Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Austin wrote:what does it say in Russian language for B-2 , I see they are using wavelength from 10cm to 30 cm but not really sure what does it say about B-2 RCS

Can any one post synopsis , Thanks

Russian VHF Radar can see a B-2 (RCS estimation 0,1 - 0,05 sqm) from 165 km.



It's every time better to see a aircraft as early as possible! But the detection range is ok for reaction and countermeasures. B-2 is very stealthy but even a very massive bird, with a span of 50 m. We can expect the same for PAK-DA, a RCS between 0,1 and 1 sqm, compared to Tu-95 with 150 sqm

By the way...
The graphs are calculated and not based at empiric data, so conditions must be perfect, weather, height of aircraft (20km) etc.

Azi wrote:

Austin wrote:what does it say in Russian language for B-2 , I see they are using wavelength from 10cm to 30 cm but not really sure what does it say about B-2 RCS

Can any one post synopsis , Thanks

Russian VHF Radar can see a B-2 (RCS estimation 0,1 - 0,05 sqm) from 165 km. With L-Band radar the detection range increase to 230 km.

Really , Have they taken into account the many inches Thick RAM they would have applied on B-2 that will reduce its RCS further and even may be some kind of Active RF cancelling ?

Austin wrote:

Azi wrote:

Austin wrote:what does it say in Russian language for B-2 , I see they are using wavelength from 10cm to 30 cm but not really sure what does it say about B-2 RCS

Can any one post synopsis , Thanks

Russian VHF Radar can see a B-2 (RCS estimation 0,1 - 0,05 sqm) from 165 km. With L-Band radar the detection range increase to 230 km.

Really , Have they taken into account the many inches Thick RAM they would have applied on B-2 that will reduce its RCS further and even may be some kind of Active RF cancelling ?

The RCS of 0,1 - 0,05 sqm (RCS in front of aircraft, different angle different RCS!) is estimation of a few "experts" (Doug Richardson - Stealth Warplanes) and it's the complete RCS with RAM coating in front of the aircraft.  US Air Force never made data to B-2 public available. Remember...B-2 and Tu-95 have nearly the same span of 50 m.


Reflection angles (source wiki).

Azi wrote:

Austin wrote:

Azi wrote:

Austin wrote:what does it say in Russian language for B-2 , I see they are using wavelength from 10cm to 30 cm but not really sure what does it say about B-2 RCS

Can any one post synopsis , Thanks

Russian VHF Radar can see a B-2 (RCS estimation 0,1 - 0,05 sqm) from 165 km. With L-Band radar the detection range increase to 230 km.

Really , Have they taken into account the many inches Thick RAM they would have applied on B-2 that will reduce its RCS further and even may be some kind of Active RF cancelling ?

The RCS of 0,1 - 0,05 sqm (RCS in front of aircraft, different angle different RCS!) is estimation of a few "experts" (Doug Richardson - Stealth Warplanes) and it's the complete RCS with RAM coating in front of the aircraft.  US Air Force never made data to B-2 public available. Remember...B-2 and Tu-95 have nearly the same span of 50 m.


Reflection angles (source wiki).

If it's 0.1 m², it's not a problem for Pantsir S-1 and future S-2. The systems was made for shooting down stealth cruise missiles. A B2 will not be stealthier than a small stealth cruise missile. And B-2 is very big and is IR signature must be huge, you can't hide the heat of two big engines, it's like those who are saying you can make a tank invisible to IR camera. That's impossible.

Militarov wrote:We were successful? How comes none of my commanding officers felt that way i wonder, they just participated in that war. But i suppose you are right, what do they know.

We tied up shit, we were barely able to keep equipment going around to preserve it from destruction, all fixed sites we had were demolished. We shot 2 manned targets in 78 days. Ratio, right.

Those are the assertions that let me doubt that you have truly served in a Serbian AD unit (or serve in a role allowing you to really understand the AD dynamics of that air campaign).


Do you see Militarov the opinion of your commanding officiers on theirs performance in that 1999 Air Campaign depend entirely on WHO was your AD commanding officiers -admitting obviously your good faith -.


