Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

This new comprehensive document makes a nice read

http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq-57/kopp.pdf

As extensive as the Russian investment in the development of VHF-band counterstealth systems may be,these will be almost completely ineffective against the B–2A Spirit, as its physical size yields effective shaping in
the VHF-band, and the depth of its leading edge absorbent structures is sufficient to remain effective in the meter wavelength bands.The same would also be true of the New Generation Bomber, should it eventually be developed.

Based on the ineffectiveness of meter band VHF counter stealth radar on B-2A which makes it invulnerable to any band of RF that a potential enemy could employ.

Will it will possible that B-2A would have actually entered Russian Airspace or even fly near russian airspace with Russians having no clue if there was an aircraft or not simply because it was undetectable.

If that is the case then the NGB which is being developed as ELO with a LO rating of -50 db and more would take stealth to a total new level and an unmanned variant will be flying over Moscow and they wont have any clue

Austin wrote:Based on the ineffectiveness of meter band VHF counter stealth radar on B-2A which makes it invulnerable to any band of RF that a potential enemy could employ.

Will it will possible that B-2A would have actually entered Russian Airspace or even fly near russian airspace with Russians having no clue if there was an aircraft or not simply because it was undetectable.

If that is the case then the NGB which is being developed as ELO with a LO rating of -50 db and more would take stealth to a total new level and an unmanned variant will be flying over Moscow and they wont have any clue

nope the B-2 will still be detected.. the question is "in what distance" , beside I'm not sure that Russian will only relies on VHF Band to detect something stealthy, maybe they will have a new generation of IR based sensor to help balance things out .

Indeed, at the Paris airshow a Rapier 2000 unit had no problems getting an IR lock on a B-2 from memory in the 1990s. Annoyed the Americans no end of course, but hints at why all modern Russian fighter designs have IRSTs and BVR IR guided missiles.

You also need to take into account that over the horizon radars tend to see aerial targets at very steep angles so instead of seeing the B-2 front on... where even visually it looks rather smaller, it will see it from above at a fairly steep angle.

The Russians have radars that track paint chips in space so there is not too much question about whether they could track a B-2.

I am not suggesting they could track it from takeoff to landing, but detection of a very small RCS target crossing into Russian Airspace would lead to aircraft being sent to investigate and when they detected the target with their IRSTs the brown stuff will hit the fan.

Well, just because you can track 1 inch class targets in space doesn't mean you can track -30 db targets at 15 km

Here's a good read:
http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/Anti-StealthTechnology.pdf


So, to end this post I'm going to paraphrase Kopp: "IRSTs with QWIPs will have extreme levels of effectiveness over BVR distances against VLO airframes."

Well, just because you can track 1 inch class targets in space doesn't mean you can track -30 db targets at 15 km

A paint chip is not a 1 inch target.

Now we're just getting into semantics here

I don't think so.

The American military like to compare the RCS of the B-2 to that of an insect, but there are an enormous variety of insects from so small they are hard to see to giants bigger than your hand.

How does a paint chip compare to an insect in RCS terms?

I think it is very relevant.

Hello All and Greetings,

I am new to this site and forum.  It seems it is a fairly intense site for military matters and weapons discussions (my new hobby btw).

The question that I have and more so given my limited knowledge is:

Is Russia safe from F22 Raptor? I have heard that S-400 can detect and track F22 but only from 50Kms or so.  This means F22 can sneak into the territory and launch its missiles with ranges of 120km or drop its JDAM type bombs on various sites and get away. Currently S-400s are only deployed around Moscow, does that mean F22 can have a free ride in the rest of RF or S-300 can also detect and track it.  

Also, it was quite a scare to know that a squadron of F22s can destroy a major chunk of other airforces.  I mean 145 to 0 kill ratios vrs F15s and F16s types in USAF simulation.  

What is happening around?  Some sort of Technology leap?  Is that why US has become so belligerent recently in middle east and area.  

Cheers!

Victor

Very safe, since Topol-M is the likely response to F-22s in Russian airspace.

