Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Militarov wrote:Even forum contributors writing load of shit. lol

Militarov wrote:

Those are guidance methods all air defence systems use. If you have better solution, Almaz Antey is ready to pay you fat amount of money.

Rmf wrote:judging by using that tu-160 central body probably 50% more range 8.000km+ ?

if so will it have to count as intercontinental bomber and subject to start treaty.

As for the PAK DA, life-is also not standing still and the nature of warfare is changing. As you can see, replacing conventional aircraft weapons come hypersonic airborne weapons with greater range and with greater accuracy. And future aircraft carrier at the turn of 2025-2030's not necessary to have such characteristics as supersonic speed. It should be as long as possible and unobtrusively to be on duty in the air, so that, without going into the affected area, to release their means of destruction on their targets.

However, we are so coordinated with the industry organization of all work that the preparation for the production of the Tu-160 and a new image for the PAK DA is carried out simultaneously. The maximum number of process steps will be the same. Roughly speaking, the machines will be used are the same for the production of the Tu-160 and for the PAK DA. In fact, in the pre-production money

GarryB wrote:

Militarov is right, because how would a NATzO attack look like??? The first strike would not be a attack of F-35 and B-2 penetrating russian AD.

WRONG.

If WWIII actually happened and NATO actually attacked Russia it would be a case of use it or lose it. F-35s would not have the range to attack Russia... aircraft like F-15Es would take on any conventional theatre strike in european Russia, while the B-2s and B-52s and B-1Bs for that matter would strike as early as possible... waiting for cruise missiles to clear the way would be totally pointless... the first sign there is an attack the russians will launch a full retaliation strike... the B-2s going in next to hit ICBM fields and large air bases would find their targets empty if they even reach them.

The B-2 is a first strike weapon... and a weak one for use against a superpower.

Against Iraq or Serbia it is fine.

A attack of NATzO and USA would not be 10 B-2 against the whole entire russian AD, it would be more like thousand cruise missiles and planes attacking at the same time.

And that attack wont be against one S-400 battery... it will be against the entire alerted Russian air defence system including SAMs and aircraft etc etc.

NATO could not defeat the Serbs... what makes you think they could fight the Russians armed with weapons that can actually hurt NATO... rather badly.

GarryB wrote:Why.

Is there a magic rule that says because the US does not have a supersonic flying wing then it can't be possible?

Very simply to reach supersonic speed you need low drag (tick), high thrust potential (tick) but you also need a horizontal tail surface because during the transition from subsonic to supersonic flight the centre of gravity of the aircraft shifts signficantly so you need a horizontal tail surface to push the tail in the direction needed to keep the nose pointed forward.

Thrust vectoring has the dual bonus of being able to control the aircraft even during stall or superstall conditions, but it also means less weight and drag and cost compared with a tail structure... not to mention improvements in RCS reduction of not having conventional control surfaces.

During long range cruise flights thrust vectoring engines can also minimise drag by optimising trim...

GarryB wrote:No it does not.

An F-117 could carry two laser guided bombs less than 1,000km radius... for all the enormous costs they could do that with two tomahawks with a datalink.

The B-2 is even more expensive and as there was no conflict in the last 30 odd years that involved the Russians and the US the Russians have had time to assess the problem and upgrade their systems and tactics to deal with the threat... now the US is not building any more B-2s because they know they would not be effective now on anything but a third world country.

Austin wrote:PAK-DA will be integral Lifting Wing Design and not the T-4MS design



https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2016/12/27/10441301.shtml   from defence ministry interview

As for the PAK DA, life-is also not standing still and the nature of warfare is changing. As you can see, replacing conventional aircraft weapons come hypersonic airborne weapons with greater range and with greater accuracy. And future aircraft carrier at the turn of 2025-2030's not necessary to have such characteristics as supersonic speed. It should be as long as possible and unobtrusively to be on duty in the air, so that, without going into the affected area, to release their means of destruction on their targets.

However, we are so coordinated with the industry organization of all work that the preparation for the production of the Tu-160 and a new image for the PAK DA is carried out simultaneously. The maximum number of process steps will be the same. Roughly speaking, the machines will be used are the same for the production of the Tu-160 and for the PAK DA. In fact, in the pre-production money

Azi wrote:

GarryB wrote:No it does not.

