American media: It is necessary now to reduce the EPR of the B-21 Raider bomber in order to "deceive" the Russian S-500 air defense system

The American press is discussing plans made public in Russia to deploy the first battery of the S-500 Prometheus air defense system. In the United States, it is predicted that with the help of these air defense-missile defense systems it is initially planned to "cover" the capital region of Russia. The speculation arises as to whether Russia's latest anti-aircraft missile system is actually capable of easily detecting fifth-generation American stealth fighters. In particular, this topic is raised on the pages of The National Interest by the columnist Mark Episkopos. In his article, he asks a question of the following nature:

Are Russian S-500 air defense systems capable of causing problems for American stealth aircraft?

The American author writes that in Russia the S-500 Prometheus air defense system is positioned as a special weaponas a kind of "silver bullet" with special capabilities.

The material refers to the statements of Russian military experts that the S-500 air defense system is capable of detecting and defeating not only stealth aircraft adopted in the United States and other NATO countries, but also those that are just about to be adopted. In particular, we are talking about promising American stealth bombers B-21 Raider. In fact, this is not just a bomber, it is an aircraft that breaks through air defense systems.

In such a situation, American military experts are already trying, on the basis of data from open sources, to conclude whether the B-21 Raider will be able to overcome the air defense lines that Russia is building with the use of the S-500 air defense system.
In American media:

Designers and developers will have to make a lot of effort so that the promising B-21 Raider bomber could remain invisible to the S-500 Prometheus air defense system. If the Russian air defense system, as the Russians themselves claim, is capable of detecting F-35 fighters, then it turns out that it is capable of detecting B-21s in the sky, because they use similar stealth concepts. Therefore, it is necessary now to improve the options for reduced visibility, to reduce the EPR (effective scattering area - approx. VO) in order to "deceive" the Russian S-500 air defense system.

In turn, the aforementioned Mark Episkopos in TNI writes that so far all information about the S-500 is based primarily on publications in the Russian media. According to this logic, it can be noted that all the basic data about a promising American bomber is based on the publications of the US press, including the same TNI and other military-themed American media resources.

Comments

[prior]

to "deceive" ... the Russians - this is all America.

[Lech from Android.]

Gentlemen are supposed to take their word for it ... once they believed it ... they almost ended up in the grave.
Now Americans can say anything, believe their promises, and disrespect themselves with sweet speeches.
As for the B-21, I think they are just as good at knocking down by our air defense systems as the F-117 shot down in Serbia.
All the vaunted power of these aircraft is just the fruit of American propaganda ... they are powerless against layered air defense defenses.

[2 Level Advisor]

in a similar situation, naturally, the b-21 will be shot down like the f-117, by the same S-125 complex via the optical guidance channel. bath-if you think about the consequences / circumstances of such a fight ..

[Machito]

While the American expert is discussing the possibility of countering the promising American bomber with the Russian S-500 air defense system, the specialists of the Almaz-Antey concern are developing the next generation C-600 air defense system.

[Alex777]

Yes, let them reduce the visibility!
The plane will be golden again.
And no series will be built!

[vladcub]

F-117 shot down in Serbia at that time was a joke anecdote -
Sorry, I didn’t know that you were "nividimka"
It seems he landed with 200 "*

[Pashhenko Nikolay]

I'm just curious. Do you really think that the B-21 was created to overcome any air defense? Or is it just that any signal to throw your caps into the air makes you ecstatic?

[Orange bigg]

They will deceive themselves in the end.

Due to the listed shortcomings and a lost advertising campaign, the Night Hawk was removed from service in 2008. It was replaced by F-22 and F-35 fighters. Comparing the secrecy of the latter and the capabilities of the S-400 Triumph air defense system, Carlo Kopp, head of the Air Power Australia analytical center, concluded that the American fighter would be an easy target for Russia's latest air defense systems.

Stealth technologies are more or less effective against radars operating in the X-band (8-12 GHz), and ultrashort wave radars (30 MHz - 3 GHz) can perfectly see stealth aircraft. Just such mobile anti-stealth radars go into service with the Russian army. The ships of the Chinese Navy are equipped with similar radars.

.Reach invisibility

March 27 1999 of the year during the war in Yugoslavia, the invisible F-117 Night Hawk US Air Force aircraft was shot down by the old Pechora anti-aircraft missile system P-125. The first 5В27Д rocket, launched at the Kirov Plant named after the XX Party Congress in 1976, tore off the wing of the American fighter, the second hit the fuselage. Pilot Dale Zelko ejected, hid in the forest and a few hours later was evacuated by helicopter by American special forces.

“On March 24, we left the military unit and moved to the suburb of Belgrade, near the village of Shimanovtsy,” said the commander of the P-125 calculation, Dragan Matic. -Three days passed relatively quietly: they worked by teams, the usual procedure. The main task was not to fall under the AWACS radar that accompanied the NATO aircraft. In the evening of March 27 our entire team was on duty. A colleague from the tracking service reported strong interference in the air - the source of interference was moving in our direction. Five minutes later, radio intelligence transmitted that the target was approaching our calculation. I looked at the monitor and saw it, the signal was clear. Reported to the commander that the goal is fixed, we are ready for defeat. 17 seconds after the command "Fire" the plane was shot down by our missiles.

Having shot, anti-aircraft gunners immediately left the position.

- The faster you relocate, the greater the chances of the calculation to stay alive. For three months of aggression, we changed the position of 24 times. We were watched by AWACS and US satellites. 20 seconds on the air or on the enemy radar - and, consider, you are already dead. “Tomahawk” or a powerful bomb will arrive, continued Matich. - We silently shot and left - this saved our team. No one was injured, although nine people died in my air defense brigade.

The Serbian missileman said that his crew also hit the F-16 and the B-2 stealth bomber. But these planes made it to their airfields, so there is no evidence. For a long time, the Americans called the downed F-117 “missing”, and then asked to return it. The Serbs, of course, refused - now the "stealth" cabin adorns the aviation museum in Belgrade.

https://rg.ru/2014/06/08/stels-site.html

[sabakina]

OrangeBigg (Alexander) Once upon a time, I read that in Vietnam, after the losses in the air defense system went down, ours began to scratch their turnips, like "what to do"? And what did they come up with? We just put the pedal on, like a car's on / off mode (I don’t know what it’s called correctly). They just turned on / off for a few seconds with a pedal, this was enough to counter aircraft and enemy missiles. Sorry if I wrote messy.

[rocket757]

That's right, there is no constant radiation, anti-radar missiles were losing their target ...
Now the rockets are "smarter". "remembered" and will cover the point of the last contact by coordinates.
Now the methods of counteraction, on both sides, are more, different.

[sabakina]

Yes Victor. Everything flows, everything changes. Both action and reaction. Even the universe is changing. But we, behind the meekness of being, do not see this.

[rocket757]

Welcome
The thesis that "War, the engine of progress" is difficult to dispute ... but somehow it does not inspire, rather scares!
That is why mankind spends so much effort, resources, on the creation of weapons of destruction are similar to themselves ???
Such efforts, but back on track !!! Apple trees have already grown on Mars!

[Flanker692]

Well, what are these stupid Americans, so many billions down the pipe.