What a real Serbian AD operative should know perfectly ,in facts, is that those NATO manned aircraft loss - an F-117 downed ,another F-117 heavily damaged beyond in theatre repair, an F-16CJ downed, another midly damaged by proximity detonation and one A-10 heavily damaged and not more employed for the entire campaign - was ALL the product of a SINGLE battery (the 3th battery of 250 AD brigade), in spite that battery occupied a more difficult operative position (more widely exposed to air attacks for landscape geomorphic reasons and relatively far from roads) in comparison to other Serbian AD brigades ,it was in a much less "target rich" sector in comparison to N-W axis -the main one from Aviano AB -, that battery launched significantly less SAMs in comparison to the average counted in AWOS for its operative sector ,it was collocated just in the main transition route of SEAD/DEAD NATO aircraft, it became quickly the FIRST target in the entire Serbian AD network ,for the combined efforts of the previously mentioned NATO's SEAD/DEAD fomations.

That battery in spite of those enormous circumstantial hindrances and the literally titanic NATO's SEAD/DEAD efforts directed specifically against it concluded the campaign without a single manning or equipment loss.

A Serbian AD operative know perfectly the absolutely DECISIVE role played by ,in first instance, NATO's aicraft Altitude, in second, Flight's Pact Planning - around the supposedly not mobile SA-3 batteries, the only having the kinematics capabilities to engage them at those altitude - and in third by susceptibility of those outdated SAM to ALE-50 decoy - of which 1,479 was expended in the campaign - in maintaining whole those aircraft in the air, with good peace of the fancy stories garbage circulating in public media on it.


A Serbian AD operative know perfectly the abysmal performance of AGM-88 in that campaign and the fluctuating one of the NATO jamming platforms -often incapable to achieve the required jamming signal's density at the radiating source even for those antediluvian SAM systems radars, to the point that it was risen a requirement for a sharp increase of the number of those platforms even to cope with those highly permissive environment.


A Serbian AD operative know perfectly as even a mere reduction of few seconds in the mean reaction time for the SA-3 batteries - the unique with the kinematic performance for engaging NATO aircraft at theirs incoming altitude - would have produced a disproportionate effect both in terms of number of engagement executed than in the PK of those enegagements and that for remain silent of the increase of the maximum number of target engaged for battery that would have done wonders against the spaced four-ship F-16CJ SEAD formations and the FOV degree limit of theirs HTS.


Therefore Militarov all depend on WHO was your commanding officiers : very few (those ones attempting ,with some personal initiatives and modifications to theirs equipment and operative employement, to partially emulate a fraction of the capabilities offered by beginning of '80 years AD products ) would spell of a score of several to zero in theirs favour in spite of the absurd lopsided odds, the majority would simply point out the highly professionalism of theirs engineering and strategic command collagues allowing them to suffer very limited losses against the combined effeorts of more than a thousands of NATO aircraft and almost 20 Navy combat units.

Militarov wrote:

We were successful? How comes none of my commanding officers felt that way i wonder, they just participated in that war. But i suppose you are right, what do they know.

We tied up shit, we were barely able to keep equipment going around to preserve it from destruction, all fixed sites we had were demolished. We shot 2 manned targets in 78 days. Ratio, right.

I presume you think that the Battle of Thermopylae was simple defeat, because the 300 Spartans hasn't destroyed the 1000 times bigger Persian army : )

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

We were successful? How comes none of my commanding officers felt that way i wonder, they just participated in that war. But i suppose you are right, what do they know.

We tied up shit, we were barely able to keep equipment going around to preserve it from destruction, all fixed sites we had were demolished. We shot 2 manned targets in 78 days. Ratio, right.

I presume you think that the Battle of Thermopylae was  simple defeat,  because the 300 Spartans hasn't destroyed the 1000 times bigger Persian army : )

No, not really.

However Spartans actually managed to deal SIGNIFICANT damage to Persians while having very limited loses on large scale. We had significant loses (they could have been higher but we did good job jungling around), while dealing very little damage in return. We were basically pounded into submission.

I still have Militarov on my ignore list. But when you guys quote him, the ignore function becomes useless.

Anyways, regarding the performance of Serb Air Defenses, I believe they did an amazing job given their limitations and the circumstances they were operating under.

I have said this many times in this forum:
"The primary role of an Air Defense system is to disrupt and mitigate the opponent's air strikes, shooting down the attacking aircraft in the process is only a bonus".

