Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

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 .

Rather importantly, if you watch the video above showing the camera following the F-22 in visible light and then in IR is that the similar system on the Pantsir-S1 uses a computer based autotracker, so instead of wobbling all round the aircraft there would be a small white box appearing around the F-22 and the computer stabilised sight would keep the aircraft locked in the centre of view.

Even if both radar systems cannot detect the F-22 the thermal imaging system will get a visual lock and allow a missile to be guided to the target.

BTW I mentioned the Aerospace Defence force previously, which is an amalgamation of the PVO and space defence forces.

The space defence forces were tasked with space tracking of potentially dangerous material in space... both actual hardware and junk for the purpose that any collision could be avoided. The ISS is moved several times a year to avoid collisions.

The US performs a similar function and after the cold war as part of the sharing they did when they designed and built the ISS they each got to look at each others hardware. It was found that the Russian tracking equipment that includes both radar and optical tracking systems were rather better at tracking small objects... right down to paint chips in fact, than their American equivalents.

Another interesting point was that the new US space suits are based on a rather old Soviet design.

The older US designs are rigid like the Soviet model but each joint and section had to be put together and the seals checked. The process to put it on took about 8 hours. The Soviet design was like a deep sea diving suit with the back pack opening like a door which the cosmonaut climbed in through and shut and then all the seals were tested. In comparison it took about 3/4ths of an hour to get into the Soviet model.

The Soviet toilet and personal cleaning system was superior to the US model, so much so that when docked on Mir the space shuttle crew used to use the Mir facilities rather than the Space shuttles facilities.

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 !!




That is in non jamming environment, in the jamming hostile scenario it is berely 57 kms for stealth birds.

Thanks Garry for professional answers, that helps a lot.

Regarding the radar detection at 400kms by F22

Radar Cross Sections cited (X-band):
F-22A Front Aspect = 0.0001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 – 0.001 m2 (0.005 used in this analysis);
F-35A Front Aspect = 0.001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 m2;
PAK-FA All Aspect = 0.01 m2;
Su-35-1 Front Aspect= 2 m2.

Pakfa has 100 times bigger RCS so it can be detected at longer ranges. True?

Regarding Pantsirs conducting the point defense, they have been compromised by BAE Suter when Israel attacked the Syrian nuke labs in 2007. If problem overcome and insulated then well and good. However 15km engagement altiitude not good enough for aircrafts as AAA also reaches that level. It might be good to deal with missiles and bombs released.

Against Russia, F22s operating without AWACS, JSTARS and Refuellers is point truly realistic. This will reduce their operation theatre to 1.5 hours I think. Big relief.

On the other hand, F22s should have some secret techs going that we do not know about. But same would be true about Pakfa as it will come out 3 years from now so more time to add goodies.

However, the point that Russia cannot detect, track and kill F22s and F35s (to some extent) beyond the range of 60kms in a jamming hostile environment, holds as it was.
Regrading triangulation radars like Kolchuga, (what i heard) is detection is possible but tracking might be an issue. Hope not.

Btw, any chance of detecting stealth via radio telescope type technologies. Quantum radar holds lots of promise and can render stealth obsolete but not ready yet. Russian academic circles are fairly advanced in the Quantum sciences, so no panic atleast in this area.

victor7 wrote: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 !!




That is in non jamming environment, in the jamming hostile scenario it is berely 57 kms for stealth birds.

exactly Victor and you have seen the jamming density figures for obtain that ?

Maybe you have not noticed that, but them are so absurd to obtain in VHF from stand-off ranges that ,likely, those jamming figures has been cited just for self-praising motivations by part of the makers

Even worse the not export version of this same VHF radar will be obviously significantly better than that and......NEBO-SVU and ,much ,much more NEBO-M (this last virtually immune to jamming ) are on technical level of theirs own.