Stealth technologies are more or less effective against radars operating in the X-band (8-12 GHz), and ultrashort wave radars (30 MHz - 3 GHz) can perfectly see stealth aircraft. Just such mobile anti-stealth radars go into service with the Russian army. The ships of the Chinese Navy are equipped with similar radars.

These are decimeter and meter bands. They are NOT used in guidance stations, tracking air defense weapons systems on the ground, on the water, and they, and most importantly, with us. Because their resolution is too low for these tasks. They are used as detection stations on the ground, but this is not an air defense system, this is only rough long-range reconnaissance, you cannot aim such an antenna missile.
On the water, observation stations of the meter range on modern ships, including ours, are not used (perhaps there were similar stations on Soviet construction) because all the weapons of the ship are now combined into a combat information and control system (BIUS) and the meter station is clearly out of place there ... Modern decimeter shipborne AFAR S-band have an impressive range with incomparably better resolution. But even they are not used by CIUS as a means of guiding missiles, there is always a second multifunctional centimeter X-band radar: shorter range, greater accuracy. So on AN / SPY-1 (Arleigh Burke) AN / SPY-3 (new aircraft carriers, Zumvolts, new Arlee Burke), and on our modern Russian warships with BIUS. Even on the former giants without BIUS type 1144.2M "Orlan", the S-300F air defense system had its own 3R41 X / J guidance radar in the centimeter range.
On the ground, the story is the same: the previous C-300s even had an E / F-band observation station (wavelengths in the region of 10 cm), and the guidance station has a centimeter I / J-band. The old meter stations are P-12, P-18 detection stations - they are generally two-dimensional, you won't even get into a balloon from them. New Sky, Sky-M are much more advanced: a phased array, multi-radar, multi-band, but the maximum that she can say is in which sector the 5th generation is flying, seen by her meter antenna, she will not aim missiles. The S-400, S-500 use various versions of 91H6 and this is the S-band (7,5-15 cm), at least the first versions had just such a range and outwardly it changed little and, well, does not pull at a decimeter, meter station ( and it would be VERY stupid if something was changed in a big way) In addition to it, 59Н6, 67Н6 can be added for an additional review - in such cases, this is the same decimeter L-band. Moreover, when it comes to S-300, S-400 missiles, air-to-air missiles, but you need to understand that at the final stage they themselves must visit with their radar heads. The diameter of such missiles is up to half a meter. How can I put it in there not like a meter, like a decimeter antenna? These are millimeter, maximum centimeter radars of extremely low power.
Where are the meter stations in this all? what kind of thread?
For reference, meter waves, in which stealth disappears (but not for the flying wing scheme, which is just in the B-21), start at a frequency of 0,3 GHz and below.

PS All information from "Wikipedia" was collected in a couple of hours, while a detailed description of the C-400 can be found on "Air Power Australia" itself, why once again invent a myth about invincible meter stations is not clear.

[Flanker692]

Clarification: The 91N6 radar for the S-400 is an S-band observation control station, its own multifunctional guidance station is called 92N6 and there, as you would expect, is already a purely centimeter I / J range.

[just exp]

you can launch the ARLGSN SAM into the desired area, which will be guided from the ground, and she herself will find the target of her GOS

[rocket757]

Yes, everything is fine.
If there is a myth about the invisibility of stealth, there will be a myth that it is seen and shot down for one, two!
It is unlikely that an active specialist will come here and will paint all the nuances, methods, developments that we have and with their help you can develop some kind of myth! They do the same on their part.
Most likely, there will be stuffing, of varying degrees of reliability / objectivity, in order to support / inspire their own and at the same time to scare the enemy!
Military secrets, however, have not been canceled.

[Crabong]

And there was nothing about triangulation on Wikipedia?

[Flanker692]

Not only the S-400 + has triangulation, but also the F-35, just imagine, they are also capable of using weapons in passive mode, plus there is an OLS. The situation will be dueling.

[Crabong]

What are you writing?

[Flanker692]

What are you writing?

And there was nothing about triangulation on Wikipedia?

It was.
In addition, the coordinates of conventional and stealth targets can be obtained from the radiation of their own radar or aircraft communication systems using passive electronic intelligence systems Vega / Orion [50] and Avtobaza-M [51]. The electronic warfare modules included on airplanes to interfere with conventional S-400 radars also allow calculating the coordinates of radiation sources. These systems do not emit signals to detect air targets, and Vega uses the method of triangular calculation of the coordinates of radio emission sources by the difference in signal level for three absolutely passive study receivers [52], and Avtobaza-M uses a method of more accurate bearing to the radio emission source due to a rotating antenna [51]. Thus, the electronic reconnaissance systems for the S-400 cannot be detected and destroyed by anti-radar missiles. Therefore, tactically stealth aircraft cannot attack according to their own radars, since they will be detected and destroyed, and without the ability to destroy the air defense system with retaliatory strikes.
Vega / Orion using several, working in conjunction, passive complexes gives out the location of enemy aircraft triangulation method with an error of ~ 2 km at a distance of 100 km. With such an error, missile guidance is impossible and, in general, has not been confirmed. Apparently this is just another possible source of additional information for its centimeter guidance radar, which also has difficulties with stealth.
The F-35 has an AN / ASQ-239 station (antennas integrated into the fuselage throughout the body, following the example of L-band antennas in the Su-57 slats), which combines the functions of not only SPO, but also RTR, and REP, and target designation by triangulation method radio signals in a wide range flying in the F-35 link (data exchange via directional communication MADL). The accuracy of the determination is also insufficient, but the coordinates and type of threat in the area of ​​interest before reconnaissance either with its own OLS, or AFAR through a synthesized aperture. Such a possibility is declared by the documents of the BAE Systems station manufacturer, and the principle of operation is generally stated in interviews with the pilots.
PS New missile for FA-18G and F-35 - AARGM-ER (army index AGM-88G, contract for 9,3 billion, deliveries from 2023). Anti-radar missile with active / passive head. The reconnaissance information is loaded into it and it is sent to the area. She herself no longer needs the fact of even a single activation of the radar, tk. she navigates the digital map of the area and tries to find the target on her own. Range> 200 km.
The plane has constantly changing coordinates and stealth, more powerful electronic warfare near the ground, that's the duel.
PSS The F-22 has a similar AN / ALR-94 system

[Crabong]

In general, I mean that these stealth technologies are more publicized than effective. And the Americans continue to praise her ... I personally think that the B-21 has little chance of breaking through an integrated air defense system built from Russian-made complexes.

