"To detect is not to shoot down": The US told whether the Russian air defense system will be able to neutralize the F-35 and F-22

Russia has deployed a Sky-M radar capable of seeing the fifth-generation F-22 and F-35 American stealth aircraft. However, "to see" does not mean "to bring down", Mark Episkopos, the author of an article for the American magazine The National Interest, is sure of this.

Russian radar stations "Sky-M" pose a threat to aircraft created using stealth technology, according to the Russian military, who deployed this type of radar in western Russia and Crimea, the author writes. They are capable of detecting aircraft and missiles at ranges of up to thousands of kilometers at high and medium altitudes. However, "detect" and "destroy" are different concepts.

In theory, Episkopos writes, the Russian Sky-M radars are capable of detecting incoming stealth aircraft F-22 and F-35, but this is only the first stage in destroying the target. After the stealth plane is found, it must be escorted, aimed a missile at it, and only then destroyed. Those. to neutralize an F-35 or F-22, the enemy must create a whole chain. It is worth knocking out one link from it and the chain will fall apart.

In addition, the author emphasizes, F-35 fighters do not fly alone and the Sky-M radar can become a "great target" for a high-precision missile. At the same time, the Russians have created a deeply echeloned air defense system that is quite difficult to overcome.

Thus, the statement by the Russians that the Sky-M radar and similar radars "see" American stealth aircraft is true, but this is only the first stage. Whether the Russian air defense will be able to neutralize the F-22 or F-35 squadron is a completely different question, which depends on many factors, sums up Episkopos.

Comments

[tralflot1832]

Mark Ekiskopos, Heaven M sees them, you admitted that. And now the news, the bomb: just now Putin VV: The tests of the C 500 complex are being successfully completed. Can you fly to Russia?

[Anachoret]

Even if they do, you can make a friendly bet) we bet on the spent rocket or two that we will shoot down the F35? ))
throw the plane))

[Shurik70]

Will the Russian air defense be able to neutralize the F-22 or F-35 squadron?

In a conflict over a third-party territory (well, like, they noticed how Israeli F-35s invaded Lebanon in order to strike at Syria) - of course we won't. Because we will not shoot.
But in a full-scale conflict, when there is a NATO-Russia war, having found a squadron, we just fucking with tactical nuclear weapons, and it doesn't matter there, a miss + (-) 100 meters is not critical

[Roman1970_1]

well, like, we noticed how Israeli F-35s invaded Libya to strike Syria

Yes, they fly to South Africa to bomb Syria, and sometimes to Antarctica.
Learn geography. There they will teach where is Israel, where is Syria and where is Libya

[Shurik70]

Quote: Roman1970_1

Learn geography

Pup.
Fixed

[venik]

Quote: Shurik70

well, like, we noticed how Israeli F-35s invaded Libya to strike Syria

=======
The question is: WHY is the Israeli F-35, like to strike at Syria, fly as much to Libya ???
Or is it "the cost of the exam" ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
PS Well, everything else is correct!

[nov_tech.vrn]

Looks like a typo, they feel great in the Lebanese sky.

[venik]

Quote: nov_tech.vrn

Looks like a typo, they feel great in the Lebanese sky.

=======
"This" doesn't sound like a "typo"! "This" is more like "the costs of the exam" !!!
PS My junior is a programmer (and very highly qualified). We took his upbringing very seriously! His wife (daughter-in-law) is also a woman very clever[b] [/ b] and "educated": (graduated from trade and economic) .... 5 years ago - they went on vacation: to Egypt. When the daughter-in-law heard that they were in Africa, she was shocked! "...This is the Middle East! What kind of Africa is this?... "....
Here's another "victim of the exam" !!!

[ck9999999]

Why tactical? Even the old man-long-range air defense system S-200 was sharpened for the use of special ammunition in the event of a "star raid" of the enemy. Therefore, the B-52x armada is a thing of the past in Vietnam. That's it - the lafa is over, the bombers are only singles or, at most, in a couple.

[Al_lexx]

Quote: ck9999999

Why tactical? Even the old man-long-range air defense system S-200 was sharpened for the use of special ammunition in the event of a "star raid" of the enemy. Therefore, the B-52x armada is a thing of the past in Vietnam.

Including the S-200. We just had a mixed regiment, the so-called "special purpose", the Leningrad separate air defense army of the country (they covered the Pskov airborne troops, naval aviation and something else, little things). It consists of three C-75 and two C-200 divisions. All had missiles with special warheads. The S-200 is a bit more powerful, since they worked at high altitudes.