All of that,obviously, without taking into consideration that an amount of jammign signal even some dozen of times lower than that necessary to surpasss jamming rejection factor of the export version of a VHF radar like Vostok will render tringulation task of the assets involved by part of the ELS of the IAD a very trivial task .

I repeat here we DON'T talk of Iraq, Lebanon or Lybia, here we talk of thousands and thousands of systems and capabilities immensely more advanced and deadly than those that NATO love to confront enjoying,moreover crushing numerical advantage.
USAF generals, in Kosovo War was afraid that even a single battery of the older export version of the time of S-300 would have penetrated in Serbia asserting that even only that woudl have deeply influenced capability by part of NATO Air Force to mantain air superiority in the theatre.
A single outdated export version battery of a long range SAM , not an whole IAD hudreds of times bigger with S-300P/PM ,S-300V/VM ,Buk-M1/2, Tor-M1/2 ,Strela-10, Tunguska-M1, Igla/S, full EW regiments with SPN-2/4- Pelena-N1/1M -SPN-30 several tipes of ELS and weapon channel/GPS jammers, defensive aids , redeploying tunnels with silo-like fire positions ,OTH radars, optronic/IR observation posts , space based INTEL and ERINT etc..etc..etc.. all of that without taking into account cruise missiles , ballistic missiles , the greater fleet of high supersonic bomber at world and obviosuly overwhelming Ground Forces.

F-22A Front Aspect = 0.0001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 – 0.001 m2 (0.005 used in this analysis);
F-35A Front Aspect = 0.001 m2, Side and Rear Aspect = 0.01 m2;

And that from what come from ?

Try with this - Alexander Davidenko - a chief scientist from the same institute where the physical principles and architecture of modern stealth has been achieved :

По его словам, ЭПР самолетов старого поколения (например, Су-27) составляет около 12 м², тогда как у F-22A Raptor она колеблется в диапазоне 0,3-0,4 м². ЭПР ПАК ФА "не будет превышать показатели F-22A, она будет к ним очень близка".

http://www.inosmi.ru/army/20100313/158588233.html


Deluded ? Of course ,but that is unavoidable when hordes of wild ,fanatical amateurs for years have taken purely academic figures refered to hypercritical very narrow perfect head-on RCS figures for construct on them odd scenarios and ideas on "modern" air combat .
Reality is obviously much less spectacular and Hollywood-like but ,at the same time ,much more complex and ,therefore,interesting.

One question that arises to mind is RuAF has spent billions in creating S-300 series SAMs. Why have they not thrown lots of research into MANPADs that can reach 30K feet and are pretty resistant to jamming. Currently Igla types can reach 15K feet which means once S-200s and around are taken out, then NATO has a free going (talking in perspectives of Iraq, Libya, serbia etc.). Or is it that if RF makes such MANPADs available at even $250K, then they would nullify the sales of other high ticket items like S-300s, Tor and Buk etc. One battery of Tor costs good $25M for example.

Any country having MANPADs reaching 30K feet, ofcourse mobile and tough to jamming can negate the whole air war concept of the USAF. At best it would mean 3 to 4 times prolonging the air war or at worst pretty much shut out leaving ground invasion a very early requirement, something that US does not like given higher causalities.

These MANPADs can also reduce the stealth birds involvement by a lot, if not totally throw them off the theater.

Btw, the above article also says T-50 still working on the engines. After stealth, radar, the engines tech is another area where Russia is behind.

Of course it is behind- the US did not have the horrible period of the 90s or early 2000s to suffer through!
But at the end of the day, given its advanced aerodynamics, lighter weight, and higher engine power as is, the PAK-FA should already have much superior characteristics to say the Flanker (not to even bring the F-35 up here ).

If I'm correct 30.000 feet is around 10 km. No MANPAD could reach that altitude, because missile is too small. MANPAD mean SAM is man portable, so I fon't think anyone will carry around 100+ kg missile and launch it from the shoulder.