[Flanker692]

During the Gulf War, the F-117 and B-2 performed at their best. Two links of F-117 flew there at night and performed combat missions without losses where, yesterday afternoon, almost four squadrons of F-16, accompanied by a retinue of F-15, EF-111A (electronic warfare), tankers, AWACS and again tankers and F-15 (already for themselves) could do nothing and suffered losses. 4% of the F-117 sorties out of the total mass of all sorties accounted for (I don't remember exactly) ~ 60% of all targets previously designated for destruction. The Iraqi air defense was not the most powerful on the planet, of course, but the coalition suffered certain losses from it. Two B-2s performed the work of a whole group of B-52s and quietly flew wherever no one would have gone for no reason. During the first night raid on Baghdad, immediately after the first attack by cruise missiles (which destroyed only communications centers and headquarters, and not individual air defense systems), the F-117 flew in and worked without loss, and the F-117 pilots noted that they registered the operation of ground-based radars and even the MiG-29 radar flying in the same place somewhere in the night sky. The states have podcasts in English on the topic of combat aviation where retired pilots are invited. So the F-117 pilot said that during the exercises they practiced night raids with penetration into the A-50 duty area in order to shoot them down with HARMs and much more dangerous things - nuclear bombs strikes at objects in Moscow and the Moscow region (the air defense of this area is already far from the same as in Iraq). Jokes are not joking there. I think everything was and is very serious, this is my opinion.

[Crabong]

Something I strongly doubt, the F-22 can approach the S-400 at 21 km. And in general, I would not strongly trust all these American stories. Can HARMs work on air targets? Algorithms for the work of the GOS allow? In short, they have a lot of frank lies and nuances ...

[Flanker692]

The calculation is made if we take as the truth the EPR data of 0,005 square meters or less (Lockheed says that it is an order of magnitude less). If everything is roughly the same, then the problem is not only with the maintenance, tk. the minimum sensitivity of the seeker of Almaz-Antey missiles is 10 times higher (as indicated on advertising brochures from exhibitions).
When the F-117 was first tested in the Mojave Desert on a MIM-23 HAWK (something like our Cuba), it did not spot the plane even after flying directly over it. From the memoirs of Ben Rich - the head of Lockheed Martin's Secret Research Unit. Those. to believe again or not is a controversial issue. The sensitivity of these old medium and small complexes is generally about 0,5 square meters (I heard it somewhere). The modern ones should be higher, but how much is unknown.
PS After the news about the resumption of the F-15 program in the person of the F-15EX, they also had disputes, what for then the F-35 (although a priori these are different aircraft and still). And now Air Force Magazine has prepared an infographic where there are also 21 miles for the F-35. How do they calculate this EPR or which source the link is, I don’t know, tk. a target with a diameter of 3,8 mm is some kind of microscopic EPR value. In order to reduce the detection range by a factor of 10, much larger values ​​can be dispensed with.

[Flanker692]

From the same book by Ben Rich:
Ben called me every day to keep abreast of the latest results. The model was roughly the size of a golf ball. One morning we counted twelve birds perched on a model mounted on a pole. Their droppings increased the ESR value by one and a half decibels. Three decibels is equivalent to doubling the RCS value. The layers of heated air that appear during the day in the hot desert could sometimes deflect the radar beams from the target. Once, while using ultra-sensitive radar, a layer of heated air deflected the beams so that the measurement was four decibels better than we deserved. I saw this error, but no technician. Damn it, it wasn't my job to point out to him that he saw the wrong picture. I figured Northrop was probably also taking advantage of this to improve the results, and this could come up in the future.
But then Ben Rich called me and said, "Listen, take the best measurements we got, calculate the EPR and tell me the size of the steel ball that would fit." It was a Ben Rich idea. Due to the skewed data, the equivalent size of the model has shrunk from a golf ball to a roulette ball. But this was, although not entirely correct, but the official data, and no one except me knew about it.
EPR of a steel ball the size of a golf ball ~ 0,0014 mXNUMX

[Boshirov]

"From the same book by Ben Rich:
Ben called me every day to keep abreast of the latest results. The model measured roughly the size of a golf ball. One morning we counted twelve birds perched on a model mounted on a pole. Their droppings increased the RCS value by one and a half decibels. "
"And what is this cry of Yaroslavna." Russian constructors are the best in the world.

[Boshirov]

"The calculation is made if we take as the truth the EPR data of 0,005 square meters or less (Lockheed says that it is an order of magnitude less)."
The MIC website does not need to be rewritten. It is nonsense.
"Which, and ours and yours, and together we dance."

[Boshirov]

"S-400, S-500 use different versions of 91Н6 and this is the S-band (7,5-15 cm), at least the first versions had just such a range and outwardly it changed little and, well, does not pull at a decimeter, meter station. (and it would be VERY stupid if something was changed in a big way) "
You absolutely do not understand the topic on which you are writing.

[Alien From]

And here are these guys: you pIDmanula for me, you pIdvila for me

[Deck]

I have no idea what would have been written in the VO news if it had not been for the NI garbage dump (https://topwar.ru/95470-ob-mnogostradalnom-ni-i-deyve-kak-ego-tam.html), the main local authority in defense matters. There are no more Janes, Defense News, Flight International, Aviation Week & Space Technology in the world. Or is it not a topic for propagandists?

[Lech from Android.]

There are a lot of such cisterns in the media ... there is very little real information ...

[lucul]

There are no more Janes, Defense News, Flight International, Aviation Week & Space Technology in the world. Or is it not a topic for propagandists?

I went to Defense News last week - a rare slag.
In comparison with him, VO is just a storehouse of information.

[Deck]

Still would! Defense News does not write how the world was worried, scared and massively written off to the shore with the news of the incomparable successes of the Russian army and its unparalleled weapons in the world.

[Real Pilot]

The plane is almost ready ...
How can something drastically change there? If the RCS is determined mainly by the shape of the fuselage and covering.
Well, the subsonic aircraft for the S-500 missiles, one might say, almost stands still.

Just drop everything and start over. But that won't help either! The concept of "stealth" remains the same, all the same materials are used ... EPR was counted and recalculated on a computer, the models were irradiated in an anechoic chamber. No breakthrough concept.

The Americans are trying to catch up with Russia by hypersound. In order not to enter the airspace with an air defense zone. But then the "super-duper stealth" B-21 is not needed, the "super-duper missiles" are enough (Trump accurately outlined the wishes of the Pentagon have the best).
In general, the fifth generation turned out to be slightly unfinished, expensive and not very effective.
So for the next level of development of aviation technology, another revolution in engines, energy sources and / and materials science is needed!

[Nafanya from the sofa]

In turn, the aforementioned Mark Episkopos in TNI writes that so far all information about the S-500 is based primarily on publications in the Russian media. According to this logic, it can be noted that all the basic data about a promising American bomber is based on the publications of the US press, including the same TNI and other military-themed American media resources.

Well straight 1: 1

[Thrifty]

So, the C400 will cope with the Ryders, so why are the Yankees scaring themselves?

[HAM]

This is not a "silver bullet" - this is an aspen stake ...

[venik]

"....Are Russian S-500 air defense systems capable of causing problems for American stealth aircraft? ......"
=======
It looks like they are beginning to be afraid .... And this is good news! As they say: "If you don't like it, it means they are afraid! Afraid means respected!"

[lucul]

It looks like they are beginning to be afraid .... And this is good news! As the saying goes: "If you do not like it, it means they are afraid! If they are afraid, it means they respect!"

The problem is that, having believed in their false power, the Americans are then extremely reluctant to make concessions in negotiations. The more we throw dirt on our troops and the country here, the more demands they have in the negotiations.
And here some are happy to try - they say the more I throw mud at the troops, the supposedly the process will move faster from the dead center, yeah "SCHAZ". This will only add to our headache when negotiating with amers.

