Military Review

Knights of the night sky. From F-117 to F-35

79

- Radovan, why are you stealth shot down?
- I am by chance. I did not notice him.


Where the dream of a ghostly warrior is closely intertwined with the latest achievements of progress ... The idea is simple - to strike, while remaining invulnerable to the enemy. The risk of retaliation is completely excluded. A black plane, carried away into the distance, symbolizes a convincing victory of technology over a pitiful human nature.

American bragging, the secret development of Peter Ufimtsev, the legend of the agent "Sphere" and shot down over Yugoslavia F-117. Surrealism? Elements of the stealth technology are more and more clearly appearing in the guise of modern aviation and naval technology. From Russian PAK FA and Steregushchy corvettes to American Reptors, F-35s and Zamvolt strike destroyers. The contempt in the media and the ridicule of “couch experts” do not affect the military’s opinion that they are ready to donate any means to reduce the radar and thermal visibility of military equipment. Nevertheless, the destruction of the "invisible aircraft" over the war zone with the help of the 1950s shaggy air defense system gave rise to many doubts about the effectiveness of the existing "stealth".

The opinion of society is divided.

In one camp, people are simple and gullible, holy believers, that to counter modern “stealth” old Soviet complexes and meter-range radars are enough. Have the right to do so! The Serbs knocked down the Nighthok obsolete C-125 Neva.

On the other hand - apologists of technical progress. Ardent technophyscists, convinced of the power of modern science, whose arguments are based on the ratio of the number of combat missions and the number of losses. It looks menacing and convincing.

So what is a "stealth"? In sum - an abundance of myths and legends, often very far from common sense. Interested in the topic, the author proposes to conduct a joint investigation and try to understand what the scandalous success of the “Invisible Man” is connected with.

"Stealth" (from the English. Stealth - stealth, cunning) - a set of measures to reduce the visibility of military equipment in the radio wave / infrared / acoustic / visible bands (underline) to make it more difficult to detect by the enemy. Obviously, we are not talking about complete invisibility, but only to reduce visibility. To see a bomber from a distance of 50 or 100 km - the difference is enormous.

With the effect of reducing the visibility of aircraft for enemy radar, people faced even at the dawn of the development of radar, during the Second World War. The British all-wood bomber "Moskito" was virtually invisible to the German air defense system. The Germans did not lag behind - the Horten brothers, aircraft designers, without knowing it, created a real “invisibility” - the predecessor of modern stealth. Their "epic" Ho.229 - if it appeared over the battlefield - would be a tough nut for the radar of that era.

By the 50 years, a solid theoretical base was accumulated on this issue; Scientists and aircraft designers already had a clear idea of ​​how to reduce conspicuity. Among them - the use of various radio transparent and radio absorbing materials, the development of special forms and appearance of the aircraft.

There is no reason to doubt that the bodies are capable of absorbing radio emission - you can easily see this by putting your hand in the microwave. Ferromagnetic paints that enhance the absorption of radio waves, have been widely used in the design of the extreme drone D-21, high-altitude reconnaissance U-2, A-12 and SR-71 "Blackbird". The latter, with their special flat shape, could safely claim to be the real stealth.


SR-71



Lockheed D-21 unmanned reconnaissance aircraft (1966). Ceiling 30 km, max. 3,6 speed M

But is it possible to create such a perfect machine that the radar will not see at all?

The answer was given by the Soviet physicist Peter Ufimtsev, an expert on the diffraction of radio waves on bodies of complex shape. Yes, the creation of such an aircraft is possible! The effective area of ​​dispersion (EPR, and simply - visibility) of the aircraft is more dependent on the shape than on its size. The only problem - the appearance of an invisible aircraft will violate all the laws of aerodynamics.


F-117A at ​​the destroyed Kuwait airbase

The monograph “The Edge Wave Method in the Physical Theory of Diffraction” became the guiding star on the way to the creation of “black airplanes.” The book released by the 6500 edition did not make a special impression on the Soviet specialists, but the mathematical apparatus described in it interested readers on the other side of the ocean. Later Petr Yakovlevich Ufimtsev will write a computer program "Echo-1", which will allow to determine the EPR of aircraft prototypes without the need to build their full-scale mock-ups and conduct difficult tests. The era of stealth has begun!

Firstborn invisible aircraft

The scandalous brainchild of Lockheed Martin, F-117 Nighthawk, and its lesser-known predecessor, the secret concept demonstrator Have Blue.

Career "Blue Bv" was short-lived - both invisible women were lost in a plane crash. "Naythoku" luckier: he was able to grow to the stage of mass production. Total - 64 aircraft, including five prototypes of the YF-117.


Lockheed have blue




Wobblin Goblin - The Lame Dwarf. A masterpiece of futurism. Stylish black plane, to the end and did not disclose their secrets. The main one is how this miracle could rise into the air ?! However, there is a guess on this score - if you invest a hundred or two billion dollars in a project, you can even get a grand piano to fly ...

While designing his first stealth, the Yankees sacrificed all the other aircraft performance characteristics to sacrifice stealth. Despite the fighter designation (F - fighter), the "Night Hawk" categorically could not conduct an air battle, and all its weapons consisted of a pair of 907-kg guided bombs. Secret bomber for secret penetration through the enemy's air defense system and performing particularly dangerous missions.

The shape was determined by the appointment. The main threat to the F-117 was ground-based air defense systems. Hence the characteristic silhouette of all the "first generation" stealth jets. Ideally smooth bottom surface and many chopped edges that form the upper side of the fuselage, oriented at angles more than 30 degrees from the vertical, because This form perfectly disperses the radiation of ground-based radar systems. Hellish "curved mirror" that reflects the rays in all directions, except the one where the radar of the enemy.

Next is the standard set of stealth technology:
- internal suspension of weapons;
- radar blockers on the engine air intakes (multi-layer metal mesh that hides the compressor blades);
- ferromagnetic paints and multilayer radar absorbing coatings - at all, without exception, even the internal, parts of the aircraft. Our specialists, who have studied the wreckage of the knocked-down Night Hawk, claim that it feels like it is entirely made of linoleum;
- facet lantern with a gold-plated electrically conductive coating, which excludes irradiation of the internal equipment of the cabin. Otherwise, the reflection from only one pilot’s helmet could be larger than from the entire aircraft;
- "sawtooth" joints of the fuselage panels and casement flaps (straight gaps are strong reflectors, therefore they are divided into many short segments);
- retractable antenna devices. During the sorties, the stealths did not have two-way communication with their command - all the aircraft’s radio equipment worked only at the reception;
- Finally, the lack of airborne radar. F-117 used only passive data collection systems: thermal imagers, GPS navigators, radio direction finders and radar detectors ... In the flights over the enemy territory, the pilots even turned off the radio altimeter. Any radiation of its own could give an "invisibility";
- other precautionary measures, in particular, the presence of other NATO planes was prohibited next to the “stealth”. There is no need to once again disturb the enemy's air defense system.


Clearly visible radar blockers on the engine air intakes


In addition to reducing the visibility in the main radio wave range, the creators of the F-117 tried to reduce the thermal background of the aircraft. Flat-shaped nozzles (for better mixing of exhaust with ambient air and speedy cooling of the jet stream) were closed with reflective shields - to prevent the engines from viewing from the lower hemisphere. The black color of the aircraft not only made it difficult to detect against the background of the night sky, but also contributed to the early dissipation of heat.

From the inside, the “black plane” refused to be surprisingly simple: the engines from the deck fighter F / A-18, the elements of the control system - from the fighter F-16. Also in the plane was used a number of nodes from the SR-71, and even from the training pair of T-33.


Sky cavalry

"INVISIBLE" was found and knocked down!

How? This topic is worthy of a separate (next) article. One has only to add that the C-125 radar systems of the air defense system hardly had anything to do with this. Insolent, confident of complete impunity, the Yankees flew at medium altitudes. The Serbs visually detected the aircraft and launched a missile using the Karat-2 television optical viewer (GRAU index 9Ш33А). This version is confirmed by the battery commander Zoltan Dani, where, according to him, they used an updated French-made viewfinder thermal imager. It does not matter. Guidance with the help of optics is one of the standard operating modes of the C-125 SAM systems when operating in a complex noise environment.

Knights of the night sky. From F-117 to F-35

On the right - fragments F-117A. On the left - keel and flashlight downed F-16. (Belgrade Aviation Museum)


The Lame Goblin was disgraced and quietly retired. Alas, difficult to agree. Aircraft of this type were in service for a quarter of a century (1983-2008) and were regularly used in military conflicts. The Pentagon claims to be successful (thousands of enemy infrastructure destroyed). Only during the aggression against Yugoslavia, F-117A made 850 combat missions. Losses are small - just one car. At the very least, the Serbs showed only one set of Black Hawk wreckage.