About F-22 and other stealth planes, their stealth is designed around X-band radars which is mm wavelenght. RAM coat is not meant for dm or m wavelenght, because it would be too tick and heavy for the plane. As I know Su-35 and PAK FA also have in wings additional AESA radar in dm wavelenght, so they could see with this additional radar and IRST stealth F-22 and F-35 in longer distance, than with main radar. Equipped with modern MAWS and jamming equipment, they could avoid incoming missiles from F-22 or F-35 and the battle will end with dogfight and gun fire.

The same goes with air defense, they don't use only X-band radars, so they have capabilities against stealth planes with multi band radar complexes and passive detecting systems. But the main capability of air defense is in its crews skills and how well it is integrated.

One question that arises to mind is RuAF has spent billions in creating S-300 series SAMs. Why have they not thrown lots of research into MANPADs that can reach 30K feet and are pretty resistant to jamming. Currently Igla types can reach 15K feet which means once S-200s and around are taken out, then NATO has a free going (talking in perspectives of Iraq, Libya, serbia etc.).

Victor obtain similar altitude figures for a MANPAD is very difficult (also domestic version of latest version of IGLA MANPAD don't reach similar altitude), the majority of increase is concentrated in increase flare rejection factor some type of seeker's screening from DIRCM and ,above all, increase of the aerodynamics capabilities and lethality -in partiucular against cruise missile in day/night mobile point defence operation -







If Russia would have ruined NATO operations in Iraq or Afghanistan would have been sufficient for them to let to penetrate in the theatre even only a moderate amount of export versions of relatively modern infantry weapons : like MANPADS -such as IGLA-, ATGMs -such as METIS-M1 and Kornet-E with both HE and thermobaric warheads- ,Mines -such as TM-83 - and Rocket assisted area attack - such as Shmel-M -.

Naturally those "aids" (with the obvious devastating effects of the western losses in those theatres....is sufficient to think to the effects that the presence of few Kornet-E's launchers in the hand of Hezbollah had in the 2006 Lebanon conflict) to,at best, "gray" rebel organizations would have been a criminal act ,under an International Law point of view, and an inacceptable external interference in a conflict in course .


Naturally if, on the other side, we reason on the mean "aids" by part of CIA for those same terrorist Mujahideen organizations that today cause so enormous troubles around the world only to fight against URSS in Afghanistan or ,today, the strange aids provided to the fanatical organizations behind the "starnge" insurrections in North Africa and Middle East only to gain access to better Oil exchanges and new markets or remove some old "enemy" in the theatre some doubt on the rightness of a similar operation by part of Russia could even sprout.

The Governments of some nations are very shortsighted, them never learn from history : to obtain a near term advantage them will force future generations to pay the costs fighting against the damages caused by the black organizations aided to obtain theirs goals (as in the past with Afghani Mujahideen and Pakistan-based rebel organizations.......

Average MANPAD goes to 15K but Igla-S can go to 20K feet and Stringer to 26K......all info from wikipedia. Even if it takes 2 or 3 men to carry a heavier MANPAD that reaches 30-33K feet, then it makes sense if they can keep aggressor air force away.

One Igla costs $50K and Stringer even less at $32K. One battalion of S-300 costs $600M, 1 Battery of Tor-Ms costs $25K. The maths seems to be favoring the shoulder fired surface to air. 1 JDAM costs $30K, so killing 1 Igla with 1 JDAM is not too efficient mathematics. This might not even include the aircraft operating costs which is $50K/hour in F22s case.

If I were in position of Iraq, Libya or Syria and others on the NeoCon list, then I would invest heavily into higher ceiling MANPADs. It should be not too difficult to make them if you can already make missiles like Scuds etc. S-200 of Libya was sitting duck being immobile. Even if it was mobile, I would have given it a week more at most given huge technical advantage that NATO had over the Libyans.