[knn54]

- "deceive" the S-500 air defense system of the Russians
There is plywood. ALSO a composite material,

[Cananecat]

Quote: knn54

There is plywood. ALSO a composite material,

EPR will be equal to zero, provided the aircraft is on the ground ... let it be reduced to health. )

[Boa kaa]

Quote: knn54

There is plywood. ALSO a composite material,

Plywood? - yes, it is radio-transparent ... But there are also Raider's metal insides ... what to do with them !?

[Jacket in stock]

TNI writes that so far all information about the S-500 is based primarily on publications in the Russian media.

It's easier for amers, their planes are in Moscow all the time, you can catch the moment when our C500 is turned on, record the frequencies and modulation, then reproduce it at home and try it on with a real Raider.
But we can only guess at a guess, model the shape from the pictures, materials from the old trophies ... and then I guessed, I did not guess.

[sabakina]

Constantine, stop scaring the dog!

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: sabakina

Constantine, stop scaring the dog!

I?
I'm frightening?
A dog !?

I just described one of the aspects.

[avg avg]

Uncle jacket, have you ever heard of the combat modes of the air defense system?

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: avg avg

and you have never heard of combat modes of operation

Well, as bae, of course I heard, we were told before the shoulder straps were handed out.
And yes, the standby mode differs from the combat mode both in the composition of the means and in the algorithms of their work.
But the duty mode cannot be hidden anywhere, and at least at least part of the information can be removed from the original source.

[avg avg]

This piece of information will not save the enemy.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: avg avg

This piece of information will not save the enemy.

Well, like bum, that's why they complain about life, that again the wunderwaffe did not happen.

[B1 Lancer]

Reminiscent of Star Wars!

[Crimean partisan 1974]

reduce ESR (effective scattering area - approx. VO)

... as I understand it, another large budget cut is brewing in the states ..... great

[askort154]

In particular, we are talking about promising American stealth bombers B-21 Raider. In fact, this is not just a bomber, it is an aircraft that breaks through air defense systems.

It will not reach the air defense. It will be destroyed at the base airfield. A modern, big war will begin with ballistic missile strikes, which are aimed at the enemy's strategic targets. And if, God forbid, this happens, then for sure, the B-21 will arrive at the airfield,
something like "Vanguard", but he doesn't care whether "stealth" is in front of him or not, and they won't even have time to "uncover" them.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: askort154

a big war will begin with ballistic missile strikes, which are aimed at the enemy's strategic targets. And if, God forbid, this happens, then for sure, the B-21 will arrive at the airfield,
something like "Vanguard"

So they are trying to invent something that will allow them to carry out the "first disarming strike." And all their sadness from the fact that another wunderwolf worth akhrenilion of money turns out to be no guarantee of the impossibility of our retaliatory strike ..

[sabakina]

In the United States, it is predicted that with the help of these air defense-missile defense systems it is initially planned to "cover" the capital region of Russia.

Designers and developers will have to make a lot of effort so that the promising bomber B-21 Raider could remain invisible to the S-500 Prometheus air defense system.

SAM is a weapon of defense. And they still dream of bombing Moscow. So who is the "bad uncle" after that?
Second. After the first "breakthrough", if it does succeed, everything that flies and everything that cannot fly by definition will take off. Do they not understand this at all?

[Egoza]

Quote: sabakina

Do they not understand this at all?

"Ah, it's not difficult to deceive me! I'm glad to be deceived myself!" (A.S. Pushkin)

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: sabakina

everything that flies and everything that cannot fly by definition will take off. Do they not understand this at all?

They understand, hence the sadness-sadness.

[Sandor Clegane]

Quote: sabakina

SAM is a weapon of defense.

there is no defense weapon - or attack, any can be used this way and that !!!
a simple example - an aircraft carrier, in your opinion it is the aggressor! and ZRAK on it? kind of like in your opinion - protection))) but with this ZRAK they shoot down a civil liner? this is a clear attack - and you assert the opposite

[sabakina]

I don't think you should be hiring tufts.

[Sandor Clegane]

Quote: sabakina

I don't think you should be hiring tufts.

I didn't even think))

[tralflot1832]

Interestingly, is it possible for the C 500 to shoot with "spaced" radars. Launch containers with missiles are in one place, and the detection-guidance radar is 10 km away, or can the C 300,350,400 direct them? deploying B21, to deliver strikes, 2 will do nothing, it takes a lot. They will be in the first wave, or after the exchange of ICBM and Poseidon strikes. What is the acceptable cost of American losses of 50%, 75%, 90%? We will smash the countries that have nuclear weapons that the vassals of the United States: England, France, Germany and Turkey, only because they have nuclear bombs of the United States on board? will! And he called for written guarantees not to unleash a nuclear war. The words seemed to be in emptiness. Silence is deathly. So keep white sheets ready and decide on the nearest cemetery. Until the West comes to its senses, the closer we are to the nuclear holocaust of mankind. And NS we live, we walk, we drink!

[rocket757]

Old songs and everything about the same .... as if we have lonely PANTSIRI scurrying around the open spaces, back and forth, as if we have lonely radars and rocket launchers standing here and there ??? They do not want to convey to their layman that everything is SYSTEM, COMPLEX and they have no safe way to penetrate, suppress, bomb everything and avoid a retaliatory, destructive blow.
In general, chewing gum is for internal use, and not a topic for discussion by specialists.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: tralflot1832

What is the acceptable cost for American losses of 50%, 75%, 90%?

This question is posed differently. Everyone talks about UNACCEPTABLE damage. According to McNamara's criterion, this was 50-60% of the military-economic potential (MEP) of the country and 25-35% of the population from the impact of approximately 400 megaton SBPs.
According to the BROWN criterion - 35-40% of VEP and 20-25% of the population from 400 units Mt class.
When considering a functional approach to defense capabilities, the Ama believed that it would be catastrophic for them to lose 50% of the MEP and 25% of the population from 400 units. MT class;
- CRITICAL - loss of 30% EWP and 20% of the population from 200 units. MT class;
- The state of the country will be STRESS with the loss of 20% of the RES and 10% of the population of the country from the impact on the territory of 100 nuclear warheads of the megaton class. Consequently, this should be considered the lower threshold of "acceptability" ... But that was in the era of the USSR. And as now - "I will not tell"!

Quote: tralflot1832

We will smash to smithereens the countries possessing nuclear weapons which are vassals of the United States: England, France, Germany and Turkey, only because they have US nuclear bombs on board

They chose this fate for themselves by placing the SBP on their territory. They know very well that the warehouses and storage bases of nuclear warheads, carriers and means of delivery of the nuclear warheads are the FIRST targets for the warring parties. Therefore, take it for granted, and do not ruthlessly if you agreed to have or place nuclear weapons on your territory.

Quote: tralflot1832

How do we feel about "independent" Israel?

With understanding But if those who were ignored by God "dash" to help their allies, they will ogrebut in full. The rest for us will be completed by their beloved Arabs and Persians.

[tralflot1832]

With humor, you’re fine. With understanding. It’s okay. That’s what I don’t like to run away.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: tralflot1832

I don’t like those who run away.

