact that the German kissing boot was good, but now blown away ...
          Now steers an American boot ...
          1. jonhr
            jonhr 28 February 2017 21: 57
            0
            Well, offended by this kind of argument rule. objectivity is clearly not about you
            1. KKND
              KKND 28 February 2017 22: 14
              +1
              Yes yes Americans supermen (Supermans) bully and we (Russians) are so misunderstanding crying . Only in vain do we populate the Earth ...
              Go to America if you are no longer there.
              1. jonhr
                jonhr 1 March 2017 12: 11
                +1
                don’t indicate what to do and I won’t tell you where to go. if you are flawed then this does not mean that all Russians are like that. and it was you who just now made all Russians exactly like that. in other words, the masses began to seek support.
        2. jonhr
          jonhr 28 February 2017 20: 48
          0
          and I’ll reveal another secret. when the Americans in the late forties sbatsali their flying wing of the bomber, they noticed that his radar sees worse. laughing
          expand your horizons and it will not seem so incredible to you
          1. Parsec
            Parsec 28 February 2017 21: 24
            +4
            Quote: jonhr
            and I’ll reveal another secret. when the Americans in the late forties sbatsali their flying wing of the bomber, they noticed that his radar sees worse.

            Is this with four seven-meter diameter propellers? Multiple reflections of the wing-screw-wing signal give a powerful reflected signal, regardless of shape.
            The jet modification had air intakes along almost the entire leading edge - already a chic resonator, and eight more rotating compressor disks in the air intakes. There is nothing to hide.
            And now the question is - why didn’t they adopt such beauty?
            You would have to the horizons (?) Still a little knowledge, the revealer of secrets.
            1. jonhr
              jonhr 28 February 2017 21: 56
              0
              where are the propellers? they just noticed that the reflected signal is weaker than from a traditionally built aircraft.
              I don’t have any knowledge, but I can only guess that the reflected signal from the flying wing will be less than from a traditional aircraft with the same 4 propellers for both.
              confusing your knowledge if the head does not cook and cannot independently come to this?
              then you spit saliva and say that the work of Ufimtsev is disinformation for the United States, then he is the discoverer. I honestly don’t know how you live with such a guano in my head
              1. KKND
                KKND 28 February 2017 22: 00
                +1
                Quote: jonhr
                I have no knowledge

                Quote: jonhr
                I honestly don’t know how you live with such a guano in my head

                That's when knowledge appears in your head then come, but all the same insults in the absence of knowledge do not color people.
              2. Parsec
                Parsec 28 February 2017 22: 24
                +1
                Quote: jonhr
                I don’t have any knowledge, but I can only guess that the reflected signal from the flying wing will be less than from a traditional aircraft with the same 4 propellers for both.

                Well, you are not the first to guess. More A.P. Chekhov described.
                “Another discovery. Why is winter short and night long, and vice versa? Winter is short because, like all other objects visible and invisible from the cold, it shrinks and the sun sets early and the night expands due to the lighting of lamps and lanterns, for it warms up. "
                ... I have made many discoveries, and besides this, although I have no certificates and certificates. "
                And give a link about the observantness of the Americans, as they noticed that the signal from the XB-35 and YB-40 is less than from the B-36.
                1. jonhr
                  jonhr 1 March 2017 00: 21
                  0
                  Ufimtsev misinformed the Americans. I agree. just argue reluctance with stubborn
                  1. Parsec
                    Parsec 1 March 2017 00: 55
                    +2
                    Quote: jonhr
                    Ufimtsev misinformed the Americans. I agree. just argue reluctance with stubborn

                    You have nothing to argue with; you don’t know anything about the subject of the dispute.
                    Refute Ufimtsev.
                    1. jonhr
                      jonhr 1 March 2017 12: 13
                      +1
                      once again for stupid. there is a documentary on this topic. I don’t remember the name.
    2. KKND
      KKND 28 February 2017 19: 42
      +2
      Quote: Sleeping Hedgehog
      Those who know here will smile, unknowingly recommend the fascinating story of the "stealth parent" to find on the network

      February 23 seems to be over wassat
      Quote: Sleeping Hedgehog
      However, it is naive to expect logic from a nation accustomed to living in an ideological fog.

      Are you talking about Russia or the USA or the USSR?
      Nothing that we also design aircraft and ships using stealth technologies lol
      1. jonhr
        jonhr 28 February 2017 20: 18
        0
        it's him that the Americans are cutting money laughing
  19. neoshef
    neoshef 28 February 2017 21: 40
    0
    This one knows everything, only at the amateur level, and argues as a professional. One word-hell.
  20. figter
    figter 28 February 2017 21: 50
    +5
    Thus, the Lena П-14 system had a large parabolic antenna of enormous size. The newer Terek П-18 complex received the Yagi-Uda antenna or “wave channel”, which made it possible to reduce the size and weight to a certain extent. Both of these stations had noticeable limitations in determining the direction to the target and the distance to it. In addition, the beam with a width of several degrees in azimuth and tens of degrees in elevation did not allow to determine the height of the air target.