If we discard speculation, the collapse of the production of "Black Hawks" (59 F-117A combat - by the standards of the US Air Force, it did not even begin to build) is due to the following reasons:

a) the specific purpose of the semi-experimental bomber;
b) the start of work on the next-generation stealth - the B-2 and the F-22 Raptor;
c) the disappearance of the main enemy - the USSR. The construction of the Night Hawks was completed in 1990 year.

Techniques to reduce visibility, implemented in the "first generation" stealth planes, were enchanting, but far from the most intelligent solutions. Contrary to the myths, the Lame Goblin did not suffer from poor handling and could even carry out such complex operations as refueling in the air. At the same time, he could not go on supersonic, could not maneuver with overloads over 6g, had an insufficient climb rate and low combat load.

Naturally, such a highly specialized "miracle" could not suit the pilots of tactical aviation. It was decided to develop the theme of the "invisible" by sacrificing something, acquiring in exchange new, excellent skills.

Thus was born the second generation STELSOV.

F-22 Raptor and PAK FA fighters, the F-35 multipurpose fighter, and countless crafts from all over the world, including the Chinese J-20, the Japanese ATD-X, the Turkish TFX, and other concepts that replicate the external the look of Russian and American fighter of the new generation.



The highest combat aviation caste is the air superiority fighter aircraft that set the standards for aerobatic flying. And awkward stealth irons, with difficulty grasping the air with crippled wing stumps. How did you manage to combine conflicting requirements in the design of these machines?

The main idea of ​​all modern "stealth" - the parallelism of the faces and edges of the aircraft. The designers deliberately left several narrow "dangerous zones" where the signals of enemy radars were scattered, making aircraft difficult to detect from other directions. The “flattened” form of the fuselage, smoothly flowing in the plane of the wing, contributes to better dispersion of radio waves and reduces the EPR. The maximum effect of reducing the visibility of "Raptors" and PAK FA should be observed from the frontal direction. From where comes the main threat - from the approaching enemy fighter.

All ingenious is simple! The option with parallel edges allowed to achieve acceptable LTH, sufficient for effective air combat. Partial violation of aerodynamics in comparison with the ideally “clean” aerodynamic design of 4-generation fighter jets was compensated by increased thrust-to-weight ratio and the use of thrust vector controlled engines.





This is followed by a mandatory list of techniques for reducing visibility: internal weapon compartments, V-shaped tail, sawtooth joints of the casements, a gold-plated tailored cockpit lamp, S-shaped air intakes, high-quality assembly and fitting of all parts on the outer surface of the wing and fuselage, a minimum of gaps and cavity cavities, good old ferromagnetic paints and radar absorbing coatings and, of course, the ability to operate the aircraft sighting and navigation system in a completely passive mode.

Separately, the question was raised about the strategic stealth bomber B-2 "Spirit", built on a "flying wing". Another reduction in visibility, providing the maximum reduction of the EPR when the aircraft is irradiated by ground-based radar.



The “flying wing” scheme itself contains the highest meaning of aviation: the wing is the main element of the aircraft. Everything else (fuselage, keel, PGO) is superfluous ballast and, if possible, should be left on the ground. The same keel with a rudder, contrary to the opinion of the layman, is not an obligatory part of the aircraft structure: the turn in the air is due to the roll of the aircraft, due to which the lift force on the “lower” plane of the wing decreases; on the "top" - increases. The resulting moment of power and turns the car in the air. That is why the “wing load” parameter plays such an important role - the less kg per square meter. the meter surface of the wing, the more maneuvering aircraft.

As for the B-2 itself, besides the absence of the main unmasking factor, the keel, the Flying Ramp carries the full range of the aforementioned stealth technology techniques: sawtooth joints of parts, minimum gaps, radio absorbing coatings, etc.

The absence of the keel does not affect the maneuverability of the "Spirit". The only problem is stabilization: a stealth bomber is not keeping up. Which, however, does not care at all the crew of two people: automation a hundred times a second determines the position of the aircraft in space and continuously sends corrective pulses to the actuators of the control surfaces.



Stealth technology has become one of the main expenses when creating a B-2, but the abnormally high cost ($ 2 billion, including R & D and operating costs) is explained by the enormous size of the 170-ton four-engine bomber capable of continuously being in the 50 air for hours. As well as high-tech stuffing stealth aircraft: what is the cost of a single AN / APQ-181 radar with an active phased array capable of high-resolution scanning of the underlying terrain 240 km wide.

The main conclusion of a brief excursion into history stealth aircraft will become an unexpected statement that reducing visibility does not require complex and expensive solutions. At the heart of the "stealth" is logic and common sense, supported by rigorous mathematical calculations. Geometry of shapes and faces. Capricious radio-absorbing coatings that serve as the main object of criticism from haters of “black planes” are not of key importance and are an additional half-measure for reducing visibility in the centimeter range of radio waves.

And here we come close to the topic of the next article - why do domestic radars still see American "invisible"?

Author:
79 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. Dazdranagon
    Dazdranagon 9 October 2014 10: 15
    +7
    And here we come close to the topic of the next article - why Russian radars still see American "invisible"
    - look forward to!
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 9 October 2014 13: 19
      +6
      Quote: Dazdranagon
      - look forward to!

      and, of course, the ability to operate the aiming and navigation system of the aircraft in a completely passive mode.

      In a completely passive will not work!
      Otherwise, you will have to fly at medium altitudes and be guided in altitude by barometric altitude sensors, because radio altimeters, in fact DRLS, will "highlight" the object from afar;)))
      Just like other devices and systems for active search and detection of space around an object.
      And the moving object itself, being a kind of electrical conductor in the earth's magnetic field, will induce disturbances in the latter, which can also be passively detected and interpreted. Not to mention ZgRLS, which "sees" everything that moves relative to the ground and radio waves. Also, long-wave old radars, whose wavelength is commensurate with the geometric dimensions of the object, will find a "black bird" - no one has canceled wave interference!
      An upper view of the earth's surface from a height, like the Mig-31 patrol, will also detect stealth and small-sized CDs.
      And if you use diversity radar receiver / emitter. And it’s better if there are a lot of receivers - and far in the rear a powerful emitter is scanning the space, and especially if with a variable beam frequency - all the kells are stealth!
      It remains only to scare the Papuans ...;)))
      1. user237
        user237 9 October 2014 15: 19
        +2
        - Radovan, why are you stealth shot down?
        - I am by chance. I did not notice him.

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

        The risk of retaliation is completely ruled out.

        Bullshit, you fly close to the radar - you'll be discovered!

        Nevertheless, the destruction of the "invisible aircraft" over the combat zone with the help of the air defense system of 1950 furry year gave many reasons to doubt the effectiveness of the existing "stealth".

        There are no invisible ones, there are hardly noticeable ones!
        It is said that in Yugoslavia F-117 was shot down not through a radar, but through a thermal imager.

        The appearance was determined by the purpose. The main threat to the F-117 was represented by ground-based air defense systems. Hence the characteristic silhouette of all "first generation" stealth aircraft.

        The F-117 glider was completely made of flat surfaces, since the power of computers in the 1970s was insufficient to calculate the EPR of the cross section of curved surfaces.
        1. user237
          user237 9 October 2014 15: 25
          +6
          And here we come close to the topic of the next article - why do domestic radars still see American "invisible"?

          laughing



          Radar meter range RLM-ME RLK Sky-ME will see targets at a range of:

          1 sq. m - 510 km
          0.1 sq. m - 287 km
          0.01 sq.m - 161 km
          0.001 sq. m - 90 km
          0.0001 sq. m - 51 km

          In the meter range of stealth machines, the EPR is several times larger, take the maximum - 10 times.
          Then the frontal EPR of F-22 will be 0.001 m2, for F-35 - 0.01 m2.

          Therefore, the detection range of this station will be:
          F-22 - 90 km
          F-35 - 161 km
          Therefore, the destruction of this complex F-22 can be sent from the SDB, for example (D = 110 km), without the support of the group jamming aircraft, EA-18G, and the F-35 can attack this radar system only under the guise of group jammers.


          Yes, this is a powerful radar and dangerous, although it cannot directly direct the missile defense system. Therefore, on day "D" and time "H", such complexes are subject to destruction first.

          TTX Sky:

          http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-690.html
          http://www.nniirt.ru/sites/default/files/docs/prod/55zh6me_0.pdf
          1. Kasym
            Kasym 9 October 2014 18: 54
            +1
            Honestly, the characteristic of the EPR declared by the Americans somehow does not inspire confidence.
            Recently, according to RT24, they said that they would replace 300 radars throughout the country. Interestingly, what kind of stations are these, by chance not "SKY"? hi
            I also read that in the West after the Second World War the topic of radar from meters. ranges were "abandoned". And ours worked, the design bureau, in my opinion, was in Nizhny Novgorod.
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 9 October 2014 21: 34
              +1
              Quote: Kasym
              Recently, according to RT24, they said that they would replace 300 radars throughout the country

              You yourself are not funny? 300 radars all over the country? Our tea is neither Germany nor France ... Our country is big ....
          2. Assistant
            Assistant 9 October 2014 22: 22
            0
            Radar meter range RLM-ME RLK Sky-ME will see targets at a range of:


            He will see about - they agree, we do not argue. Will it launch rockets?
          3. Vita_vko
            Vita_vko 10 October 2014 03: 34
            0
            Quote: user237
            In the meter range of stealth machines, the EPR is several times larger, take the maximum - 10 times.

