Military Review

Dress for the naked king

73
The American stealth technology, considered almost miraculous, became in practice fatally ineffective.




US Coast Guard proudly reported to about his unique achievement in the fight against the Colombian drug lords, who used an all-composite high-speed transport boat built using stealth technology to deliver a large batch of cocaine to the United States. However, while sailing from Colombia, the boat, despite its minimal radar “signature”, was detected by the radar of the Lockheed P-3 base patrol aircraft aviation US Customs and Border Guard, which issued target designation for an interdepartmental task force to intercept it.

It would seem that we care about distant Colombia and the production problems of local drug dealers? However, we will not rush to conclusions. Because from this, at first glance, a local and insignificant event, it is possible to draw far-reaching conclusions with good reason.



So, a small-sized speedboat, which, even judging by its photograph, is an ideal example of the implementation of the stealth technology, was detected by a radar patrol aircraft, and this is by no means the most modern type. The P-3 “Orion” base patrol aircraft has been in service with the United States for nearly 60 years. And although in this case, a version of the P-3AEW version of the long-range radar detection aircraft was probably used to intercept the stealth boat, in any case it was the 80-90-s of the last century, analogs of which exist and in other countries, including Russia.



Why is this interesting? Yes, because as a result of this incident, in real, and not in field conditions, an extremely small sea target, equipped in addition with stealth architecture, was normally detected and intercepted using a standard radar of far from the most recent sample.

And now let us pay attention to the fact that the indicators of the so-called EPR, that is, the effective radar surface of an electromagnetic beam for a small-sized boat and a destroyer of the destroyer, are related as 1 to 200. In other words, if the newest naval destroyer of the US Navy of the Zumwalt type, also built using stealth technology, were in place of this mini-boat, then the probability of its detection by this old patrol plane would be about two hundred times more than in this Colombian case!

As for the possibility of detecting such a large surface target using the latest basic patrol aircraft, such as the American Poseidon Р-8 or the Russian Il-38Н, the elementary logic of technical progress suggests that it should be even higher. And significantly.


Russian modernized IL-38H patrol aircraft

What does this mean? First of all, that even for the most advanced aviation radar systems, no radar invisibility of marine targets in principle exists. And even if a tiny cutter of drug dealers was fixed by a patrol plane without any problems, then the huge destroyer of a destroyer with a displacement of 15 thousand tons would not save any stealth tricks.

It remains to be recalled that the creation of ships using the technology of this practically useless "game of hide and seek" with the radar, the Americans squeezed tens of billions of dollars. Only one destroyer of the Zumwalt project cost the US budget a fantastic amount - 7 billions of dollars. That is more expensive than the 90-s aircraft carrier.

Dress for the naked king


And today, after the exemplary shame of the technology "stealth" in the case of the "cocaine" Colombian boat, it becomes finally clear that, in fact, it was wasted money.

The stealth technology of the enemy radar, which was considered the main advantage of these new destroyers, actually turned out to be a complete bluff and self-deception. And in the absence of such protection, these are simply antediluvian low-speed irons, which will be easy prey for anti-ship missiles. Which at the same Russia is more than enough.
Author:
73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. tasha
    tasha 3 May 2018 04: 58
    +11
    The news is interesting, but one must be more careful with the conclusions, as I think. In the link to the original, nothing is written about the method of detecting a ship. It is written that despite the "low radar signature". Patrol aircraft also use other search methods.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 3 May 2018 05: 23
      +8
      Quote: tasha
      Patrol aircraft also use other search methods.

      Visual observation - binoculars! hi
      1. Grafova Irina
        Grafova Irina 3 May 2018 12: 57
        +4
        Reliable enough. Burun from such a boat is visible farther than the boat itself
        1. Antony
          Antony 4 May 2018 00: 50
          +2
          The British in World War II discovered the breakers from the snorkels of German submarines using radar
    2. bandabas
      bandabas 3 May 2018 05: 27
      +3
      The news is news, but for some reason our bears still plow the air in the north. Without stealth.
    3. Waddimm
      Waddimm 3 May 2018 06: 22
      +11
      Quote: tasha
      ... you have to be careful with the conclusions ...