I also look forward to rail guns being used as anti aircraft replacing AAAs which can only reach 15K feet i.e. 5km ceiling. Rail guns can fire 100s of miles horizontally so am sure would reach good 30 miles vertically even with some late stage motor kick in. Same for direct energy and laser based point defenses. They might prove to be more cost effective with further fine tuning.

Mindstorm wrote:Try with this - Alexander Davidenko - a chief scientist from the same institute where the physical principles and architecture of modern stealth has been achieved :

По его словам, ЭПР самолетов старого поколения (например, Су-27) составляет около 12 м², тогда как у F-22A Raptor она колеблется в диапазоне 0,3-0,4 м². ЭПР ПАК ФА "не будет превышать показатели F-22A, она будет к ним очень близка".

The only people who will know the actual RCS of the F-22A are Lockheed and the USAF. Just like the only people who will know the actual RCS of the PAK-FA are Sukhoi and the Russian Air Force. It's not just shaping, which is actually relatively simple nowadays to calculate a baseline RCS value from. You have to know the exact characteristics (thickness, composition, etc) of the RAM, the electrostatic properties of the entire airframe, etc. Contrary to popular belief, radar does not simply hit something and bounce off, there is far more going on that impacts the RCS of any object.

And as to the question, no, Russia has nothing to worry about regarding the F-22A. Should it be able to, for lack of a better term, slaughter a pack of FLANKERs? Well, yeah, hence the whole point of it being a FIFTH generation fighter design. But there aren't that many of them, and at the end of the day, guess what: air superiority fighters, useful that they are, cannot take and hold ground. If you're stupid enough at this point to rely on aging, static SAM sites (hello, Syria, Iran, and the DPRK), then you're going to be in trouble regardless of whether or not Raptors come out. Look at Libya. And yes, in those cases, the JDAM or SDB is a perfectly suitable SEAD/DEAD wepaon, as the system isn't going anywhere.

According to wikipedia Igla-S the most modern of Russian MANPAD has weight of roughly 30kgs include 1 missile + warhead. Increase the weight of 11kg missile to 20 kgs if it results in twice the range. Then give a small wheeled trolly like people use in airports and even 1 man can carry these around. Another man has a trolly with 2-4 other missiles + warhead. Further with some camera or preprogrammed proximity based system add a small handgun mechanism to the missile. When it is near the aircraft, then this gun fires a volley of 24 high explosive 20mm bullets that scatter at many angles. Now we are talking 24 bullets plus missile having a chance of hitting 1 plane. Missile should kill the plane but bullets might do a serious damage to throw it out of service for sometime.

All the while do not forget jamming countermeasures which are equally crucial.

and the President-M system that uses DIRCMs to defeat IIR guided missiles

Garry , is this anew system ? i don't know it, any link ?

It's not just shaping, which is actually relatively simple nowadays to calculate a baseline RCS value from. You have to know the exact characteristics (thickness, composition, etc) of the RAM, the electrostatic properties of the entire airframe, etc. Contrary to popular belief, radar does not simply hit something and bounce off, there is far more going on that impacts the RCS of any object.

SOM i stime you as a too intelligent and knowledgeable person to think for only one second that you would truly believe in this low level argumentation .

Body conductivity , radiated energy commutability index(material-linked ) are all surely contributing factor in deciding the final RCS of a LO/VLO aircraft ...the point ,of which i am sure you are perfectly aware, is in what measure those factors can influenciate the RCS "reduction" (and also this common idea ,like you well know is not other than a popular mistake false , the total RCS of an F-22 or a PAKFA is exactly identical to that of a classical design with similar surface area ,simply with a different spatial distriubution).