[Al_lexx]

Quote: Shurik70

But in a full-scale conflict, when there is a NATO-Russia war, having found a squadron, we just fucking with tactical nuclear weapons, and it doesn't matter there, a miss + (-) 100 meters is not critical

Something like that. Even when I was on duty (S-75), our division had six missiles with special warheads. Rough opportunity. Something like 0.5kT or so (I don't remember now). Undermining not lower than 5 km (set at a constructive level), so as not to hurt your troops and, in general, not to soil the ground. It was supposed to be used for priority group targets (bombers with nuclear weapons). Based on the parameter of the minimum height, the radius of 100% damage is slightly less than 5 km. Moreover, this is without taking into account the EM pulse (there is more), which all modern electronics, with its microchips, will burn out once and for all.

[Mikhail3]

Quote: Shurik70

just fuck with tactical nuclear weapons, and it doesn't matter there, miss + (-) 100 meters is not critical

Why is that? Why waste resources? We do not have so many TNW to throw it on nonsense. The exhaust from the engines remained hot, brutally unmasking exhaust) You just need to aim the rocket so that its guidance head reliably captures this very exhaust. Since the modern radar station sees the plane, it is possible to aim with such accuracy that even throwing traps will not give the plane anything. And F 35 will not be able to maneuver. Brick is brick)

[Shurik70]

Quote: Mikhail3

We do not have so many TNW to throw it on nonsense.

Just a few F-35s are worthy targets.
First, they are expensive.
Secondly, they can carry nuclear weapons.
Saving several cities from a nuclear attack is a good enough reason to use special ammunition.

[Mikhail3]

However, if they can be knocked down with a shovel, you must use a shovel) This is not a game, in reality TNW costs millions of working hours that cannot be restored.

[Iline]

At first they thought the plane was invisible. It turned out that this statement is not entirely true.
Now they pray to God that he is invulnerable.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Iline

At first they thought the plane was invisible. It turned out that this statement is not entirely true.
Now they pray to God that he is invulnerable.

Invisibility was usually talked about by incompetent journalists, politicians and filmmakers. It has always been known that, for example, VHF radars are perfectly visible to Stealths. But their accuracy is not enough for aiming missiles.

But the radar dm, cm, mm of the range is seen worse, at a shorter range. They will see even worse against the background of electronic warfare.

But for V-V missiles and missiles with ARLGSN, when working against subtle targets of covered electronic warfare, everything will be even worse - the radar is weaker than that of the carrier and the air defense system, the target capture range of the seeker and the probability of hitting the target are greatly reduced.

Conventionally, against a conventional aircraft, the probability of defeat will be 0,9. Against him, but covered with electronic warfare - 0,5. Against Stealth + EW - 0,25. I repeat, the numbers are conditional.

[Iline]

In fact, while serving in the army, I myself was a specialist in electronic equipment (communications, navigation, location, electronic warfare) and I understand all your calculations very well.
That's just the Americans began to rush with the development of air defense radars and aircraft. At the stage of technology development, stealth was easier - almost everything worked in the 3-centimeter range. From here the radar-absorbing coating and the airframe geometry were calculated. Now everything is much more complicated. Indeed, many locators for detection and guidance now do not work at the same frequency, but change it over time. Therefore, the FB-117 disappeared very quickly. Again, it is not realistic to carry out adequate radio absorption and reflection in dm, cm and mm ranges at the same time. Therefore, they do not risk direct contact with our air defense systems. Did the hysteria with Turkey and the refusal to supply them with the F-35 just happen?
Electronic warfare is effective if you know the structure of the signal, and now there are no fools working at the same carrier frequency and constant form of this very signal. So it's not that simple.
I agree that stealth technologies bring troubles at work, but not everything is so simple

[poquello]

Quote: Iline

I understand all your calculations very well

) meter will detect and give direction, but dm on a narrow corner doesn't work better?

[Thrifty]

Let's check it in real mode - you run f35, we guarantee its combat defeat! Going? ??

[Egoza]

Quote: Thrifty

Let's check it in real mode - you run f35, we guarantee its combat defeat! Going? ??

no need to bring people to a heart attack! We just "hit hard, precisely and silently"

[dorz]

Americans are beginning to threaten in all planes and environments:

Experimental American orbital drones Boeing X-37 are capable of carrying nuclear weapons, said Yan Novikov, general director of the Almaz-Antey VKO concern. “In 2010, the first such device was launched, today there are already six of two types - some smaller, others larger.