An F-117 could carry two laser guided bombs less than 1,000km radius... for all the enormous costs they could do that with two tomahawks with a datalink.

The B-2 is even more expensive and as there was no conflict in the last 30 odd years that involved the Russians and the US the Russians have had time to assess the problem and upgrade their systems and tactics to deal with the threat... now the US is not building any more B-2s because they know they would not be effective now on anything but a third world country.

You know that a single B-2 costs around 750 million US-$??? The program cost were 45 billion US-$. Maybe that's the reason they have only 21!? It has nothing to do with effectiveness!

Azi wrote:

Militarov is right, because how would a NATzO attack look like??? The first strike would not be a attack of F-35 and B-2 penetrating russian AD. The first strike would be a saturation attack with cruise missiles and conventional planes with HARM. And NATzO have not a few of them, they have thousands over thousands. The second wave would be carried out by stealth planes, in a weakend AD area they can travel relative freely. So please first thinking, than writing!!! A attack of NATzO and USA would not be 10 B-2 against the whole entire russian AD, it would be more like thousand cruise missiles and planes attacking at the same time.

The concept of stealth and the B-2 in general makes sense. The B-2 or F-117 never replaced a system, it was only a addition, so why are some weird guys writing the B-2 was a failure? Only 1 stealth bomber ever was shoot down! The B-2 is simply too expensive! Stealth makes sense, it's only a component in a complete concept.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Azi wrote:

Militarov is right, because how would a NATzO attack look like??? The first strike would not be a attack of F-35 and B-2 penetrating russian AD. The first strike would be a saturation attack with cruise missiles and conventional planes with HARM. And NATzO have not a few of them, they have thousands over thousands. The second wave would be carried out by stealth planes, in a weakend AD area they can travel relative freely. So please first thinking, than writing!!! A attack of NATzO and USA would not be 10 B-2 against the whole entire russian AD, it would be more like thousand cruise missiles and planes attacking at the same time.

The concept of stealth and the B-2 in general makes sense. The B-2 or F-117 never replaced a system, it was only a addition, so why are some weird guys writing the B-2 was a failure? Only 1 stealth bomber ever was shoot down! The B-2 is simply too expensive! Stealth makes sense, it's only a component in a complete concept.

And what happens if russia strike first, and thee won't be left enough rocket/air-plane  for saturation attack?

How will the B-2 and all other aircraft survive if not the US dictating the speed of the fight, like as happened in Vietnam example, and they can only react to the enemy movement?


The above attack is an ideal consideration, where the US has the upper hand.

But how the NATO can withstand a long range attack from Russia with a lot of rockets?

Rmf wrote:

Azi wrote:

GarryB wrote:No it does not.

An F-117 could carry two laser guided bombs less than 1,000km radius... for all the enormous costs they could do that with two tomahawks with a datalink.

The B-2 is even more expensive and as there was no conflict in the last 30 odd years that involved the Russians and the US the Russians have had time to assess the problem and upgrade their systems and tactics to deal with the threat... now the US is not building any more B-2s because they know they would not be effective now on anything but a third world country.

You know that a single B-2 costs around 750 million US-$??? The program cost were 45 billion US-$. Maybe that's the reason they have only 21!? It has nothing to do with effectiveness!

oh please you listen to militarov a welder is serbian sam team.  20 most powerful countries gang up on isolated small country ,of course they lose.
russia assymetricaly invested instead of f-35 type plane into new radars , aesa VHF radar has so precise beams its accuracy is amazing ,and i dont know any tactical aircraft who can jam in VHF ,and with high power. nebo-aesa is a beast. just listen to gas turbines noise in sam cabins on those videos producing power. and they keep saying how radome of this fighters is selective for some frequencies ! - well then they cant jam in broadband then, there will be gaps to exploit.... and second jamming exposes them to home on jam missiles. they wont know what hit them.

Austin wrote:PAK-DA will be integral Lifting Wing Design and not the T-4MS design



https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2016/12/27/10441301.shtml   from defence ministry interview

As for the PAK DA, life-is also not standing still and the nature of warfare is changing. As you can see, replacing conventional aircraft weapons come hypersonic airborne weapons with greater range and with greater accuracy. And future aircraft carrier at the turn of 2025-2030's not necessary to have such characteristics as supersonic speed. It should be as long as possible and unobtrusively to be on duty in the air, so that, without going into the affected area, to release their means of destruction on their targets.