Even considering very particular air body's scattering points and "hypercritical" reradiating cones ,where effectively impressive relative RCS "reductions" are achievable -also in a measure of three or four orders of magnitude- we have that the contribution of not PTD related measure is often inferiro to a single order of magnitude and for inescapable phisical constraints linked to those elements.
Therefore the not Physical Optics generated margin of error in similar highly educated assessment's models is absolutely negligible.
This type of "popular" argumentation (aimed clearly at merely mantain "alive" metropolitan legends devoid of any grounding ) try to predate on the idea that the design elements not know to a external observer could "compensate" for the difference in parametrical evaluation.


Another subliminal element on which a similar argumentation found itself is that a russian scientist could be wrong in a way so incredible because probably it lack the knowledges necessaries because Russia has not produced in the past VLO vehicles.
Reality is naturally very different from that: if we take into consideration applicative resulution and large scale engineerization and production of stealth-related products is reasonable to say that USA has probably accumulated more know-hows in respect to the Russians , but if we talk of the theoretical architecture and Physics models behind them we can say that likely the opposite is true .

When at Lab 108 the Physical principles behind the modern stealth technology were developed ,attentively examined for some years and a part of them allowed for publication, in the USA even only the idea of the effective phisical feasibility of similar VLO designs was practically not-existent; we can even say that a very big portion of the same American scientifical community of the sector borned just after the publication of Pyotr Ufimtsev's works and its arrive in the USA.

That is in non jamming environment, in the jamming hostile scenario it is berely 57 kms for stealth birds.

Introduce a jammer to improve the chances of the F-22s and an S-400 will shoot down the jammer. The effectiveness of jammers is determined largely by their power, which is turn is determined by their distance to the thing being jammed.

Jamming from 400km is just making yourself a target... you are emitting noise but are too far away to be effective.

Get close enough to be effective and get shot down.

Pakfa has 100 times bigger RCS so it can be detected at longer ranges. True?

In practical terms no.

An anti stealth radar optimised to see very small targets will likely see both.

It is like looking at objects in the night sky... to get a pair of binoculars to see a faint object you usually see more than one faint object... you see a lot of them.

It is a bit like tank armour, the tank armour in service doesn't need to stop things that are on your enemies drawing board, it just needs to stop stuff in general service with your enemies forces. By the time your enemy gets that new ammo that can penetrate your armour of today you will have improved it so as he introduces the new ammo you start introducing the new add on armour to counter the new anti armour ammo he has developed.

Look at Kontact... by the time the west got hold of it and tested it and realised it defeated most of their anti armour weapons and they developed and introduced into service new stuff to defeat it the Russians had already developed new ERA that was even more effective...

Regarding Pantsirs conducting the point defense, they have been compromised by BAE Suter when Israel attacked the Syrian nuke labs in 2007.

That must be a very capable system because Pantsirs had not been delivered to Syria in 2007 in time for the Israeli attack.

No Pantsir-S1s in Syria

In September, the system made the headlines when Israel conducted an air strike on Syria. According to Israelis, some military targets deep in Syrian territory were hit despite being protected by Pantsirs. The media was calling the system ineffective.

The head of the construction bureau, Aleksandr Ribas, says at the moment there were no Pantsir system in Syria at the moment: “I assure you that if it was there, none of the planes would have reached the target. More than that, they simply would not even dare go there,” he says.

Source: http://rt.com/news/prime-time/russian-pantsir-s1-best-air-defence-money-can-buy/

BTW Suter is a hacking program that allows access to an enemies air defence network. In the case of the Israeli raid they redirected radars to look where the attack force of aircraft wasn't.

A Pantsir-S1 located near the target would likely be operating autonomously and would have been able to shoot down both the aircraft used and the weapons they released.

It is likely the Israelis timed their attack because they knew the Syrians were getting Pantsir-S1 and their window of opportunity was closing.

However 15km engagement altiitude not good enough for aircrafts as AAA also reaches that level. It might be good to deal with missiles and bombs released.

Not many aircraft routinely operate above 15,000m, because it takes fuel to reach that altitude and most larger aircraft like bombers and JSTARS can't operate at that sort of altitude. The only aircraft which operate higher than that are fighters using the high ground.