Nobody likes deserters.

[Evil troll]

While the Americans roll out this B-21, while they finish it to their senses, they will already make the S-600.

[isv000]

Quote: Angry Troll

While the Americans roll out this B-21, while they finish it to their senses, they will already make the S-600.

In Russia, there is a deeply echeloned air defense of the country, a network of radars, military and naval air defense - which is completely absent from the word in the States. And yes - if something is put into service with us, it means that something better is already in the drawings ...

[rotmistr60]

Are Russian S-500 air defense systems capable of causing problems for American stealth aircraft?

And the question is exclusively rhetorical. You don't even need an answer to it. All new Russian weapons are capable of bringing problems to the United States.

[Crimean partisan 1974]

able to bring problems to the United States.

... yes ... when selling over the hillock ... well, and so on trifles ... to budget countries ... and so ... hypersound is not huhry-muhry

[75 Sergey]

Well, let them protest the Turkish S22 with their F35 and F400 and tell about the results.

[agond]

So that the B-21 does not deceive the S-500 tomorrow, today we need to think about expanding the AWACS forces, if our A-50 based on the Il-76 is able to raise its antenna to 10-11 km, then the modified MiG-31 will raise the AFAR by 21 km, if there are two aircraft side by side, it is possible to organize synchronous operation of their AFAR and process the received signal on one of the aircraft, a kind of "binocular" method will dramatically increase the resolution and deceive a system of two spaced radars, this is another task.

[rocket757]

American media: It is necessary now to reduce the EPR of the B-21 Raider bomber in order to "deceive" the Russian S-500 air defense system

... Of course, it can be discussed, something small ... but this does not reveal the overall picture.
We have that, only the S-500 can see their "stealth", can they destroy ???
All this is not serious, to entertain the layman, nothing more.

[voyaka uh]

"What do we have, only S-500s see their stealth, can they destroy them ??" ///
----
1) Stealth F-22 and F-35 see VHF radars.
2) Stealth V-2 and in the meter range differs poorly.
3) Interceptors in telescopic sights can confidently destroy stealth.

[rocket757]

Do we have any interceptors? or all there IS !!!
By the way, about seeing / aiming only through a telescopic sight ... maybe you shouldn't tell these tales?
No, so far, such technologies that would make the object completely invisible to electronic detection equipment ... reduce the visibility, and even then, under certain conditions, nothing more.

[ja-ja-vw]

Quote: voyaka uh

1) Stealth F-22 and F-35 see VHF radars.
2) Stealth V-2 and in the meter range differs poorly.

why "bad"? because it's bigger?

or because he is B-2?

Quote: voyaka uh

3) Interceptors in telescopic sights can confidently destroy stealth.

destroy or take a bearing?
but how can you destroy it "with telescopic sights"?

[voyaka uh]

"why is it" bad "? because it is bigger?" ///
----
Size has little effect on radio signature.
Because the B-2 lacks a tail unit, which "gives out"
F-35 and F-22 for meter radars.
The B-21 will be of an even simpler form than the B-2.
And it won't have swivel slats and flaps.

[ja-ja-vw]

Quote: voyaka uh

Size has little effect on radio signature.

edrena louse.

EPR is understood as the area of ​​an equivalent isotropic scatterer, which, being placed at the point of location of the target, creates at the aperture of the receiving antenna the same power flux density as the real target. Thus, EPR is an abstraction, a model that, however, gives an opportunity to assess the reflectivity of the RLC. It is obvious that EPR can be used to assess the target's radar signature.
The ESR value is influenced by many factors, the main of which are the following:
-size and geometric shape of the target;
- the viewing angle of the target, which determines which part of the target surface is irradiated by a probing electromagnetic wave (EMW);
- operating frequency of the radar, more precisely, the relationship between the wavelength of the locator and the characteristic dimensions of the target;
- the electrical properties of the material from which the target structure is made.

Please note that the geometrical dimensions of the target are in FIRST place, although EPR is an energy characteristic, an abstraction. But its size is AFFECTED by the geometrical dimensions of the target.

Let me explain: the RCS of an aircraft carrier will be ORDERLY larger than the RCS of Zumwalt, EVEN if they are performed using the same technology.
Therefore it

Quote: voyaka uh

Stealth V-2 also differs poorly in the meter range.

nonsense
+

- operating frequency of the radar, more precisely, the relationship between the wavelength of the locator and the characteristic dimensions of the target;

Quote: voyaka uh

Because the B-2 lacks a tail unit, which "gives out"
F-35 and F-22 for meter radars

when irradiated from the front, from the ground, several thousand meters below the location of the geometric center of the aircraft, your tail unit can be pumped.
EMV will be absorbed earlier and dissipated by the body, but that will be reflected from the turbine blades

Quote: voyaka uh

And it won't have swivel slats and flaps.

1.B-2 has no slats! No Kruger, not any
2.B-21 has flaps and interceptors /
otherwise, without a keel in the absence of a controlled thrust vector, it could not maintain directional stability in all modes, and without a keel and in the absence of a controlled thrust vector, it could not be controlled either in pitch or roll.
However, I am not an "aviator_", it is better to ask him

[Boshirov]

"1) Stealth F-22 and F-35 see VHF radars.
2) Stealth V-2 and in the meter range differs poorly.
3) Interceptors in telescopic sights can confidently destroy stealth. "
Citizen. Prove. And you can't.

[Redut]

Are Russian S-500 air defense systems capable of causing problems for American stealth aircraft?

Are they still in doubt? S-200 in Yugoslavia ..)))

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: Redut

S-200 in Yugoslavia ..)))

Do not guess.
In Yugoslavia, their stealth was shot down by C125.
And the C200 shot down our passenger Tu154 over the Black Sea and our Il20 in Syria.

[Redut]

Quote: Jacket in stock

Quote: Redut

S-200 in Yugoslavia ..)))

Do not guess.
In Yugoslavia, their stealth was shot down by C125.
And the C200 shot down our passenger Tu154 over the Black Sea and our Il20 in Syria.

Well, you know better in Israel ..

[Jacket in stock]

And again they did not guess.

[Redut]

Quote: Jacket in stock

And again they did not guess.

I guessed it, it means the goyim .. Forgive me, but there are such sycophants of Israel here ..
Goodbye, now the ban will be hehe

[Redut]

Are Russian S-500 air defense systems capable of causing problems for American stealth aircraft?

Are they still in doubt? S-200 in Yugoslavia ..)))

[Bogatyrev]

As far as I understand, this is not possible. The aircraft cannot be stealthy in all radio bands.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Bogatyrev

The aircraft cannot be stealthy in all radio bands.

Maybe if its skin absorbs 100% EMP from the detection radar, or if it is 100% radio-transparent, or its surface dissipates 100% EMP energy from the detection radar.
Fulfill these conditions - and you will be HAPPINESS!

[ja-ja-vw]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Fulfill these conditions - and you will be HAPPINESS!

you can still emit radio waves in antiphase, so that the radiation would be extinguished the reflection

[Boa kaa]

Quote: ja-ja-vw

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Fulfill these conditions - and you will be HAPPINESS!

you can still emit radio waves in antiphase, so that the radiation would be extinguished the reflection

You can, but then RTR will see you hundreds, if not thousands of kilometers away.