Now one is in orbit for a year, two - the fourth and the fifth - flew off for two years, ”Novikov said. According to him, Boeing X-37 was officially created for scientific and reconnaissance purposes, but Russia understands that the large payload of these vehicles allows small drones to carry up to three nuclear warheads, and large ones - up to six.

Washington is set to deploy eight aircraft similar to the classified Boeing X-2025 military shuttle by 37.

[poquello]

Quote: dorz

Russia understands that the large payload of these vehicles allows small drones to carry up to three nuclear warheads, and large ones - up to six.

and there in the same (sort of) interview that this problem has already been closed

[D16]

Boeing X-37 capable of carrying nuclear weapons

A long time ago, the R-36ORB (orbital) was on alert. A missile with a monoblock warhead of a megaton class, capable of making either one or several turns before landing. They did not stand for long, since the accuracy was disgusting. No one in a sound memory and a sober mind will develop space bombers. ICBMs are much better and more convenient.

[venik]

Quote: Egoza

no need to bring people to a heart attack! We just "hit hard, precisely and silently"

======
Is it like that ?:

[Machito]

Quote: Thrifty

Let's check it in real mode - you run f35, we guarantee its combat defeat! Going? ??

I support. The S-500 will quickly send the Penguin to the bottom. And then Izh flew away. Penguins are supposed to swim.

[Fantazer911]

And why dakazat zapadnyj zhurnalyugam, let him buy F35 and launch in the direction of Russia, I think, and will cope with 300, no options!

[Dym71]

Thus, the statement by the Russians that the Sky-M radar and similar radars "see" American stealth aircraft is true, but this is only the first stage. Whether the Russian air defense will be able to neutralize the F-22 or F-35 squadron is a completely different question, which depends on many factors, sums up Episkopos.

Why shoot them down? In general, we are in favor of world peace. At the second stage, an expert would not hurt to ponder over the question of the price of a flying penguin!

[PROXOR]

They calm themselves down. We will not persuade them. Practice will show who was right.

[Gori]

Quote: PROXOR

They calm themselves down. We will not persuade them.

You calculate and present your result. It will be interesting. And so - these are bare words.

[lucul]

And let me speak the language of this "expert"? )))
He claims that:

Radar "Sky-M" can be a "great target" for a high-precision missile

So I say that the F-22 and F-35 will become

"excellent target" for a high-precision missile

After they are detected by the Sky-M radar.
Not ? Didn't I catch the "expert" thinking? )))

[Wedmak]

And where do you have the line "you do not understand, this is different"? No, no, no ... it doesn't work without it! Besides, you absolutely ... how is a porn expert going to look at logic from our side? Disorder burn ...

[knn54]

- which depends on many factors, sums up Episkopos.
"Announce the entire list, please" ...

[Crimean partisan 1974]

"Announce the entire list, please" ...

.... will not announce ... his organization to the Soviet sobering-up station like cancer to the moon ...... distillery ...........

[CYM]

I've already heard it somewhere.

[Mountain shooter]

Let them try. And the fact that they know a lot about our air defense. They think so. What if not all?

[prior]

I remember in Yugoslavia one such all and himself, invisible, bought a simple microwave oven.

[Russobel]

Seeing this is already 90% of success.
The main thing is to know where to look.
And then the planes will catch up.

[HAM]

As I understand it, "junior researcher" and "graduate student"
Mark Episkopos, has only a purely theoretical relation to the army ... a natural nerd, and there ...

[hose end]

How to aim a missile if its gsn does not see the target. In the meter range, the carcass is visible, the gsn of the rocket in the mm range - shooting into the sky

[lucul]

How to aim a missile if its gsn does not see the target. In the meter range, the carcass is visible, the gsn of the rocket in the mm range - shooting into the sky

Dear, I'll tell you a terrible secret - all the "stealth" of the F-35 is in the form - a view of the plane only from a frontal projection, roughly speaking only in the forehead. The side view and rear view of the aircraft are not stealthy. And the rocket does not care where to fly to the plane - from behind or from the side)))

[hose end]

Target signal response in mm range at noise level

[lucul]

Target signal response in mm range at noise level

Have you read about the side view and the rear view? ))) Not? Passed by understanding? ))))))
If the Sky-M radar sees an invisible aircraft, then any missile with an infrared seeker will reach it and shoot it down, just throw the rocket into the indicated square, and the thermal seeker guides the missile at the red-hot F-35 engines))))

[voyaka uh]

"you just throw the rocket into the specified square," ///
---
The square is too big. Even if you throw 10 missiles there
without radar tracking from the ground, then the probability that the thermal
The seeker will be close to the aircraft and will lock the target - almost zero.
What do you suggest: shoot a flying sparrow from a machine gun -
you look, one of the bullets will catch.
Without aiming and tracking the rocket by ground radar, it is impossible to hit.

