Military Review

Why do Russian radars see invisible planes

109
Why do Russian radars see invisible planes


Invisible aircraft does not happen. Stealth-built fighters and bomber bombers with unimportant characteristics and enormous cost are still found by Russian radars and knocked down Russian missiles. We have learned why this is happening.

Worldwide fame stealth technology brought Operation Desert Storm. For six weeks in a row, the American F-117 ground attack aircraft bombed Baghdad. Every night, the US Air Force planes freely crossed all the lines of the Iraqi air defense, hit their targets and returned to bases unharmed. It looked like it was impressive, and it allowed the Deputy Commander of the US Air Force, John Welch, to note with pride: “Technology“ stealth ”brought us back to that fundamental principle of war, which is called a surprise.”

For a while, F-117 became a no less popular American brand than Cadillac or Coca-Cola. Do not forget that any war is a powerful advertisement for it. weapons. If it meets expectations.

Stealth price

Experts do not use the word "invisibility" as applied to stealth technology. To make an airplane or a rocket invisible modern means impossible. You can reduce their visibility, yes, and then only in sight of the radar. This is the first Achilles heel of the invisible aircraft: they are visible to the naked eye of the operator of a short-range man-portable air defense system. And you can see his rocket with a television homing head. In modern MANPADS, a combined method of aiming at the target is used: optical, infrared (by thermal trail), laser, - and stealth technology will not be able to help here. Another thing is that it is desirable to shoot down enemy aircraft at distant approaches, and not at the moment when they fly overhead.

For the long-range detection of targets, there are radars. If you do not take into account the missile defense system, then the average army radar sees the plane kilometers per 300. Stealth technology makes it possible to reduce this distance - but at what cost ...

To scatter a radar beam, an airplane is made angular, consisting of flat faces. This design is called faceted. Wherever possible, the metal is replaced with carbon fiber. Where it is impossible to cover it with radio absorbing materials. To hide the engine compressors from the radar, one of the most visible metal parts in the aircraft, special diffusers are installed in front of them to dampen the radar signal.

Flat nozzles create a wide torch, which reduces visibility in the infrared. For extreme masking, cold air from the air intakes is added to the jet stream. Traditional tail plumage replaces the V-shaped "butterfly", less noticeable for the radar. Even the backs of the pilots' seats in stealth aircraft are made corrugated to scatter radar radiation.

The result is a plane with unimportant combat performance. He can not carry a lot of weapons, since everything is hidden in the fuselage - external pendants are unmasked! It is limited in speed and range. Finally, he is forced to use radar with great care, or even not to have it at all. Since the radiation of the radar gives the most invisible aircraft as clearly as the beam of a flashlight - a robber in a dark house.

There are two more disadvantages. Unobtrusive airplanes are very expensive. The American bomber B-2 Spirit is the most expensive aircraft in stories, the cost of one copy over 1,5 billion dollars. And despite all the tricks, they are still knocked down.



Get invisible

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 rocket launcher said that his calculation also hit the F-16 and the B-2 invisible bomber. But these planes reached their airfields, so there is no evidence. A shot down F-117 Americans for a long time called "missing", and then asked to return. Serbs, naturally, refused - now the stealth cabin adorns the museum aviation in Belgrade.

Author:
Originator:
http://www.rg.ru/2014/06/08/stels-site.html
109 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 10 June 2014 08: 32
    +12
    Why do Russian radars see invisible planes
    "Invisibility" is so arbitrary ... today he is "invisible", but tomorrow he is visible in all its details, science is not standing still ... our defense industry would not be late.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 10 June 2014 10: 21
      +19
      as far as I know, I can be mistaken, but in the meter range of radio waves any stealth is as visible as an airplane of the times of the First World War ... therefore our designers do not bother, and do not trump stealth technologies at every corner, but make our cars inconspicuous and maneuverable with good anti-arming systems ... like there was an article about the Americans accusing our special services of stealth being a Russian-hogged pig that the US swallowed and cannot get out now ...
      1. aleks 62
        aleks 62 10 June 2014 11: 07
        +5
        ..... By the way, there was infa that the f-117 is clearly visible on a Soviet-made weather radar .... All this invisibility is only for a certain part of the spectrum and in the short-wave range, but in the meter in full view .... hi
        1. yehat
          yehat 10 June 2014 11: 31
          +6
          long wave equipment is cumbersome!
          it’s difficult to put on an airplane; on the ground, this is an increase in size, cost and reduced mobility. A separate question is about the quality of vision of long-wave radars - relatively small targets such as missiles and UAVs and regarding heights above the ground.
          So it’s not so simple. It’s another question, which is cheaper - to make stealth or to make expensive air defense. Moreover, the initiative remains with the aircraft.
          Finally, stealth is mainly used against weak countries where air defense is primitive.
          1. Ekv
            Ekv 10 June 2014 15: 24
            +2
            he is forced to use radar with great care or even not have it at all. Since the radar emits the most invisible aircraft as clear as the beam of a flashlight - a burglar in a dark house.

            MagazinesDMsky nonsense !!!

            An AN / APQ-2 radar is installed on the B-181, capable of operating in Low Interception Probability (LPI) mode.
            Here's how this mode is described for the AN / APG-77 radar mounted on the F-22:
            The ability of the radar to operate in Low Interception Probability (LPI) mode renders conventional SPO / RTR systems useless. The AN / APG-77 radar is capable of performing an active radar search for a fighter aircraft equipped with STR / RTR equipment so that the target does not know that it is being irradiated. Unlike conventional radars that emit powerful energy pulses in a narrow frequency range, AN / APG-77 emits low-energy pulses in a wide frequency range using a technique called broadband transmission. When multiple echoes return, the radar signal processor combines these signals. The amount of energy reflected back to the target is at the same level as a conventional radar, but since each LPI pulse has a significantly lower amount of energy and a different signal structure, it will be difficult to detect the F-22.

            And despite all the tricks, they are still knocked down.

            And how many B-2s were shot down?

            On March 27, 1999, during the war in Yugoslavia, the US Air Force F-117 Night Hawk stealth aircraft was shot down by the old R-125 Pechora anti-aircraft missile system.

            It is said that in Yugoslavia F-117 was shot down not through a radar, but through a thermal imager.

            F-117 was shot down on third war day, and the whole war lasted 78 days! So, there was time to share experiences and shoot down other F-117s (they made about 850 sorties in Yugoslavia). But no more shot down, another was shot down, but he reached the base of Aviano in Italy ...

            The Serbian rocket launcher said that his calculation also hit the F-16 and the B-2 invisible bomber. But these planes reached their airfields, so there is no evidence.

            If not, then they didn’t bring down.

            The physics of radio wave scattering largely depends on the ratio of the wavelength and the size of the irradiated object. In the Rayleigh scattering mode, the wavelength is comparable to or greater than the physical size of the irradiated object, and the reflection value is proportional to the size of the object. As the wavelength decreases, the scattering becomes resonant, while the wavelength is comparable in size to the key features of the shape of the object, and the magnitude of the reflection varies greatly depending on the wavelength. Finally, in the optical scattering mode, the shape of the object can be used to precisely control the magnitude and direction of reflection of radio waves. The high efficiency of stealth aircraft against decimeter and centimeter radars is reflected in the fact that for most aircraft, the wavelength is from a tenth to a hundredth of the size of the key features of the shape of the aircraft.

            Therefore, long-wave radars can confidently detect only tactical stealth aircraft (F-22 / F-35), strategic b-2 bombers they cannot detect, since this requires huge (stationary) decameter range radars. But such radars are very vulnerable to cruise missile attacks.
            1. Ekv
              Ekv 10 June 2014 15: 33
              +2
              I read that in B-2 the entire front edge is a solid absorber with a volumetric structure, like in F-117.
              Colonel Dani Zoltan with a piece of skin F-117:
            2. postman
              postman 10 June 2014 17: 31
              +2
              Quote: EKV
              Therefore, long-wave radars can confidently detect only tactical stealth aircraft (F-22 / F-35), they cannot detect strategic B-2 bombers, since this requires huge (stationary) decameter range radars.

              not true, well, in the sense, if you didn’t mean to shove the radar of the meter range in la.
              the S-200 complex includes a survey radar of the meter range
              P-18 (1RL131 "Terek" radar) is a mobile two-coordinate VHF radar station.
              The radar is not very important linear size la (no, of course it is important for the EPR parameter), the flight altitude of the aircraft is important, and the range
              And she will discover that it is "tactical" that is strategic.
              radar stations: 1RL131 (P-18), 1RL134 (P-19), 1RL139 (P-37), all modifications, three-coordinate radar 19ZH6 (ST-68U);

              The SPORN radar "sees" a launching ICBM (the size of a strategist) launched from the United States or from the Norwegian and North Seas.
              1. Ekv
                Ekv 10 June 2014 18: 13
                +2
                Quote: Postman
                not true, well, in the sense, if you didn’t mean to shove the radar of the meter range in la.

                And in his thoughts was not.

                Quote: Postman
                Radar is not very important linear size la

                Re-read this again: The physics of scattering of radio waves largely depends on the ratio of the wavelength and the size of the irradiated object ... (above)

                Quote: Postman
                And she will discover that it is "tactical" that is strategic.

                What will be the type of scattering of radio waves upon exposure to a B-2 meter radar?