:p

I need some specific air force type answers. ICBM response to F22 is strategic. The question is about Air Attack to Air Defense.

1. With the help of supercruise and JDAM, F-22A will be able to attack S-300 at the range of 44 to 60 km.

2. With the help of supercruise and JDAM-ER / SDB, F-22A will be able to attack S-300 / S-400 at the range of 100 to 150 km+.

3. With the help of SMACM, F-22A will be able to attack S-300 / S-400 at the range of 322 to 463 km.

There are point defense deals like Tor and Buk available but they will have to be 100% accurate as even 1 missile/bomb gets through, the damage is done to that battery of S300/S400.

TR1 wrote:Very safe, since Topol-M is the likely response to F-22s in Russian airspace.

:p

victor7 wrote:There are point defense deals like Tor and Buk available but they will have to be 100% accurate as even 1 missile/bomb gets through, the damage is done to that battery of S300/S400.

Depends on what bomb you hit. If you hit the bomb going after the engagement radar, the site is still active.

Is the armor radar able to detect and track f22? Is armor another name for Kolchuga by Ukraine?


Also, is there any way to D&T (detect & track) F22 and other stealths by Satellite. Although in a war scenario, Satellites are the first items to be taken out but still, any utility of Sats to kill the F22s.


Read a little on IRST, but found range of D&T is berely 60kms and around. The new radar of F22 will be able to d&t a plane from nearly 400 kms.

Worst is, Greek, Australian, US F15 pilots have all lemented that they could not get a lock on F22s despite being behind and visual to them. Seems F22s have some additional tech going that would throw off any 'lock on' attempt by the hostile plane.

This plane seems to be a game changer and as proven, a squadron of these can destroy a big chunk of any legacy based air force.

The Russians are going to use F-15s to intercept F-22s.

There are only 189 F-22s and counting and it takes about 40 hours of maintainence for each flight hour.

Most long wave ground based Russian radars should detect F-22s from quite reasonable distances, but most importantly even if the F-22 is super invisible and can't be detected or shot down the most likely countermeasure would be to nuke all the airbases the F-22s are operating from.

The Russians have already said that some conventional weapons have the accuracy and capability to be comparable to nuclear weapons in performance and that a strategic strike against Russia will be met with a full nuclear response.

victor7 wrote:I need some specific air force type answers. ICBM response to F22 is strategic. The question is about Air Attack to Air Defense.

1. With the help of supercruise and JDAM, F-22A will be able to attack S-300 at the range of 44 to 60 km.

2. With the help of supercruise and JDAM-ER / SDB, F-22A will be able to attack S-300 / S-400 at the range of 100 to 150 km+.

3. With the help of SMACM, F-22A will be able to attack S-300 / S-400 at the range of 322 to 463 km.

There are point defense deals like Tor and Buk available but they will have to be 100% accurate as even 1 missile/bomb gets through, the damage is done to that battery of S300/S400.

What is that, a sort of joke? If it is so, it is very very funny

Otherwise that seem the typical low level comical mindset present in the limited brain of some F-16.net forumist

Maybe a little reality's bath will be useful for disperse a bit of fantasy’ s mist

1) Russia is NOT Iraq or Libya or any other of the past immensely inferior enemies that NATO love to attack in big coalitions ,possibly after a long embargo
Those nations was armed with vastly downgraded export versions of Soviet weapons moreover 20-30 years older than those present in Soviet arsenal in the same years and in a numerical ratio of....several hundreds to one in respect to URSS ; that for don't talk of the entire class of weapons and assets completely absent in the arsenals of those inferior opponents.