[lucul]

The square is too big.

How big is it if the Sky-M radar clearly sees the target? ))))
You compare the trajectory of the flight and in the specified place the rocket and the plane will meet)))

[Avior]

The warrior is right - the accuracy of the meter range radar is not enough to guide missiles. This is a general detection radar. In addition, the RCS of the fighter in the meter range is only about three times higher than that of the decimeter range.
In order for the EPR to grow strongly, the wavelength of the debt significantly exceeds the dimensions of large structural elements of the aircraft - planes, fuselage.
That is, the decimeter range is really needed.

[lucul]

Warrior is right - the accuracy of the meter range radar is not enough for missile guidance

Tell that to Francis Powers and his U-2.

[Avior]

The meter-range radar in the missile guidance station of the S-75 complex, which shot down Powers, is not used and cannot be used to guide missiles

[Gori]

Quote: Avior (Sergey

In addition, the EPR of the fighter in the meter range is only approximately three times higherthan decimeter.

Justify.

[Gori]

Quote: Gori

In addition, the RCS of the fighter in the meter range is only about three times higher than that of the decimeter range.

Continuous mistakes? Wouldn't it be the other way around? And not 3 times?

[Avior]

an increase in RCS in the meter and decimeter ranges occurs if the wavelength is greater than individual structural elements
for a cruise missile this rule is fulfilled by virtue of its size, there the increase can be hundreds of times, for a fighter by approximately 3 times, for a bomber by 2.
There is a table in this book.
https://znanium.com/catalog/document?id=205255
sorry, there is no free link at hand, but it can be found on the net, I downloaded
A significant increase in the EPR of aircraft is observed in the decameter range, at a wavelength of more than 10 m.

[Avior]

in meter and decimeter

typo, in meter and decameter

[Gori]

Quote: Avior

an increase in RCS in the meter and decimeter ranges occurs if the wavelength is greater than individual structural elements
for a cruise missile this rule is fulfilled by virtue of its size, there the increase can be hundreds of times, for a fighter by approximately 3 times, for a bomber by 2.

Avior, the book is good, but a lot of things that were eliminated in unobtrusive aircraft were dropped into it. For a significant reduction in resonance phenomena, the keels of the tail are spaced apart. The authors of this description introduced the attenuation of e-m (electromagnetic waves) from meteorological formations from the wavelength (they merged everything into one heap) - however, we are talking about the EPR, which strongly depends for purposes on the reflection power and this power decreases with the wavelength by an amount of 1 / lambda (no matching symbol). The RCS value decreases. So first I asked you to justify your expression. Even the simple Wikipedia for a convex surface has it. In this case, it was right for the authors of this description to introduce into their discussion not only the EPR, but the equation of the maximum range (where the wavelength is presented), which gives the radar radiation wavelength squared and the EPR separately. Otherwise, it is not entirely correct.

[Avior]

as far as I understand, this effect is associated with diffraction, which depends on the wavelength including

[Cheerock]

Tellingly, no one thought that a link of interceptors could be thrown into the square, for example ...

[Herman 4223]

How happy is it in the mm range?
The head of the R-27 rocket, for example, works in the cm range.
The rocket head usually operates in the same range as the radar.

[Prjanik]

The expert probably is not aware that Sky-M has integrated radars of meter, decimeter and centimeter ranges, and the complex not only detects, but also directs missiles to the target. He also does not know about missiles from the S-400 system.

[Avior]

What a meter radar sees, a decimeter and centimeter radar may not see

[Prjanik]

What is the problem, even if the radar of the centimeter range of the penguin at a great distance does not see well, then in the meter and decimeter range it is easy, the computer will combine all the reflected signals into a single signature, which will be guided by the rocket until its active homing head captures the target

[Avior]

The decimeter range sees as badly as the centimeter range
The meter range has low resolution and does not work at low altitudes

[Prjanik]

Well, well, of course he won't see a fly, but a penguin without problems) Something the Yankees are in no hurry to sell the F-35 to the Turks after they bought the S-400, they suspect something) Apparently, their own air defense stealth can be seen quite well

[Gori]

Quote: Avior

The decimeter range sees as badly as the centimeter range
The meter range has low resolution and does not work at low altitudes

Why does the meter range not work at low altitudes. The frequency f = 300 MHz is the VHF range, the wavelength is 1m. So why doesn't it work at low altitudes. Do you have a mistake?
The United States often uses one centimeter-range radar on ships, and they do not complain that they see poorly at long range and do not see low-flying targets. Why is this so?