                Quote: Postman
                SPORN radar "see" a launching ICBM (the size of a strategist)

                Trident II:
                Length, m 13,42
                Diameter, m 2,11
                1. postman
                  postman 10 June 2014 23: 43
                  +1
                  Quote: EKV
                  The physics of radio wave scattering largely depends on the ratio of the wavelength and the size of the irradiated object ... (above)

                  I know.
                  But for these linear dimensions, LA does not matter, the effects described by you will not affect
                  Quote: EKV
                  What will be the type of scattering of radio waves upon exposure to a B-2 meter radar?

                  the type of dispersion will be the same as the radiation of F-22, Mig-22, etc.
                  If, if the B-52 does not stand in an attack order with an ultra-dense layout (and they will never do so) and will not use REP (milk)

                  hundreds of linear meters you won't get

                  Quote: EKV
                  Trident II:

                  B-52H
                  Length: 49,05 m
                  Wingspan: 56,39 m
            3. figter
              figter 10 June 2014 20: 25
              +1
              Currently, combat firing of military air defense at the Kapustin Yar, Ashuluk ranges is mainly carried out at the SAMAN target (9M33 SAM). Its RCS is comparable to the RCS of a Stealth aircraft. Just as grandfathers used to beat "Tigers" from the PTR in 1943 - without distinguishing between their animal color, so now "SAMANs" are beaten by our air defense systems - not really going into theoretical radar.
              1. Dan4eG
                Dan4eG 10 June 2014 20: 34
                +3
                Air target simulators (IVTs) 9F841, 9F841M-developed on the basis of 9MZZM2 or 9MZZMZ missiles from the "Osa-AK" or "Osa-AKM" air defense systems
                Effective scattering surface, m2
                9F841 = 0,36-0,51
                9F841M = 0,56-1,03
                F-117 = 0,1 - 0,01
                B-2 = ~ 0,0014- ~ 0,1
                1. Alexey Lobanov
                  Alexey Lobanov 16 June 2014 01: 52
                  0
                  The flag of the promised land, and so illiterate.
                2. Alexey Lobanov
                  Alexey Lobanov 16 June 2014 01: 55
                  0
                  B-2 = ~ 0,0014- ~ 0,1

                  This is if it is transported by a cargo helicopter ... laughing
              2. postman
                postman 10 June 2014 23: 45
                +1
                Quote: figter
                Its RCS is comparable to the RCS of a Stealth aircraft

                comparable yes, only on F-22 (let's say) the dispersion is completely different than that of the SAM.
                target uses calculated value
              3. ybrcfy27
                ybrcfy27 11 June 2014 06: 23
                0
                Grandfathers of Tigers from guns could not be destroyed, so this is a stupid statement
                1. figter
                  figter 11 June 2014 14: 15
                  +2
                  For smart people:
                  - The first shot - at the caterpillar, the tank unfolds;
                  - The second shot is to the lower part of the stern armor with a BZT-shot, from which fuel, oils and greases are ignited.
                  Still have questions?
                2. mikael
                  mikael 12 June 2014 15: 19
                  +1
                  70% of the losses of German armored vehicles is precisely the effect of artillery, so they were soaked and very successful, and not only in calibers 57-100 but even in 45, so it’s a stupid statement that they didn’t
            4. Starley from the south
              Starley from the south 10 June 2014 20: 56
              +1
              Let me disagree with your last point. B-2 can be detected on decimeter waves. Another thing to recognize is that it is B-2, and not a soccer ball.
              1. postman
                postman 11 June 2014 00: 48
                +1
                Quote: Starley from the South
                B-2 can be detected on decimeter waves

                and when? Who? found B-2 on dtsmv?
                Quote: Starley from the South
                that this is B-2, not a soccer ball.

                1.Footballs do not fly (so high and so fast), and do not detect its radar in fact
                2. The issue of separation and separation of air targets (turbulence, AN-2 birds) has long been resolved: speed, altitude, flight profile and its direction
                1. Starley from the south
                  Starley from the south 11 June 2014 01: 41
                  -1
                  I personally didn’t find it, sometimes I read books, smart ones, I don’t take all the information from Wikipedia!
                  1. postman
                    postman 11 June 2014 02: 55
                    0
                    Quote: Starley from the South
                    , sometimes I read books, smart,

                    There is no such information in the "books".
                    If interested, I can send data on the SR-71 radar, that's all there is.
                    == by B-2:
                    according to the representatives of the NAC, if we assume that the probability of detection, tracking and guidance of radar SD ground-to-air class on a Stealth bomber, at each of these stages, will be equal to 80%, the total probability of interception B-2 modern air defense systems in typical combat situations will be only 50%. The US Air Force conducted research on various detection systems that were declared effective against the B-2 bomber. Among these systems there were radars operating in the microwave range, which, as it turned out, do not pose a serious threat to B-2, since its design is designed to counteract the radar of this class. In addition, these radars have serious detection problems. low flying targets and noise immunity. Studies of various means of counteraction to the Stealth bomber also included the study of more than 50 unusual concepts of air defense systems, in the process of which a number of research projects had to be carried out.
            5. postman
              postman 11 June 2014 02: 59
              0
              Quote: EKV
              Here's how this mode is described for the AN / APG-77 radar mounted on the F-22:

              The composition of the avionics strategic bomber V-2 includes a multi-mode radar company Hughes APQ-181 with a synthesized aperture, operating in the frequency range Ku (12,4-18,0 GHz) and having search and tracking modes, similar to APG-70 radar modes mounted on a McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle fighter-bomber.
              .... APQ-181 side lobe signals, which are often a unmasking factor, faster attenuate in the atmosphere, compared with the signals of the side lobes of the bottom of the radar, operating in the frequency range X.
        2. postman
          postman 10 June 2014 17: 12
          0
          Quote: aleks 62
          All this invisibility is only for a certain part of the spectrum and in the short-wave range, but in the meter in the palm of your hand.

          Why is that?
          that meters, that cm, that the light beam is all an electromagnetic wave and it "lives" according to the same laws.

          1.radio-absorbing materials and coatings: absorb EME energy, simply put, turn it into heat, absorb, and not dissipate.
          Application of multilayer mat-in and coatings, materials "with nanofilaments"
          WHAT DIFFERENCE is m, cm or mm range? , most importantly, that would not be a gammoscope

          2. Specially designed geometrical form-dispersion is NOT TO the side of the radar receiver, to any, but not to it.
          WHAT DIFFERENCE is m, cm or mm range? REFLECTION (angle of incidence = angle of reflection, roughly speaking) - EVERYWHERE is the same, even if you use echolocation

          3. Reducing the specific gravity of the metal in the design of aircraft and aircraft LA, shielding absorbing surfaces
          WHAT DIFFERENCE is m, cm or mm range?

          4. Decrease in the area of ​​the aircraft (midships, cross-sections) along the front (direction) of the arrival of electromagnetic radiation from the radar
          WHAT DIFFERENCE is m, cm or mm range?
          5.Use of aircraft radar in the "background" mode (reflection of radiation from side lobes to the right / left of the object, processing, filter, by) and the use of inactive detection means (OES and IKI), as a new radar on the F-35
          WHAT DIFFERENCE is m, cm or mm range?
          nuts and so on.
          ====================
          The M or cm range is fundamentally the difference in reflection from the earth's surface and the ionized layer + power of the emitter and, importantly: DIMENSIONS of the radar antenna (you compare meter windmills and see compactors)
          1. mikael
            mikael 12 June 2014 15: 45
            0
            and not everything is so simple, in addition to simple reflection in the mm range in the zones of angles due to the short wavelength, an antiphase is formed which simply dulls itself out stupidly, and so-called a standing wave that does not work at all, plus a pheromagnetic coating better absorbs radiation with a high frequency, and longer wavelengths of hemotric shape are much less affected, or would all these niches and protrusions have to be commensurate with the size of the aircraft itself, lack of meter and dm ranges the small size of this range is itself, and for transmitting the same amount of information it will be necessary to take its considerable size, plus the main long-range communication if it is not topospheric and does not use a relay system, it is carried out in the meter range and in the UHF range where the waves
            1. Alexey Lobanov
              Alexey Lobanov 16 June 2014 01: 59
              0
              One simple but wise man told me: "If radars catch flocks of birds, then stealth is like a buck."
      2. iwind
        iwind 10 June 2014 14: 14
        +2
        Quote: NEXUS
        as far as I know, I could be wrong, but it seems that in the meter range of radio waves any stealth is as visible as an airplane of the times of the First World War.

        Yep ...
        In the real world, a really large ESR burst in the meter range occurs with resonant reflection of the radio wave from targets, this effect manifests itself when the wavelength is 2-3 times longer than the object, but a too long radio wave will also give no significant increase in the ESR.
        For example, for an AGM-158A JASSM 4,29 m long, the wavelength for resonant reflection should be between 8,6 m and 12 m
        For the aircraft, this value will be somewhere around 50-100 meters, but the radar is not so much + other problems appear there.
        А maximum growth EPR with this will be up to 100 times, with an ideal hit the size of the object to the wavelength.
      3. patsantre
        patsantre 10 June 2014 16: 08
        +1
        Quote: NEXUS
        stealth is a Russian-hogged pig that the United States swallowed and cannot get out now ...

        Judging by the PAK FA and PAK YES, we also swallowed it successfully. And if you look at the trends in the aircraft industry - the whole world swallowed. Oh yes, if Americans know about the pig - why keep swallowing?
        1. Alexey Lobanov
          Alexey Lobanov 16 June 2014 02: 02
          0
          FA with super maneuverability did not swallow anything, a normal tyrchik ...
      4. postman
        postman 10 June 2014 16: 49
        +2
        Quote: NEXUS
        but it seems in the meter range of radio waves any stealth is as visible as an airplane

        1. Why?
        2. We have radars not a meter range, LONG TIME
        Quote: NEXUS
        that the US swallowed and now can not get out ...

        nonsense, written by our zhirnalyugami about us
      5. Starley from the south
        Starley from the south 10 June 2014 20: 50
        -1
        Right. Our radars operate in the decimeter range, the American in the centimeter. For CB (centimeter waves) it is possible to create an absorbing or interference layer, but it will be sooo expensive, especially in a wide range. And for the Far East this option does not work. It is easier to release a cloud of aerosols or improve the maneuverability of an aircraft. Our aircraft do just that. And the Americans - tauuupy, chose the most expensive way!
        1. postman
          postman 10 June 2014 23: 50
          +1
          Quote: Starley from the South
          , american in centimeter. For CB (centimeter waves)

          and we have cm, and the americans dts
          Quote: Starley from the South
          the interference layer is possible, but it will be sooooo expensive, especially in a wide range.

          for the sake of interest, go "" through the Rospatent, everything is there
          Quote: Starley from the South
          And for the Far East this option does not work.

          what's the difference?
          Quote: Starley from the South
          Easier to release a cloud of aerosols

          how to do this for la at a speed of 0,9-2M = is not intelligible to the mind.
          you can do it, but how many cubic meters do you need ao matter.

          Quote: Starley from the South
          Our aircraft do just that. And the Americans - tauuupy, chose the most expensive way!