2) In the specific scenario into examination ,to the exact contrary of the laughable scenario often present in the odd fantasies obviously a surprise attack on the enemy using any type of aerodynamic vehicle ,in spite of any type of .....Low Observability in X radar band present in theirs design..... would be, obviously totally impossible , for the heavy presence on both sides of monstrous OTH radars with detection ranges of several thousands of Km and space based assets for both of which an F-22 a B-2 a PAKFA a Neuron or a J-20 aren't in any way different, for a tracking perspective, from an old ,rusty Cessna; moreover just aircraft (and among those the high flying ones) are ,by far, the most easy to track with greater precision and at greater range for the absence of ground clutter and BDI. Even only the preparations of an air attack at the respective airfields would be observed at 5000-7000 km of distance or directly from space, since minute one


3) Aircraft, in a full scale conflict between world level powers would be probably the assets less likely to get any chance to come into play (probably even if the conflict would be limited to conventional means), the reason is that airfields are,by far, the most easy fixed targets among any others military target ;moreover show an horrible "combination" of the worse elements codifying for great susceptibility to destruction : 1) a very high density of very soft, frail vehicles (the aircraft) 2) a strong concentration of an immense amount very flammable fuel 3) high spatial concentration of bombs and missiles .
Practically any airfields ,except those placed in multilayered, dense, and very extensive IADs (capable to neutralize or divert an enormous amount of cruise and ballistic missiles) would be reduced to a sprawl of smoking craters from hundreds or even thousands of Km of distances in a matter of minutes even before the logistical preparations for an air attack wuold be carried on, in this meaning the NATO airfields widely dispersed around the worlds ,completely devoid of any type of serious IAD capable of a similar task, would be targets even embarrassing for easiness.
What just said is the motivation for which long range cruise missiles (with theirs vectors)and ,even more, ballistic missiles of any type are strongly limited and/or controlled in international agreements while F-22, PAKFA, J-20 and similaria are NOT

4) If we consider a thermonuclear scenario, obviously the role of aircraft such as F-22 or PAKFA become even more insignificant (all the conflict would be resolved ,in no more than 20-30 minutes, by ICBM, SLBM , ABM systems and space based systems of both sides ) moreover in this apocalyptical scenario several SAMs brigades in strategic positions would be quickly converted to nuclear warheads and ,as you well know, them would get an effective range more than doubled (not having any necessity to keep energy to manoeuvre in the terminal interception phase) and would need no more than the imprecise coordinates coming from an OTH radar for destroy enemy aircraft or group of cruise missiles ,considering that even only three of those thermonuclear missiles could obliterate an entire enemy air fleet outside the border of the nation in a kill radius of several dozen of kilometers !!!

5) The weapons that you have named are totally worthless against modern mobile SAM systems. Probably you are a bit confused between export versions of SA-2 ,SA-3s and ZSU-23-4 and Russian domestic S-300PM ,S-300VM ,S-400 , BUK-M1/2, Tor-M1/2, Tunguska-M1, Pantsir-S
A western pilot in the typical conflict against the typical immensely inferior enemy that NATO love to confront , prepare for weeks the air route in the enemy air space taking into account position of the sites of the radars and knowing that before it will enter in this airspace some cruise missiles will strike some SAM sites in certain positions to open a corridor for him.
That pilot would know also that it and its group ,proceding at high altitude , will be also completely safe from the few export SA-6 that could shoot at them (in the pasted wars those export mobile SAMs capable to conduct surprise ambushes, even if capable to engage only a single target at time, have shoot several hundreds of missiles against NATO aircraft ...naturally all flying at greater altitudes than theirs engagements limits , anyone would be capable to realize what would have happened if those same missiles would have been shoot by Russian BUk-M1 capable to engage in 1/3 of the times a target for each launch vehicle and at altitudes of.... 23 -25 Km !!! )

Now this same NATO pilot could not conduct even only ONE of those week-long preparations for its attack for the simple reason that in the same minutes of its briefing in a briefing room practically any single element of the enemy IAD structure (literally thousands of times bigger and more powerful than those of pasted enemies ) would be in a completely different position
Even imaging that exiting from this briefing room it would not see a rain of stand-off cruise missiles (against which NATO lack systems like the specialized MIG-31 or S-300PM, Tor-M1 , Tunguska , SPN-2/4 , SPN-30 etc..etc..) disintegrate completely its airfield ,with any aircraft present at the moment, and imaging instead that it would be capable to take-off for the mission, even only overfly in enemy air space an hill on the other side of which ,among the trees, a single Tor-M1 or Pantsyr-S has detect it passively with its optronic system would cause in a matter of seconds that a pair of Mach-6/7 missiles ,coming from practically anywhere within 200 km ,to search for its cockpit ...a very very bad situation

Even if an F-22 manages to somehow magically manages to carry out an attack on an S-400 unit from over 100km, Pantsir/Tor/future replacement would have little problem with JDAM.