Just by being there and presenting themselves as a credible threat to the NATO aircraft the Serb SAMs achieved the following:
- It took over 2 months for the entire might of NATO air power (including B2s and F-117s) to pound to submission a small nation like Serbia. It would have happened sooner if Serbia had no Air Defenses.
- A significant part of the NATO missions were SEAD missions. If there was no Air Defenses, those SEAD planes would have been dropping bombs.
- The entire fleet of NATO Apache gunships was neutered just because the Serbs could shoot them down.
- NATO planes were forced to fly above 12000 feet for fear of IR guided SAMs...diminishing the effectiveness of the strikes.
- The Serb ground forces received relatively small damage despite the severe pounding.
- NATO wasted a large number of costly anti-radiation (HARM and ALARM).
- 2 aircraft (F117 and F-16) were shut down, 2 others were damaged (F-117 and A-10), a number of UAVs were also shot down.

So, the relatively small and elderly Air Defense network the Serb had at their disposal achieved so much. I don't think they could have done much more. Unfortunately, it was not sufficient to change the course of events. But credit should be given where it is due.

Militarov wrote:

No, not really.

However Spartans actually managed to deal SIGNIFICANT damage to Persians while having very limited loses on large scale. We had significant loses (they could have been higher but we did good job jungling around), while dealing very little damage in return. We were basically pounded into submission.

The target of the spartans was to delay the advance of persian forces, and buy more time for preparation, NOT to inflict damage to them.

TheArmenian wrote:
Anyways, regarding the performance of Serb Air Defenses, I believe they did an amazing job given their limitations and the circumstances they were operating under.

I have said this many times in this forum:
"The primary role of an Air Defense system is to disrupt and mitigate the opponent's air strikes, shooting down the attacking aircraft in the process is only a bonus".

Iraq had more capable air defense than Serbia, say one magnitude better, but it took fraction of effort - not to decrease its efficiency, but to destroy it.

The Serb air defense system remained intact, the command structure worked, all personal stayed on post and did its job.


The worst Serbian military unit did magnitudes better job than the best ad unit in iraq.

Azi wrote:

Austin wrote:

Azi wrote:

Austin wrote:what does it say in Russian language for B-2 , I see they are using wavelength from 10cm to 30 cm but not really sure what does it say about B-2 RCS

Can any one post synopsis , Thanks

Russian VHF Radar can see a B-2 (RCS estimation 0,1 - 0,05 sqm) from 165 km. With L-Band radar the detection range increase to 230 km.

Really , Have they taken into account the many inches Thick RAM they would have applied on B-2 that will reduce its RCS further and even may be some kind of Active RF cancelling ?

The RCS of 0,1 - 0,05 sqm (RCS in front of aircraft, different angle different RCS!) is estimation of a few "experts" (Doug Richardson - Stealth Warplanes) and it's the complete RCS with RAM coating in front of the aircraft.  US Air Force never made data to B-2 public available. Remember...B-2 and Tu-95 have nearly the same span of 50 m.


Reflection angles (source wiki).

These RCS numbers are only for the 10 GHz frequency (3 cm). For 3 GHz (10 cm) the mean RCS jumps to 0.93 m^2 (front) from 0.13 m^2.
For 1 GHz (30 cm) the mean RCS for the front jumps to 5.46-5.78 m^2. For 166 MHz (180 cm) the mean RCS for the front jumps to 12.2-12.33 m^2.

Calculations were not done for the bottom which would take these numbers into the stratosphere (see the part for the Tu-23M which has a lot
of side cross section).

The reference also throws in calculations for the AN-26, its frontal mean RCS numbers are:

3 cm: 3.73 m^2
10 cm: 3.59 m^2
30 cm: 4.69 m^2
180 cm: 6.53 m^2

Thanks to the rudder the side RCS peaks at 111 m^2 for the 30 cm wavelength.

No consistent factors of 100 to be seen anywhere forum poser claims notwithstanding. The AN-26 calculations show that the TU-95 would
have an overall lower mean RCS from the front than the B-2 (since one convenient frequency will not be used).

Singular_Transform wrote:

TheArmenian wrote:
Anyways, regarding the performance of Serb Air Defenses, I believe they did an amazing job given their limitations and the circumstances they were operating under.

I have said this many times in this forum:
"The primary role of an Air Defense system is to disrupt and mitigate the opponent's air strikes, shooting down the attacking aircraft in the process is only a bonus".