          -Our spray does not use
          -Americans are not stupid (otherwise they would not have been the strongest (and richest) power in the world for almost 100 years). "Dumb" from the prairies (there is nothing: mills, ports, roads, factories) for 500 years will not come out on the 1st place
          "stupid" rest of civilization roughly 2000 years old, how about OVERTAKING US?
          1. Starley from the south
            Starley from the south 11 June 2014 02: 09
            0
            Are you not an American by chance? You still tell me how they entered this 1 place and advise us to do this, that is, to engage in the slave trade, genocide (like Indians), sell weapons to both sides in the war for crazy money. But in fact, there is a lot of aerosols and it is not necessary that only the radar is lost or unable to recognize, I’m not sure that this should be constantly done. I agree, with a few swings, this will be difficult.
            In general, comparing us with America is incorrect. They practically did not wage wars on their territory, profited by all conceivable and inconceivable ways, while we constantly fought. Smart people, a hundred years ago, said that in a hundred years the Russian Empire would dominate the world, if there was no war, I would add on my own.
            With such money, it’s not necessary to be smart. Nothing lasts forever, my young friend. The strong and rich will become weak and poor and vice versa. If you do not agree, then it is possible:
            1. you don't read the story
            2. you are the fifth column liberal
            3. you are an American in thinking.
            1. postman
              postman 11 June 2014 03: 10
              +2
              Quote: Starley from the South
              Are you not an American by chance?

              Starley- we, that rotten beer drank on a brooder?
              Are you not an American?
              Quote: Starley from the South
              You still say how they came to this 1st place and advise us to do so

              I will say: labor productivity. I'm not a South Starley, I've seen Americans work
              Advise? no advice, advise starley

              Quote: Starley from the South
              But in fact, there are a lot of aerosols and there is no need

              For dropouts or dead ends: auto, speed 90km / h, open the window, 1-2-10 (if you have enough hands), spray cans (aerosol freshener for toilets, after shaking), we’ll make money ...
              How did the aroma cloud CREATE?
              Oh bad luck, no! And this at 90km / h,and at 900km / h what?

              Quote: Starley from the South
              so that only the radar is lost or unable to recognize, not sure

              what stupidity
              Quote: Starley from the South
              They practically did not wage wars on their territory, profited by all conceivable and inconceivable ways,

              Who prevented the "old man from the south" and his ancestors: not to wage wars, to profit, to get rich?
              Nice cocktail in the head, instead of brains.
              PRIME SWITZERLAND DOES NOT WAR since the 18th century! = Is it equal to the USA?
              Quote: Starley from the South
              With such money, it’s not necessary to be smart.

              you need to earn money
              Quote: Starley from the South
              my young friend.

              eeee. We found the "young" December 1966 starley.
              Quote: Starley from the South
              1. you don't read the story
              2. you are the fifth column liberal
              3. you are an American in thinking.

              1. I know the story 10 times better than you, my children (both) are the same
              2. I can knock out teeth for such a kaku! For a long time the stomach did not digest calcium? (Advice, free-throw-throw a complaint about me Apppppppolonyu (well, nickname), there is one, he banned me, maybe the same as you)
              3. I’m at least not a stupid person, that's for sure (unlike some people), but in my mind .... xs, great, great, couples I received a surname for the Sevastopol war, and the grave is still revered (not by me), but there are a lot of talking feces, only they TOTAL only say, and as for business, they squeak and mess up. I would like to be repeated (with teeth), item No. 2?
              ===========
              take sour beer at your leisure. Ku?
        2. Alexey Lobanov
          Alexey Lobanov 16 June 2014 02: 06
          0
          God, who sprays such crap for you? My dad even served with the PPSh in the ground forces laughing , in Kazakhstan, he said that they came up with microwave ovens, gazelles (well, or saigas, I don’t remember) were fried on radar receivers. What is the range?
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. atalef
      atalef 10 June 2014 11: 17
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      Invisibility "is to such an extent conditional ... today he is" invisible ", but tomorrow he can be seen in all its details, science does not stand still ... our defense industry would not be late.

      I have a question, so to say delitant.
      If everything is so simple and all these inconspicuous planes are so remarkably detected by radars of almost a century range ---
      What the hell is the Russian Federation building and investing such huge grandmas in the new PAK FA t-50?
      If everyone is so stupid there, then God himself ordered the Russian Federation to remain smart and not fall for this scam
      But, in articles on the T-50 - everyone just writes boiling water with happiness, and when they heard about plans to create a bomber with stealth elements - they just opened the champagne
      But then in the next - they laugh at all this crap about stealth.
      If everything is so simple --- who the sucker?
      Or do amers have no similar radars?

      PR
      1. yehat
        yehat 10 June 2014 11: 42
        +10
        stealth technology reduces the distance at which the plane is visible and it is useful! Even if the radar has an uncomfortable wavelength, etc., anyway
        stealth technology reduces visibility.
        If earlier the radar "saw" the plane at a distance of 200+ km, now
        PAK FA can confidently approach the range of fire of its weapons before it is detected or, if it is found, they will have very little time and money for countermeasures. For example, like the Tu-22M3. He entered the ship’s radar zone, after 2 minutes he launched missiles and left on the afterburner at a speed of 1.5 mach. You’ll intercept horseradish. The useful range and the cost of ammunition are strongly tied to the range of use.
        in the USA they approached this issue radically and plan to use bombs with stealth (tin!), while in the Russian Federation they took the path of compromise, i.e. a moderate decrease in visibility without a significant decrease in the performance characteristics of the aircraft.
        And in general, the concept in the Russian Federation is more effective.
        1. Alexey Lobanov
          Alexey Lobanov 16 June 2014 02: 18
          +1
          MIG-31 is the only real stealth in the world, like it’s on the radar, and it’s been there for a long time laughing
      2. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 10 June 2014 11: 59
        +4
        Quote: atalef
        Or do amers have no similar radars?

        One of the tasks of the radar (locator) is not only to detect an air target, but also to give the most accurate data - distance and bearing, in order to determine its movement elements. This is where the main contradictions between the meter and decimeter ranges come into force: the meter one "sees" further, the decimeter one has better accuracy (bearing and range error).
        And a meter range radar initially requires a larger emitter (scanner), which is very critical for an aircraft.
        And this is just the beginning ...
        1. atalef
          atalef 10 June 2014 12: 08
          0
          Quote: stalkerwalker
          And this is just the beginning ...

          here I am about not so simple
          welcome hi
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. stalkerwalker
            stalkerwalker 10 June 2014 12: 13
            +2
            Quote: atalef
            welcome

            Hello Alexander!
            hi
      3. NEXUS
        NEXUS 10 June 2014 12: 42
        +4
        There are two concepts: Amerovskaya is an emphasis on stealth technology to the detriment of maneuverability and speed, and ours is: stealth and increased maneuverability in a compartment with speed ... our path is more effective at the moment ... but we can only decide if a real battle is better, as an example Vietnam, Korea and so on ... somehow it went infa that Russia is developing a system of increased stealth based on plasma ... but it seems like the plans and very raw ... and as for the PAK FA I will say: to Amer pilots, if that , will have to reckon with this machine ... besides, it’s kind of like Mikoyan the sheep stirred, deciding on a new generation front-line fighter ... and what kind of avionics, anti-radar and location systems, arsenal, etc., no one knows yet ...
      4. Ascetic
        Ascetic 10 June 2014 13: 37
        +4
        Quote: atalef
        But, in articles on the T-50 - everyone just writes boiling water with happiness, and when they heard about plans to create a bomber with stealth elements - they just opened the champagne
        But then in the next - they laugh at all this crap about stealth.
        If everything is so simple --- who the sucker?
        Or do amers have no similar radars?


        There is no contradiction in the USSR, it was not STELS that was rejected. They rejected the idea of ​​the need for an apparatus, all of whose flight data was sacrificed to stealth. Nobody wanted to make stealth to the detriment of flight performance, and they could not afford to do it at a prohibitive price. When technology allowed us to create Stealth without a strong loss in flight performance and at a reasonable price, they began to deal with them using Soviet developments in R&D radar absorbing materials... I am not a strong specialist on the T-50, here I need to give Sergei (vaf) the floor, but for quite a long time and successfully we have been engaged in subtle forms for ICBM warheads and are doing it now (albeit with a long break). Moreover, Ufimtsev returned from the United States, so our resource here is far from zero. The same Iskander can be cited as an example. And the YARS is not the rocket itself, but the APU has a special "radio-noticeable color" coating. Yes, and in the Tver Research Center of Air Defense, as far as is known, they updated the test site (complex of the ERIK-1 test site) where they study the stealth of the T-50.
        in general, in order not to reveal great secrets, our new ICBMs are now equipped. small-sized, high-speed and subtle BB, resistant to PFYAVthat allows you to significantly increase the BB outfit without reducing power and, most importantly, without the need to increase the cast weight of ICBMs, together with the ability to increase the quantitative and qualitative assortment of PCBs by reducing the weight of the BB.
        1. postman
          postman 11 June 2014 03: 28
          0
          Quote: Ascetic
          They rejected the idea of ​​the need for an apparatus, all flight data of which was sacrificed to stealth

          Stanislav ... how to deal with this:
          According to test pilots, the B-2 bomber has superior road holding and better than expected lateral and longitudinal... Although the pitch control arm is small, the aircraft is well damped due to the large control surface area of ​​about 15% of the wing area. As the test pilots admit, there are a number of problems associated with the aerodynamics of the aircraft, but they are compensated for by the use of a quadruple redundant EDSU, the functioning of which is assessed by Northrop specialists as "excellent". According to the lead pilot pilot V-2 J. Hinds, due to the increased rigidity of the structure, the bomber has aerobatic characteristics, like a fighter. Unlike from bomber b-52whose wing console (with a span of 56,5 m) can bend in flight with a maximum amplitude of 9,75 m, the more "rigid" V-2 (wing span 52,4 m) obeys the rudders much faster. In addition, the high roll sensitivity of the V-2 is partly due to the high speed of the drives, deflecting elevons at a speed of 100 deg / s.
      5. velikoros-xnumx
        velikoros-xnumx 10 June 2014 13: 46
        +1
        Quote: atalef
        If everything is so simple --- who the sucker?

        Everything is much simpler, the lower the ESR (effective scattering surface is one of the main quantities characterizing "invisibility"), the smaller the detection range. When developing the PAK FA, the approach of Russian developers was fundamentally different from the approach of the Americans when designing the F-22, and even more so the F-117 (although the comparison is incorrect, the F-117 is not a fighter, but a purely shock machine, although it is rather a cripple). We tried to reduce the RCS as much as possible without compromising the aircraft's flight performance, i.e. the car should remain complete, while in the United States, many flight characteristics were brought to the detriment.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. atalef
          atalef 10 June 2014 13: 50
          0
          Quote: velikoros-xnumx
          while in the United States, many flight characteristics were detrimental.