TR1 wrote:Even if an F-22 manages to somehow magically manages to carry out an attack on an S-400 unit from over 100km, Pantsir/Tor/future replacement would have little problem with JDAM.

TR1 persons should much more simply begin to learn what are the CONOPS of similar weapons : JDAM , JSOW and similaria are NOT in any way possible SEAD/DEAD weapons except .....against the usual antediluvian export version of SA-2/SA-3 the owning nation of which NATO so much like to attack

If that was ever possible, weapons like Kh-22M or Kh-15 (without the passive anti-radiation seekers) would be not merely some times....not some dozen of times...but hundreds of times weapons more efficient ,destructive and difficult to defend against for destroy very mobile, highly time-sensitive air defense assets.

Mindstorm,

Thx for taking time and energy for a detailed reply. However, for attack vrs defense, I want to keep nuclear option out for now. It does make sense as F22 bases would be on the top 20 list of items to attack in the first half an hour of war.

But the main question is what tool will let RuAF detect, track and kill the F22 and at what distance. S400 at 60 kms is far too near and leaves rest of Russia open for F22s to go on rampage. Long range radar systems like Nebo-M are already with S400s using VHF/L/X Bands and still give only 60km room. Pakfa not ready yet, any legacy plane does not hold a chance, if going by USAF simulations.

RF is throwing lots of weight on PAK-FA's IRST based QWIP technology but it does not give 'look first' ability. F22's radar when upgraded will be able to 'look first' from 400 kms and while it is looking the other plane would not know that it is being stalked (mainly due to US lead in AESA technology). Also, F22 radars might be powerful enough to be able to fry the opposing radar by using directed energy features. Also, do not know if F22's smacm cruise missiles can be used in air to air function and if so then it is game over from 300km...............already. (may be pakfa can kill the missile or outfly it)

Streching IRST, it will allow Pakfa say 100kms to look and using R-172 can fire the Awacs killer missile and hopefully because of IRST-QWIP it would not require a 'lock on' that Greeks and Australians could not get despite being visually near.

Is that the only prospective defense Russia has against F22s (other than nukes ofcourse).

Does anyone know how far is Russia into Quantum Entanglement Radar?

US has already patented some sort of Quantum Radar tech as back as 2008.
I am too new here to post any links.

F-22s going on a rampage through Russia won't last very long given the multitude of radar/optics systems and missiles both airborne and ground based. Those ideal Lockheed Martin RCS figures won't hold up very long when the aircraft is being engaged from many angles.

TR1 wrote:F-22s going on a rampage through Russia won't last very long given the multitude of radar/optics systems and missiles both airborne and ground based. Those ideal Lockheed Martin RCS figures won't hold up very long when the aircraft is being engaged from many angles.

The easier challenge might be to try to kill or waste the weapons that it launches. In a simulation about defending Taiwan from PLA, the US found that F22s got destroyed, not by direct variables but Chinese killed off the AWACS, JSTARS, Refuelers and then F22s ran out of weapons and fuel.

Thx for taking time and energy for a detailed reply. However, for attack vrs defense, I want to keep nuclear option out for now. It does make sense as F22 bases would be on the top 20 list of items to attack in the first half an hour of war.

The point is that F-22s flying around in Russian airspace without permission would be an act of war... it is like asking about a Blackjacks chances of operating over US airspace... they wont go anywhere near it, and for obvious reasons.

But the main question is what tool will let RuAF detect, track and kill the F22 and at what distance. S400 at 60 kms is far too near and leaves rest of Russia open for F22s to go on rampage.

There aren't many things the S-400 needs to protect that are more than 60km across.