Iraq had more capable air defense than Serbia, say one magnitude better, but it took fraction of effort - not to decrease its efficiency, but to destroy it.

The Serb air defense system remained intact, the command structure worked, all personal stayed on post and did its job.


The worst Serbian military unit did magnitudes better job than the best ad unit in iraq.

... and Hezbollah in 2006 achieved more results that both of them without having any AD.
There it was a shift in tactics after the first gulf war: to counter an overwhelming air force able to use smart weaponry the best strategy is to get the whole force into hiding so not to offer target to enemy and organize even your AD assets not into denying enemy air force area access but to pop up suddenly to inflict damages.
Serbian Army was able to get into but being a regular force it was forced to recede when the state leadership and the country infrastructures collapsed.
Non state actors like Hez and even more Isis and Al-Quaeda/Al Nusra are much more resilient on this point of view.

kvs wrote:

Azi wrote:

Austin wrote:

Azi wrote:

Austin wrote:what does it say in Russian language for B-2 , I see they are using wavelength from 10cm to 30 cm but not really sure what does it say about B-2 RCS

Can any one post synopsis , Thanks

Russian VHF Radar can see a B-2 (RCS estimation 0,1 - 0,05 sqm) from 165 km. With L-Band radar the detection range increase to 230 km.

Really , Have they taken into account the many inches Thick RAM they would have applied on B-2 that will reduce its RCS further and even may be some kind of Active RF cancelling ?

The RCS of 0,1 - 0,05 sqm (RCS in front of aircraft, different angle different RCS!) is estimation of a few "experts" (Doug Richardson - Stealth Warplanes) and it's the complete RCS with RAM coating in front of the aircraft.  US Air Force never made data to B-2 public available. Remember...B-2 and Tu-95 have nearly the same span of 50 m.


Reflection angles (source wiki).

These RCS numbers are only for the 10 GHz frequency (3 cm). For 3 GHz (10 cm) the mean RCS jumps to 0.93 m^2 (front) from 0.13 m^2.
For 1 GHz (30 cm) the mean RCS for the front jumps to 5.46-5.78 m^2. For 166 MHz (180 cm) the mean RCS for the front jumps to 12.2-12.33 m^2.

Calculations were not done for the bottom which would take these numbers into the stratosphere (see the part for the Tu-23M which has a lot
of side cross section).

The reference also throws in calculations for the AN-26, its frontal mean RCS numbers are:

3 cm: 3.73 m^2
10 cm: 3.59 m^2
30 cm: 4.69 m^2
180 cm: 6.53 m^2

Thanks to the rudder the side RCS peaks at 111 m^2 for the 30 cm wavelength.

No consistent factors of 100 to be seen anywhere forum poser claims notwithstanding. The AN-26 calculations show that the TU-95 would
have an overall lower mean RCS from the front than the B-2 (since one convenient frequency will not be used).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYyqLMU0WxU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp26Bjm99VI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCQYpm3qm74


: )


The corner reflecting back to the radar the one wave sized energy, the angled plates radiating away the energy.

MEans that if the wavelenght is cm, and the area is two meters then only 1/200 part of the wave reflected back, but if the wave 1 meter then 1/2 part of the wave reflected.

If the wave cm long then coating can decrease further the reflection.But in meter wavelenght it hasn't got too much effect.

These RCS numbers are only for the 10 GHz frequency (3 cm). For 3 GHz (10 cm) the mean RCS jumps to 0.93 m^2 (front) from 0.13 m^2.
For 1 GHz (30 cm) the mean RCS for the front jumps to 5.46-5.78 m^2. For 166 MHz (180 cm) the mean RCS for the front jumps to 12.2-12.33 m^2.

I was going to highlight the point that RCS changes with the frequency but you've gone better with RCS values as well  

Linking those to radars & Ausairpower detection range graphs would give S-400 vs B2 detection ranges something like this?
180cm = Nebo-M = 650km+ detection
10/30cm (?) = 96L6 = 300-450km
3cm = 92N6 = 110km

hoom wrote:

These RCS numbers are only for the 10 GHz frequency (3 cm). For 3 GHz (10 cm) the mean RCS jumps to 0.93 m^2 (front) from 0.13 m^2.
For 1 GHz (30 cm) the mean RCS for the front jumps to 5.46-5.78 m^2. For 166 MHz (180 cm) the mean RCS for the front jumps to 12.2-12.33 m^2.