      I absolutely agree, the conclusions of the author cannot be considered true, there are too many unknowns. And yet, no one believes that stealth is completely invisible to the enemy. It’s just that the enemy stealth will detect you earlier than you, which means that sooner than you can prepare and strike. But this is too simplistic. In any case, the enemy with stealth will have some advantage and this should be taken into account when planning a battle with such an enemy.
      1. g1washntwn
        g1washntwn 3 May 2018 06: 41
        +10
        Quote: Waddimm
        stealth adversary will detect you before you him

        To do this, he needs to switch to active mode, which unmasks this "stealth" right there. And stealth or non-stealth in passive or optical mode have equal chances.
        1. Oleg14774
          Oleg14774 3 May 2018 09: 19
          +1
          Quote: g1washntwn
          Quote: Waddimm
          stealth adversary will detect you before you him

          To do this, he needs to switch to active mode, which unmasks this "stealth" right there. And stealth or non-stealth in passive or optical mode have equal chances.

          I agree with you because you need to understand the essence of the issue about the “active mode”, and we have a lot of reading and writing experts (the country is one of the most competent)! CHO think something blurted out that they write different and already consider themselves smart!
        2. ZVO
          ZVO 3 May 2018 13: 38
          0
          Quote: g1washntwn
          And stealth or non-stealth in passive or optical mode have equal chances.


          You are very mistaken.
          Read this:
          https://topwar.ru/100229-snizhennuyu-infrakrasnuy
          u-signaturu-nelzya-nedoocenivat-tonkosti-vozdushn
          oy-ohoty-s-vyklyuchennymi-radarami.html

          Although this is Damantsev - but everything is arranged correctly.

          no or shorter link
          http://cezarium.com/infrared-signature/
        3. dauria
          dauria 3 May 2018 17: 56
          +2
          To do this, he needs to switch to active mode, which unmasks this "stealth" right there.


          So what ? Well, unmasks, but what's the point? A simple example, a dueling situation. Two planes approaching. Locators work for both. "Stealth" sees the target (both in angle and in range), while the second only has a rough bearing from the radiation warning station. Yes, he knows that there is an enemy, but he can’t hit, the missiles haven’t been invented yet, “fly in that direction, and there you’ll figure it out”. And the adversary has already pulled, and you have no time to wait for it to appear on the OPS locator. You already have a "Birch" screaming "it's time to write a will." The small EPR did not make you invisible, but the spear is longer than that of the enemy.
          1. Vladimir 5
            Vladimir 5 6 May 2018 13: 06
            -1
            dauria. Even at the dawn of bomber aviation, observation and warning posts were created. Accordingly, to detect the coolest "stealth" to create a network of automatic monitoring and warning stations, and all the "stealth" will be under control ... And to disperse such stations from airplanes in the right region will take a little time and the region is ready to accept "stealth" ... Each tricky move has its own left-hand bolt ...
    4. rasteer
      rasteer 3 May 2018 18: 05
      +1
      In the link to the original, nothing is written about the method of detecting a ship.
      in fact, it doesn’t matter how specifically this boat was discovered. The article ultimately boils down to the fact that the stealth ship in terms of price-performance ratio is significantly inferior to just a “good” warship.
  2. Strashila
    Strashila 3 May 2018 05: 25
    +16
    "even if a tiny drug dealer cutter was fixed by a patrol plane without any problems" ... my father served in Kamchatka in the 50s in a brigade of torpedo boats of the Bolshevik project with wooden hulls ... so they weren’t seen by the same radars, but there was one big ... when the boat reached its maximum speed, it was not the ship that was spotted, but the breaker that he created when moving.
    1. Vard
      Vard 3 May 2018 06: 06
      +5
      Father also served there, at the same time ... at a searchlight station ... At night they repeatedly found violators in the strait, despite all the tricks ...
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 3 May 2018 06: 30
      +6
      Quote: Strashila
      so the radars didn’t see them, but there was one big one ... but when the boat reached maximum speed, it was not the ship that was spotted, but the breaker that he created when moving.