Long wave radar should be able to detect it at much greater ranges and would be accurate enough in terms of tracking to direct a large number of fighters towards any F-22s in Russian airspace.

Note any F-22s would need to operate without support aircraft like tankers and Awacs as they would be easy kills.

This limits range and operational performance of the F-22s.

Every SDB they carry is one less AMRAAM the local fighter defences have to deal with, and with modern pod based jammers and also ground based jammers I would think the F-22s would need as many as they could carry.

Long range radar systems like Nebo-M are already with S400s using VHF/L/X Bands and still give only 60km room. Pakfa not ready yet, any legacy plane does not hold a chance, if going by USAF simulations.

USAF simulations do not allow for Russian IRST technology or Russian IR guided AAM technology... and they generally assume the F-22s airfields will not be targeted directly for attack.

RF is throwing lots of weight on PAK-FA's IRST based QWIP technology but it does not give 'look first' ability. F22's radar when upgraded will be able to 'look first' from 400 kms and while it is looking the other plane would not know that it is being stalked (mainly due to US lead in AESA technology).

Hahahaha... so US uber AESA can detect PAK FA at 400km?

Combat between the US and Russia will not be decided by F-22 vs PAK FA, and it certainly wouldn't be decided by PAK FA vs F-15 either.

The thing is that the US is the aggressor, so it has the enormous disadvantage of playing away.

The Russians have just created a new defence force called the Aerospace Defence Force, which unifies the space defence and air defence structures. They are getting new radars and satellites and other systems to monitor the space above Russia from ground, well out into space.

More important their Humint tends to be rather better than the US so any planned attack could be compromised before hand leading to the potential for preemptive strikes on the airbases to be used.

Also, F22 radars might be powerful enough to be able to fry the opposing radar by using directed energy features.

Have you seen the size of the AESA being developed for use with S-400 and likely S-500? If there is going to be any radar based energy weapons these would be much more effective than any tiny set mounted in the nose of a fighter aircraft.

Also, do not know if F22's smacm cruise missiles can be used in air to air function and if so then it is game over from 300km...............already. (may be pakfa can kill the missile or outfly it)

So the F-22 is invisible to 60km with the enormous radar set of the S-400, but the PAK FA can be detected and tracked at 300km by F-22...

Are you being realistic?

Is that the only prospective defense Russia has against F22s (other than nukes ofcourse).

A Mig-29 with a powerful onboard jammer to defeat AMRAAMs, and the President-M system that uses DIRCMs to defeat IIR guided missiles plus its 30mm cannon and thrust vectoring to outfly and shoot down an F-22 would probably do the job.

A role the Su-35 can take over as it enters service.

Does anyone know how far is Russia into Quantum Entanglement Radar?

US has already patented some sort of Quantum Radar tech as back as 2008.
I am too new here to post any links.

Errr... I think a photon sensor that detects past, present, and future details through hyperspace is an amusing idea, but as it is based on photons or light elements, it will likely have similar problems to IRST.

Those ideal Lockheed Martin RCS figures won't hold up very long when the aircraft is being engaged from many angles.

Or indeed if ice crystals form on its outer surface.

The main problem as I see it is that even assuming the F-22 was totally invisible at any distance, the weapons it uses are not, and can be dealt with and the Russians have many systems with optical backup.

Pantsir-S1 for instance can engage targets up to 15km altitude and has an optical guidance channel that could deal with an F-22, and three other radar channels that could deal with weapons released by the F-22.

If a flight of four F-22s tried to engage a target protected by a battery of 6 Pantsir-S1s the SAMs would be able to engage 24 targets at a time, so even if all four aircraft released 5 weapons each, the battery would be able to deal with all the targets and the aircraft at once. The high speed of the missiles of the Pantsir-S1 system means that those targets would be rapidly engaged and a follow up engagement for another 24 targets would probably allow 2-3 engagements before any weapons from the F-22s could reach their targets... which means they probably wont.

Clearly one flight of 4 F-22s is not good enough in this case, so more would be needed.