However, we are so coordinated with the industry organization of all work that the preparation for the production of the Tu-160 and a new image for the PAK DA is carried out simultaneously. The maximum number of process steps will be the same. Roughly speaking, the machines will be used are the same for the production of the Tu-160 and for the PAK DA. In fact, in the pre-production money

Rmf wrote:

Azi wrote:

GarryB wrote:No it does not.

An F-117 could carry two laser guided bombs less than 1,000km radius... for all the enormous costs they could do that with two tomahawks with a datalink.

The B-2 is even more expensive and as there was no conflict in the last 30 odd years that involved the Russians and the US the Russians have had time to assess the problem and upgrade their systems and tactics to deal with the threat... now the US is not building any more B-2s because they know they would not be effective now on anything but a third world country.

You know that a single B-2 costs around 750 million US-$??? The program cost were 45 billion US-$. Maybe that's the reason they have only 21!? It has nothing to do with effectiveness!

oh please you listen to militarov a welder is serbian sam team.  20 most powerful countries gang up on isolated small country ,of course they lose.
russia assymetricaly invested instead of f-35 type plane into new radars , aesa VHF radar has so precise beams its accuracy is amazing ,and i dont know any tactical aircraft who can jam in VHF ,and with high power. nebo-aesa is a beast. just listen to gas turbines noise in sam cabins on those videos producing power. and they keep saying how radome of this fighters is selective for some frequencies ! - well then they cant jam in broadband then, there will be gaps to exploit.... and second jamming exposes them to home on jam missiles. they wont know what hit them.

GarryB wrote:

And yes, turboprops NEED to have HUGE RCS, and you cant make blades from same materials, dont even try suggesting that as its stupid. Blade design is being dictated by laws of physics hence they will always end up being perfect reflective MOVING surfaces. Sometimes you really start talking BS really.

Who is the idiot...

There are no stealth turboprop bombers because when turboprop bombers were made stealth was not an issue.

Are you suggesting it is not possible to make propeller blades from radar invisible materials?

A B-2 is a very large aircraft but because of shaping the radar returns from the aircraft in high frequency are not directed back to the source of the radar emissions.

Its size is actually irrelevant to its RCS because it uses shaping techniques...

It does not use a radar transparent external skin because that would expose internal components to radar waves which would greatly increase its RCS and not reduce it.

Such shaping can be applied to a turboprop bomber design if needed.

Sure, meanwhlie SEAD slams few 88s on your UHF radar and you continue being blind.

Any UHF radar site will have even the most basic SAM system and therefore also capacity to shoot down ARMs at will.

Guiding MiG-21 aganist B-2? How do you exactly imagine MiG-21 finding such target in dark may i ask? I mean please do tell since resolution of UHF radars will put it somewhat like 30-40 miles from the target (if lucky and its actually a target) and.. then what?

Now who is talking shit.. more like a 10km range box of airspace at most.

UHF radars have very low resolution, hence if you detect one target which is supposedly stealthy, its doubtful you would actually see 2 or 3 targets tailing it in close proximity. You could probably hide whole squadron in one reflective surface that UHF radar would present on panoramic display.

Russia has a range of radar types in different frequency ranges... a detection in one frequency range will attract attention in the others at higher power settings...

Ah ye... Lancers and B-52Hs are junk... or wait... they are not, got more modernisations though decades than Russian bombers got their tires changed. Stop downplaying others it looks sad.

In practical terms they are subsonic bombers with no better performance in any parameter than a Tu-95 in a third world war.... fly to launch position... launch cruise missiles... rinse and repeat.

For the Tu-160 the design phase will be significantly shorter, the testing phase will be significantly shorter and the preparation for the serial production phase will be significantly shorter.

You are confusing serial production with upgrades.

The first Tu-160M2s will be upgrades of existing models because no new factory must be built to forge the main titanium box centre section... it is already made.

If they had decided to make the PAK DA supersonic then only minor improvements to the Blackjack could be justified because in the end all strategic bombers could be replaced with the PAK DA... they clearly want both types in service... so why would they want to delay entry of the PAK DA to get more Blackjacks?

Yeah, because B-2 was shot 50 times and has horrible service record. Or not.