            The RCS measurements of the F-22 and F-35 in the meter range, of course, no one conducted, but according to calculations, as well as the tracking data show that the RCS of these aircraft in the dm range is only several times lower than the F-16, and in the meter the range is even slightly higher. The "surprising" effect of increasing the RCS of STELS aircraft in the meter range is due to the decrease in the influence of "shiny dots" due to which the superposition of radio waves occurs in aircraft with a complex configuration. In short, VHF stealth is an ideal resonator.
            The whole advantage of the Stealth technology is that such aircraft are more likely to be the first to launch a missile in an air battle when attacking the front hemisphere, i.e. forehead to forehead.
            From the point of view of overcoming the ground-based air defense system alone (without reconnaissance and jamming teams, a cover demonstration group), the Stals plane has no more chances than the usual F-16.
      2. Assistant
        Assistant 9 October 2014 22: 44
        0
        Otherwise, you will have to fly at medium altitudes and focus on barometric altitude sensors in height


        It seems that in 1999, the Americans already had a three-dimensional map of the earth's surface with an accuracy of 1 meter (from the shuttle with the remote radar they did). Could the F-117 go along it, knowing its position on GPS?
      3. yehat
        yehat 10 October 2014 16: 46
        0
        Quote: Rus2012
        Quote: Dazdranagon
        - look forward to!

        and, of course, the ability to operate the aiming and navigation system of the aircraft in a completely passive mode.

        In a completely passive will not work!
        Otherwise, you will have to fly at medium altitudes and be guided in altitude by barometric altitude sensors, because radio altimeters, in fact DRLS, will "highlight" the object from afar;)))

        and here you are wrong:
        everyone is used to the fact that survey systems emit in the radio range, but
        other frequencies can be used to view the near sphere -
        laser rangefinders, infrasound radars, magnetometers, etc. Of course, this will have a number of inconveniences, but in general, it will solve the problem.
  2. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 9 October 2014 10: 18
    +10
    For many just curious, I recommend it. It is intelligible, understandable, without sophisticated technical, known only to a narrow circle of people, embellishment. A plus.
    Push. In relation to any type and type of equipment - for every tricky x .. there is a priest with back streets. Therefore, any attempt to create something tricky and secret over time will receive a simple and effective response. It’s like the eternal struggle of armor and shell, good with evil, mind with stupidity ...
    hi
  3. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 9 October 2014 10: 20
    +2
    I will wait for the continuation. An interesting topic, the last time I read something like this in the magazine "Modelist-Constructor" in the late 90s (N-1 for 1997).
  4. bigELDAK
    bigELDAK 9 October 2014 10: 28
    +4
    Well, if earlier the "knights" were such heavyweights with many swords and spears, now they have become such "robbers" hiding behind the trees waiting for the best moment to deliver a single fatal blow with a rapier with a dagger in the heart.
    According to the have blue program, it is written so much that it is strange to see this photo not here

    or this
    1. The comment was deleted.
  5. Dry_T-50
    Dry_T-50 9 October 2014 10: 38
    +2
    I always enjoy reading articles by Oleg Kaptsov
    I look forward to the next! smile
  6. Magic archer
    Magic archer 9 October 2014 10: 41
    +5
    The topic of stealth technologies has always been a matter of controversy. The Americans proved that despite the high cost, this idea is quite viable. I remember in 90 I watched a program where honored men, professors proved that this was all temporary and only a trick of the American military committee. Time proved the opposite. Already built and operated not only airplanes, but also ships with widespread use of stealth technologies, such as the Swedish Visby corvette. And in the future I think these technologies will be used everywhere in the army and navy.
    1. Shur
      Shur 9 October 2014 19: 23
      0
      Yes, Americans do not look at the high cost when it comes to toys to reduce the population of other countries.
  7. srelock
    srelock 9 October 2014 10: 45
    +2
    And here we come close to the topic of the next article - why do domestic radars still see American "invisible"?


    Article plus! The author was intrigued. Really answer?
    1. Gambit
      Gambit 9 October 2014 15: 23
      +1
      In fact, Ufimtsev himself spoke back in the early nineties at a conference in America, before the first one was shot down.
  8. Stiletto
    Stiletto 9 October 2014 11: 03
    +4
    Wooden planes need to be built, however laughing
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 9 October 2014 13: 23
      +4
      Quote: Stiletto
      Wooden planes need to be built, however

      will not help, they become electrified, which means they become "visible" for some wavelengths ... :)
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 10 October 2014 08: 08
      0
      with wooden engines. well and pilots too
  9. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 9 October 2014 11: 06
    +3
    UKRAINE NEWS Published: June 11, 2014
    B-2s are used to demonstrate power specifically for Russian President Vladimir Putin, writes The Washington Times.
    Two US strategic bomber B-2 Spirit deployed at the Royal Ford Air Force Base in England for "short-term deployment" in three hours of summer from Russia, reports The Washington Times.
    The most expensive U.S. Air Force aircraft manufactured using Stealth technology will be deployed for the first time in Europe - during the bombing of Yugoslavia, they made 30-hour non-stop flights from Missouri.
    "This deployment of strategic bombers provides an invaluable opportunity to strengthen and strengthen interaction with our allies and partners," - commented the commander of the US Strategic Command, Admiral Cecil Haney, on the announcement of the transfer of B-2s to England.
    Article source: http: //korrespondent.net/world/337652 ...
    Source-original-authorship video: © Ben Ramsay https: //www.youtube.com/watch? V = f6aK2 ...
  10. Pazifist87
    Pazifist87 9 October 2014 11: 08
    +6
    One can add the following for flying wings: the problem of an aerodynamic layout aircraft is the narrow limit of permissible alignments. And management also has quite a lot of difficulties for LC. But by reducing the losses on the fuselage resistance and losses from the stabilizer, it is possible to achieve high carrying capacity and range. Therefore, the company Northrop has been flying wings since the end of World War II, after they came to the development of the German brothers Horten.
    Of particular interest are their experienced long-range bombers YB-35 with piston engines and the middle YB-49 with jet ones. Both flew and showed themselves quite well, but the more conservative B-36 and B-47 were adopted.YB-49[/ Center
    The development of these two outstanding aircraft allowed Northrop to create the B-2, one of the most advanced flying wings.
  11. Alexander
    Alexander 9 October 2014 11: 15
    +4
    Quote: srelock

    Article plus! The author was intrigued. Really answer?


    Will not answer. The principles of radar are the same, ours, that American. Differences in wavelength. Stealth is invisible in the centimeter wavelength range. Because the old Soviet radars with a meter range they see well. Here's the answer as the Serbs shot down f-117. On our T-50 paired with a centimeter range radar, there are meter-wing wings. They used to detect a target with less accuracy, and already the main radar accurately determines the coordinates of the target.
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 9 October 2014 15: 22
      +2
      Quote: alexandr
      Stealth is invisible in the centimeter wavelength range. Because the old Soviet radars with a meter range they see well.


      Sorry, but the fact that neither the US DIA nor the US CIA had any information at their disposal on what frequencies the Soviet radars were operating, and the developer company in this case, Lockheed Martin, did not request this information from the military upon receipt. technical assignments for the development of this aircraft.
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 9 October 2014 15: 53
        0
        In addition, the losses of the Night Hawks in Yugoslavia were not the only losses of these aircraft.
        You can, of course, scream until you hoarse in your throat that only fools and idlers work at Lockheed Martin, but fools would not be able to make such an iron fly.
        In addition, there were probably many questions in connection with the losses of the F-117 at the Pentagon level and above, to the representative from the Air Force who oversaw this project together with Lockheed Martin, as well as to the lead engineer from the developer.
        After all, an airplane is not cheap, far from cheap.
        A carrier of tactical nuclear weapons.
        Maybe it was not created for the war with the USSR then?
        After all, the tests should be carried out according to its radio visibility using radar in various wavelength ranges. Something is wrong here ...
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 9 October 2014 17: 22
          +3
          Quote: wanderer_032
          After all, the tests should be carried out according to its radio visibility using radar in various wavelength ranges. Something is wrong here ...

          Meter radars were not part of the air defense system, the missile is aimed at the target radar of the cm range which simply can not capture the F-117 and direct the missile at it. The same applies to in-in missiles, if the fighter radar does not see the enemy’s aircraft, then it will not be able to direct the missile despite the fact that the coordinates of the target were transmitted from the ground.
  12. Taoist
    Taoist 9 October 2014 11: 17
    +1
    Well, it is worth remembering that there are two main points of using stealth technologies in military equipment.

    1) This is a sudden diversion - i.e. first strike against an enemy who is conditionally speaking in peacetime and / or does not have a continuous air defense field.