Odds are there will be more Pantsir-S1 batteries than there will be F-22s.

The easier challenge might be to try to kill or waste the weapons that it launches. In a simulation about defending Taiwan from PLA, the US found that F22s got destroyed, not by direct variables but Chinese killed off the AWACS, JSTARS, Refuelers and then F22s ran out of weapons and fuel.

And with the domestic version of the RVV.BD called the R-37M with a flight range of at least 280km and the ability to hit 8g targets that might be even easier for the Russians than it would be for the Chinese.

The critical thing about QWIP sensors is that they can be sensitive in multiple frequency ranges like the three IR bands (Long Short and Medium), as well as UV, and even visible light (low light), and any combination.

We know the F-22 is not invisible in the visible light wave range because we can see it.

Russian optics makers have been experimenting with Image Intensification scopes with small computers in them for processing the light. It seems they have found a way to separate natural light from artificial light, so an object that is painted or dyed with artificial colours can be made to glow... put that in the nose of a missile and it can be used to shoot down F-22s all day and night.

The F-22s radar power isn't even unusual for airborne fighter sets...Irbis and Zalson are not lacking in power. Frying other radar sets is fantasy at best.

I think the inference is that while each individual element might not radiate a lot of power, that the use of all the elements together magnifies the signal strength.

Of course using that logic a ground based radar should be potentially rather more powerful as it would have rather more than the 1,500-2,000 elements that you could fit on a plane, and much more importantly it could be connected to the local power grid.

A fighter would not have the onboard power to run all the AESA elements at the power levels needed to make it a dangerous weapon... very simply the energy needed to be directed to melt a target radar kms away would generate too much heat in the F-22s radar and it would melt first.

The Russians have all sorts of ground based jammers and decoys too.

Lets face it... the west couldn't deal with Serbian air defences.

I say give the Serbs Pantsir-S1, Tor-M3 and Buk-M3 and S-400 and lets see how an F-22 does...

The reality is that the US doesn't play fair so in the case of Russia there is no way they would risk any of their aircraft there... because they can't take their force multipliers so they simply wont go.

Is the armor radar able to detect and track f22? Is armor another name for Kolchuga by Ukraine?

I suspect Armour is a translation of Pantsir-S1.

It is based on the Tunguska originally though its roots are in a shelterised Pantsir version of it.

The Pantsir-S1 uses CM wave and MMW radar and thermal imaging optics to detect and track targets out to quite significant distances.

It will be the standard system operating with S-400 to defend it from enemy attack.

Note I notice that recently in his speeches Putin has called the S-400 and air defence missile and the Vityaz system a missile defence missile.

This suggests to me that in the longer term Vityaz or Hero/Knight might supplement the Pantsir-S1.

In an anti missile role the likelyhood of the 9M100 or Morfei, being integrated into the system becomes a lot more likely in my opinion.

Despite its short range its IIR seeker and high speed lock on after launch fire and forget capability would make it ideal for the land and sea based role... as well as being an excellent short range solution to enemy AAMs too.

If they are slim and compact it is possible that they might be designed to be carried in bundles in the vertical navy and land based launchers, so a tube that can hold a large S-400 missile might hold 4 Vityaz missiles or two stacks of 6-8 9M100s. This would mean a load of 60 point defence missiles equivalent to Klinok (naval Tor) could be carried in as few as 5 Redut tubes of a launcher believed to have between 12 and 14 tubes.

Will be interesting.

Certainly I expect a wide range of AAMs to be revealed by the Russians over the next 5 years including IIR guided weapons with lock on after launch capability. With a two way datalink you could fire an IIR guided RVV-BD towards an Link-12 signal coming from nowhere. The IIR guidance is totally passive and you could sit and watch targets appear as it gets closer based on their IIR signature.

A bit like SLAM but for AAMs, or should I say a bit like Kh-59 and Kh-59M (AS-13 and AS-18).