[ja-ja-vw]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

You can, but then RTR will see you hundreds, if not thousands of kilometers away.

1.Why? In antiphase, I will in a narrow direction radiate to the radar that irradiates me, with the same calculated power as the reflected signal, only in ANTI-PHASE (- on + = 0, + on - = 0). The receiver will receive - and + (or vice versa) of the same power. The operator will have a calm zero on the screen.
And what does RTR have to do with it? When will the reflected signal be reflected from me: where will the RTR be?
2. For 1000, it certainly will not:
-radio horizon
- the power drops in inverse proportion to the square of the range.
Even the Boeing E-3 Sentry does not have such an opportunity and antennas on board that its panting "if not for a thousand" could be heard

[Boa kaa]

Quote: ja-ja-vw

Why?

There is no longer a monochromatic radar survey! As a rule, they are all broadband.
It is only the "spotlights" of the backlight that work this way, and even then now all the GOS ASPs change the frequency according to a random law. So you are tortured to adjust to them.

[ja-ja-vw]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

So you are tortured to adjust to them.

rather than torment

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Maybe if its skin absorbs 100% EMP from detection radar or if it is 100% radio transparent

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

or its surface dissipates 100% of the EMP energy from the detection radar

TPA 100% radiotransparency or 100% absorption - to perform lighter?

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Fulfill these conditions - and you will be HAPPINESS!

?

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

There is no longer a monochromatic radar survey! As a rule, they are all broadband.

I don't know what a "monochrome" radar frequency is
there is no "wide" band

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

all GOS ASPs change frequency according to a random law

do not change "sweat random", you are confusing with Link16. They work in the working range (rather narrow), wobbling is possible, yes, as well as stepwise. But all this is limited.
The first 2-4 reflected ones are not perceived

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

GOS ASP

and then you can adjust both the frequency and other parameters of your atiphase emitter.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: ja-ja-vw

do not change "sweat random", you are confusing with Link16.

Further clarification of the "circumstances" is counterproductive. Regarding the random change in frequency - look at the GOS anti-ship missile system Harpoon, at least ... It's a pity that you've only heard about communications ... and have no idea about naval weapons (at least), not to mention missiles and other wunderwaves. ..

[ja-ja-vw]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Further clarification of the "circumstances" is counterproductive.

this is called "gave back".
1.I looked, can you show me which thread a link?
2.Once you have a statement about

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

about naval weapons (at least), not to mention missiles

maybe, besides verbiage, what thread will you show, tell?
Shl. Minus does not paint you the Generalisimo, does not paint at all

[Boa kaa]

Quote: ja-ja-vw

maybe, besides verbiage, what thread will you show, tell?

1. Strangers should not be rude ...
2. and how else to reason with you, besides a negative assessment of your insinuations?
3. Regarding the "verbiage" - only for the sake of Thomas the unbeliever, the ignorant, but with ambition and great conceit:

AGM-84 HARPOON.
In the instrument compartment, the nose is closed with a plastic radio-transparent fairing, it is placed here active radar seeker AN / DSQ-28.The seeker provides search, lock and aiming. To protect against electronic jamming means, the value of its operating frequency changes according to a random law. Survey of space is carried out using a phased array of disc-shaped antenna, which can be rotated within ± 45╕ in the vertical and horizontal planes. The seeker turns on at a predetermined section of the flight path and starts searching for a target in accordance with the commands coming from the programmable scanning unit.

Source - http: / www. airwar.ru Corner of the sky.

[ja-ja-vw]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

1. Strangers should not be rude ...

this is a phobia about "rudeness", or an inferiority complex

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

2. and how else to reason with you, besides a negative assessment of your insinuations?

it's mean and jackal style

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

3. Regarding the "verbiage" - only for the sake of Thomas the unbeliever, the ignorant, but with ambition and great conceit:

proves nothing, and I did not deny, the range is small.
For the "eminent"
гсн 1657AS0528-1 OY53A/DSQ-28,
block of electronic components 72A785008-1011,
voltage converter 72P790002-1005,
emitter / receiver 72P100002-2103,
PSU 642AS0753 PP-7154 / DSQ-28, length 37.30 inches
diameter 13.50 inches
For Harpoon everything is placed in the packaging transport container MK619-0
Radar Texas Instruments PR-53 / DSQ - 28 GOS AN / DSQ-28,

To protect against electronic jamming, the value of its operating frequency changes according to a random law along two coordinates. Observation of space is carried out using a disc phased antenna array, which can be rotated within + 45 ° in the vertical and horizontal planes.

Works in the range 15,3-17,2 GHz (weight 34 kg, pulse power 35 kW)
what

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

they are all broadband.

?
Two-coordinate frequency variation can withstand some forms of interference and decoys (for example: more interference power (compared to the reflected signal), or image interference, and broadband interference) and is a useful form of ECCM (do you know what it is, are you our highly educated?)preventing at the same time, interference between several missiles during a salvo attack .
of course she is not

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Monochrome in frequency

/ is this generally what the term "monochrome" radar is
oh yeah, you will be poked by (lover of "random")
General purpose computer IBM-4PSP-OA with a permanent memory of 7680 16-bit words and an operating device with a random choice (512 words) acts as an autopilot,
the ambition is understandable.
Chuchundrik assumes the possibility of physical realization

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

its skin absorbs 100% EMP from detection radar or, if it is 100% radio-transparent, or its surface dissipates 100% EMP energy from detection radar

but right there, on a sober eye (I hope) completely rejects the implementation

Quote: ja-ja-vw

In antiphase, I will radiate narrowly to the radar that irradiates me, with the same calculated power as the reflected signal, only in ANTI-PHASE (- on + = 0, + on - = 0). The receiver will receive - and + (or vice versa) of the same power. The operator will have a calm zero on the screen.

This is climacteric bifurcation brain consciousness.

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Source - http: / www. airwar.ru Corner of the sky.

I'm glad you were able to read Corner of Heaven, which is a non-profit project and is held only by the enthusiasm of its creators and sponsorship.
Now try to sponsor them

[Bogatyrev]

If they had this kind of skin, why bother with reflection angles and body shapes?
This means that there is no such cladding, and the plane will in any case be noticeable in the meter range.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Bogatyrev

and the plane will be noticeable in the meter range anyway.

The "surveillance" radars have a meter range, and firing ones have a dm or cm range. It is not enough to detect, you need to shoot down.

[Bogatyrev]

And if a missile with an active or semi-active radio-seeker, according to the surveillance radar data, is brought to a reduced distance, at which it will be able to see this inconspicuous target?

[Victor Tsenin]

About the means of breaking through the air defense is simply ridiculous. After all, the B-2 was positioned absolutely similarly, which operated with an impressive escort, so that God forbid they would not be shot down. In fact, all this is quite affordable for the older S-300 and 400, and even more so for the S-500.

[outsider]

- Where is this verified ?!

[Victor Tsenin]

Tested on a goblin with much less advanced weapons.)

[isv000]

The speculation arises as to whether Russia's latest anti-aircraft missile system is actually capable of easily detecting fifth-generation American stealth fighters.