      Then what to do? BUT? request Maybe ....: You give ekranoplans? what
      1. rasteer
        rasteer 3 May 2018 18: 08
        0
        : Do you give ekranoplans?
        hear them for a mile and a wave he lifts no worse than boats. Plus one ... speed.
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 4 May 2018 02: 39
          +2
          That's the speed and the main "hope"!
  3. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 3 May 2018 06: 12
    +13
    Before starting to joyfully rub his hands, the author forgot to mention the distance from which the drug drug was discovered. Stealth technology, it’s a technology of LOW-SEARCHNESS, not invisibility. Stealth implies the possibility of detection from a shorter distance than usual.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 3 May 2018 06: 36
      +7
      Quote: Puncher
      Stealth technology, it’s a technology of LOW-SEARCHNESS, not invisibility. Stealth implies the possibility of detection from a shorter distance than usual.

      All this is true, but many now and then forget about these "features" stealth ....
      1. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher 3 May 2018 08: 57
        +3
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        but many now and then forget about these "features" stealth ....

        People tend to go to extremes, critical thinking is not given to everyone. Gullibility is again inexplicable ...
  4. sevtrash
    sevtrash 3 May 2018 06: 19
    +1
    If Zamvolt is detected from 90-100 km, and a conventional destroyer from 300 km, that is, later, a strike, respectively, can be delivered earlier with a more noticeable unit. What else can I talk about?
    1. Cxnumx
      Cxnumx 3 May 2018 06: 48
      +9
      Quote: sevtrash
      If Zamvolt is detected from 90-100 km, and a conventional destroyer from 300 km, that is, later, a strike, respectively, can be delivered earlier with a more noticeable unit. What else can I talk about?

      I've always been wondering: where did this comparative detection data come from (especially the deadlock)? as logic suggests, their legs grow out of articles by journalists who estimate these parameters “by eye”.
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 3 May 2018 08: 03
        +3
        Actually the numbers themselves are unimportant. But really reducing the EPR reduces the detection distance. True monsters, such as A-50 or AWACS, will also see Zamvolt along the horizon, and the radar of the same SU-35 is unlikely. Plus radar seeker anti-ship missiles will be able to capture or detect a target much later. And interference is easier to set, and capturing a small target is more difficult.
        So the reduction of unmasking factors, radar or infrared visibility, screw noise is a very necessary thing.
        1. Mestny
          Mestny 3 May 2018 09: 33
          +2
          Necessary, no doubt. The question is how much does it cost and whether there is a qualitative deterioration in the remaining characteristics. Is the game worth the candle so to speak.
          1. mmaxx
            mmaxx 4 May 2018 05: 12
            0
            Well, for example, Zamvolt. What features have been degraded by stealth architecture? None.
        2. Cxnumx
          Cxnumx 3 May 2018 10: 17
          +2
          Quote: demiurg
          Actually the numbers themselves are unimportant. But really reducing the EPR reduces the detection distance.

          just the numbers here are important. if as a result all work with both the external form and the materials will result in a reduction in the detection distance conditionally from 500 to 480 km and even with the condition of passive operation of the ship’s systems ... is it worth it? from 500 to 400 - that’s probably what it costs (if there is money at all), but from 500 to 300 - it’s generally a must!
          but we don’t know something about real numbers and when we find out, plus I’m not sure yet that they are “worth” the money spent and other parameters reduced to please it.
      2. sevtrash
        sevtrash 3 May 2018 13: 55
        0
        An article here on this site, if "always interesting", should have been read
        "Unfinished, but extremely dangerous: Zumwalt is preparing for a new concept of ocean confrontation"
        1. Cxnumx
          Cxnumx 3 May 2018 14: 07
          +1
          It is noteworthy that when performing anti-ship operations on the ocean / sea theater of operations, which Rear Admiral Ron Boxale recently focused on, the destroyers of the Zamvolt class have the ability to approach the enemy’s AUG / KUG 3 times closer than a conventional anti-aircraft defense-missile destroyer Arleigh Burke. All this is possible thanks to a 40 times smaller effective scattering surface (EPR), which is achieved by the angular shapes of the sides and superstructure, reverse obstruction of the sides and the stem, as well as the use of radar absorbing coatings with a physical dimension of about 1 inch. For example, if the Novella-P-38 search and sighting system detects an Arly Burk type target at a distance of 270 - 300 km, then the Zumwalt will be detected from a distance of 90 - 120 km.
          and where does this data about "40 times" and 90-120 km come from? and they were taken from other military-related websites from other journalists who took them too, no one knows where. such data always confused me. for some reason, no one refers to the results of the discovery of the Novella-P-38 complex by Zumwalt. refer to the comparison under the conditions proposed 40 times (is it dofig "time"?).
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash 3 May 2018 16: 36
            0
            Quote: K0
            and where does this data about "40 times" and 90-120 km come from? and they were taken from other military-related websites from other journalists who took them too, no one knows where. such data always confused me.