But the main question is what tool will let RuAF detect, track and kill the F22 and at what distance. S400 at 60 kms is far too near and leaves rest of Russia open for F22s to go on rampage. Long range radar systems like Nebo-M are already with S400s using VHF/L/X Bands and still give only 60km room. Pakfa not ready yet, any legacy plane does not hold a chance, if going by USAF simulations.

I have already understood what are the mistakes (very common, both of them) leading to those odd numbers -such as that 60 km - :

1) You cross the detection ranges of an X band radar with the often cited ,purely academic, F-22's RCS figures for hypercritical iso-planar head-on radar's illumination refered to an immensely narrow angle Obviously in reality thigs stand very differently : an F-22 cruising, for example, at 18000 m of altitude illuminated from a radar on the ground at 270 km at East by another ,over an hill, at 284 Km on the West another 164 Km at Noth-North East etc..etc.. has an effective RCS several order of magnitudes greater than the comical,"promotional" figures often cited for those type of aircraft , naturally for the whole IAD, the effective RCS figure of the "intruding" Raptor will always be the bigger possible and this figure will variate (often worsening substantially while it continue over its intended vector of motion). Russian scientists of the sector , who i recall to anyone are those that have developed the same Physics theoretical architecture of modern stealth technology and from which the same American community of the sector borned , have computed that the effective RCS of F-22 in a typical operative scenario is about 0,3 -0,4 square meters ....like you can see very, very different from the hypercritical head-on figures present in scarcely informed debates

2) You have probably seen the graphic representation of tracking ranges of an VHF radar such as NEBO (lkikely on APA site) ,but -without offense- without understanding it .
Those graphic representation of tracking range function take into account the effective RCS of an object in this radar band .
The tracking function of radars in different bands with similar aperture and gain are practically stackable -identical- ....this, of course, DON'T mean absolutely that an aircraft with a frontal RCS of 0,03 square meters in the S band will be a 0,03 square meter target in the VHF band ,and that is a point of capital importance for the shaping and RAM elements of a VLO design.
Only to let you realize what all that mean i can provide an example with a typical, relatively modern, export version of a VHF radar (naturally much less advanced than the AESA Nebo ,or worse the multispectral AESA NEBO-M...) :
In an environment with jamming density inferior to its rejection factor (and we all know as absurdely difficult is obtain high density jamming in VHF band...) a ByeloRussian Vostok-E track an F-14 or a B-52 360 km far ,almost its maximum tracking range and an F-117 at...... 350 km of distance !!

http://www.kbradar.by/text/pages-view-37.html

Practically all the the RCS reducing features (shaping and RAM) implemented in stealth aircraft become almost totally worthless in VHF radar bands, you can image what happen with radar such as the AESA, multispectral NEBO-M in a multi-inception angle environment moreover full also of passive ELS and optronic tracking assets .....

IRST-QWIP it would not require a 'lock on' that Greeks and Australians could not get despite being visually near.

And who say that ? Don't say to me that you truly believe to those comical...or for better say comically staged.... metropolitan legends

Do you know Science has very little respect for CLAIMS, even more when those claims completely contradict inescapable physical constraints and elements's interactions.
Those CLAIMS (which in the military fields are much ,much more "suspicious" and unreliable than miracle's claims by some religion fanatic).
Those claims become even more and more comical and untrustworthy when with a low level civilian IR camera someone can record F-22 in this way...











Next time we will provide to that Hellenic pilot and Australian pilot a low level civilan FLIR camera, maybe them will feel ashamed to stain so horribly theirs reputation only for follow some orders.


Those CLAIMS ,totally irreconcilable with basic Physics and ,obviously any empirical evidence become less and less credible when we consider that other instances as this one, are stangely canceled or silenced.







Very strangely this supposedly "MIRACULOUS" aircraft -F-22- that in the very suspect CLAIMS of a pair of foreign pilots was undetectable by onboard sensor suit even when perfectly visible at bare eyes outside of cockpit but...... perfectly visible in a way not different than any other aircraft recorded, to a vulgar civilian FLIR camera.... has been totally discontinued few years after its introduction...but you must understand mine cold scepticism : Science don't believe neither in claims neither in miracles .