Even the S-175 sees your pieces of iron. Greetings from Yugoslavia!

[outsider]

- On 850 sorties F-117 in Yugoslavia shot down 1 (one) and 1 F-16 - for 78 days. Per 5 days of the Russian-Georgian war of 2008 were shot down: 1 Tu-22M3, 1 Su-24M, 6 Su-25 (three of which shot down their own.).

[Ros 56]

The best way to survive is to fly over the states, not over Russia. The choice is theirs.

[vladcub]

So "the fertile fruit * is sweet." You understand hottsa "

[Fedor M]

There is no need to try to overcome anything in Russia. Then you won't have to "refine" anything

[vladcub]

"are based primarily on the publications of the Russian media" our media can grind such that there is no gate
Americans know that theirs, that our media are not the most reliable sources. They rage that Navalny is in jail "and not in the Kremlin

[Illanatol]

Therefore, it is necessary now to improve the options for reduced visibility, to reduce the EPR (effective scattering area - approx. VO) in order to "deceive" the Russian S-500 air defense system.

This EPR was given to them. How many times should this same RCS be reduced so that the detection distance is halved?
And a decrease in the RCS and a reduction in the detection distance of the aircraft will not give any advantage if the cruising speed of the aircraft is simultaneously reduced, in the same proportion (the stealth coating does not really like heating at supersonic). Since the critical parameter is not the target detection distance by the SAM calculation, but the real time required for the calculation to detect the target, capture and launch an anti-aircraft missile.
If the distance is halved, but the speed of the aircraft is also halved, stealth will not gain any advantage.

[ja-ja-vw]

Quote: author

В American press plans for the deployment of the first battery of the S-500 Prometey air defense system, announced in Russia, are being discussed. .... In particular, this topic is raised on the pages of the publication The National Interest by columnist Mark Episkopos.

have already eaten the whole bald head of the Runet with the "American press" represented by The National Interest
Mark Episkopos
PhD American Institute majoring in historian
Reporter at @TheNatlInterest
Subject:
Military and Russian history, international politics, grand strategy
Where is he and where is the S-500.
He's not even an "aviator" like Dave Mujmahar

[outsider]

A -

Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay

I'm just curious. Do you really think that the B-21 was created to overcome any air defense?

- 146% ... Just as at one time the F-117, B-2, F-22, YF-23, X-32, F-35 were created for this. How can you not understand such elementaryism?

[outsider]

Quote: Illanatol

Therefore, it is necessary now to improve the options for reduced visibility, to reduce the EPR (effective scattering area - approx. VO) in order to "deceive" the Russian S-500 air defense system.

This EPR was given to them. How many times should this same RCS be reduced so that the detection distance is halved?

- 16 times. And in order to decrease by 10 times, you need to reduce the ESR by 10 thousand times. Therefore, EPR F-22 / B-2 / F-35 and B-21 - about 0.0001 m².

And a decrease in the RCS and a reduction in the detection distance of the aircraft will not give any advantage if the cruising speed of the aircraft is simultaneously reduced in the same proportion

- All long-range and strategic aircraft only at cruising speeds and fly - about 0.8M-0.85M.

stealth coating does not really like heating at supersonic.

- This is a fairytale. And, I repeat: none of the strategists fly in supersonic for a long time - neither the Tu-160, nor the B-1B.

Since the critical parameter is not the target detection distance by the SAM calculation, but the real time required for the calculation to detect the target, capture and launch an anti-aircraft missile.

- Is it good to drive fuflogonia ?! First, the target must be discovered. And the critical thing here is the maximum detection range, which depends on the RCS absolutely.

If the distance is halved, but the speed of the aircraft is also halved, stealth will not gain any advantage.

- Therefore, the detection range is halved only in Honduras. In the United States, the detection range is reduced by 10-15 times compared to the detection range of Russian fighter aircraft and 20-50 times for conventional strategic aviation and stealth missile carriers.

[Illanatol]

All long-range and strategic aircraft only at cruising speeds and fly - about 0.8M-0.85M.

1. They can also go to supersonic, if necessary (Tu-22M3, T-160).
In addition, missile carriers do not need to enter the air defense zone at all. And domestic RCs are able to fly at supersonic and their EPR is significantly less.

This is a fairytale. And, I repeat: none of the strategists fly in supersonic for a long time - neither the Tu-160, nor the B-1B.

Would you like to provide proofs that this is a fairy tale?
Although such data is most likely not available in the public domain. Why disappoint customers (buyers)?
The manufacturers themselves do not hide the fact that stealth coating requires delicate handling.
Even rain or high humidity (cloudiness, fog) sharply increase the RCS.

And it doesn't take long. Most fighters also usually fly subsonic - so what?

First, the target must be discovered. And the critical thing here is the maximum detection range, which depends on the RCS absolutely

What is the contradiction?
I repeat, the critical time will be the time that the SAM calculation will have AFTER target detection. If there is not enough time to intercept (the target turns out to be too fast), then it will not matter at what distance it is detected (30 km or 300 km).

In the United States, the detection range is reduced 10-15 times compared to the detection range of Russian fighter aircraft and 20-50 times for conventional strategic aviation and stealth missile carriers.

They think so. Well, let them think.
It is impossible to reduce the radio signature in the entire frequency range, and even in the same proportion. In decimeter it was greatly reduced, and in meter it was not so smooth (for example).
Yes, and the development of the radar, as it were, has not been canceled. Plus other methods of detection (which Internet hamsters are not supposed to know about).

[outsider]

What is the contradiction?
I repeat, the time that will be at the calculation of the air defense system will be critical AFTER target detection... If there is not enough time to intercept (the target will be too fast), then it will not matter at what distance it is detected (30 km or 300 km).

- So the target must first be SIMPLY DETECTED.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160#Specifications_(Tu-160)
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05
What's the point in the fact that the Tu-160 can fly at this speed if the Aegis or THAAD detects it 500 kilometers away? At what, I repeat: at this speed, he will not be able to fly for a long time, fuel consumption triples[b] [/ b], his tanks will be empty and he will fall into the ocean, and his crew will have to leave him - and below there is cold water and a lot of sharks ...
The same B-2 (and B-21) will simply slip under the nose and no one will notice them ...

[Illanatol]

What's the point in the fact that the Tu-160 can fly at this speed if the Aegis or THAAD detects it 500 kilometers away?

What if he fires missiles from a greater distance?
These air defense systems are sharpened against missiles, their effectiveness against aircraft has not been proven. How many successful interceptions (excluding Iranian airliner)?

He does not need to fly for a long time at supersonic ... why? To use airborne weapons without going into the range of air defense, supersonic is not needed at all.
He quickly flew up to the launch line, launched the CD and returned to base at normal cruising speed.

[outsider]

Quote: voyaka uh

"What do we have, only S-500s see their stealth, can they destroy them ??" ///
----
1) Stealth F-22 and F-35 see VHF radars.

- In the meter range (radar "Sky" of all modifications, wavelength ~ 1.7 m) - RCS of these aircraft is no more than 10 times more. Those. detection range is 1.778 times greater.

2) Stealth V-2 and in the meter range differs poorly.

- Very bad.