            At the end of the article there are links, firstly; secondly, the author of the article writes "... what was Rear Admiral Ron Boxale focusing on recently ...", do you think that Rear Admiral is not up to date?
            1. Cxnumx
              Cxnumx 3 May 2018 16: 39
              +2
              Quote: sevtrash
              At the end of the article there are links, firstly; secondly, the author of the article writes "... what was Rear Admiral Ron Boxale focusing on recently ...", do you think that Rear Admiral is not up to date?

              So it went through the links (one by the way does not work); secondly, the admiral focused on maneuvers, and by no means gave out information about the EPR. the conclusion that this is due to "40 times" the author himself makes, which is far from a fact.
              1. sevtrash
                sevtrash 3 May 2018 16: 49
                0
                And where did I talk about "40 times"?
                What do you disagree with at all? With what Zamvolt, thanks to stealth technologies, will see before they see it, will strike first and win? So it was created for this purpose. Like B2, f22, f35. Or do you think that 90 km is small and 300 is a lot? Will it fundamentally change everything? The main thing will remain in any case - weapons using stealth technologies have more chances to win.
                You can write to the author. Or the admiral.
                1. Cxnumx
                  Cxnumx 3 May 2018 17: 13
                  +1
                  Quote: sevtrash
                  And where did I talk about "40 times"?

                  you talked about 90-120 km, which are calculated on the basis of "40 times", which are taken from the article where the admiral didn't say anything, but simply superbly conducted maneuvers that are not based on EPR alone. and yes, you didn’t talk about 40 ...
                  Quote: sevtrash
                  What do you disagree with at all? .... The main thing will remain in any case - weapons using stealth technologies have a better chance of winning.

                  wrote above, but I repeat
                  if as a result all work with both the external form and the materials will result in a reduction in the detection distance conditionally from 500 to 480 km and even with the condition of passive operation of the ship’s systems ... is it worth it? from 500 to 400 - that’s probably what it costs (if there is money at all), but from 500 to 300 - it’s generally a must!

                  how much ESR at the zamvolta is better in fact or even if we would be in the calculations don't know. in the article you link to are given journalist's assumptions
                  Quote: sevtrash
                  You can write to the author. Or the admiral.

                  write. if you want to believe the author of the article in everything - believe. but I strongly doubt the cited (or rather taken from the head) data on the stealth.
                  1. sevtrash
                    sevtrash 3 May 2018 18: 44
                    0
                    And believe that f117, v2, f22, f35, Zamvolt and the mass of new technology in the USA and almost all other countries are built and are being built in accordance with stealth technologies because they have proved their effectiveness and necessity? Namely - military equipment gets the opportunity to strike first and win the battle, battle, clash?
                    For some reason you ran into disbelief in the author of the article, although you have no arguments against it. I think that of course there is a difference in detection, which was both obtained and calculated by Americans with more successful experience than anyone else. Maybe it’s smaller, maybe more, but enough to build billion-dollar invisible ships, not only in the United States, but in all countries, and even drug lords. Stealth - technology ... Is there something in this, do not you think?
                    1. Cxnumx
                      Cxnumx 4 May 2018 05: 24
                      +2
                      Quote: sevtrash
                      And believe that f117, v2, f22, f35, Zamvolt and the mass of new technology in the USA and almost all other countries are built and are being built in accordance with stealth technologies because they have proved their effectiveness and necessity? Namely - military equipment gets the opportunity to strike first and win the battle, battle, clash?