    2) Reducing the detection range and, most importantly, taking for sure capture by the guidance stations and GOS of weapons in the conditions of ongoing hostilities.

    The implementation of the first and second tasks requires, by and large, different technical approaches (more precisely, the level of compromise) - after all, any decrease in radio frequency visibility is a sacrifice of some other performance characteristics of the aircraft.

    Ours at one time conducted such developments, but refused to implement them because the first task was irrelevant for our doctrine and the second at that technological level was solved at the cost of too much reduction in LTH. Now the situation has changed somewhat. But I would be very careful not to compare the real combat effectiveness of an aircraft only by the EPR ratio. For example, the system and the presence of external target designation will greatly affect this indicator - as for well-known reasons, Stealth LA itself is actually blind.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 9 October 2014 13: 31
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      system and availability of external target designation

      its radio exchange including highlights plus to everything.

      Stealth technologies certainly have a place to be. BUT they should not be promoted with manic persistence (as military marketers of cattle dangerous - they make an elephant from a fly and vice versa).
      Where stealth methods are applicable and have little effect on aerodynamics - the welk: V-shaped oblique keels, the slope of the surfaces to reflect the waves, materials absorbing waves - if they do not worsen, they increase the cost. But if at the expense of combat performance characteristics - they have no place in LA
  13. iwind
    iwind 9 October 2014 11: 22
    +4
    That's what I like about Oleg Kaptsov’s article, that after reading a couple of sentences you understand who the author is, the style is already very peculiar. :)
    By the way, it turns out the F-117 has not been completely decommissioned. He continues to fly, only why and why is classified.
    Personally, my opinion is most likely carried out R&D for new aircraft and UAVs or something else being tested, they are unlikely to be going back into operation. But what if they were not taken out of service at all (conspiracy theory)?
    Flights in 2010.

    September 30 at 11 a.m. after six years of withdrawal from the US Air Force from the Tonop Air Base (Nevada)
    1. Pazifist87
      Pazifist87 9 October 2014 11: 32
      +2
      Perhaps used as target aircraft for air defense.
  14. RPG_
    RPG_ 9 October 2014 11: 30
    0
    Intriguing article. We look forward to continuing.
  15. Nayhas
    Nayhas 9 October 2014 11: 32
    +2
    Wow what a topic. An influx of "patriots" with hats at the ready is expected ...
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 9 October 2014 14: 51
      +3
      And the polymers dried out first.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 9 October 2014 16: 29
        0
        Kaptsov well done, his articles are always interesting! good
  16. saag
    saag 9 October 2014 11: 51
    0
    Well, let's see what arguments the author will bring.
  17. Avenich
    Avenich 9 October 2014 12: 07
    +1
    With the "invisible" for a long time everything has been clear: it is enough to earn at least one radio transmitting device on board, it ceases to be invisible. And so for the bombing, and even at night, and even with a guaranteed absence of enemy air defense, and even massively, and even for previously reconnoitered targets, and even with the guidance of bombs from a satellite or reconnaissance aircraft, and even when setting up radio interference ... But here the question arises, but for a fig it is so good and inconspicuous, here in the course of business and B-52 will fit.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 9 October 2014 16: 56
      +3
      Radars (F-22, for example) have special modes of operation with frequency jumps, which allows you to practically not give out yourself as radiation. So the materiel to you.
      1. Avenich
        Avenich 9 October 2014 19: 09
        +1
        Well, what are you all about radars ... Besides radars there are on board the aircraft and you know a bunch of other radio transmitting devices. In the article, by the way, some of them are mentioned. In addition, the radio interception technique does not stand still and now it does not matter whether the frequency jumps or not, the main thing is that it is. In addition, you can also detect the receiver, yeah, by the secondary radiation of the local oscillator.
  18. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 9 October 2014 12: 16
    0
    Author:The main threat to the F-117 was a ground-based air defense system
    Somewhat incomprehensible statement.
    Author:F-22 Raptor and PAK FA air superiority fighters, F-35 multirole fighter,
    After the Americans upgraded the F-22 avionics, they all became multi-purpose, they bombed Syria with Iraq.
    Author:The Lame Goblin was disgraced and quietly retired.
    So it’s like he was disgraced not in Yugoslavia, the USA long after Yugoslavia sang laudatory odes of F-117 that can be easily found on the Internet, here the result of the participation of 20 F-117 in the bombing of Baghdad in 2003 is a mystery, there is no data on the result of the use . The first ten F-117s were retired in December 2006. By March 2008, the US Air Force continued to operate 15 aircraft of this type(Wikipedia data). What happened in 2007 is also no where there is no data. It all seems a little strange to me. A very expensive airplane made in 1990 is suddenly decommissioned after 18 years of operation, at the same time, the USA successfully operates F-15s manufactured in 1976 which are 45 years old, I no longer recall the B-52. The article, as I understand it, is a prelude, we look forward to continuing.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 9 October 2014 12: 37
      +1
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      Author: The main threat to the F-117 was a ground-based air defense system
      Somewhat incomprehensible statement.

      So it was so. And now it has not changed much. The air defense missile system had a surveillance radar and target tracking radar already at the end of the 20th century, mainly with a phased array and had a high power, F-117 carried GBU-10 bombs with a drop range of no more than 15 km. (this is clearly from a high altitude, from a low altitude the range is clearly less) and to destroy the S-300 would have to "work hard". And the Su-27 and MiG-29 could only notice it through the OLS or visually, i.e. almost point-blank.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 9 October 2014 15: 21
        +2
        Quote: Nayhas
        So it was. Yes, and now has not really changed.

        The MiG-31 is designed to intercept and destroy air targets at extremely small, small, medium and high altitudes, day and night, in simple and difficult weather conditions, when the enemy uses active and passive radar interference, as well as false thermal targets. A group of four MiG-31 aircraft is capable of controlling airspace with a front length of 800–900 km.
        What is not an option.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 9 October 2014 17: 04
          +2
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          What is not an option.

          The patrol time of the MiG-31 group is limited at least by the physiological capabilities of a person, of course they will be able to detect F-117, but definitely not at 200 km. because at such a distance the "Barrier" sees only targets with an EPR of 16m2. therefore the F-117 will sneak "on the edge" without being noticed. The only thing is if the target is covered by a complex of ground radars + A-50 + MiG-31 + Su-15 controlled by a single command post, then a single F-117 will have very little chances. That is why the Tomahawks were initially struck by destroying a single network and disrupting the control system ...
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 9 October 2014 21: 10
            0
            Quote: Nayhas
            That is why the Tomahawks initially attacked destroying a single network and disrupting the control system ...

            To intercept the SR-71, the Mig-31 was enough, especially since you write:
            F-117 carried GBU-10 bombs with a drop range of no more than 15km. (this is clearly from a high altitude, from a low altitude the range is clearly less)
            Moreover, at such distances it will be 100% detected by infrared radiation.
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 9 October 2014 21: 31
              0
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              To intercept the SR-71 was enough and Mig-31

              Duc identity reconnaissance, and not shock ... and he’s five times bigger ...
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              especially since you write:
              F-117 carried GBU-10 bombs with a drop range of no more than 15km. (this is clearly from a high altitude, from a low altitude the range is clearly less)

              I say that without destroying the unified air defense system F-117 was not supposed to be used. The scheme of action of F-117 is clearly shown in 1991. in Iraq. Destruction of stationary radars and command posts, followed by an F-117 strike, finishing off command control. All this against the background of large-scale interference ...
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Moreover, at such distances it will be 100% detected by infrared radiation.

              Fully te ... 1991 direction finders. even did not stand next to the modern. Their capabilities were more than modest, of domestic production of course ...
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 10 October 2014 00: 16
                0
                Quote: Nayhas
                Full of those ..

                Yes, I did not become attached to 1991, even I agree that it was very successfully used in Yugoslavia, I’m interested in the result of their use in bombing Baghdad in 2003, it may be wonderful, but I’m looking for data and can’t find it anywhere.
                In 2007, a presentation of the MLS was announced at a presentation in India of the Mig-35.
                1. Nayhas
                  Nayhas 10 October 2014 07: 08
                  0
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  I’m interested in the result of their use in the bombing of Baghdad in 2003, maybe it’s wonderful, but I’m looking for data and I can’t find it anywhere.

                  1991 Iraq Air Defense and 2003 it’s incomparable concepts, in the first case the most modern and as it seemed then effective air defense in the Middle East, and in the second it’s degraded and outdated, which was taken into account only for caution.
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  In 2007, a presentation of the MLS was announced at a presentation in India of the Mig-35.