    The task of these stations of the meter wave range was to reveal the fact of the raid, and their operator to scream loudly and show a finger from where. After that, they did not take part in the reflection of the raid; the rest was done by the stations for detecting and targeting starting batteries. Yes, and what's the point for these stations to accurately determine the location of the target, if they are located at a considerable distance from the starting positions of batteries scattered in different directions. Who, in the course of repelling an airborne target, will meticulously recalculate and multiply sines and cosines with a slant range, if only one range of interest is for the commander of the anti-aircraft unit, “In the zone ..” or not.
    Another characteristic problem of UHF and UHF stations is related to the duration of the emitted pulse. The long duration of the pulse does not allow to increase its frequency of repetition, which, in turn, impairs the ability to accurately determine the coordinates of the target .... Former officer of the US air force Mike Petrucha, previously engaged in radio electronic systems .... By The National Interest recalls that large size and corresponding power ...

    He fenced off some kind of nonsense. It changes the frequency and types of signals, trying to accurately determine the range. But for some reason about the main thing, due to which it is the determination of the distance itself that is silent. Did not see a mention of the Doppler frequency. But it is precisely this place that always takes place, regardless of the “coolness” of the overseas name of the aircraft — stealth or super-steels with three pluses. And from this place, the respected Dave Majumdar begins to lead us by the nose and lead us away from the truth, telling us about the satellites plowing the expanses of the Universe. Stealth is nothing more than a subtle aircraft, but it still moves, and therefore imposes a Doppler component on the carrier frequency of the radar station. And the radar operators of the SAM system very often find targets of this type not in the indicator of a circular view or angular coordinates, but in himself - in the range indicator. At the same time, the range operator slowly “twists” its steering wheel, uses a marker to catch the range pulse, after which the machine takes the beast to automatically follow.
    No one argues that the design of such an aircraft allows it to re-reflect the directional signal, partially absorb the radiation signal power through the use of composite additives in the material of the body, but it cannot completely eliminate the signal reflected from it. So maybe the question is simpler and rests on the sensitivity and accuracy of tuning the radar receiving path?
  21. VladimS
    VladimS 28 February 2017 22: 00
    0
    Quote: vanek77
    The article is generally one-sided. Suffice it to say ... But the defense industry is selling out and it does not inspire good thoughts.
    I knew it! Everything is lost!
  22. glasha3032
    glasha3032 1 March 2017 01: 40
    0
    Information from the Sukhoi Design Bureau skipped that when simulating an EPR, the F-35 is 0,5 square meters, and not the value that the Americans stated in the specifications? Is this true or not?
    1. Operator
      Operator 1 March 2017 12: 15
      0
      EPR F-22 is estimated from 0,1 sq.m (GosNIIAS) to 0,3 sq.m (KB Sukhoi).

      In this regard, the EPR of F-35, equipped with a radio-reflecting OLS (unlike F-22), can be estimated at the upper value for the Raptor - 0,3 sq.m.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 1 March 2017 16: 49
      +1
      Namely, everything went from Sukhoi Design Bureau.
      When it turned out that the EPR PAK-FA ... so-so, it turned out
      only in the frontal plane, and from below - for air defense - is terrible (due to nozzles), then the main
      the designer said that the F-22 - 0.5. Like, we have r ... and ... they have r ... So it’s easier on the soul fellow .
      Prior to this, the performance characteristics of the F-22 were not questioned.
  23. Operator
    Operator 1 March 2017 12: 09
    0
    Parsec,
    You are far from answering your question in my very first post about C-300 / 400 missiles - “modern”.
  24. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 20 July 2017 19: 32
    0
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Parsec
    The bottom of illiteracy.
    So the spirits tell the young how they steer a rocket and bang! hit.

    I don’t know what you told the spirits there ... No. But tell me the “grams”, for what is this “helm” on the CHP-75? Is it not for manual tracking in angle, range and azimuth? Or am I wrong?

    Send them to watch the movie "Keys to Heaven" ... laughing
  25. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 20 July 2017 19: 33
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Namely, everything went from Sukhoi Design Bureau.
    When it turned out that the EPR PAK-FA ... so-so, it turned out
    only in the frontal plane, and from below - for air defense - is terrible (due to nozzles), then the main
    the designer said that the F-22 - 0.5. Like, we have r ... and ... they have r ... So it’s easier on the soul fellow .
    Prior to this, the performance characteristics of the F-22 were not questioned.

    And at the bottom of the F-22 because of the nozzles, the picture is just poppies color! It is also noticeable for many kilometers by the head of infrared radiation .. tongue