                      I believe that they are detected, the detection difference in km declared military , not by journalists not seen anywhere. moreover, here the author refers to the same journalists.
                      Quote: sevtrash
                      For some reason you ran into disbelief in the author of the article, although you have no arguments against it. I think that of course there is a difference in detection, which was both obtained and calculated by Americans with more successful experience than anyone else.

                      show where in the article it is calculated by the Americans, I only see assumptions journalist citing them in the article.
                      Quote: sevtrash
                      Maybe it’s smaller, maybe more, but enough to build billions of stealth ships, not only in the United States, but in all countries, and even drug lords. Stealth - technology ... Is there something in this, do not you think?

                      if, in your opinion, for the sake of reducing visibility conditionally by 10% percent, you need to reduce all other characteristics by 10% and increase the cost by 10 times, that’s your right. for me it is not too effective.
                      stealth, of course, should be, but first, for the sake of it, the characteristics of the ship should not critically fall, and secondly, it should not cost 10-20 times more expensive.
                      the story has already passed the "golden" battleships standing in the ports, because it is scary to lose them. or monsters like "Mouse", on the money invested in it, you could stamp several tens of "Tigers", which would be several times more effective.
                      1. mmaxx
                        mmaxx 5 May 2018 16: 48
                        0
                        Again. What ship characteristics have suffered from the concept of stealth at Zamvolta? At least 1%? I don’t see a single one at all. Even wave formation was reduced. What's in + to the stealth and to the ship.
                        Do not confuse with the F-117 iron.
  5. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 3 May 2018 06: 43
    +1
    In the sea, "stealth" is needed only by the submarine fleet. IMHO.
  6. Nix1986
    Nix1986 3 May 2018 07: 02
    +2
    Drug Barons Crisis, Submarines Used to Build laughing
  7. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 3 May 2018 07: 12
    0
    Zamwalt has not only a “passive”, but also an “active” component of invisibility ... In addition, it is unclear at what distance and how the boat was detected, maybe visually, there is also an opto-electronic detection complex on the “Poseidon”.
    Well, "zamwaltu. it’s necessary not to “always” and everywhere to be invisible, but to go unnoticed at the range of use of your weapons complex ... Well, and “zamvaltu”. it’s necessary not to “always” and everywhere to be invisible, but to go unnoticed at the range of use of your weapons complex ...
  8. andrewkor
    andrewkor 3 May 2018 07: 13
    0
    Let it not go to the shores of Russia without diapers, it will not seem enough! Surely this "golden" toy will be guarded as AUG and here it is, a sinner, on the radar of the "Bastion"!
  9. MadCat
    MadCat 3 May 2018 07: 16
    +6
    The American stealth technology, considered almost miraculous, became in practice fatally ineffective.

    On the basis of a samopal from Colombia to draw such conclusions, you didn’t hit your head on the wall there?
  10. thinker
    thinker 3 May 2018 07: 23
    +4
    I found another photo, to evaluate the dimensions, indeed - the bollards.

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3182205.html
  11. sa-ag
    sa-ag 3 May 2018 08: 21
    +4
    Most likely a breaker was spotted on the radar, then the boat itself visually
    1. Dr. Barmaley
      Dr. Barmaley 3 May 2018 08: 42
      +2
      Most likely a breaker was spotted on the radar, then the boat itself visually


      Cocaine most likely spilled out of a hole in the board. In the wake and found.
      1. sa-ag
        sa-ag 3 May 2018 14: 40
        0
        Quote: Dr. Barmaley
        Cocaine most likely spilled out of a hole in the board. In the wake and found.

        Well, no, this is not the plane in that case :-)
        1. Okolotochny
          Okolotochny 3 May 2018 23: 21
          +1
          Well yes. “Those” planes to the States make “regular” flights.
  12. Gennadich
    Gennadich 3 May 2018 08: 41
    +1
    hooray hooray ... we also have only zilch besides multfilm ..
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 3 May 2018 09: 35
      0
      “With us” is in the head?
      How many of you are there? You stay there, the west is on its way.
      1. Gennadich
        Gennadich 3 May 2018 10: 50
        0
        we hold on ... while we can ...
        1. Dart
          Dart 3 May 2018 18: 15
          +1
          Don’t crap one's pants .. as long as you can.
          1. A good one
            A good one 3 May 2018 20: 44
            +6
            Dill in our camp, ran away from the beds.
            1. Gennadich
              Gennadich 3 May 2018 23: 55
              0
              dill compared to you a compliment to me, thank you ... you can call me an Armenian
  13. vlad007
    vlad007 3 May 2018 09: 02
    +3
    The US Coast Guard has not only technical facilities, but Intelligence (see US intelligence structure) and rooted agents. It is possible that the story of the boat is a banal leak of information, and the story of the discovery of the boat, published in the media (so that everyone knows), is an attempt to cover up the leak so as not to reveal the agent.
    1. konstantin68
      konstantin68 3 May 2018 10: 51
      0
      That's right! They just knew WHERE and WHO to look for. And they "covered" information very competently. And you are discussing about radars here.
  14. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 3 May 2018 09: 36
    0
    Drug lords monitor technological progress, however.
  15. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 3 May 2018 10: 23
    +1
    Quote: MadCat
    The American stealth technology, considered almost miraculous, became in practice fatally ineffective.