Pantsir-S1 is not the only SAM a country would use, it is used together with a range of SAMs. Its main purpose is short range defence of important targets including larger SAM bases.

The altitude of the missile used by Tunguska was 3.5K m, while the first Pantsir could reach about 5km or so with its slightly longer range missiles.

The 15km operating altitude for the Pantsir-S1 was specifically because of the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo/Serbia.

Not only the ability to reach that high it also got multiple target engagement capability (one optical guidance channel and three radar guidance channel so it can engage 4 targets at once... including while moving...

The larger SAM can deal with threats operating at higher altitudes and much longer ranges.

If all Pantsir-S1 can do is force enemy aircraft to fly above 15km then it has made ground attack much harder and also made it easier for radars to detect threats at longer ranges.

The fact that it can also engage any weapons directed at the target it is protecting is a huge bonus.

Against Russia, F22s operating without AWACS, JSTARS and Refuellers is point truly realistic. This will reduce their operation theatre to 1.5 hours I think. Big relief.

Lack of inflight refuelling will also restrict their basing options which puts the airbases they are operating from much closer to Russian ballistic and cruise missiles.

On the other hand, F22s should have some secret techs going that we do not know about. But same would be true about Pakfa as it will come out 3 years from now so more time to add goodies.

It is ongoing and both will get lots of changes and updates during their operational lifetimes.

However, the point that Russia cannot detect, track and kill F22s and F35s (to some extent) beyond the range of 60kms in a jamming hostile environment, holds as it was.
Regrading triangulation radars like Kolchuga, (what i heard) is detection is possible but tracking might be an issue. Hope not.

Russia can track paint chips in space at ranges of 8,000km, the claims of 0.0000001 or whatever RCS for F-22s are peak RCS from very specific angles at very specific frequencies... and assuming proper maintainence which is not always possible during conflicts.

Take the ARH seeker off an RVV-SD and fit it with an IIR seeker with a 3D thermal image of an F-22 in its internal database and use long wave ground based radar to detect an F-22 or F-35 and launch that missile in its general direction and start closing on the target.

If claims of AESA radars defeating S-300 radars is even half to be believed that means the AESA radar in the PAK FA should have no trouble defeating the tiny radar antenna of an AMRAAM at 10km, so it becomes a fight between a Russian stealth fighter with IRST and 5 radar antennas in the X and L bands and IR guided BVR missiles and a 30mm gun and a US stealth fighter with one radar antenna and Sidewinders and a 20mm gun...

Where is this American uber superiority... it likely wont be in numbers...

Russia could just send up UCAVs armed with Iglas... The US will run out of F-22s before the Russians will run out of UCAVS..

Btw, any chance of detecting stealth via radio telescope type technologies.

Bistatic radar is the obvious choice... one S-400 radar scanning with high power and lots of other S-400 sites around the place just listening. The stealth design of the F-22 is designed to redirect the radar energy so very little returns to the source of the signal but a network of radars around the place just listening passively will get signals from the F-22.

In a proper network it should be easy to get a precise enough location to launch missiles that use optical or IR terminal guidance for the kill.

Why have they not thrown lots of research into MANPADs that can reach 30K feet and are pretty resistant to jamming.

Aircraft at 30K are not the average soldiers problem, it is the A-10s and Apaches and the odd F-16 flying at 5K feet looking for ground targets to attack that are the problem. High altitude long range threats are problems for higher level SAMs and the Russian Air Force to deal with.

Or is it that if RF makes such MANPADs available at even $250K, then they would nullify the sales of other high ticket items like S-300s, Tor and Buk etc. One battery of Tor costs good $25M for example.

The key part of MANPADs is man portable. A soldier on the ground is very unlikely to see aircraft at more than 10K most of the time so there is little point in making 40kg MANPADS that can reach places the guy operating it can't even see let alone target.