[Avior]

... 55Zh6M "Sky-M" is an interspecific mobile radar complex for detecting aerodynamic and ballistic objects at medium and high altitudes; it is part of the Sky radar family [2].

[D16]

objects at medium and high altitudes

This is because the earth is round. The sky works for a long distance.

[Avior]

and small too. but only at medium and high altitudes.

[D16]

For small, it works like most others, but it is designed to interact with the S-400 and S-300V4. They have their own low-altitude detectors and the sky has no reason to perform these functions. Therefore, in the composition of the Sky there is no station similar to a "crocodile" for low-altitude detection.

[D16]

Not. The sky works in conjunction with the S-300V4 or S-400. They have their own low-altitude detectors. Therefore, in the composition of the Sky there is no such thing as "Crocodile". As in any other surveillance radar of any manufacturer. So its "low altitude" does not differ from any other observation station and is determined by the curvature of the earth and the height of the antenna canvas.

[Avior]

we are talking specifically about the meter radar

[D16]

And what, meter waves propagate in some other way? The meter range is the longest and most independent of external factors. Therefore, it detects targets at a higher altitude. The flat-earth proponents do not elaborate a bit. They will win, and the Air Defense Forces will see everything.

[Avior]

... Do meter waves propagate in any other way? The meter range is the longest

Can this be considered an answer to your question?

[D16]

Of course not.

[Usher]

Quote: Avior

What a meter radar sees, a decimeter and centimeter radar may not see

So what? The rocket in the inertial system will fly to the point of confident capture and that's it. Don't be smart.

[Avior]

Or will not reach
Or will fly and find out that the target is false
Or there won't be a sure grip
Or it will simply not fly out of the launcher until the target is fired by the radar.
Especially if the target is maneuvering

[Usher]

Quote: Avior

Or will not reach
Or will fly and find out that the target is false
Or there won't be a sure grip
Or it will simply not fly out of the launcher until the target is fired by the radar.
Especially if the target is maneuvering

Are you an ant?

[Avior]

I just do not climb to comment and talk about what I do not understand
The idea of ​​launching a rocket using meter-range radar data is complete nonsense.
First, for the reasons that I have listed
And secondly, Sky M is a radar, not an air defense system, it does not have any missiles and, in principle, it cannot shoot non-existent missiles. Its task is to detect targets, not shoot at them.
If you do not understand the difference, but take up the reasoning, then it is useless to explain it to you, reason further

[Usher]

Quote: Avior

I just do not climb to comment and talk about what I do not understand
The idea of ​​launching a rocket using meter-range radar data is complete nonsense.
First, for the reasons that I have listed
And secondly, Sky M is a radar, not an air defense system, it does not have any missiles and, in principle, it cannot shoot non-existent missiles. Its task is to detect targets, not shoot at them.
If you do not understand the difference, but take up the reasoning, then it is useless to explain it to you, reason further

God, at least read the open information and make an analysis. Do you know what pairing is? And how many radars are in the complex?

[Avior]

You keep on composing.
Take open information and read the appointment of Heaven M. If after that you don't understand why you can't shoot according to its data, I can't help you.

[Usher]

Quote: Avior

You keep on composing.
Take open information and read the appointment of Heaven M. If after that you don't understand why you can't shoot according to its data, I can't help you.

Facepalm !!!!

[Avior]

It is clear, in fact, you have nothing to write
I will not interfere

[Arkon]

Quote: Avior

The idea of ​​launching a rocket using meter-range radar data is complete nonsense.

You tell the engineers of the ZG radar "Sunflower", which, in spite of its "meter", fully carries out target designation.

According to the legend of the exercise, the crew of the RK "Dagestan", performing air defense watch tasks in the middle part of the Caspian Sea, was attacked by the aircraft of a simulated enemy. The pilots of the Su-24MR, simulating the aircraft of a simulated enemy, were tasked with designating a missile strike on the ship by flying at low altitudes in conditions that make it difficult to detect targets by the ship's radar stations.

In turn, the duty crews of the Sunflower over-the-horizon radar station (ZG radar) had to detect low-flying targets at the maximum possible flight distance and transmit data with target designations to the Territorial Control Center of the Caspian Flotilla and the crew of the ship on duty.