          Do you think that someone knows the truth, what about flight performance, what about EPR?
        3. Professor
          Professor 10 June 2014 13: 56
          +2
          Quote: velikoros-xnumx
          while in the United States, many flight characteristics were detrimental.

          Could you clarify what flight characteristics were brought to the detriment of the Americans?
          1. velikoros-xnumx
            velikoros-xnumx 10 June 2014 19: 54
            0
            [quote = professor] [quote = velikoros-88] while in the USA many flight characteristics were brought to the detriment. [/ quote]
            Could you clarify what flight characteristics were brought to the detriment of the Americans?
            It is difficult to name specific numbers, given the fact that many characteristics of the f-22 are not accessible to ordinary people, and the PAK FA is not yet a combat aircraft, plus my lack of competence to cover this issue in detail.
            In short - maneuverability, maximum speed, a greater fuel reserve and, as a result, a longer flight range. For more information (if you are sincerely interested), you can contact the more knowledgeable members of the forum.
            1. Professor
              Professor 10 June 2014 21: 07
              0
              Quote: velikoros-xnumx
              In short - maneuverability, maximum speed, a greater fuel reserve and, as a result, a longer flight range.

              Where is the droushka?
              1. PSih2097
                PSih2097 11 June 2014 04: 44
                0
                Quote: professor
                Where is the droushka?

                you haven’t been seen for a long time ...
          2. MolGro
            MolGro 11 June 2014 04: 05
            0
            A break in the structure during maneuverable combat, numerous cracks in the hull after performing aerobatics.
            With afterburning loads on the engine during the maneuver, there is probably a collapse in the combustion chamber, the ceramic does not withstand vibration shock.
            Also, peeling off the anti-radar layer during a long flight increases fuel consumption.
            And the last chic is the delamination of the plastic at the points of wing overload and tail unit!
            and as for the video, well, he flew, he made it in a flood, they will repair a lot of money and do not mind spending it!
            And the funniest thing is that not only f22 but also f35 suffers)) the same materials and the same result I wonder why)))
            1. postman
              postman 11 June 2014 04: 45
              0
              Quote: MolGro
              Fracture design and so on

              What nonsense. No one except you has ever heard of this.
              Quote: MolGro
              Also, peeling off the anti-radar layer during a long flight increases fuel consumption.

              mmm, how 40 microns (if I'm not mistaken) can affect "fuel consumption"?
              when on this type of rivet, the fixing bolt is MORE (higher from the streamlined surface)!
              Quote: MolGro
              he made it a flood, they will repair a lot of money and do not mind spending it!

              -composite is practically not "fit"
              Quote: MolGro
              there is probably a collapse in the combustion chamber ceramics
              ?
              -Pratt & Whitney F119 based on the F100: blisk technology (turbine whose blades comprise integral with the rotor disk. As a rule, it is made from a solid metal billet or by the method of fusion of finished blades into a rotor-titanium disk)
              -AT nozzle device designs radar absorbing material applied based on ceramics, which reduces the radar visibility of the aircraft.
              what a mess? and why? Is it worth recalling the 1984th (in my year) FULLY ceramic ICE, made in Japan?
              Quote: MolGro
              the funniest thing is that not only f22 but also f35 suffers)) the same materials and the same result I wonder why)))

              who said "suffering"?
              For reference, so on reflection
              Stealth F-22 Raptor multirole fighter will be equipped with the same radar absorbing coatingwhich is used in the production of F-35 aircraft, is Jeff Babione, general manager of the F-22 project at Lockheed Martin.
              In order to adapt the F-35 radio-absorbing coating to the features of another fighter, Lockheed Martin resorted to minor adjustments, since the F-22 is designed for operations at higher speeds and altitudes than Lightning II.
      6. PSih2097
        PSih2097 10 June 2014 14: 12
        +1
        Quote: atalef
        If everything is so simple and all these inconspicuous planes are so remarkably detected by radars of almost a century range ---

        I would not say that "Sky-SV" and "Sky-SVU" are centuries old ...
        "Sky-SV" (1L13) was put into service in 1986, and "Sky-SVU" (1L119) further development of the "Sky-SV" radar, then "Sky-M" (55ZH6M) - a three-band complex with separate centimeter radar (modification of the 64L6 "Gamma-C1" radar), decimeter (modification of the "Protivnik-G" radar) and meter ranges (modification of the "Sky-SVU" radar).

      7. Denis
        Denis 10 June 2014 15: 15
        0
        Quote: atalef
        What the hell is the Russian Federation building and investing such huge grandmas in the new PAK FA t-50?
        If everyone is so stupid there, then God himself ordered the Russian Federation to remain smart and not fall for this scam

        And what as close as possible to the target will be unimportant?
      8. Uncle
        Uncle 10 June 2014 16: 53
        0
        Quote: atalef
        I have a question, so to say delitant.

        I asked the same question to the pilot mentioned in another branch, with t50, according to him, the t50 on the screen looks just as small as the old MiGs. Americans were indignant that the MiG was far away, and he was already there. And there is another avionics, everything is hidden in the wings, in short, the plane is good, we need it in a series.
      9. postman
        postman 10 June 2014 17: 25
        +1
        Quote: atalef
        detected by radars of almost a century range ---

        1. Their "age-old" radars are gone
        2. You can’t even put a meter radar on the plane
        Quote: atalef
        If everything is so simple --- who the sucker?

        suckers journalists write nonsense
        Quote: atalef
        Or do amers have no similar radars?

        Wave range: VHF (meter) ... stationary radar AN / TPQ-88 \ 100


        American AN / TPS-43 on the M35 family truck

        no concept of "old"
        Nevertheless, by January 42, on the approaches to Great Britain “... the British deployed twenty-five security groups, which included two hundred and five ships (seventy destroyers, sixty-seven corvettes, sixty-eight patrol ships, etc.). Most ships were equipped 286 meter range radars. Many were also stocked. powerful centimeter-wave radars of the “271” type. Some ships were equipped with direction finders ...

        Germany 2MB: GEMA was not supported in research centimeter wave range in the field of radar, .... We recovered only when aviation H2S from a downed Lancaster was in their hands with radar cm range.
      10. Starley from the south
        Starley from the south 10 June 2014 21: 01
        +1
        In the PAK FA they do not follow the path of stealth, that is, they do not go as far as the Americans, they make it super maneuverable. Like it’s better to dodge missiles than to be discovered.
      11. mikael
        mikael 13 June 2014 12: 37
        0
        the creation of armor usually costs many times more expensive than an ax, a raig for this bullshit at one time with the soy system bought everything the Politburo
  2. Letnab
    Letnab 10 June 2014 08: 46
    +3
    quote: 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.
    Also in Georgia they asked the Hamers to give ... an interesting habit
    1. the47th
      the47th 10 June 2014 13: 46
      0
      It's like giving a small child an expensive cell phone. He will go to school with him, boast about everything, the phone is there and a high school student will take it away. And you just have to go to his parents and ask for a return.
  3. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 10 June 2014 08: 53
    +2
    Yes BECAUSE WE ARE SMART PEOPLE !!! good
  4. Beck
    Beck 10 June 2014 09: 10
    +15
    Journalists, in their time, changed the concept subtle on invisible and since then there are the most curious stories about this technology.

    Here the author relishes in a fit of ugliness - Russian radars detect invisible (inconspicuous), and Russian missiles bring down invisible. Yes, any modern radars detect a stealth aircraft and any modern missiles bring down a stealth aircraft.

    The difference between an invisible plane and a stealth is very large. And the most - a completely Invisible aircraft, at the level of modern technology, it is impossible to create. This was understood by the designers of the Stealth technology and they created a stealth aircraft, and not an invisible one.

    Ordinary aircraft and Subtle are detected by modern radars, the only difference is distance detection. Roughly, roughly, but clearly.

    An ordinary plane goes to the object. Air defense facility detects an airplane over 500 kilometers. While the identification of the target is underway, its parameters are being refined, commands are given to the executive components of the air defense, an ordinary plane flies 250 kilometers for minutes, if not seconds. As a result, an ordinary plane is shot down 200 kilometers from the object.

    Subtle (invisible by a journalist) can be found only 250 kilometers from the object. And simply there is no time left to carry out all the commands to destroy an inconspicuous aircraft. He manages to strike at the object.

    That's the whole point of Stealth technology.

    And in an air battle, the radar of a conventional fighter will detect a stealth fighter at a distance of 100 kilometers, but will not detect it for 200 kilometers. A stealth fighter will find a conventional fighter for 200 kilometers. And who has the benefits? Designers strive for this by creating and improving Stealth technology.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 10 June 2014 09: 26
      +7
      the layman laughing at Stells technologies needs to be explained more simply: Stells is camouflage, the radar camouflage is all. A white camouflage suit will not make a person invisible, but no one laughs at it.
      As for the plane shot down by Pechery - it flew closer than 15 km in range (in fact, direct visibility) - why not shoot down
      1. yehat
        yehat 10 June 2014 11: 46
        0
        moreover, the F-117 flew with passive sensors (half-blind) and realized that it was being attacked, only at the last moment - exposure from the guidance radar and after a few seconds it was all over.
        1. Avralex
          Avralex 3 July 2014 11: 40
          0
          And I, I remember, from the press of those days that I shot down the F-117th MIG-21 and then, accidentally, jumping onto that of the clouds.
          As for stealth - I served on the C-125M, and on the IKO it is problematic to distinguish the "invisible" from the crow (with a comparable RCS) at low altitudes. In practice, while you recognize it, the plane is already flying overhead ... And for launch, a few more minutes to spin up gyroscopes and so on. The S-300 will do better with this.
    2. Vadivak
      Vadivak 10 June 2014 09: 49
      +2
      Quote: Beck
      Here the author relishes in a fit of ugliness - Russian radars detect invisible (inconspicuous), and Russian missiles bring down invisible.


      And I agree with him. There is something to be proud of. But the Americans have nothing.
      1. Beck
        Beck 10 June 2014 11: 09
        0
        Quote: Vadivak
        And I agree with him. There is something to be proud of.


        Be proud who interferes. To be proud is not a tricky business - Mine, but the rest is on the side.

        In principle, the basis of the radar antenna can also be made from rattan. Papuans will also be proud.

        Quote: Vadivak
        But the Americans have nothing.