                  So now F-117 has been decommissioned ... The new generation of F-22 and F-35 aircraft have ammunition with a range greater than the detection range of domestic EOS, and the range of modern air defense systems ...
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 10 October 2014 10: 15
                    0
                    [quote = Nayhas] and in the second, it’s degraded and outdated, which was taken into account only for the sake of caution. [/ quote]
                    I do not argue about the effectiveness, I would have to look at the data, the number of departures, for which objects, etc. [quote = Nayhas]

                    [quote = Nayhas] So now F-117s are decommissioned ... The new generation of F-22 and F-35 aircraft have ammunition with a range greater than the detection range of domestic EOS, and the range of modern air defense systems ... [/ quote]
                    F-22, F-35 have ammunition exceeding the detection range of domestic EOS and use them in active mode.
  19. Professor
    Professor 9 October 2014 12: 28
    -1
    And here we come close to the topic of the next article - why do domestic radars still see American "invisible"?

    And what do they really see? From what distance? wink
  20. Kostyanich
    Kostyanich 9 October 2014 12: 30
    +7
    SAM Tor M1 confidently captures and leads a flock and 3 geese
    to the question how so? because in the bird there is no metal and the bird is made according to the flying wing pattern
    there was an answer that nobody canceled air turbulence)))
    1. Professor
      Professor 9 October 2014 12: 34
      -3
      Quote: kostyanich
      there was an answer that nobody canceled air turbulence)))

      Wrong answer. It's all about water and birds.
      1. Turik
        Turik 9 October 2014 13: 02
        +9
        Wrong answer. It's all about water and birds.


        The answer is also not correct))). It is not only and not so much the matter of water, but turbulence has nothing to do with it either - it is too tricky a thing.

        For some reason, the stealth is perfectly visible in the usual - visible range, and is invisible in radio rays, although both are electromagnetic waves.

        The answer is this: it’s all about the lengths of the scanning waves from the radar. Radiation is not direct rays, but waves and their laws of motion are wave (if you do not delve into quantum mechanics, which is not even discussed). The design (any!) Designed for the scattering of specific wavelengths forms planes intersecting under STRICTLY CALCULATED ANGLES (even if the surface looks spherical, they calculate it on the computer as a set of corners-polygons).

        These same planes and angles between them will elegantly work in one range and not give any effect in another.

        Those gliders that were designed in the 70-80s were made based on the waves of the then radar, change them and the plane will glow on the screen like a Christmas tree.

        There is also an absorption effect, but it is not as large as we would like and certainly one absorption is clearly not enough.
        1. Alexey M
          Alexey M 9 October 2014 16: 20
          0
          From the above conclusion: If the F-117 was designed in the 70s, then most likely it was counted at the frequencies of that time, and it was shot down by the S-125 of 50-60 years of production, it is logical to assume that the frequencies changed over 20 years and that’s noticeable on the radar.
        2. saag
          saag 9 October 2014 20: 21
          0
          Well, yes, the centimeter wave, even the decimeter wave, these angular surfaces are quite capable of reflecting to the side, but with an ambush wave of the meter range, only distortion will appear, which will be displayed on the radar screen, though it will not be clear what it will be reflected in, as with shorter ones radio waves, and yes about water, it absorbs the microwave range well, does not reflect
        3. Professor
          Professor 9 October 2014 20: 38
          -1
          Quote: Turik
          For some reason, the stealth is perfectly visible in the usual - visible range, and is invisible in radio rays, although both are electromagnetic waves.

          Their nature is different. X-ray radiation is also an electromagnetic wave, but unlike light, it passes even through "non-transparent" objects. Now, hang the dead dried grape on the zipline behind the plane and make sure it becomes virtually invisible to radar. This is like a plate in the microwave that is not heated, but objects containing water, such as dead chicken, are heated.

          Quote: Turik
          These same planes and angles between them will elegantly work in one range and not give any effect in another.

          Yah? In Snel's formula, the wavelength is not present.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  21. 0255
    0255 9 October 2014 15: 26
    +1
    In the literature of the 1990s they wrote that the Su-35 (the first one that was with PGO) and the A-50 see stealth on the background of the earth, I wonder how true this is?
    1. ICT
      ICT 9 October 2014 16: 57
      +2
      I don’t know how it is about stealth and their actual detection, but as we were told in theory, a simple UAZ gives the same flare as that 154 (approximately ...), and the same instant 23 is conditionally 10 times smaller than the same carcass, f117 even less

      that is, it’s possible to configure the radar to search for aircraft steels (I didn’t encounter any practice in theory), but the whole point is that you are first thrown either with axes or just with f18 and the main air defense system is destroyed, and these f-117 are already working in a clean area tips from the ground like it was in Iraq or swampy super ammunition as a little later In Yugoslavia
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 9 October 2014 17: 10
        0
        Quote: TIT
        and these f-117s are already working in a clean area

        The Americans did not particularly hide the tactics of using the F-117. Also, no one said that the F-117 is able to slip through serious air defense alone.
        1. ICT
          ICT 9 October 2014 17: 18
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          The Americans especially did not hide the tactics of using the F-117.

          Well, I’m talking about the same thing, and on B-2, at first they blow in-1 with its super radio altimeter and in-52 with missiles, and then, theoretically, the same flying wing goes and finishes off everything that remains with bombs,

          only fuck not clear
          1. opus
            opus 9 October 2014 21: 48
            +1
            Quote: TIT
            first and blow in-1 with its super radio altimeter and in-52 with rockets

            No not like this.
            1. first B-2 crush air defense
            2. then B-1 and B-52 "go" and level strategic (and other) objects with the ground
          2. Codename49
            Codename49 10 October 2014 18: 10
            0
            They give a shit, and then quietly peacefully at night, a submarine with a combat torpedo sailed up and instead of a warhead a water charge and dropped a torpedo near America, and then after about a week detonation and America were covered by nuclear ones with record-high heights
        2. 0255
          0255 9 October 2014 17: 26
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          Also, no one said that the F-117 is able to slip through serious air defense alone.

          really? According to the Americans, it was by no means possible to shoot down the F-117 until Dale Zelko on the one hand and Zoltan Dani on the other showed the opposite.
          And F-22, F-35 and B-2, too, to bring down according to them is unrealistic laughing
          Quote: TIT
          Well, I’m talking about the same thing, and on B-2, at first they blow in-1 with its super radio altimeter and in-52 with missiles, and then, theoretically, the same flying wing goes and finishes off everything that remains with bombs,
          only fuck not clear

          For Ponte - like we Americans are so cool, armed with stealth
          1. Pazifist87
            Pazifist87 9 October 2014 17: 40
            0
            Khhmm ... B-2, just designed to break through a large air defense, and deliver a nuclear (thermonuclear) strike. Those. just B-2 and should open the road to B-1 and the old B-52.
            Moreover, the range and bomb load of the B-2 allows him to work on strategic targets with strong air defense, which they cannot make either supersonic B-1 (in principle, it also had to break through air defense at high speeds), and even more so the slow-moving and old B-52.
            Do not forget that almost all serious equipment is made for big war. Those. using nuclear and thermonuclear weapons.
            Personally, I consider the use of strategists in local conflicts, such as the bombing of Yugoslavia, or the wars in Iraq, stupid in the military sense. Purely advertising and testing, but also why test the microscope for the possibility of driving nails? smile
            1. ICT
              ICT 9 October 2014 18: 37
              0

              Pazifist87
              Moreover, the range and bomb load of the B-2 allows him to work on strategic goals with a strong
              how it gets to the Moscow air defense zone (it's not f-117 it's in-2 it’s just visible in optics) and all the more easily it will go back, I certainly didn’t read their textbooks on air force tactics, but somehow I read somewhere our general theorists in essence, it is exactly as I said the first are the missile carriers and high-speed V-1, then the V-2 is already destroyed, including air defense airfields, and they are quite capable of reaching strategic goals with high-precision YaB
              1. Pazifist87
                Pazifist87 9 October 2014 19: 18
                0
                Well, if so, then the Moscow air defense zone seems to be like breaking ICBMs and SLBMs wink In general, precisely because it is not visible (up to a certain range) the main means of detection, i.e. Radar defense, then he must break through the air defense. And to suppress air defense, there are other planes. From EW aircraft to tactical aircraft.
                Well, returning back is a completely secondary option smile After a reset (launch), it will almost certainly be destroyed. Even with suppressed active detection tools. For aiming, it will be necessary to include, albeit briefly, active means of detection and guidance.
                1. ICT
                  ICT 9 October 2014 19: 51
                  +1
                  Pazifist87
                  Well, I won’t argue much, especially since I don’t remember where this infa comes from in my head request , about in-xnumx and its application
                  1. Pazifist87
                    Pazifist87 9 October 2014 20: 07
                    +1
                    Yes, to be honest, no one except USAF staff knows exactly about the tactics of its application. And all sorts of analysts and specialists all say differently. But one thing is obvious, the use of these machines in local wars is somehow not advisable. The B-52 drags more weapons and is cheaper, so that all applications of the B-2 can be described as advertising. wink
                    Regards, TIT.
                    1. Nayhas
                      Nayhas 9 October 2014 21: 52
                      +1
                      Quote: Pazifist87
                      Yes, to be honest, no one except USAF staff knows exactly about the tactics of its application. And all sorts of analysts and specialists all say differently.