Actually the best evidence is that the B-2 has changed from medium altitude penetration to low altitude penetration profiles and that they are not going to make anything like it in the future... neither new B-2s or new subsonic stealthy bombers... their next bomber will be hypersonic...

pak-da will be flying wing with huge range, will it be longer ranged then tu-22m? if so will it have to count as intercontinental bomber and subject to start treaty.

20 years ago the Tu-95 and Tu-160 were strategic bomber/cruise missile carrying strategic aircraft only. The Tu-22M3 was a theatre bomber/missile carrier, though the missiles it carried were not strategic cruise missiles... they were mostly anti ship or anti radiation weapons or weapons designed to hit a specific ground coordinate.

Today, they seem to have removed the bomb capability of the Tu-160s and the Tu-95 seems also to be a cruise missile carrier, but the big change is that both types now involve themselves in conventional warfare at theatre and strategic ranges as well as their strategic nuclear role, while the Tu-22M3 seems to be the theatre bomber of choice due to its range and payload.

The production of more Tu-160s and the future production of the PAK DA suggests a dual role for the PAK DA. The Tu-160 is a supersonic bomber and would have rather higher operation costs than a subsonic flying wing type, so I suspect the PAK DA will operate in two different roles like the Tu-160 was supposed to.

The Tu-160 can carry up to 40 tons of conventional bombs (45 tons reportedly in the upgraded model) but this would reduce range, while on strategic missions a payload of perhaps 12-16 tons would be more common in the form of strategic cruise missiles.

I would expect something similar from the PAK DA... ie perhaps 40+ tons of bombs on theatre range missions... 5,000-7,000km range missions, and strategic range with a strategic payload of say 16 or so tons of cruise missiles.

Hense, the PAK DA will likely replace the Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 in service and be counted as strategic weapons platforms.

I don't think the new START will be replaced with anything with much teeth anyway.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:With all respect, you aren't right while I agree with you on some matters on this one you are mistaken on the B-2.

no data supports your theory, while you can call it an EDUCATED theory it's still your opinion on how things would go and how things work in regards to the B-2.

Now if you have access to all information regarding Russian AD and the B-2 that others do not have. Then you are right and by all means share with us these tech details, however what we do know and what I know says you are wrong.

Azi wrote:

Rmf wrote:

Azi wrote:

GarryB wrote:No it does not.

An F-117 could carry two laser guided bombs less than 1,000km radius... for all the enormous costs they could do that with two tomahawks with a datalink.

The B-2 is even more expensive and as there was no conflict in the last 30 odd years that involved the Russians and the US the Russians have had time to assess the problem and upgrade their systems and tactics to deal with the threat... now the US is not building any more B-2s because they know they would not be effective now on anything but a third world country.

You know that a single B-2 costs around 750 million US-$??? The program cost were 45 billion US-$. Maybe that's the reason they have only 21!? It has nothing to do with effectiveness!

oh please you listen to militarov a welder is serbian sam team.  20 most powerful countries gang up on isolated small country ,of course they lose.
russia assymetricaly invested instead of f-35 type plane into new radars , aesa VHF radar has so precise beams its accuracy is amazing ,and i dont know any tactical aircraft who can jam in VHF ,and with high power. nebo-aesa is a beast. just listen to gas turbines noise in sam cabins on those videos producing power. and they keep saying how radome of this fighters is selective for some frequencies ! - well then they cant jam in broadband then, there will be gaps to exploit.... and second jamming exposes them to home on jam missiles. they wont know what hit them.

But AESA Nebo is reserved for fancy high end AD Systems like S-400. Even other systems work in UHF area like Panzir, but never forget the crazy dudes in NATzO are good in bringing destruction, don't think AESA Nebo will survive that long. NATzO will try to destroy the fancy radar systems at first, so they will focus at small areas and saturate them with cruise missiles and HARM. With the loss of the "big eye" the fight against enemy air planes will be much harder. Never forget every weapon system is beatable. S-300, S-350 and S-400 are still very good, I said nothing against this systems, western countries have nothing in the same category. But in quantity lies quality, never forget!

Serbia? Yes, Serbia was good in evading a huge destruction of AD Systems by simply turning them off and move away if they recognized being targeted by HARM, but this resulted in the fact that most AD systems were offline most time and not able to shot down enemy aircraft. Serbia was not that small and poor country, it had a good military hardware (old but still effective!) and really good trained crews! Of course you can't compare Serbia with Russia, but Serbia (Yugoslavia) showed that it is very easy for NATzO to surpress effective AD systems.