        Well, about amers, I’m generally silent. They and the aircraft do not have modern, so what are the first world shelves. And there are no normal tanks, so the trolleys are upholstered. And there are no good rockets, so flares of the times of the Crimean War.

        And they have NOTHING. Yes, and the amers themselves are not. These are all journalistic fairy-tales.
        1. atalef
          atalef 10 June 2014 11: 19
          +1
          Quote: Beck
          Well, about amers, I’m generally silent. They and the aircraft do not have modern, so what are the first world shelves. And there are no normal tanks, so the tin carts are upholstered

          And they don’t have radars, since they are Russian (just why Russian, and not Russian) radars see them perfectly, but PAK FA will not be visible a priori.
          1. yehat
            yehat 10 June 2014 11: 49
            0
            Quote: atalef
            tk - Russian (only why Russian, not Russian)

            because Chechen, Ossetian, Buryat, Chukhon, Mordovian or Chukchi do not channel))))
            1. Denis
              Denis 10 June 2014 15: 24
              +1
              Quote: yehat
              because Chechen, Ossetian, Buryat, Chukhon, Mordovian or Chukchi do not

              Friends, let's tie this up!
              It just so happened that Russians are not only Russians, they are all from the USSR.
              Who during the Second World War spoke to his mother about the proposal to surrender, and that the Russians did not give up were always Russian?
          2. sivuch
            sivuch 10 June 2014 17: 06
            -1
            He, Pak FA will be noticeable for Russian and Chinese meter radars, although, as far as I know, measures to reduce ESR in this range are also being carried out. There are simply fewer opportunities here. As far as I know, there are no meter range stations in the USA.
        2. atalef
          atalef 10 June 2014 11: 19
          0
          Quote: Beck
          Well, about amers, I’m generally silent. They and the aircraft do not have modern, so what are the first world shelves. And there are no normal tanks, so the tin carts are upholstered

          And they don’t have radars, since they are Russian (just why Russian, and not Russian) radars see them perfectly, but PAK FA will not be visible a priori.
        3. Vadivak
          Vadivak 10 June 2014 13: 36
          +2
          Quote: Beck
          To be proud is not a tricky business - Mine, but the rest is on the side.


          Do not worry so. This is not the last shame of America
          1. Beck
            Beck 10 June 2014 13: 55
            -1
            Quote: Vadivak
            Do not worry so. This is not the last shame of America


            The moderators probably deleted it, you still wrote - "They knocked down your freak there and the road is for him."

            And why should I worry about the US plane. I was actually talking about the Stealth system. And my "y ... d" is the Russian MiG-29 and Su-27, which are in service with Kazakhstan.

            And I don’t hang the flag myself. These are some technical problems there, from time to time my flag is changed to state flag.
            1. Vadivak
              Vadivak 10 June 2014 14: 07
              +1
              Quote: Beck


              The moderators probably deleted it, you still wrote - "They knocked down your freak there and the road is for him."


              Right Moderators When I realized that you are not American. Just a fan. And Stealth technology is not their invention, you need to know
            2. The comment was deleted.
        4. postman
          postman 11 June 2014 13: 36
          0
          Quote: Beck
          And they have NOTHING. Yes, and the amers themselves are not. These are all journalistic fairy-tales.

          Yes exactly.
          But what then should be done with Obama and pSSaki? And with sanctions?
          1. Beck
            Beck 11 June 2014 17: 32
            0
            Quote: Postman
            And they have NOTHING. Yes, and the amers themselves are not. These are all journalistic fairy-tales.
            Yes exactly.
            But what then should be done with Obama and pSSaki? And with sanctions?


            So why is it incomprehensible?

            This is all a conspiracy of the capital-financial-oligarchic backstage of world massism. This backstage wants to bend everyone under it, enslave and appropriate all the money of the World. (Although it is also not clear, money is already in their hands).

            To achieve their goals, they invented Obama, Psaki, sanctions to destabilize the world. And in muddy water they are like fish in water.

            We must not succumb to provocations and bend our line. A line of crystal clear, immaculate stupefying. Like we believe, but in our pockets we have two cookies.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. adept666
      adept666 10 June 2014 10: 34
      +1
      And in an air battle, the radar of a conventional fighter will detect a stealth fighter at a distance of 100 kilometers, but will not detect it for 200 kilometers. A stealth fighter will find a conventional fighter for 200 kilometers.


      You may ask, how can the inconspicuous detect the usual 200 km? smile
      1. Beck
        Beck 10 June 2014 10: 49
        -3
        Quote: adept666
        You may ask, how can the inconspicuous detect the usual 200 km?


        What is so impetuous and without logic. Yes, albeit on the same plane and the same radar. But Stealth technology does not reveal itself further than a hundred kilometers.
        1. adept666
          adept666 10 June 2014 12: 11
          0
          And the fact that when irradiating an ordinary airplane, the inconspicuous from inconspicuous turns into a bright sun does not bother you? wink
          1. patsantre
            patsantre 10 June 2014 16: 23
            -2
            Before trying to convince someone of something, you should study the issue yourself. There is a comment above that describes the mode of operation of the radar, in which its radiation is almost impossible to detect.
            If it comes to that, what will prevent "stealth" from using the passive radar mode, tracking enemy radiation?
            1. adept666
              adept666 10 June 2014 18: 57
              0
              Well, where are the professionals for me? By the way, you can link to this post above, at least someone wrote, or looked and didn’t see anything worthwhile (so to speak, in order to increase education smile )
              1. patsantre
                patsantre 11 June 2014 00: 10
                0
                Here's how this mode is described for the AN / APG-77 radar mounted on the F-22:
                The ability of the radar to operate in Low Interception Probability (LPI) mode renders conventional SPO / RTR systems useless. The AN / APG-77 radar is capable of performing an active radar search for a fighter aircraft equipped with STR / RTR equipment so that the target does not know that it is being irradiated. Unlike conventional radars that emit powerful energy pulses in a narrow frequency range, AN / APG-77 emits low-energy pulses in a wide frequency range using a technique called broadband transmission. When multiple echoes return, the radar signal processor combines these signals. The amount of energy reflected back to the target is at the same level as a conventional radar, but since each LPI pulse has a significantly lower amount of energy and a different signal structure, it will be difficult to detect the F-22.
                1. adept666
                  adept666 12 June 2014 07: 47
                  0
                  Oh, what are you talking about) And the target detection range in this mode is not described by chance?
        2. NEXUS
          NEXUS 10 June 2014 12: 52
          +4
          You dear Beck forgot to mention one thing ... when the Yugoslav residential quarters, judging by the flag, your fellow tribesmen, they were very tense about the fact that, God forbid, Russia would not give the Yugoslav military for temporary use of the c-300 installation ... there, the same experiences of Washington were heard about the KUB system ... and about the Kalchug system ... and now the question is, if Russia had sent such humanitarian aid then, would I be interested in the F117 flying over Belgrade for a long time? m ... or high-precision missiles would fly so colorful as they broadcast to the whole world? ... and in Iraq, well, did the Amer’s tanks stall in the desert? ... all this weapons than the Americans boast so much, makes a rustle only in countries where they cannot answer on the slope ... heroes, straight, living quarters full of children and women with high-precision weapons to iron ...
          1. Beck
            Beck 10 June 2014 13: 45
            0
            Quote: NEXUS
            You dear Beck forgot to mention one thing ... when the Yugoslav residential quarters, judging by the flag, your fellow tribesmen, they were very tense about the fact that, God forbid, Russia would not give the S-300 to the Yugoslav military for temporary use


            Well, I don’t hang the flag myself. I'm from Kazakhstan. These are some technical problems, there is some kind of conductor there or something else.

            Modern wars are not wars of 1 and 2 MV. There are no trenches and a solid front line. Any operations are designed for speed, maneuver, bypass. Both on the flanks and vertically. That is why the Iraqi army received a crushing defeat in a short time, because it used the outdated military doctrine - a solid front line and soldiers in the trenches. And all the recent wars do not last for years. In weeks, and sometimes days, one side or another is defeated.

            I need it. When NATO planned the operation in Yugoslavia, they, I think, calculated everything. And the possible delivery of S-300 from Russia. But a possible delivery and deployment would take several weeks, and NATO hoped to end the Milosevic regime earlier. Which is what happened.
            1. adept666
              adept666 10 June 2014 15: 44
              0
              Any operations are designed for speed, maneuver, bypass. Both on the flanks and vertically.


              Well, just like Chapai)))

              That is why the Iraqi army received a crushing defeat in a short time, because it used the outdated military doctrine - a solid front line and soldiers in the trenches.


              If the forces of the opponents are approximately equal, then you just get a war in the trenches in any scenario (if not, of course, nuclear weapons). Well, if you have opponents of 10-15 countries with advanced equipment and huge resources, and you have air defense / missile defense and the air force, which are morally outdated, then do not have any chances to use any doctrine. Add to this all the internal clashes between clans in your own country, then take you with your bare hands, and all this shobla was busy for more than a month, and besides, now and then you did not control the entire territory, but is sitting at the bases. While preparing for the operation for half a year for each.

              I need it. When NATO planned the operation in Yugoslavia, they, I think, calculated everything. And the possible delivery of S-300 from Russia.