I was going to highlight the point that RCS changes with the frequency but you've gone better with RCS values as well  

Linking those to radars & Ausairpower detection range graphs would give S-400 vs B2 detection ranges something like this?
180cm = Nebo-M = 650km+ detection
10/30cm (?) = 96L6 = 300-450km
3cm = 92N6 = 110km

LOOOOL! So you guys wanna tell me that the B-2 has a greater RCS in VHF than a Tu-95!?

The Data of RCS 0,1 - 0,05 sqm for B-2 was for VHF!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In X-Band it has only about 0,0001 sqm, the RCS of a seagull. The data is not official and is estimated by some american "experts". I can't say what is correct or not! US Air Force made data never official.

By the way it's not done with a simple mathematic equation. For a plate the RCS is depending on frequency, but not for a ball! So the RCS in a different wavelength area can't be calculated that easy, you must respect the shape of aircraft.

Azi wrote:

hoom wrote:

These RCS numbers are only for the 10 GHz frequency (3 cm). For 3 GHz (10 cm) the mean RCS jumps to 0.93 m^2 (front) from 0.13 m^2.
For 1 GHz (30 cm) the mean RCS for the front jumps to 5.46-5.78 m^2. For 166 MHz (180 cm) the mean RCS for the front jumps to 12.2-12.33 m^2.

I was going to highlight the point that RCS changes with the frequency but you've gone better with RCS values as well  

Linking those to radars & Ausairpower detection range graphs would give S-400 vs B2 detection ranges something like this?
180cm = Nebo-M = 650km+ detection
10/30cm (?) = 96L6 = 300-450km
3cm = 92N6 = 110km

LOOOOL! So you guys wanna tell me that the B-2 has a greater RCS in VHF than a Tu-95!?

The Data of RCS 0,1 - 0,05 sqm for B-2 was for VHF!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In X-Band it has only about 0,0001 sqm, the RCS of a seagull. The data is not official and is estimated by some american "experts". I can't say what is correct or not! US Air Force made data never official.

By the way it's not done with a simple mathematic equation. For a plate the RCS is depending on frequency, but not for a ball! So the RCS in a different wavelength area can't be calculated that easy, you must respect the shape of aircraft.

There is quite limited ammount of data about RCS for diferent frequencies, but I think it can be interesting:

http://aviationweek.com/technology/new-radars-irst-strengthen-stealth-detection-claims

One of the classic drawbacks of VHF is slow scan rate. With the RLM-M, electronic scanning is superimposed on mechanical scanning. The radar can scan a 120-deg. sector mechanically, maintaining continuous track through all but the outer 15-deg. sectors. Within the scan area, the scan is virtually instantaneous, allowing energy to be focused on any possible target. It retains the basic advantages of VHF: NNIRT says that the Chinese DF-15 short-range ballistic missile has a 0.002 m2 RCS in X-band, but is 0.6 m2 in VHF.

It has rayleigh scattering as well of course.

There have been some breakthrough developments in China in theoretical research on high-pressure
strong ion discharge non-equilibrium plasma source methods, and it is possible that the primary param-
eters of volume, mass, and energy consumption of available weak ion discharge non-equilibrium sources
and reactors will be reduced by about five orders of magnitude to fulfill cruise missile plasma source index
requirements.” Min Haibo et al. The U.S. Navy has developed a plasma stealth antenna using a U-shaped
glass tube filled with low-pressure gas. When energized it performs its antenna function, transmitting and
receiving. When deenergized it becomes virtually transparent to hostile electromagnetic signals. Both Rus-
sia and the United States have investigated plasma stealth technology for several years, with the Russians
making the most theoretical progress (concepts to create a plasma stealth screen all around the surface of an
aircraft, for example). In theory, this would reduce the aircraft’s RCS by 100 times. Stiff challenges remain
in transferring theory to practice

http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/Books/force-multiplier.pdf

Actually the Nebo-m procurement numbers can give clue about the detection range.

Russia buying 100 of those, means that the stealth detection range of it must be at least 200 km,but more probably 300 km. Less than 300 km means that there is no redundancy in the deployed system.

LOOOOL! So you guys wanna tell me that the B-2 has a greater RCS in VHF than a Tu-95!?