Any country having MANPADs reaching 30K feet, ofcourse mobile and tough to jamming can negate the whole air war concept of the USAF.

Why MANPADS? Surely the Pantsir-S1 is the obvious solution? Enemy aircraft trying to operate above such systems make themselves visible to radar to very long ranges.

After stealth, radar, the engines tech is another area where Russia is behind.

And don't forget arrogance and ego, and not to mention aggression in terms of regime change agendas.

I would say the US is behind in terms of air to air weapons, and IRSTs.

Average MANPAD goes to 15K but Igla-S can go to 20K feet and Stringer to 26K......all info from wikipedia. Even if it takes 2 or 3 men to carry a heavier MANPAD that reaches 30-33K feet, then it makes sense if they can keep aggressor air force away.

Or it makes them wait for cloudy days... an aircraft operating at 30K is a speck that makes no noise and would be impossible for man on the ground to detect.

Pointless.

One Igla costs $50K and Stringer even less at $32K. One battalion of S-300 costs $600M, 1 Battery of Tor-Ms costs $25K. The maths seems to be favoring the shoulder fired surface to air. 1 JDAM costs $30K, so killing 1 Igla with 1 JDAM is not too efficient mathematics. This might not even include the aircraft operating costs which is $50K/hour in F22s case.

Where are you getting your figures from? There is no way a Stinger is cheaper than Igla... even in the latest S model igla.
And a battery of TOR-Ms for $25K??? what are you smoking?
The 3D search radar and phased array tracking radar alone would make one vehicle worth that... a single T-90AM costs over 4 million and you think a TOR battery costs 25K? You think an Igla costs twice what a TOR battery costs?

Sorry my friend but those numbers are wrong.

I also look forward to rail guns being used as anti aircraft replacing AAAs which can only reach 15K feet i.e. 5km ceiling. Rail guns can fire 100s of miles horizontally so am sure would reach good 30 miles vertically even with some late stage motor kick in. Same for direct energy and laser based point defenses. They might prove to be more cost effective with further fine tuning.

Very high velocity EM guns would be very interesting, especially if it is used to launch guided shells...

According to wikipedia Igla-S the most modern of Russian MANPAD has weight of roughly 30kgs include 1 missile + warhead.

Then Wiki is wrong. The weight of the missile is about 12kgs and the launcher is about another 6kgs or so. Total weight is about 18kgs.

Adding guns to a missile does not make sense. You are adding lots of dead weight that does nothing to damage the target, with lots of moving parts and points of potential failure.

Simple is easier... replace the gun and the ammo with a big lump of HE with metal balls and metal cubes pressed into the outside of it and put about 10 small detonators in it.

With the help of the built in proximity fuse you can determine where the target is in relation to the missile so have the detonator opposite where the target is explode which will direct the explosion towards the target and pepper it with fragments.

The purpose of MANPADS is to deal with small low flying threats. Threats high up are dealt with by larger systems higher up the food chain.

The problem of reaching higher altitude means more weight and not just double. It is also an issue with seekers... can the seeker of a Manpads actually lock on to a real target flying at high altitude?

Most will not.

Doubling the weight of the fuel does not double the performance envelope of a missile.

The extra fuel means the rocket motor can burn for longer, but it also means it has more weight to shift so its acceleration and top speed are reduced too.

Another aspect is that Manpads are small weapons and by definition will have small control surfaces. Above 10K Metres the air is thin and those small control surfaces will reduce manouvering performance to the point where it is a straight flying missile that is no danger to anything.

Garry , is this anew system ? i don't know it, any link ?

L370-5 Vitebsk or President-S is an ESM/DIRCM suite including IR Laser ball turrets seen on Ka-52s and will likely be fitted to a range of Russian aircraft as a defence suite.



Note I believe the President-S designation is for the system designed for helicopters and the President M is for fixed wing aircraft including cargo aircraft.