                      If you put B-2 and LGM-118 Peacekeeper next to each other, then the effectiveness of the latter is ten times higher, both in price and in terms of damage.
                      The use of the first and second against the USSR clearly led to a nuclear war ... B-2 is undoubtedly an engineering feat, but from a series of useless ...
                      Quote: Pazifist87
                      But one thing is obvious, the use of these machines in local wars is somehow not advisable.

                      Definitely ... with a diamond hammer on rusty nails ...
                      Quote: Pazifist87
                      B-52 drags more weapons and cheaper

                      No, here B-1B is more suitable ...
                      Quote: Pazifist87
                      so that all applications of B-2 can be described as advertising.

                      Well ... this is a pretty effective advertisement ... provoking wild envy and understanding that it is impossible to repeat because there is nothing-nothing-nothing ...
                      1. Santa Fe
                        10 October 2014 02: 43
                        0
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        Definitely ...with a diamond hammer on rusty nails...
                        Quote: Pazifist87
                        B-52 drags more weapons and cheaper
                        No, here B-1B is more suitable ...
                        Quote: Pazifist87
                        so that all applications of the B-2 can be described as advertising.

                        explanation to the picture:

                        To overcome the Soviet-style air defense system and strike at targets deep in the enemy’s territory, F-16 fighter-bombers (the estimated number of strike group vehicles is 32 units; when using high-precision weapons, 16 units):

                        - Escort from X-Numx fighter F-16 "Eagle";

                        - A group of jammers from 4 EF-111 EW-Raven;

                        - the anti-aircraft defense suppression group of X-Numx airplanes F-8G, the so-called. "Wild Lasky";

                        - and an armada of tankers to provide all this honest company with fuel - 15 fat-bellied KC-135 “Stratotanker”.

                        An equivalent strike can be inflicted on X-NUMX stealth aircraft, the F-8 Nighthawk, with the support of two air tankers. But the application of the B-117 looks particularly impressive - just two aircraft are enough to perform the same task, while the “Spirit”, due to its strategic flight range, does not need air tankers!

                        The task, which requires the 50-60 of conventional aircraft (attack, cover fighters, EW systems) can be performed just two strategic stealth cars!
                      2. Nayhas
                        Nayhas 10 October 2014 07: 37
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        An equivalent strike can be inflicted on X-NUMX stealth aircraft, the F-8 Nighthawk, with the support of two air tankers. But the application of the B-117 looks particularly impressive - just two aircraft are enough to perform the same task, while the “Spirit”, due to its strategic flight range, does not need air tankers!

                        Hello Oleg.
                        Equivalence is highly doubtful. Eight F-117s are only 16 GBU-10 despite the fact that the blow will have to be put in focus. Two B-2s are 32! AGM-129 ACM which can be launched over 3 thousand km. from the target without entering the air defense zone at all.
                      3. Santa Fe
                        10 October 2014 08: 15
                        0
                        Hello Nihas
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        AGM-129 ACM which can be launched in 3 thousand km. from the target without entering the air defense zone at all.

                        She is vigorous

                        In calculation accepted GBU-27
                      4. sivuch
                        sivuch 10 October 2014 11: 53
                        +1
                        Well ... this is a pretty effective advertisement ... provoking wild envy and understanding that it is impossible to repeat because there is nothing-nothing-nothing.
                        ---------------------------
                        And there is no need
          2. Nayhas
            Nayhas 9 October 2014 21: 38
            +2
            Quote: 0255
            According to the Americans, it was by no means possible to shoot down the F-117 until Dale Zelko on the one hand and Zoltan Dani on the other showed the opposite.

            It was the tabloids who threw such phrases after the 1991 triumph. And the "lucky break" in Serbia is nothing more than a "goal of prestige", because when the score is 850: 1, this loss can be neglected. We would have such a ratio of losses to combat missions in Georgia ...
            1. Assistant
              Assistant 9 October 2014 22: 41
              +1
              for with the score 850: 1 this loss can be neglected


              As if the shot down aircraft proved by the Serbs were only 2 and 1 reached the base. And if you use these data (incontrovertible), then the efficiency of aircraft of traditional designs in terms of the number of sorties / number of shot down is higher.
              So, maybe you should not justify decisions with this data.
  22. Quadra
    Quadra 9 October 2014 17: 43
    +2
    Easy to read. More to such articles.
  23. rockettosss
    rockettosss 9 October 2014 18: 24
    +1
    The eternal struggle of "sword and shield". Serving in other troops, I understand this problem. But, as it seems to me, the human factor is of great importance. There can be confusion everywhere: at the helm and in front of the radar screen. In aviation, less often: you have to fly an airplane there. But not all aces of aerobatic teams are combat aces. And even more so in the ground forces. Everything decides: knowledge of your weapon and the tactics of its use.
    1. Pazifist87
      Pazifist87 9 October 2014 20: 19
      0
      That is why ease of use in aviation is one of the key factors. On the B-2, this is achieved by the EMDS and a powerful on-board computer, which essentially controls the aircraft, and the crew, in turn, already controls it smile
      Without automation, controlling a flying wing is generally quite a complicated thing. Highly skilled pilots are unlikely to be able to master. Given the complexity of the weapon system, without automatic control of such an aircraft, it’s the same as UFO control smile . Therefore, automation is crucial in modern aviation. Unfortunately, the human body is quite limited ...
      1. opus
        opus 9 October 2014 22: 48
        +2
        Quote: Pazifist87
        On the B-2, this is achieved by EMDS and powerful

        1. Already on the Su-27 they abandoned the differential control system with control from the pilot and correction from self-propelled guns in favor of SDU-10
        That Tu-22M is not a flying wing, and in 1971 an electrical remote control channel was used along the roll - a 4-channel remote control system for DUI-2M interceptors.
        Quote: Pazifist87
        Without automation, controlling a flying wing is generally quite a complicated thing.

        easier than "simple"
        1. Walter Horten did not think about her in the 1940s

        2. In B-2, the entire mass is uniformly distributed along the span, and the bending moment of the supporting structures is several times less than that of a conventional aircraft. [
        here to "sit" on it ... yes, the problem is shock loads.
        In particular (during flight tests) it was revealed that the directional stability of the machine quite normal и you can do without bent wingtipsBy directing which designers have somewhat improved aerodynamics. In addition, it turned out that for the management of the course can serve and aerodynamic brakeslocated on the planes.
        Compare with the highest qualification pilots U-2 and SR-71
        ================================================== =======
        Quote: Pazifist87
        anyway that UFO control

        This ("traditional") is even more difficult (note the keels)

        The version is interesting:
        The cause of the slanting of the keels was analyzed by Lockheed and brought up by SB 98-157. to the attention of the developers of the F-35 l.

        ... the upper surface of the fuselage from prepregs was molded "hot" and the keel fittings are part of the upper surface. After polymerization and heat treatment, the keels moved. This was noticed immediately during the production process, but it was decided not to straighten the keels so as not to introduce harmful residual stresses. The ESDU of the aircraft allows you to compensate for the deviation of the keels from the TU. In operation, under the influence of the external environment, additional shrinkage occurred and the breakdown of the keels increased, as can be seen in the picture. More precisely, the collapse is constantly creeping upward. AO employees in Alaska are forced to reprogram the EDMS every month. In Hawaii, this process is not so intense.

        On the latest F-22 and F-35 series, keel fittings will be separate parts and will be mounted on the fuselage after polymerization. There keels should be straight.

        sad without ESDS

        And the flying wing scheme has nothing to do with it.

        1. Pazifist87
          Pazifist87 10 October 2014 00: 13
          0
          And so:
          1. SDU-10: "The operation of the system is based on continuous measurement of flight parameters and command signals from control levers, conversion of these signals in computers into signals for control of steering drives, which, by deflecting steering surfaces, provide stability and a given maneuver of the aircraft. Automatic limitation of normal overload. and the angle of attack significantly increases the safety of piloting and the effectiveness of combat use of the aircraft, since it allows the pilot to focus on solving combat missions. To obtain high reliability and survivability, the SDU is made with four-fold redundancy of sensors, blocks and communication lines of vital control channels. "
          Those. typical EDSU (Electro Remote Control System) maybe there was some misunderstanding wink
          2. Mass along a sweep, this is inevitable. But no one has canceled the small limits of normal alignment. Of course, this is smoothed out by sweep, but nevertheless, the center of pressure runs quite strongly in different modes. Especially when landing.
          3. About the problems of SU (Control System) here is rather a pure distribution of control channels. With the same EMDS (Electro-Remote Control System) is not a problem.

          Comparison of B-2 with U-2 and SR-71 is not appropriate. The first one flew at limiting heights in discharged air, where again the limiting angles of attack sharply decreased, and the limits of centering, too, i.e. each movement of the control knob should have been measured to the millimeter. And there stood the good old mechanical control system, i.e. there was no automatic machine restricting the pilot’s movement and betraying the RUS’s movement (aircraft control lever) to the steering surfaces in an aerodynamically acceptable form laughing . On the SR-71, control difficulties were associated with its flight speeds. The displacement of the center of pressure, again, left a small centering range. Well, again, mechanical SU.