3) Interceptors in telescopic sights can confidently destroy stealth.

- Well, yes, especially at night through the clouds. But the interceptors first need to aim at the stealth aircraft. And the firmament is huge - look for whistles ...

[outsider]

Quote: ja-ja-vw

Quote: voyaka uh

1) Stealth F-22 and F-35 see VHF radars.
2) Stealth V-2 and in the meter range differs poorly.

why "bad"? because it's bigger?

- The B-2 has a complex, multi-layer skin. Multiple reflections between the layers, the probe pulses are absorbed especially well. Therefore, the radar sees him especially badly ...

[outsider]

Quote: ja-ja-vw

do not change "sweat random", you are confusing with Link16. They work in the working range (rather narrow), wobbling is possible, yes, as well as stepwise. But all this is limited.

- All modern western radars / radars, both airborne and ARGSN, change frequency within their entire operating range.

[Illanatol]

- Right. ONCE in 850 F-117 sorties!

How many "lame goblins" were left in service afterwards?
Or is it still in service?
It seems that they were written off, if
It was proved that it was possible in principle to shoot them down even with outdated air defense systems.
This was enough for the Pentagon.

[outsider]

- The F-117 ג retired in 2008, because in 2005 the F-22 went into operation, surpassing the F-117 in its combat capabilities many times over! The Americans decided that in this situation, keeping on the balance sheet a whole DIVISION F-117 (54 aircraft) is an impermissible luxury and mothballed most, leaving 4 aircraft with instructors "just in case." They are not completely written off even now and continue to fly as "aggressors", imitating, for example, Chinese stealth in various exercises ...

It was proved that it was possible in principle to shoot them down even with outdated air defense systems.
This was enough for the Pentagon.

- This funny chatter is for kindergarten. Having a fleet of F-22 -185 aircraft and more than 400 (!) F-35s - why should they also maintain a 117-year-old F-40 division if there are new and much more advanced ones ?!

[Illanatol]

These planes have different purposes, it's silly to compare them. "Raptor" - a fighter, more likely for air combat, "Goblin" - a light bomber for work for ground targets.

Actually, they wanted to buy more than 600 "raptors". But the Pentagon cut the application. Maybe during the operation it turned out that they are not so perfect?
Or, scary even to think, the dough was not enough?

The local agitprop does not boast of the results of their combat use, of their aerial victories.
And the non-combat losses of the F-22 are at least 6 units. Too much for "flying smartphones".

Stealth technology is good for bombers. They can work on ground targets without using radar. The fighter is more difficult in this regard. And by turning on the radar, it will automatically cease to be "invisible". UR "air-to-air" is also visible.
Not everything is so simple, in short.

So the F-117A is still not so perfect and no longer fully meets the requirements of our time, did I understand correctly? As well as the fact that they do not have the resource of modernization?
So let's write it down.

[unhappy]

Invisible? And for "meter" waves, what about the contrail (for optical channels)?
Why are gentlemen Americans better than Goebbels, who inspired about the wunderwalks? It seems not to be idiots.

[outsider]

- Stealths are clearly visible only over-the-horizon radars, where wavelengths are 28 meters or more. Simple radars, even with meter ones ("Sky" - wavelength ~ 1.7 meters) see them at relatively small ranges, that is: stealth manages to drop gliding bombs from a range of 100+ km without entering the "Sky" radar detection zone. And in the affected area of ​​the corresponding adjacent air defense systems. This is the purpose of stealth - to destroy the air defense before the air defense radar sees the stealth. This is the meaning of their creation and existence.

[Illanatol]

The air defense system is complex. Gliding bombs can be destroyed by short-range air defense systems.

[outsider]

“They are too small and also made with stealth technology.

[Vlad5307]

For this, there is and is building up echeloned air defense, in order to prevent an adversary on the lines of attack.

[outsider]

- Yes of course...

[unhappy]

Is everything to you? Can I wrap myself in a white sheet and crawl to the cemetery? America's stealth (breathe!)
Life is so arranged that for every cunning jo poo there is ...

[outsider]

Quote: Illanatol

These planes have different purposes, it's silly to compare them. "Raptor" - a fighter, more likely for air combat, "Goblin" - a light bomber for work for ground targets.

- In this case, they are all multipurpose and we should consider all of them as targets for ground-based radar / air defense systems.

Actually, they wanted to buy more than 600 "raptors". But the Pentagon cut the application. Maybe during the operation it turned out that they are not so perfect?

- Actually, it was originally planned to release 750 F-22s, but then suddenly, even for the CIA, the Soviet Union died and disintegrated and the release of the F-22 was rescheduled to be reduced to 381 aircraft. But the stupid Robert Gates, the US Secretary of Defense, said in 2009: “After all, Russia does not have a single stealth and will only have one in 6-8 years, China does not have one and will have the first in 12 years. So why do we need so many expensive F-22? 187 is enough for us! " He was terribly wrong: China released its first stealth two years later in 2011, and is now making a series of 500 (!!) J-20s, and Russia has not released a single one so far.

Or, scary even to think, the dough was not enough?

- Yes, the dough was not enough, - given the fact that the Americans had a release on the way 2443 F-35 ...

The local agitprop does not boast of the results of their combat use, of their aerial victories.

- Laughing out loud! OVER WHOM ?? Who "threw down the glove" ?!

And the non-combat losses of the F-22 are at least 6 units. Too much for "flying smartphones".

- All losses are taken into account. In my memory, there were no more than 4 of them. Until the MiG-23 was launched into production, more than 60 (!!) aircraft were lost!

Stealth technology is good for bombers.

- For all aircraft, without the slightest exception.

They can work on ground targets without using radar. The fighter is more difficult in this respect. And by turning on the radar, it will automatically cease to be "invisible".

- Long ago invented and functioning in developed countries, where there are on-board radars with AFAR, LPI - low probability of intercept modes. The radars are working, and the enemy radio-technical reconnaissance stations do not record their radiation. But this is in developed countries.

UR "air-to-air" is also visible.

- Well, yes, a couple of kilometers before she hits the plane, the pilot will see her. And even have time to blink a couple of times. Nothing more.

Not everything is so simple, in short.

- It's right, everything today is very complicated and very expensive.

So the F-117A is still not so perfect and no longer fully meets the requirements of our time, did I understand correctly?

- Understood correctly! An aircraft produced 40 years ago no longer meets modern requirements to the extent that these requirements are met by the F-22 and F-35.

As well as the fact that they do not have the resource of modernization?

- ?? The F-117 served its 27 years remarkably well, took part in three wars, showed excellent results in all and was honorably sent to a well-deserved retirement. His place was taken by the next generations.

So let's write it down.

- Is it pleasant to learn every day news that the whole world has known for many, many years?

[Vlad5307]

[quoteAmerican author writes that in Russia the S-500 "Prometheus" air defense system is positioned as a special weapon, as a kind of "silver bullet", which has special capabilities.] [/ quote]
There is only one conclusion from this - the United States is a product of the devil and only the Russian "silver" bullet can stop it.

[outsider]

- "Dreaming is not harmful!" As your sworn friends Ukrainians say: "Fool dumkoyu radin, she is guilty and bagatin"