              They didn’t calculate anything, because what for it was not needed and everything is clear like a day: two or three S-300 batteries would not have done the weather (but the S-300’s reputation was spoiled for the inhabitants) - once (more than 1000 cruise missiles were used and more than 1700 various planes), there was no political will - two (paratroopers do not count).
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 10 June 2014 16: 56
                +3
                two or three C-300 batteries wouldn’t make the weather ... WELL WHY DIDN'T YOURSELF DO IT? ALREADY TEST THEM THE PRAISED STEELS ALREADY BE STOPPED TO BOMB THE RESIDENTIAL QUARTERS ... AND IN THE COUPER, WILL STOPPED .. . AND THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO AMERE TO INTRODUCE THEIR MOUNT WARRIOR. WHICH WITHOUT SUPPORT FROM AIR AND ARTILLERY FROM THEIR NOSE BASES WILL NEVER SHOW ...
                1. adept666
                  adept666 10 June 2014 18: 53
                  0
                  Because corny would not be enough for all purposes of ammunition at least. Residential neighborhoods were not originally bombed by planes, but cruise missiles.
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 10 June 2014 19: 04
                    +3
                    I don’t argue about ammunition ... but you must admit, the Americans would have thought three times before sending f117 to the task)
                    1. adept666
                      adept666 10 June 2014 19: 15
                      0
                      I do not think that the "Invisibles" made a significant contribution to the victory in this operation. The same "visible" aircraft were operating there, mainly (with the use of electronic warfare). And the use of B-2, F-117 is more of a psychological move in order to demoralize the enemy (we use planes against you that cannot be detected, and therefore shot down). A small number of S-300s would be quickly suppressed (the forces in the air were too unequal).
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 10 June 2014 19: 26
                        +3
                        I talked not only about c300 but also about the Cube system, which quite successfully hits both stealth and rockets ... but you are right in one thing, no doubt, Americans love to rattle their arms in front of those who can’t fight back ..
                      2. adept666
                        adept666 10 June 2014 19: 54
                        +1
                        In fact, one (even deeply echeloned) air defense / missile defense ground will not be able to fight off massive missile fire and air raids without strong own air forces. Pat, increase losses, gain time, but not win.
            2. NEXUS
              NEXUS 10 June 2014 16: 50
              +5
              and it’s not strange for you to think about the tactics of a quick Amer war, which the Georgians also borrowed by hailing at the polyclinic, or the Ukrainian right-wing forces, using carpet bombing in the residential areas of Lugansk? m ... they taught these woes to fight not against regular troops but against the civilian population ... that to the extent that Washington envisioned the transfer of c-300 systems to Yugoslavia is all nonsense, as the operation to transfer f-117 began long before the events in Belgrade ... and the Americans really did not want to see Russian there systems that easily knock down Were any goals NATO members ...
          2. mikael
            mikael 17 June 2014 22: 07
            0
            Russia offered Milosevic the S-300 to pay off the debts of the USSR, but he refused, he didn’t think they would bomb, he wanted to take the money
      2. aleks 62
        aleks 62 10 June 2014 11: 09
        0
        Quote: adept666
        And in an air battle, the radar of a conventional fighter will detect a stealth fighter at a distance of 100 kilometers, but will not detect it for 200 kilometers. A stealth fighter will find a conventional fighter for 200 kilometers.


        You may ask, how can the inconspicuous detect the usual 200 km? smile
        ...
        ....Bravo!!! Not in the eyebrow, but in laughing eye!!!
      3. yehat
        yehat 10 June 2014 11: 59
        0
        American stealth has very good equipment with passive tracking devices (although there is no effective optical-electronic tracking station like on the su-27). And they see long range search radars turned on,
        and they can also find their position. I don’t know about 200 km, but they see much further than those who turn on the radars. On the other hand, if front-line aviation uses third-party guidance systems, then stealth in the stealth mode of radio silence do not see them. Generally. In the IR range, clipping is about 20-30 km. The visual is even smaller. And front-line interceptors in these conditions have an advantage. It is especially sad for a stealth if there is an AWACS aircraft (type A50), because then it can be seen very far away.
        1. adept666
          adept666 10 June 2014 12: 34
          -1
          American stealth has very good passive tracking equipment


          In order for the radar to work effectively in passive mode, the radar of a "conventional" aircraft must constantly emit, but no one constantly illuminates the sky in their right mind. In passive mode, you can only detect and receive information that someone is there and has an airborne radar, but if the enemy pilot is working correctly, alas, you cannot get another information with reliable accuracy and aim the missile at the target too. Therefore, in order to take advantage of its stealth, the board must receive external target designation (from flying radars or ground stations), and if it uses its own station, then there are almost no advantages, except for one.

          although there is no effective optoelectronic tracking station like on the su-27


          There is such a station on the F-35.
          1. patsantre
            patsantre 10 June 2014 16: 27
            -1
            Now explain to me this moment. Why do you think that a "normal" plane will detect a "stealth" by its radiation, but a "stealth" will not be able to do this, since it will be hindered by "correct pilot work" and so on?
            In general, I will once again remind you of the special "hidden" operating modes of the radar.
            1. adept666
              adept666 10 June 2014 18: 41
              -1
              I will explain. Stealth will detect a "regular" plane in the same way.

              "stealth" will not be able to do this, since "correct pilot work" will interfere with it


              I haven’t written this anywhere. Exceptionally your gag. Proof on my words without cutting out the context.

              Let me remind you once again about the special "hidden" modes of the radar


              Can you explain to me an engineer in radio physics what kind of regimes these are? smile
              1. mikael
                mikael 17 June 2014 22: 08
                0
                yes no it's just a reception mode
          2. Ekv
            Ekv 10 June 2014 17: 13
            0
            Quote: adept666
            So that in passive mode the radar can ...

            The F-22 has an ALR-94 electronic intelligence station, which allows, if the enemy has an UAV turned on, to launch missiles on it including its own radar very shortly, or even not including it at all.
            1. adept666
              adept666 10 June 2014 18: 48
              0
              The F-22 has an ALR-94 electronic intelligence station, which allows, if enemy turned on UAV


              Keywords are highlighted in bold (and about this my post that you commented on). And if the enemy is still not ignorant and turns on the UAV just as briefly?

              or even not including it at all.


              From the realm of fiction. For at a distance when RSDs are used this is a shot at sparrows, and where RMDs are used there, as a rule, other principles of aiming at the target are used and Stealth (in the RL range) is no longer a panacea.
      4. mikael
        mikael 17 June 2014 22: 03
        0
        You can not turn on your radar at all, but use the backlight from a stationary one, i.e. to work only on reception without radiating anything, there were rumors that work was being done in the USSR to detect targets, by changing the magnetic field of the earth by a moving object, I don’t know if this is true or not, and if it’s true, then how much has it progressed
    5. GRune
      GRune 10 June 2014 15: 30
      0
      A meter-range radar detects Stels on the same 500 km., Accordingly, the time margin remains, though targeting them is still more difficult.
  5. abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 10 June 2014 09: 13
    +4
    The article is very incomplete. Offhand. approximately 1/2 to 1/3 of the required material is stated. The subject title is not disclosed.
  6. saag
    saag 10 June 2014 09: 14
    +1
    "... In modern MANPADS, a combined method of targeting is used: optical, infrared (heat trail), laser"
    infrared, ultraviolet, laser there is a non-contact fuse, range finder in a word, but not pointing
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 10 June 2014 09: 19
      0
      RBS 70/90 with laser guidance
  7. umah
    umah 10 June 2014 09: 24
    0
    A very exciting story, but I did not find the answer in the article, why do Russian radars see stealth.

    I will answer for the author: stealth technology (on F-117) scattered short-wave radiation, if not mistaken, of the decimeter range. P18 radar had a meter operating range, for which it was stealth, that the corner reflector shone equally clearly. Of course, the meter range does not provide such accuracy of guidance as the shorter wavelength ranges, but it was enough to accompany and defeat the F-117 in Yugoslavia.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 10 June 2014 09: 41
      +1
      Yes, just the distance was 13 km, that’s the whole secret (are you able to see a moving person in camouflage 13 meters from yourself? I think so)! and the thermal imager worked. in fact, the plane was stupidly visible and nothing to do with decimeters
    2. vitalm
      vitalm 10 June 2014 10: 44
      +3
      In the states, radars of cm and dm ranges are mainly used, since they are mobile and compact, the accuracy characteristics are higher (in azimuth, elevation and range), we use radars not only for cm and dm ranges, but also a meter range such as radars 55Zh6 , 5N84A (lower accuracy characteristics). On the other hand, VHF stations see these "invisibles". Stealth technology was initially sharpened for cm and dm ranges, and it's not our problem that we have VHF stations.
  8. Professor
    Professor 10 June 2014 09: 49
    +7
    The Serbian rocket launcher said that his calculation also hit the F-16 and the B-2 invisible bomber. But these planes reached their airfields, so there is no evidence.

    Previously, he boasted that he had shot down a B-2, now he shot it down, but it made it to the airfield ... It turns out that the stealth plane has very good flight qualities if it made it to the airfield, but what about: "The result is an airplane with unimportant combat characteristics"? laughing

    It is limited in speed and range.

    There may be speed, but there are no restrictions on range ... B-2 11000 km.

    Article minus. Such a loud title: "Why do Russian radars see stealth planes" and such banal content.
    1. KG_patriot_last
      KG_patriot_last 10 June 2014 10: 18
      0
      And why doesn’t Israel make stealth gliders then? Why is he not preparing for war not with gangs, but with regular troops of the surrounding Arab countries?
      1. Professor
        Professor 10 June 2014 10: 25
        0
        Quote: KG_patriot_last
        And why doesn’t Israel make stealth gliders then?

        Israel does not "make" any gliders, stealth or nistels. The reason is the lack of funds and the ability to purchase them from the leader.

        Why is he not preparing for war not with gangs, but with regular troops of the surrounding Arab countries?

        Prepares for war with both.
    2. yehat
      yehat 10 June 2014 12: 04
      0
      Quote: professor

      Previously, he boasted that he shot down the B-2, now he shot down, but he reached the airfield ...

      Can you even imagine what a hefty carcass of B-2?
      look at the footage with which damage the B-17 was returning from Germany.
      so here they are - bellied small fry in comparison with B-2.
      I’m not sure that his direct hit from a tank gun will bring down.
      1. Professor
        Professor 10 June 2014 12: 11
        0
        Quote: yehat
        Can you even imagine what a hefty carcass of B-2?
        look at the footage with which damage the B-17 was returning from Germany.
        so here they are - bellied small fry in comparison with B-2.

        Read about the flying qualities of a flying wing. Such an aircraft hardly flies without damage, and even with damage ...
        1. stalkerwalker
          stalkerwalker 10 June 2014 12: 12
          +2
          Quote: professor
          Read about the flying qualities of a flying wing. Such an aircraft hardly flies without damage, and even with damage ...