          And the differential deviation of elevators, this is a completely different song. Have you heard about the V-shaped plumage?
          Regards, Opus.
          Z.Y. We seem to have gotten some misunderstanding of terminology) (1 f. 101 K. MAI)
          1. opus
            opus 10 October 2014 01: 06
            +2
            Quote: Pazifist87
            Have you heard about the V-shaped plumage?

            Well, I brought a photo ...
            and the text, there is about the "problem" and about the deformation of the keels and compensation
            Quote: Pazifist87
            We seem to have some misunderstanding of the terminology

            maybe, but I can give you a text in German: the "flying wing" scheme does not experience any control problems, it is even easier to control than the "tradition", but (!) in flight)
            Quote: Pazifist87
            (1 f. 101 K. MAI)

            wink
            We rested with yours in Alushta in the "summer" camp "Alushta" such "health-improving", Minaev was still working there
        2. Santa Fe
          10 October 2014 02: 55
          0
          Quote: opus
          The reason for the slanting of the keels was analyzed by Lockheed and brought to the attention of the developers of Ф-98 l by the internal bulletin SB 157-35.

          some comments are suspiciously smart
          1. Pazifist87
            Pazifist87 10 October 2014 08: 06
            +1
            Dear Opus, V-plumage is a little different. By the way, differential all-inclined stabilizers are all relevant for the classical circuit.

            "Deformation" of the keels, this phenomenon is called rudder reversal and is one of the phenomena of aeroelasticity. It is connected with the rigidity of the structure of a particular aircraft.

            The disadvantages of the aerodynamic design of the flying wing are very large and one of the main, in addition to the narrow limits of centering, is the low sensitivity of the aerodynamic rudders, - "the small distance of the control planes from the center of mass causes their low efficiency, which makes the aircraft very unstable - yaw-like - in flight. a problem before the introduction of fly-by-wire control systems that automatically maintain straight-line flight led to the fact that aircraft of such a scheme have not yet received mass distribution. "
            Corresponds to low speeds i.e. when approaching, for example, handling is further reduced. The Horten brothers had the same problems.

            drinks
            1. opus
              opus 10 October 2014 12: 20
              +2
              Quote: Pazifist87
              , V-plumage is a little different.

              I am not an expert, but I understand what you mean: functions of both horizontal and vertical plumage, as on the F-117 or MQ-1 Predator Yes?

              Quote: Pazifist87
              "Deformation" of the keels, this phenomenon is called rudder reverse and is one of the phenomena of aeroelasticity

              Mb not special art.
              He wrote about the problems of the F-22, since they are interesting from a technological point of view.
              The photo is impressive, the explanation (not mine) is interesting. Agree?

              Quote: Pazifist87
              "a small distance of the control planes from the center of mass causes their low efficiency,

              I read, it’s written on wikis.
              BUT did not understand (!).
              what does "small" mean? and relative to what (which axis)?
              transverse? -Yes, the wingspan is no less than the traditional
              -longitudinal? because no PGO or ZGO (Tail Stabilizer)? .. so it's a traditional tailless
              The first mass tailless, no ESDS, no computers. The pilot qualification is -0, compared with the pilots of the Luftwaffe 1941. Flew and did not buzz


              as well
              BEACH-7

              The pilot N.P. Vlagin was pleased with the machine. Unusual airplane perfectly obeyed rudders, was stable both in horizontal flight, and in turns.
              1. Pazifist87
                Pazifist87 10 October 2014 15: 41
                +2
                Dear Opus.
                1. You are absolutely right, I talked about him to show the difficulties of combining control channels. In the V-shaped plumage, the steering surfaces are simultaneously elevators and elevators.
                2. Yes, with the f-22, rudders help fully stabilizing stabilizers, and this is so difficult and interesting. By the way, with a mechanical control system, this is almost impossible, because the deviation angles and the deviation speed on the F-22 are calculated by the computer.
                3. On the longitudinal axis. Roughly speaking, the shoulder from the effort is less, the moment is less, large deviations and areas of elevators, which are the elevons, are needed ... By the way, Comet (Me-163) was an excellent glider, because it grew from Lippish gliders. But about the approach and the landing itself, as far as I read, the pilots remember with shaking hands smile
                4. Yes, I do not argue. I wrote about the general problems of flying wings. By the way, tailless (F-102, Mirages, etc.) are slightly different from the flying wing in aerodynamics.

                And thanks for the interesting conversation, otherwise VO has already turned into a discussion of Ukraine hi
                1. opus
                  opus 10 October 2014 16: 33
                  +3
                  Quote: Pazifist87
                  But about the approach and the landing itself, as far as I read, the pilots remember with shaking hands

                  Yes I know.
                  Especially "shock loads", about which everyone writes, but they do not explain huizhu

                  Board number of the aircraft B-2 Spirit of Kansas (“Spirit of Kansas"). - 89-0127

                  could tell ... but it burned down.
                  Legend issued by US AIF: failure in the flight control system due to moisture, to put it mildly not very

                  ===================
                  however, it will be interesting for you to probably dig into http://www.popmech.ru/
                  there was an article, either the chief editor, or the corps were based on the US Air Force (B-2s are based), and carried out a combat mission with the Americans, they even gave him control (if he didn’t forget)
                  Quote: Pazifist87
                  And thanks for the interesting conversation, otherwise VO has already turned into a discussion of Ukraine

                  And thank you, I hope to continue.
                  And from "Glory to Ukraine" and related "goods" I am already sick of it, she has more
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 10 October 2014 19: 15
                    0
                    Quote: opus
                    Board number of the aircraft B-2 Spirit of Kansas (“Spirit of Kansas"). - 89-0127 could tell ... but it burned down.

                    Well, what can be speculated on video chronicle?
                    1. Pazifist87
                      Pazifist87 12 October 2014 11: 31
                      0
                      The video clearly shows that the plane may have exceeded the angle of attack, after which the flow began to stall on the left wing and the crew ejected.
                      About refusal:
                      - Due to the condensate accumulated in the LDPE (air pressure receiver), the instrument complex gave incorrect airspeed values. As a result, the separation occurred at an insufficient air speed. Further is quite natural for any aircraft. Too low separation speed - stall.

                      Condensation is not surprising, Guam is still, the ocean around, the heat. But the technical staff did not seem to check the LDPE, in general, in my opinion, it was either the technician who did not check the condensate, or the pre-flight inspection schedule in general. Somehow, the reason is not in the plane.
          2. opus
            opus 10 October 2014 14: 26
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            some comments are suspiciously smart

            say the same ...
            in our company this Lockheed TECHNICAL BULLETIN SB 98-157 even the cleaning lady aunt Masha knows, from cover to cover sad
            -----------------------------------------
            \ "Oh, but they didn't give a damn, it's disgusting to go to the office! \" - the cleaning lady, Aunt Masha, grumbled, wiping the ceilings.
  24. opus
    opus 9 October 2014 22: 29
    +2
    Quote: Author
    Later, Pyotr Yakovlevich Ufimtsev will write a computer program "Echo-1"

    Well, it was written not by P.Ya. Ufimtsev, but by the mathematician of the Lockheed company Bill shroyder и Denis Overholster (an expert in computer technology and modeling of the same firm), and attracted them Ben Rich (For "creating" Stealth "Rich received the Collier Prize and the Medal of Distinguished Service - the highest military award for civilians.)
    Well, Pyotr Yakovlevich COULD NOT write a computer program "Echo-1" in 1973, for Americans

    Not very author understands hands and microwaves belay
    Quote: Author
    - This is easy to verify by putting your hand in the microwave.

    In what? in protection from the fool?
    AT THE OPEN DOOR OF A MICROWAVE .... microwelle will not turn on ...
    but seriously, there is such work (funny)
    "Radar injury" Andrei Lomachinsky
    Bodies (human), or their parts and just an object (LA) upon radar irradiation, are still different things
    The human body consists of 70% water (with such organs "sweet" for radio waves: brain, liver, bladder)

    Quote: Author
    The main threat to the F-117 was a ground-based air defense system.

    It seems to me that AWACS and radar fighters ..
    Yet he (117) below

    Like a sheet of metal, flat

    And here (from above) in the upper hemisphere, all so "mysterious"

    (and from below the infrared radiation and the sensors of its onboard radar could be detected by ground means)
    Quote: Author
    The main idea of ​​all modern "stealth" is the parallelism of the edges and edges of the aircraft.