By the way...
USA is trying to create new weapons for SEAD missions! cousin of JDAM and Co. - air force mag

I think S-500 will be a great game changer, it will be a system effective to destroy everything big enough and very very far away! Especially the ability to kill enemy ICBM warheads is vital for Russia!!! Russia must develop very fast a shield against enemy ICBM warheads, the current around Moskow is good but not good enough! But wrong thread...

So let's go back to PAK-DA!!!

Rmf wrote:

Azi wrote:

Rmf wrote:

Azi wrote:

GarryB wrote:No it does not.

An F-117 could carry two laser guided bombs less than 1,000km radius... for all the enormous costs they could do that with two tomahawks with a datalink.

The B-2 is even more expensive and as there was no conflict in the last 30 odd years that involved the Russians and the US the Russians have had time to assess the problem and upgrade their systems and tactics to deal with the threat... now the US is not building any more B-2s because they know they would not be effective now on anything but a third world country.

You know that a single B-2 costs around 750 million US-$??? The program cost were 45 billion US-$. Maybe that's the reason they have only 21!? It has nothing to do with effectiveness!

oh please you listen to militarov a welder is serbian sam team.  20 most powerful countries gang up on isolated small country ,of course they lose.
russia assymetricaly invested instead of f-35 type plane into new radars , aesa VHF radar has so precise beams its accuracy is amazing ,and i dont know any tactical aircraft who can jam in VHF ,and with high power. nebo-aesa is a beast. just listen to gas turbines noise in sam cabins on those videos producing power. and they keep saying how radome of this fighters is selective for some frequencies ! - well then they cant jam in broadband then, there will be gaps to exploit.... and second jamming exposes them to home on jam missiles. they wont know what hit them.

But AESA Nebo is reserved for fancy high end AD Systems like S-400. Even other systems work in UHF area like Panzir, but never forget the crazy dudes in NATzO are good in bringing destruction, don't think AESA Nebo will survive that long. NATzO will try to destroy the fancy radar systems at first, so they will focus at small areas and saturate them with cruise missiles and HARM. With the loss of the "big eye" the fight against enemy air planes will be much harder. Never forget every weapon system is beatable. S-300, S-350 and S-400 are still very good, I said nothing against this systems, western countries have nothing in the same category. But in quantity lies quality, never forget!

Serbia? Yes, Serbia was good in evading a huge destruction of AD Systems by simply turning them off and move away if they recognized being targeted by HARM, but this resulted in the fact that most AD systems were offline most time and not able to shot down enemy aircraft. Serbia was not that small and poor country, it had a good military hardware (old but still effective!) and really good trained crews! Of course you can't compare Serbia with Russia, but Serbia (Yugoslavia) showed that it is very easy for NATzO to surpress effective AD systems.

By the way...
USA is trying to create new weapons for SEAD missions! cousin of JDAM and Co. - air force mag

I think S-500 will be a great game changer, it will be a system effective to destroy everything big enough and very very far away! Especially the ability to kill enemy ICBM warheads is vital for Russia!!! Russia must develop very fast a shield against enemy ICBM warheads, the current around Moskow is good but not good enough! But wrong thread...

So let's go back to PAK-DA!!!

this is my last post about this, if you want it that way , old analog p-12 detected f-117 at 23km (and that was in presence of jamming which is easy for old p-12 to degrade ,there was no dedicated jammer with f-117 but stand off jamming from larger distance). how far do you think much more powerfull digital aesa nebo can detect it? 100+ km. if you want to look at it actually tacit blue was most stealth, small, intake at top ,no visible exaust ,not even bombbay. pure recon unit with no protrusions nore sensors, totaly smooth ,and we know its rcs.
f-117 ,f-22, f-35 that is more or less same level of stealth, change is in speed manuevrability surepcruise etc.
you can look at ram thickness of these planes when they open their bays ,only b-2 has more think ram but not by much as thick as like your smallest finger . hows that going to absorb 2-5 meter long waves beats me. you can always have nebo decoys and shorad to protect real asset ,and nebo is mobile so no cruise missile will get it so easy.
with improvement in photonic radar and even more importantly quantum radar ,than its game over for stealth. when f-117 was shotdown every nato plane left serbian airspace immediatelly.