Duty crews of the radar station and the crew of the RK "Dagestan" successfully coped with the assigned tasks. Ship anti-aircraft gunners, when air targets approached the line of fire, conditionally destroyed enemy aircraft.

[Avior]

read carefully. To detect and transmit target designation, which is the task of the surveillance radar, and not to shoot.

when air targets approached the line of fire, conditionally destroyed

Did the word conventionally bother you, for example?

[Arkon]

Quote: Avior

To detect and transmit target designation, which is the task of the surveillance radar, and not to shoot.

And the radar also shoot?

[Avior]

read the beginning of a branch

the complex not only detects, but also directs missiles to the target.

if you think so too, then re-read your post again

[Avior]

launch a rocket based on meter-range radar data

Ship anti-aircraft gunners, when air targets approached the line of fire, conditionally destroyed aviation

[Arkon]

Well, yes, here it remains unclear - on whose coordinates the missile was launched: on the transmitted "Sunflower" or on the ship's air defense. However, if this is the second case, then what kind of joint application can we talk about?
I think we are still talking about launching naval missiles at the coordinates of the ZG radar.

[Avior]

I think you are wrong. And, it seems, it is written in the above quote in such a way as to mislead.
Radar Sunflower is a surface wave radar, it is two-dimensional, and, by definition, cannot give out data for firing, of course.
This is a general detection radar, it issued information in advance about the appearance of a target, and they will still shoot the ship complex when the opportunity arises.

[Arkon]

Let's wait for additional information.

[Gennady Fomkin]

Episkopos. A-50.rls aircraft Well, the cherry on top is the A-100 aircraft with a new radar with AFAR, capable of detecting air targets at a distance of 600 km. The Russian latest anti-aircraft system S-500 "Prometheus" is completing tests.

[hose end]

We'll see and take down everyone RAFAR rules in 2050

[Murmur 55]

Oh how !!! Previously, they finished off with their heels in the chest that Russia has nothing to DETECT their f, now it turns out that there is, reminds a story with a hyper sound, first hee-hee, ha-ha "Putin cartoons" and then add this weapon to the list of prohibited under START-3. And this phrase that the discovery is just the beginning of the chain reminded me of a cartoon - "While your horse has FOUR legs, one, two, three, four, a boy on TWO legs one, two, one, two."

[zenion]

Don't scare their plane. He will not fly from fear at all and it will become impossible to shoot him down in the sky. Is that only to give tanks and shoot from a slingshot.

[Ros 56]

Whoever bellows, their vaunted Patriot is not even able to detect the object, I am silent about the rest. And we tested the S-500 Prometheus.

[voyaka uh]

You're right. The Patriot is unable to detect the stealth plane.
The Americans recognize this.

[Ros 56]

So let them stick their tongue into the crack and not googling, you tell them.

[Prisoner]

"To discover is not to bring down." Is that the motto of American air defense?

[A.K.]

And this Episkos did not ask the question what the American air defense can do against our missiles and aircraft? Against the backdrop of events in Saudi Arabia, there are great doubts about their capabilities.

[voyaka uh]

American air defense is just as ineffective against stealth aircraft as Russian.
Physics works the same way in Russia and in the USA.
And the Americans tested this in large exercises: an attack by the Air Force against the air defense.
F-35s easily passed through the Patriot deployment area.
The radars did not react to them at all. But the F-15 and F-16, too
those who participated in the attack were accurately detected and conditionally shot down.

[A.K.]

They can't shoot down a missile from Emen. And what they are doing there and talking, as practice shows, turns out to be nothing more than a PR campaign of American weapons. They love to direct the shadow on the fence. They can’t do anything against us militarily, I’ll tell you more, they won’t even try. They will try to strangle us with someone else's hands.

[poquello]

Quote: voyaka uh

like the Russian

ooh-ooh-ooh, why are you hiding behind the landscape? )))))))))))))))))))))))))

[zenion]

To see is not to bring down. These planes can be covered by the firmament, easily, because the firmament will not see them and will easily let them through. Therefore, in addition to the planet Earth, they can fall on the moon satellite or the sun star. Yes, they can still fall into the okyan sea, but it is immeasurable and they will not be found invisible. The main thing is not to grease the wings with wax, so that it does not melt.

[Crabong]

In vain they are there, in this "Nat. interest ”this Greek is paid a salary ...

[Gunther]

Quote: Mark Episkopos

However, "detect" and "destroy" are different concepts.

Don't worry Markush - we'll get to DC if this bucket of bolts (f-35) accidentally survives.