    On the basis of a samopal from Colombia to draw such conclusions, you didn’t hit your head on the wall there?


    That is, Colombian drug lords, is it, like, Selva Indians? They made a pie on a knee from agave bark, and let it go? Where will the curve take it? And here from the sofa "special" quote bam! And he defeated everyone by the power of his "iron" logic! Drug dealers in full mourning! What kind of craftsmen we have!
  16. Antares
    Antares 3 May 2018 11: 03
    +2
    So everything can be discounted.
    What kind of barons have taken and set a precedent with stealth technology? They were not built in the US shipyards by the hour? The one where Zumwalt is there and a smuggling boat ... (for such boats in the USA, the term Low-Profile Go-Fast Vessel - LPGFV has already been coined)
    In fact, the route may have been known (agents), visually noticed, or by other methods. Maybe the barons themselves believed so much that they sent right under Orion. And they forgot about the technology of cameras (creating visual invisibility). Well, they may not forget anything next time.
    To document the interception and conduct of investigative actions, the patrol ship PZE 47 7 de Agosto of the Colombian Navy (which most likely had information about the smuggler’s route) approached the place where the drug dealer’s boat was captured.
    . The smuggled boat itself, after extensive searches, was flooded.

    The question is whether Zumwalt’s course will be known, whether the IL will visually observe it without being shot down or in this area. Will it be able to detect those missiles that are plentiful (after all, it’s not in quantity) and their carriers earlier than Zumwalt himself.
  17. iouris
    iouris 3 May 2018 12: 33
    +2
    Caps throw small blood on someone else's territory.
    And how does the factor of low ESR in the conditions of strong electronic interference affect the efficiency of the use of existing weapons?
  18. Lunar daemon
    Lunar daemon 3 May 2018 12: 50
    +4
    The whole article is based on the conclusion that does not correspond to the premises.
    A patrol plane discovered a drug boat made in a third world country - ... so all stealth technology is bullshit ...
    What nonsense did I read !? What kind of drugs did the author use if he made such a loud conclusion from such an insignificant ordinary incident? Of course, Americans tend to exaggerate this technology of "stealth", but I do not think that they swell and saw astronomical budget funds into nothing at all.
  19. ZVO
    ZVO 3 May 2018 13: 33
    +4
    Somehow everything is too childishly stretched article ...
    What a very strange calculation of EPR.
    Since the boat is 200 times smaller in physical size, the EPR is also 200 times smaller ...
    And most importantly, the detection range for some reason is 200 times.
    This is completely beyond the bounds of "good and evil."
    About the EPR of three huge outboard engines, taken out of the hull - the author did not write anything?
    For some reason, it was concluded that the P-3AEW (recall that it has a surveillance radar from Hokai) is worse in detecting surface targets than highly specialized anti-submarine aircraft ... In fact, at least 20% of P-3AEW's detection indicators taller.

    Hundreds of US Customs annually caught, catches and will catch boats of drug carriers.
    And it does this in most cases on simple Cessna.
    Not equipped with either huge radar or the latest radar.
    So, judging by the author’s logic, should all radars and OLS be written off as scrap?
    For if they were not used in most cases - then they mean "zilch and fiction" ???
    And if patrol aircraft have a wake detection system, an exhaust gas detection system - what is the norm for PLO aircraft?