    Not only:
    the use of large-sized panels of complex shape as structural elements of the fuselage.
    By installing such a panel, you can significantly reduce the number of joints of skins on the surface of the aircraft and the number of riveted and bolted joints, which are elements of reflection in the front hemisphere at different angles.
    and the Swedes generally chose a "different" path (survival

    JAS 39E: a new electronic warfare, towed traps, a modern information system will allow him to provide survival at the level of modern "stealth", that is, according to the Swedish assessment and against our T-50, and against modern "double-digital" air defense systems.
    1. Santa Fe
      10 October 2014 03: 59
      0
      thanks, once again impressed
      And here (from above) in the upper hemisphere, all so "mysterious"

      M. b. because the ground radar sees it not "from below" but "from the side"?
      his airborne radar could be fixed by ground means

      F117 airborne radar still did not have
      reduce the number of joints of skins on the surface of the aircraft and the number rivet and bolt jointswhich are elements of reflection in the front hemisphere

      F-35 bottom view, before gluing with radar absorbing coating request

      JAS 39E: New EW

      What are the energy resources of an airplane with a take-off mass of 8 tons?
      1. opus
        opus 10 October 2014 12: 05
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        M. b. because the ground radar sees it not "from below" but "from the side"?

        I wrote / showed. So his radar "sees"

        + angle on the course, but this is not significant.
        The radar sees it (as a rule) from the bottom "more" ... and from the bottom it (117) is a flat pancake, and behind this piece is the remote control and fuel (!).
        Conditions like in Yugoslavia or Cyprus are rare. And where else are the radars stationed on the mountain?
        As the Hev Blue flights showed, the keels inclined inward, shielding the exhaust nozzles of the engines from observation from above, at the same time reflect the heat flow down

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        F117 airborne radar still did not have

        Yes (I did not state the opposite), however, as he did not have the active means of electronic warfare, even the communication antennas and his / her alien-retractable systems.
        And weapons corresponding to the AGM-88 HARM, AGM-65 Maverick-not requiring radar carrier

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        F-35 bottom view, before gluing

        all right. BEFORE (!) Pasting (and painting)

        and you showed a photo of the wrong part.
        Is there a glider itself? wings? Kiel, etc. It is desirable in comparison with F-15/16/18?
        How do you like this photo?


        Here are the details from f-15 (before and after processing)
        ]

        There are thousands of rivet holes in aircraft parts. The picture shows a robot installed at the General Dynamics Corporation plant drills holes in the vertical part of the tail of an F-16 fighter
      2. opus
        opus 10 October 2014 13: 03
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        What are the energy resources of an airplane with a take-off mass of 8 tons?

        So on this "airplane" with an HBM of 8,5 tons there is a Volvo RM12: a clone of General Electric F404
        Dassault Rafale has 2x General Electric F404, which has two power alternators 30/40 kVA each
        RESPECTIVELY this airplane has electric power least 30/40 kVA, i.e. 40kW., At least
        / I’ll tell you a secret, there’s a slightly different generator and the power is a bit more /
        so for comparison, the F-35 fan (GDP) seems to have a shaft power of 17000 hp. (12,5 kW -12,5 kVA). What do you think is enough for him to get enough power for turbojet generator for powering electronic warfare / radar is still a bit?
        Here's the thing
        1.EW second generation HWS 39:
        The system is able to find and determine the coordinates of the radiation source, as well as classify it. In addition to the existing means of self-defense (radar sensors located at the wing ends, REP system modules installed in the nose of the fuselage and on the keel, and BOP 403 dipole reflector and heat trap tools located in the wing root parts) as part of the HWS system 39 includes two additional BOP 402 containers with dipole reflectors and heat traps (mounted on underwing pylons), a laser radiation warning sensor, a warning system for approaching UR and tow I radar target BOL 500
        ENERGY CONSUMPTION AT HER -Well .... well, no, almost

        2. on the JAS 39E, something like a radar Selex Galileo Raven ES-05

        those. Raven ES-05
        www.selex-es.com/documents/737448/18479703/body_mm07819_Raven_ES05_LQ_.pdf

        and this is AESA radar

        with all the gadgets and pluses, Energy consumption, again within reasonable limits
        ====================
        Selex already offers an X-band MRP of 60,8 × 13 × 5,7 mm (Output pulse power, W 8,5 instead of 10), and will soon throw it on the MIS for M-AESA: GaAs-based pHEMT-based X-band amplifier cell measuring 10 × 75 μm with a power density of 0,7 W / mm. For MIS, a record efficiency value of 65% was obtained with a power of 0,5 W in the operating frequency band of 30%.
        COOL AIRPLANE (well, in the video anyway)

        1. iwind
          iwind 10 October 2014 13: 48
          +1
          Quote: opus

          Thank you,very interesting. hi Recently, informative comments rarely appear here.
          By the way, Gripen is one of my favorite planes.
          The F-35 also relied on EW and RTR.
          http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-need
          ed-when-war-starts /
  25. NEXUS
    NEXUS 9 October 2014 23: 20
    +2
    Stealth technologies were studied by our specialists long before the amers ... and these technologies are used in Russian weapons in different ways ... let's say PAK FA is inferior to the Raptor in stealth, but far superior in maneuverability ... in shipbuilding the doctrine is slightly different ... there is stealth meets one of the most important conditions ... but I am convinced that it is our specialists who know and understand what stealth developments and technologies are better than others, and therefore our radars also see Amer’s pianos and irons flying
  26. TOR2
    TOR2 9 October 2014 23: 29
    +2
    It is interesting to listen to Ufimtsev himself
  27. roman_pilot
    roman_pilot 10 October 2014 00: 17
    0
    [quote = Rus2012] [quote = Dazdranagon] - we look forward to it! [/ quote]
    [quote] and, of course, the ability to operate the aiming and navigation system of the aircraft in a completely passive mode. [/ quote]
    In a completely passive will not work!
    Otherwise, you will have to fly at medium altitudes and be guided in altitude by barometric altitude sensors, because radio altimeters, in fact DRLS, will "highlight" the object from afar;)))
    Just like other devices and systems for active search and detection of space around an object.
    Now the radio altimeter is not needed. GPS allows you to determine the location not only in the horizontal plane, but also in the vertical, and very accurate. Need a powerful processor and terrain database. But this is only for the first strike, or, as usual, for the war with the Papuans.
  28. roman_pilot
    roman_pilot 10 October 2014 00: 19
    0
    Somehow it turned out clumsily. This is a quote, and my comment begins with the words: "now the radio altimeter is not needed"
  29. sivuch
    sivuch 10 October 2014 09: 25
    0
    http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=177&sid=52afb51ca89e134f869c2c9550
    a42149 & start = 30
    I came across a couple of new facts. Firstly, information periodically appears that in Yugoslavia, except for one shot down, they were damaged, and one was decommissioned. Here are a couple more sources
    http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=29117&page=7
    http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/stevenson%20f-22%20brief.pdf
    p28
    http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4527
    Believers in stealth's cloak of invisibility should ask the pilots of the two - not one, as commonly believed - stealthy F-117 bombers taken out of action by antiquated Russian radar-directed defense systems in the 1999 Kosovo air war.
    In addition, Uncle Misha (Spitfire, if someone else does not know) periodically reassured everyone that all F-117s flew without an escort. Here is:
    http://www.f-117a.com/AFMissions.html
    disagree with this.
    Escorts
    Although it's low observable characteristics makes the F-117A less vunerable to enemy fire, it is not invisible nor invincable. Therefore, whenever possible, the F-117A is supported by other aircraft during high risk missions.
    Well and further, the description of the event
  30. sivuch
    sivuch 10 October 2014 12: 18
    +1
    The Black Jet supplemented the specialized electronic warfare assets, flying precision strikes against important C3 nodes, radar sites and SAM sites covering critical ingress routes. A typical tactic used was to coordinate the run-in by the F-117A with barrage noise jamming by an EF-111A or EA-6B, this causing a reduction in the victim radar receiver's sensitivity to the point, where the otherwise detectable F- 117A vanished from the screen (USAF).
    http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-ODS-EW.html
    This is about Iraq
  31. marder4
    marder4 10 October 2014 14: 16
    0
    interesting article, I look forward to continuing
  32. Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 10 October 2014 18: 46
    +1
    Give the folk stealth!
    1. Pazifist87
      Pazifist87 12 October 2014 11: 34
      +1
      Heh, dear Andryukha, but don’t tell me what kind of home-made this is, someone’s homemade product?

      Bearing fuselage on a light piston aircraft is an interesting thing)
      1. Andriuha077
        Andriuha077 12 October 2014 15: 29
        +1
        It
        FACETMOBILE FMX-4
        mfhb.org.nz/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=224:facetmobile-
        fmx-4-scale-build-44 & catid = 40: general-articles
        reaa.ru/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1223569620/0
        1. Pazifist87
          Pazifist87 12 October 2014 16: 22
          0
          Thanks, interesting SLA.
        2. Pazifist87
          Pazifist87 12 October 2014 16: 25
          +1
          I was pleased with the picture from their site, right in the topic of the pack:
          1. Prager
            Prager 30 October 2014 15: 40
            0
            I fully support your comment on the article, I laughed so much!
      2. The comment was deleted.
  33. waggish
    waggish 11 October 2014 16: 45
    0
    May 28, 1987 (Day of the Soviet border guard) - no one stealth is needed! Easy sat BEAUTIFUL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RIPPED EVERYTHING like TOILET PAPER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!