[stan200000]

It seems that the phrase "To see is not to bring down" speaks about its own, about the painful ...

[Butchcassidy]

Can be a "great target" ... If grandma has eggs and a bike, it will not be grandma, but a biker.

[Shahno]

Quote: lucul

How to aim a missile if its gsn does not see the target. In the meter range, the carcass is visible, the gsn of the rocket in the mm range - shooting into the sky

Dear, I'll tell you a terrible secret - all the "stealth" of the F-35 is in the form - a view of the plane only from a frontal projection, roughly speaking only in the forehead. The side view and rear view of the aircraft are not stealthy. And the rocket does not care where to fly to the plane - from behind or from the side)))

In fact, this is not the case. But I can't reveal any more secrets ...

[Shahno]

Quote: HAM

As I understand it, "junior researcher" and "graduate student"
Mark Episkopos, has only a purely theoretical relation to the army ... a natural nerd, and there ...

Well, if he is under the Darpa program, then he has something to do with it ..
I'm afraid you underestimate these nerds.

[AVA77]

It’s strange, like the F-35 is all so invisible to the impossibility, and this justified the price, the complexity of operation and other stealth nishtyaki. But it turns out he is visible so what now?
Put the F-35 on tracks and drive it strictly with thistles and windbreaks outside the radar detection zone It turns out that the F-15.F-16 is nothing worse than the F-35, because seeing does not mean shooting down.

[Shahno]

Quote: AVA77

It’s strange, like the F-35 is all so invisible to the impossibility, and this justified the price, the complexity of operation and other stealth nishtyaki. But it turns out he is visible so what now?
Put the F-35 on tracks and drive it strictly with thistles and windbreaks outside the radar detection zone It turns out that the F-15.F-16 is nothing worse than the F-35, because seeing does not mean shooting down.

And what is strange to you ... How would the air defense breakthrough machines be planned.
They will see they will not see them without a difference .. The main thing is to fulfill the assigned tasks as much as possible.
Make it difficult to resist as much as possible, and cause maximum damage.

[AVA77]

As if air defense breakthrough machines were planned.
They will not see them without a difference, they will not shoot down, they will break through the air defense, they will not break through, where are we flying, why are we flying, women will still give birth This is what I understand about setting those tasks for the development of the F-35.

[Flurry]

Physics is really the same for everyone, and all-aspect interference attenuation of the radar signal is nonsense, you know. In addition, if his radar does not emit anything, then he himself does not see anything (about the invisible LPI mode, it's generally obvious stupidity, who prevents to declare the same mode for the Sky-M radar, which will make it supposedly undetectable for the Kharms, etc.;) ). An open circular nozzle is visible in a large solid angle for thermal seeker. About the interference, by the way. Here all the time they laugh from the "witnesses of the Khibiny sect" how this electronic warfare suppressed the radar of the URO destroyer allegedly. But why doesn't the similar nonsense from stealth fans generate the same amount of fun? How the weak radar of the aircraft will "suppress" the powerful multi-band ground complex ???? Or "there is evidence of this, but they are classified?;))))"

[Konstantin Shevchenko]

Interestingly, the author of The National Interest Mark Episkopos thought about where the surviving F-35 and F-22 will land? Perhaps the parachute is not a salvation.

[CYM]

IMHO It depends from where they land? If from the bombing of underdeveloped countries, then landing on departure airfields is usually not a problem. And if from the "air defense breakthrough" and the bombing of a decent nuclear power, then this is a 95% one-way flight (Doolittle Raid 2.0). Back in 1985-87 we were given (in a serious case) a simple task, to release our SU-17s with a special suspension at any cost and drive them farther from the airfield - to partisan. I don’t think that such tasks have changed much for us and our "partners" since then.

[bk0010]

After the stealth plane is discovered, it must be escorted, aimed a missile at it, and only then destroyed.

And we will aim not a rocket, but a fighter. And he will see everything up close and direct.

[Taras mp]

Not to be detected does not mean to shoot down anyway that not visible does not mean not visible

[saffron]

It is worth checking in reality. Pampers under yay .... and fly))).

[Kapkan]

An article in the spirit of a documentary from Discovery, where everyone is repeated 15 times.
It's even scary to think how stupid their analysts are and how far from understanding how and what works.

[Herman 4223]

The main principle by which stealth is achieved is the reflection of the radio signal away from the radiation source. If the plane flies in the zone of a developed air defense system, then it will be irradiated by several radars from different sides, and maybe several dozen. The reflected signal will be picked up by other radars. The rocket will fly to the plane from the angle from which the radio wave is reflected.