    Does the author know about such things?
    Seem to be. what not.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. mmaxx
    mmaxx 4 May 2018 05: 08
    +1
    The fact that the boat was built in a way that draws on stealth technology does not mean that it was a stealth. Let them first prove that this boat was developed by engineers - specialists in stealth. And just draw, you can anything. And on the wake trace from above, any stealth will be visible from the air for xs how many miles without any radar.
  22. NordOst16
    NordOst16 4 May 2018 23: 38
    0
    Hmm ... then why do we have so much talk in the USC about stealth technologies in shipbuilding if this is such a useless thing.
    1. mmaxx
      mmaxx 5 May 2018 16: 51
      0
      Because while nifiga can’t do this. In the absolute, it may be useless, but relatively very useful. How can a detection range be useless?
      1. NordOst16
        NordOst16 5 May 2018 17: 47
        0
        Yes, I am about the same. How many stealth technologies were used on F22 at one time, and how the T50 began to be done - so immediately they started talking about the decrease in radio visibility
  23. turbris
    turbris 5 May 2018 10: 41
    0
    I can’t say about ships, but the Stealth technology, which is fashionable in the USA, gives too much attention to the detriment of aerodynamics, combat load and the number of sorties. It is understandable, very expensive and not always effective technologies have been developed that allow you to get very high profits for the military-industrial complex from the US military budget. But the truth is always somewhere in the middle and giving importance to the undoubtedly important indicator - the magnitude of the EPR, we must not forget about the other combat qualities of the plane and ship. It is impossible to reduce the EPR at the same time in all ranges of radio waves, now the EPR reduction is achieved mainly in cm - the range in which the main missile guidance radars operate, but developing an aiming radar in a different range is not an impossible task. Therefore, all this inconspicuousness is a very short-term affair; today it is inconspicuous, and tomorrow it is already perfectly visible, but denyuzhki have already been spent and the work is done.
  24. Apollo
    Apollo 5 May 2018 19: 24
    0
    Directly tracing for Chernomyrdin, ".... they wanted the best, but it turned out as always."

    He only said words here in Russia, but taught him that there, across the ocean .. But with what innocent face he said this ... Under this slogan was the total plunder of Russia in the 90s. Nothing has changed with the advent of Putin - the right guys from the Lake cooperative quickly fussed and told the “legislator" what laws should be adopted in the first place and what their content should be. Since then, everything turns out as they wanted, because theft is as if legalized.
    1. turbris
      turbris 5 May 2018 22: 27
      0
      It is very difficult to understand what you are talking about, we are about Stealth technology, and what are you talking about? Or simply distracted by something else, then you need to be treated.
  25. Apollo
    Apollo 5 May 2018 19: 36
    0
    Quote: NordOst16
    Hmm ... then why do we have so much talk in the USC about stealth technologies in shipbuilding if this is such a useless thing.

    So the financing is different, and with it the income is higher. Everything is simple. Efficiency is certainly there, but not as tangible as it may seem.
  26. pafegosoff
    pafegosoff 6 May 2018 07: 56
    0
    If he sailed at a speed of 3 knots, without the formation of powerful water disturbances, which are just easy to detect radars with a certain wavelength.
  27. wooja
    wooja 6 May 2018 11: 51
    0
    for every tricky loin there is no less tricky bolt ... on the other hand, you have to be simpler ... and the truth is incomprehensible precisely because of its simplicity
  28. Zakonnik
    Zakonnik 6 May 2018 17: 48
    0
    Well, expect that unknown shipbuilders were able to calculate everything correctly and make this boat out of the right materials to the drug lords on their knees. Rather, it means that the builders of the boat acted on the principle of "heard the ringing, but I don’t know where it is." There is nothing to rejoice about. Otherwise, ours would not have thought about implementing the technology in the Su-57.
  29. Stalink stalink
    Stalink stalink 6 May 2018 18: 49
    0
    the frequency on the radar was changed and everything was at a glance, and this is no secret, the boat glowed and scorched what they say about the invisibility delirium, it is visible during the modernization of the radar that we have what amers have. the fact that the grandmother to the wind is true.
  30. Apollo
    Apollo 6 May 2018 23: 22
    0
    Quote: turbris
    It is very difficult to understand what you are talking about, we are about Stealth technology, and what are you talking about? Or simply distracted by something else, then you need to be treated.

    Those who walked under the table in the early 90s are not affected. Therefore, it is difficult.
  31. Larum
    Larum 7 May 2018 12: 18
    +2
    The main thing is to crap the Americans. And the facts, the conclusions - but who understands them. In stealth for example ...