          That's why they called it "the flying ax" ...
        2. goose
          goose 18 June 2014 15: 22
          +1
          Normally flies, just unstable dynamically, the computer helps him in this. By the way, the Su-27 is also unstable, to an even greater extent, because if stabilization does not work, then not every pilot can make a landing on a perfectly functioning S-27, as well as on a B-2.
          And about meter-long radars, you carry crap, this range is easily clogged with interference. And therefore - stealth in dm and cm ranges + interference and was the original goal of amers, and not that the plane is completely invisible. It is known that it flies, but it is not clear where, and if it is clear, it is difficult to keep the radar capture. On the video about the WB F-22 and the Frenchman, it’s clear that the capture flies a couple of times.
        3. goose
          goose 18 June 2014 15: 23
          0
          Normally flies, just unstable dynamically, the computer helps him in this. By the way, the Su-27 is also unstable, to an even greater extent, because if stabilization does not work, then not every pilot can make a landing on a perfectly functioning S-27, as well as on a B-2.
          And about meter-long radars, you carry crap, this range is easily clogged with interference. And therefore - stealth in dm and cm ranges + interference and was the original goal of amers, and not that the plane is completely invisible. It is known that it flies, but it is not clear where, and if it is clear, it is difficult to keep the radar capture. On the video about the WB F-22 and the Frenchman, it’s clear that the capture flies a couple of times.
  9. Dragon-y
    Dragon-y 10 June 2014 10: 41
    0
    There is also the fact that these "invisible" in tactics should act in a "set" with jammers. And here - they got used to "freebies" - like all the same, the Serbs have no normal air defense - that's what they got. Moreover, when the hatches are open, this "invisible" becomes very clearly visible to the radar. (at least, there were materials about this)
  10. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 10 June 2014 10: 52
    +1
    If you fly over enemy positions over
    to the same route at the same time - it’s necessary
    knocked down :). This is me about the F-117.
    Dragan Matic, of course, is an excellent officer. And acted resourcefully
    and professionally - respect him.
    But there is a strong suspicion that he shot blindly at the "source
    interference "rather than a" clear image "on the radar screen.
    Radars for R-125 and R-200 are enough in NATO and their characteristics
    are well known. They were used to work out "stealth" calculations at
    aircraft design.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 10 June 2014 14: 38
      +2
      somewhat wrong.
      There wasn’t a week then, they shot down on the 3rd or 4th day. They flew along one route until they entered airspace, then scattered.
      The primary detection was given by the P-12 and P-18, which in Yugoslavia was only 8 according to some reports, a little more according to others. The fact is that the S-125 division can receive a primary control or rake either from a butterfly or from both. And it seems that the Yugoslavs had the last option. The capture ranges were from 20 to 40 km, and the captures themselves were usually unstable. The south had 2 more P-14F monsters, but they were quickly carried out. By the way. There is information that is personally indisputable for me that another 117th was at least damaged.
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 10 June 2014 16: 57
        0
        Uv.tovarisch minusovatel. Maybe you introduce yourself and explain what you did not like?
  11. Bormental
    Bormental 10 June 2014 11: 13
    -1
    Someone is making awesome grandmothers on this stealth, and, as always, they go to suckers by ears.
  12. Stasi
    Stasi 10 June 2014 11: 14
    +1
    I have written on this topic before, let me repeat it again. The very idea of ​​"stealth" was invented by our scientist Peter Ufimtsev. He came up with the idea to make the fuselage of an airplane from triangles in order to scatter the radio wave from the locator. This idea was borrowed from Ufimtsev by the American mathematician Dennis Overholzer, who worked for Boeing. I want to say that when Ufimtsev proposed a project for such an aircraft, our specialists rejected it, because the aerodynamic and flight characteristics were sacrificed to invisibility and the aircraft would fly very badly. Time has confirmed the correctness of our specialists. The plane really turned out to be very capricious in flight and extremely unstable. So, after the flight, the American test pilot Ben Rich spoke of the "stealth": "This is the ugliest plane I have ever piloted!" It also turned out that "stealth" is not so invisible. In addition to the fact that it is clearly seen by meter-range radars, and it is designed for decimeter and centimeter-range radars, we managed to find another way to detect invisibility. In the mid-80s, specialists from the Institute for Control Problems, under the leadership of Mikhail Prangishvili, created a location method based on the principle of detecting a target on the trail it leaves. Any flying target, no matter how invisible it is, leaves an inconspicuous trail. Thanks to this method, the problem of detecting invisibility ceases to be a problem per se.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 10 June 2014 11: 29
      +2
      You are right that complete invisibility does not happen. there is
      methods of detecting stealth aircraft. But these methods require
      significant, primarily financial efforts. For purchase and
      deploying such an air defense will take more money than
      the stealth aircraft themselves.
      In addition, it is not enough to detect - it must be destroyed. A stealth and
      destroy harder if it goes on cruising supersonic,
      like a raptor. It is necessary to conduct missiles with radar until its GOS has not caught the target.
      And the target is muddy, almost at the level of interference. And decrypt it securely -
      too big costs.
      1. Stasi
        Stasi 11 June 2014 09: 01
        +1
        If we compare the creation of a stealth aircraft and the creation of a new locator from the standpoint of cost / efficiency, then the case will not be in favor of the aircraft. It will cost more to build an airplane than new radar electronics. Also, the price includes maintenance of equipment: a lot of fuel is consumed on the plane, many technicians are employed in its maintenance. All this costs a pretty penny. At the same time, the cost of radar maintenance is lower than the cost of aircraft maintenance. So consider yourself what is more expensive - the creation of "stealth" or air defense with locators operating on more advanced principles.
  13. Leshka
    Leshka 10 June 2014 11: 58
    0
    we need more new radars
  14. yehat
    yehat 10 June 2014 12: 11
    +2
    Quote: voyaka uh
    A stealth and
    destroy harder if it goes on cruising supersonic,
    like a raptor. It is necessary to conduct missiles with radar until its GOS has not caught the target.
    And the target is muddy, almost at the level of interference. And decrypt it securely -
    too big costs.

    no problem. new missiles have a speed of 6+ max and easily catch up even at supersonic. The faster the plane, the easier its likely trajectory. The missile is simply allowed into the area where the contact WILL be, and then the active guidance head is turned on. An error of 5 km is quite acceptable and achievable.
    For example, at a working distance of 60 km, a missile reaches its target in about 22-25 seconds. During this time, the stealth on cruising supersonic will fly 7-9 km.
    Those. taking sufficient lead is very simple. How easy it is to adjust the course of a rocket in such a framework.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 10 June 2014 16: 32
      0
      And if the plane maneuvers? Or, having received information about the attack, will change flight direction?
      1. Starley from the south
        Starley from the south 10 June 2014 21: 24
        0
        You cannot maneuver much at supersonic sounds ... In a duel between a rocket and an airplane, the rocket will always win if it confidently captures the airplane. If the plane can dodge the first missile, then from the second - there is no chance. And here it doesn’t matter if he was a stealth or not a stealth.
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 11 June 2014 00: 14
          0
          Quote: Starley from the South
          In a duel between a rocket and an aircraft, the rocket will always win if it confidently captures the aircraft.

          Stealth just this can interfere.
          Quote: Starley from the South
          You cannot maneuver strongly in supersonic ...

          And why on supersonic? And the point is not even the intensity of maneuvering. He will simply change the direction of flight, the rocket, having flown to the place of the intended meeting, will be at too great a distance to capture the plane, given its stealth.
          1. Starley from the south
            Starley from the south 11 June 2014 02: 18
            0
            I agree. Therefore, they also slow down for maneuver.
          2. yehat
            yehat 11 June 2014 11: 58
            0
            I gave rough calculations above
            the pilot has about 20 seconds to react, make a decision and evade the undressing point by 15-20 km. In reality, this time is half as much. UNREAL.
      2. yehat
        yehat 11 June 2014 11: 44
        0
        Can you imagine how difficult it is to turn at a speed of 1.5 M?
        this is no longer dogfight since the second world war.
  15. trenkkvaz
    trenkkvaz 10 June 2014 14: 15
    +1
    The articles on this topic have more cheers on both sides than a real discussion of technologies and their relevance.
  16. Nayhas
    Nayhas 10 June 2014 14: 22
    +4
    Another stone in the American garden ... The author clearly does not understand the topic that he was trying to develop, moreover does not give any answer to the main question:
    Why do Russian radars see invisible planes

    Well, why?
    The author also claims that:
    And despite all the tricks, they are still knocked down.

    Whose are these? History knows the only case of the destruction of an aircraft created using stealth technology, the author cited this example. According to the author, the loss of one aircraft should put an end to this topic? Maybe the author does not know how many sorties these missions have made in their history?
    Well, and a logical question, why then is this technology used in the T-50? Or is there evidence that "American radars cannot see stealth aircraft"?
    1. capitalist
      capitalist 10 June 2014 14: 45
      +5
      yes it is useless to give arguments .. Chukchi writers, not readers ..
      In recent months, the portal has turned into some sort of propaganda dump.

      it seems like there are 3 topics left on this site:
      1) Ukrainian "fascists" ate another 500 babies alive
      2) "American stealth is" drank the dough "! Yes, we can knock them down with a felt boot!"
      3) "the modern fleet is worthless cardboard boxes! You need to build battleships, or even better - analogs of the first Confederate Monitor, with meter armor and muzzle-loading guns! Modern anti-ship missiles cannot penetrate it!"

      PS For a long time by the way, Mr. "Iron Iron" is not visible ... what the hell is not joking - maybe the truth is preparing another material from an alternative history on the topic "Popovka" destroys the American AUG with artillery fire?
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 10 June 2014 15: 09
        +2
        And let's stop only on the second thesis?
        Where is it written about the use of boots as a means of defense?
      2. Professor
        Professor 10 June 2014 15: 16
        0
        Quote: Capitalist
        it seems like there are 3 topics left on this site:

        Bravo, you can’t say better. good
    2. Starley from the south
      Starley from the south 11 June 2014 02: 27
      0
      Stealth technology is not a panacea, our air defense systems can very well use their weaknesses, that's what matters. Remember, the NATO did not dare to bomb those countries where ours did not even put very new air defense systems, such as Syria, Iran. Otherwise, statistics on downed B-2 or Ф-117 would have made taxpayers wonder if the Pentagon with invisible planes was driving them by the nose.
  17. gregor6549
    gregor6549 10 June 2014 16: 35
    +2
    The development of aircraft (and not only them) using technologies to reduce their visibility (and not to ensure their invisibility) in all wavelength ranges in which the means of detecting and guiding the armament of a potential enemy are working has begun in many countries, including the United States and SSST, for a long time (somewhere from the end of 60, if my memory serves me right). This work does not stop now.
    In the USA, the emphasis was initially placed on the use of radar absorbing structural materials and coatings, as well as on the use of special housing geometry, which in total allows one to reduce the energy of the reflected radar signals and reflect part of this energy in a direction different from the one from which these signals came i.e. reduce their density at the input of the radar receivers, etc.,
    In the USSR, they decided to follow the path of “normal heroes who, like Barmaley, always go around” and get by developing a radio-absorbing paint. But it was very tempting to just “repaint” all aircraft of the USSR Air Force in stealth, i.e. solve the problem cheaply and cheerfully.
    Nothing, alas, came out of this venture for various reasons, including the fact that it was more than problematic to ensure the required adhesion strength of paint to the sprayed aircraft, especially at high speeds and at high heating temperatures of the hull.
    And the effect of the desired paint, without the use of other measures to ensure stealth, did not give.
    But time was lost, which allowed the United States to dramatically advance in solving the aforesaid task. Russia is now trying to catch up with the United States in this direction, but as you know, catching up is not always the best.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 10 June 2014 17: 57
      +1
      It flashed in the press that Israeli experts
      believe that "stealth" in its current form: the geometry of the aircraft
      and special coatings - relevant for another 15 years. Then the radars of the future, which
      are being developed, they will clearly distinguish between such stealth and
      any direction. And stealth will have to provide
      by other means. Probably some active "smart" elements on
      aircraft that will create a false image for the enemy’s radar.
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 10 June 2014 18: 18
        0
        Such "smart" technologies have long been actively demonstrated and tested by many Western firms, and not only on aircraft, but also on tanks and ships. At least in the currently most widespread wavelength ranges (visible optical, IR, radio). I believe that Russia does not lose sight of them either.
  18. gregor6549
    gregor6549 10 June 2014 16: 36
    +2
    That gives stealth to an air and any other moving target in terms of the possibility of its detection and destruction.
    Firstly, a rather substantial decrease in the range of its detection is provided, and therefore the time allotted for the reaction of the air defense system
    Secondly, the task of setting even a detected target, especially a high-speed and highly maneuverable one, to follow and ensure stable tracking of this target until it is hit A without a stable tracking, the probability of a successful interception is more than low. By the way, it is escort difficulties that are often ignored when discussing this topic. Of course, even if the target is visually detected, it’s not easy to bring down everything. Against passive and active GOS MANPADS there is already a fairly large number of countermeasures.
    Further, the detection range in 500km for army radars indicated in the article has nothing to do with reality, especially for low-flying targets. You can’t deceive physics, just like the curvature of the Earth. Even the AWACS and U planes do not swing at the lines of detection beyond 400 km. Of course, there are over-the-horizon radars, but they have nothing to do with army radars and are not intended to solve the problems of air defense. And their accuracy, plus or minus tens of kilometers.
    They are controversial and allegations about the alleged benefits of meter and decimeter radars in detecting stealth. Clearly spaced radar grouping
    different range has some advantages in detecting stealth but these advantages are not as serious as many fans write about it.
    And about the notorious F117 shot down in Yugoslavia. Gossip and speculation about how and why it was brought down by the sea. But you need to pay attention to the fact that that flight of the F117 was carried out, contrary to the rules of its combat use, alone without covering EW aircraft i.e. in the noiseless situation and the complete absence of the use of ORS and other means of fire suppression of the positions of air defense systems and their radar. But this isolated case was enough for the United States to abandon the illusions about stealth invulnerability only because they were less noticeable for enemy air defenses and began to build more serious stealth types F22, B2, F35 with more serious aerobatic characteristics and weapons.
    Those. the development of this, like all other types of weapons, is in accordance with normal logic: for every tricky s ... tsu there is always a bolt with a device.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 10 June 2014 20: 45
      +3
      Well, besides PAK FA, there is also X-NUMX, which I’m sure will see these planes and successfully deal with them ... I think it's not so simple ... one came up with a sword and the other shield ... this is a competition between defense and attack systems ... everything is quite logical ... but both the Amers and we have fighters in the final stages of development ... and their characteristics are still very foggy ... there are general requirements for the 500 generation, but nothing more ... add to this the cost, quantity, resource of modernization, the radar component and the arsenal ... so for now, by and large it’s too early to talk about anything ...
      1. Starley from the south
        Starley from the south 11 June 2014 02: 35
        +1
        As far as I know, the Americans already have a full-fledged 5 generation aircraft, which is mass-produced. I don’t know the exact brand, but this is a light front-line fighter. Heavy, Raptor, they did not go, it turned out too expensive. And our T-50 is rather heavy and in terms of basic performance characteristics will surpass the American counterpart. Although comparing them is not entirely correct, the tasks they will have will be different. But definitely, the T-50 will be much cheaper, because some countries have already expressed a desire to buy this aircraft in the future.
  19. siberalt
    siberalt 10 June 2014 20: 23
    +1
    I am not a physicist. But, how can you not invent so as not to see a hot "piece of iron" moving in the earth's magnetic field? hi
  20. Sergey Krymsky
    Sergey Krymsky 10 June 2014 22: 06
    +1
    After NATO’s aggression on Serbia in 1999, a single American general visited the military museum in Belgrade. General went to one of the museum’s coats, a young retired Serbian officer and asked a question:
    `` Well, was it difficult to fight with the greatest and most powerful force of the world? ''
    The officer replied:
    `` I don’t know, we have never fought against the Russians ''
    1. Professor
      Professor 10 June 2014 22: 26
      +1
      Cool story good
  21. capitalist
    capitalist 10 June 2014 23: 42
    0
    I would say that the story is frosty ... especially when you consider what our army was like in the mid-late nineties
  22. USSR
    USSR 10 June 2014 23: 53
    0
    B-2 is the divorce of American taxpayers.
  23. Vita_vko
    Vita_vko 11 June 2014 10: 45
    0
    The article is really written a little incorrectly. Stealth technology was developed primarily to reduce the visibility of radar see range. In particular, in the 3cm range, in which the radars of all fighters operate, as well as many ground and naval radars, the average EPR value (effective dispersion area) of the B-2 and F-117 is reduced by almost 100 times. And this means that on the screen of these radars they will look like cruise missiles and will be detected not at a distance of 400 km, but at a distance of 100 - 150 km. Yes, and they fly almost the same way, almost without maneuvering, so even by trajectory signs they are difficult to distinguish. But now, almost all ground-based and naval early warning radars make the DM range with a wavelength of 10 to 25 cm. In this range, the resonant properties of the Stealth casing are no longer valid and only the carbon coating partially absorbing the energy of the radio waves works. Thus, the EPR decreases only several times, and the detection range decreases by 20-30%.
    But in the meter range of ground-based radars, of which we have the majority, Stealth aircraft shine even better than ordinary ones. The detection range of Stals aircraft is increased in the meter range by almost 20%. The reason is that the smooth shapes of the Stealth aircraft create an almost complete absence of "shiny dots" (electrical centers of resonant reflection). Thus, the Stealth aircraft in the meter range becomes an ideal resonator with one shiny point, without any overlaps and interference there. In addition, there is a serious problem with the defeat of the meter-range radar by PRLR missiles. For example, in Yugoslavia, the Americans put more than a dozen Harm PRLRs around the old P-18. She continued to work. The reason is the presence of several electrical centers. Moreover, the most powerful of them, as a rule, is formed from the surface of the earth or water.
  24. yehat
    yehat 11 June 2014 11: 53
    0
    Quote: professor
    Quote: yehat
    Can you even imagine what a hefty carcass of B-2?
    look at the footage with which damage the B-17 was returning from Germany.
    so here they are - bellied small fry in comparison with B-2.

    Read about the flying qualities of a flying wing. Such an aircraft hardly flies without damage, and even with damage ...

    you confuse terminology a little. the flying wing with aerodynamics is all right
    at odds with the aerodynamics of the geometry requirements for signal reflection.
    Well, it’s possible that on the contrary, aerodynamics will improve))) here, as luck would have it.
    and if a banal hole is formed in the plane, it’s a Trivia, which will not affect flight performance.
  25. yehat
    yehat 11 June 2014 12: 02
    0
    Quote: Nayhas

    Whose are these? History knows the only case of the destruction of an aircraft created using stealth technology, the author cited this example.

    history knows 3 such cases and a whole series of damage episodes. )))
  26. Vlad Gore
    Vlad Gore 12 June 2014 05: 12
    0
    Quote: svp67
    "Invisibility" is so arbitrary ... today he is "invisible", but tomorrow he is visible in all its details, science is not standing still ... our defense industry would not be late.

    In terms of air defense, Russia is ahead of the rest of the world by a couple of generations. Yes
  27. mikael
    mikael 12 June 2014 16: 16
    -1
    crap all this lobuda with stealth, the same divorce as Reagan SDI
  28. kavad
    kavad 13 June 2014 12: 19
    0
    "Another thing is that it is advisable to shoot down enemy aircraft at distant approaches, and not at the moment when they fly overhead." - Gold words!
  29. Rayden
    Rayden 16 June 2014 18: 56
    0
    like they said another moment 29 shot down F117
  30. goose
    goose 18 June 2014 15: 38
    0
    Quote: siberalt
    I am not a physicist. But, how can you not invent so as not to see a hot "piece of iron" moving in the earth's magnetic field?

    Not hot (B-2, F-22 without afterburner).
    And not a piece of iron, they are only 50% metallic in weight, and there they are mainly titanium, aluminum, non-magnetic pieces, however.

    No one said that they were not visible, it was simply harder to detect and harder to accompany.
    Methods for locating and combating interference, sufficient for their visibility, were known back in the 60s. But all this requires some effort.
  31. Thompson
    Thompson 1 July 2014 19: 37
    0
    Quote: Michael
    70% of the losses of German armored vehicles is precisely the effect of artillery, so they were soaked and very successful, and not only in calibers 57-100 but even in 45, so it’s a stupid statement that they didn’t

    But the Tiger was a monster and it was worth it to kill him. Alas, not everything was so smooth and easy. According to World War I statistics, the ratio of tank losses was 1 to 9 at the beginning and 1 to 5 at the end of the war. Victory cost us dearly! Therefore, we must not lag behind in technology, this is a fact
  32. Airmax
    Airmax 2 July 2014 12: 57
    0
    [quote = NEXUS] But isn’t it strange for you to think about the tactics of a quick Amer war, which the Georgians also borrowed by hailing at the clinic, or the Ukrainian right-wing forces, using carpet bombing of residential areas of Lugansk?
    Do not write nonsense, and do not spread your anger and false information to people - they will still start to believe you! Firstly, the Georgians have their own head on their shoulders, and secondly, the Ukrainian army does not smash its citizens with carpet bombing. The fighting is being conducted exclusively against terrorists, whom you may confuse with "civilians". So let's not compose Krylov's fables !!!