[Shiden]

It seems to me that this is not a complete article, but a banal pulled out quote. This is to let off steam for the commentators. And if, since it is sensible to wait for one plane to break through the air defense, Iraq and Yugoslavia will not be an example of this, all means of attack will be used.

[Herman 4223]

Yes, there are practically no normal articles. Those who translate here, apparently, are not fire either.

[reminin]

Now one is in orbit for a year, two - the fourth and the fifth - flew off for two years, ”Novikov said. According to him, Boeing X-37 was officially created for scientific and reconnaissance purposes, but Russia understands that the large payload of these vehicles allows small drones to carry up to three nuclear warheads, and large ones - up to six.

Russia already has the means to "spin" satellites with nuclear missiles from orbit. A couple of years ago, there was also a hysteria from the NATO leadership that some of Russia's satellites suddenly began to move to other orbits of their own accord. And after the launch of the space truck, NATO satellites can be massively removed from orbit and dumped in a landfill near the moon.

[isv000]

The FSA can tell a lot, but they are afraid to remember how in Yugoslavia their stealth from the C-125 was filled up with the help of a microwave.

[Kelwin]

Yeah) Remind this uncle that F117 took off the C-125) It's like a tarpaulin across a striped snout) Let him figure out what a newer complex can do) It is possible that this f35th iPhone will wake up even when it is taken to accompany ...

[Fedor M]

Nothing prevents from sending a squadron of MiG 31 with R 33 missiles to intercept

[Dzafdet]

Spotted, launched a tactical missile with YABB and blew it up. You can forget about invisibility ...

[TatarinSSSR]

As it is not noticeable on both sides of the ocean, they began to talk so calmly and routinely about the war between the United States and Russia, about the destruction of each other. Hate propaganda works with a bang. The military-industrial complex of both countries clap their hands from billions of injections.

[silver_roman]

The Greek is absolutely right. Does not mean. It simply means that the stealth low-signature performance has been minimized, for the sake of which the F-35 was made so fat-ass in terms of dynamic performance, thrust-to-weight ratio, etc. So they would find it at a range twice the distance at which it would be shot down. Everything is logical

[Reserve buildbat]

Another reasoning based on advertising characteristics of aircraft and unknown characteristics of the radar. With the same success, this "iksperd" can crush water in a mortar.

[Mikhail3]

However, "to see" does not mean to "bring down"

Nice to read. In fact, to detect is to bring down. Two serifs define position, altitude, course and speed, everything, you can shoot. Operation KGB (or GRU?) "Radar invisibility" cost the United States trillions of dollars and lost leadership in the aircraft industry. It is a pity that the fog has begun to dissipate. Very sorry. Let the resources continue to thump into this hat.

[yehat2]

there is no need to neutralize the f-22 or f-35 for the Russian air defense.
before they run out of fuel, than they reach the important goal.
these are fighters with a range of about 500-600 km. The actual combat radius is even smaller.
But outside the borders of the Russian Federation, there is a completely different alignment - there is no air defense system, and individual points and installations are no longer so dangerous.
As for the shooting capabilities, there are no problems at distances of 40 km or less, the only window where there may be difficulties is the distance of launching or activating an active warhead of 40-80 km. Under these conditions, there may be problems with accurate targeting and more than 1 missile may be required.
I do not yet know how effective it is, there may be some failures in the accurate determination of flight parameters, which can lead to large errors when launching a rocket from a distance. But if there is a correction system, then the problem can be corrected.
It is also unclear how well the guidance heads do in the frontal projection, where both the radio silhouette and IR radiation are minimally visible.

[Wolf]

NEVA S125 can shoot them down and it is proven, but what can we say about Buk S300, S400, S500, Pantsir, etc. ...
It is important that the air defense system is older than 30 years, then it is mature so that it can be sold to non-release from Mars.

[Wolf]

But nastayayushche have NEVI = TANUSHA !!!

[Radio operator and engineer]

A full-scale conflict, nothing good does not bring our air defense either. Gaps and holes will gradually appear ... The point is in the number of attacking missiles. There are almost 1,5 rockets on the iron dome. Conventional, ballistic and that's it. What will happen to our dome if in several waves there is a strike by 2,3 thousand missiles at the same time? Moreover, they are highly accurate and "ranked" by classes of targets and methods of attack. And only then a massive attack of F22, 35. To finish off the remnants of the network centric of our air defense. The question is rhetorical.
But locally, yes, I think no options for NATO members.