The Data of RCS 0,1 - 0,05 sqm for B-2 was for VHF!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In X-Band it has only about 0,0001 sqm, the RCS of a seagull.

Well I was just using the numbers provided

Frankly those detection ranges seem a bit unlikely (did I mess up?) or wtf has US been spending so much $$$ on.
But I never considered US super tiny 0.00000oo0oo0o1!!11!1! RCS numbers believable either.

I don't think anyone said B2 has higher RCS than Tu-95?

TheArmenian wrote:Just by being there and presenting themselves as a credible threat to the NATO aircraft the Serb SAMs achieved the following:
- It took over 2 months for the entire might of NATO air power (including B2s and F-117s) to pound to submission a small nation like Serbia. It would have happened sooner if Serbia had no Air Defenses.
- A significant part of the NATO missions were SEAD missions. If there was no Air Defenses, those SEAD planes would have been dropping bombs.
- The entire fleet of NATO Apache gunships was neutered just because the Serbs could shoot them down.
- NATO planes were forced to fly above 12000 feet for fear of IR guided SAMs...diminishing the effectiveness of the strikes.
- The Serb ground forces received relatively small damage despite the severe pounding.
- NATO wasted a large number of costly anti-radiation (HARM and ALARM).
- 2 aircraft (F117 and F-16) were shut down, 2 others were damaged (F-117 and A-10), a number of UAVs were also shot down.

All right except for a point : very minimum altitude "floor" for NATO Aircraft was established strictly at 15000 feet for area where chance of presence of mobile radar-guided SAM systems (2К12 "Квадрат") was computed very low ; that minimum altitude floor risen to more than 25000 feet in the area where possibile presence of 2К12 was suspected possible.


The 124  (according to AWOS) or 116 launchs (according to Serbian 31th AD Command) IR passively guided surface to air missile launched long 57 of the 78 days of the conflict, was not defated all by magical ECM systems (and even less by "Situational Awareness TM" , "Networked-TM" or "Interlopability-TM" marketing words garbage   ) but was all defeated by simple kinematic impossibility for those missiles to reach theirs detected targets at theirs flying altitudes.

Often those aircraft ,mostly delivering LGB from at least 15000 feet of altitude in those area at "near to null" chance of presence of mobile 2К12, continued theirs mission without even notice to being targeted and shoot at by 2-3 passively guided missiles; missiles which never reached the required altitude for destroy them.

Same was true for engagements by part of the mobile "Квадрат" (the export version of an end of '60 domestic SAM system ,at the door of 2000 year ) : obviously the presence of those mobile systems ,in a particular box, could be only respresented in a probabilitistic way by planners at NATO Command to the contrary of the position occupied by С-125 "Нева-М" batteries.

The solution (partially reproduced from the early experience in "Desert Storm") was to circumvent ,where possible, or actively suppress ,where not possible, the motionless С-125 batteries having the altitude kinematic performance to engage NATO aircraft at theirs operative flight's level, entrusting however exclusively B-2 and F-117 bombers with heavy EA-6B jamming support,for the attacks in the area of Belgrade downtown where the density of radar of 2К12 batteries was too high to apply the previously mentioned tactics.

Serbian AD operative in service with 2К12 batteries managed anyhow to deliver 477 missiles (according to AWOS , not precise data is available on the subject by Serbian official authorities channels) against NATO aircraft in the course of the NATO campaign of which a bit more than one third guided (according to USAFE), the others instead in pure ballistic unguided interception course.

Also in this instance, except for a small minority of cases (which would have had anyhow represented a totally unacceptable level of losses for NATO forces) where third party reactive jamming or ALE-50 decoys prevented the downing of the aircraft, those 2К12 SAMs was all defeated by the kinematic shortcoming of those largely outdated missiles in cope with the altitude and transient speed requirements imposed by theirs targets.


The unexpected variable in the up-described scenario was represented by a single Serbian SAM battery...... one single battery...... managing to partially integrate ,often with even only cheap "workshop modifications", a very little fraction of the capabilitites offered by beginning of '80 years operative Soviet SAM systems, changing its concept of operation to cope with those modifications.


Even only those very minor modifications allowed this single insulated Serbian AD batterywith so much limited performances and lacking entire scale of organic IAD support (from space based assets, Air Force and very long range/long range/short and very short IAD coverage, to ground based ECM systems, fortified surface and under surface protection/redeploying structures and up-to date masking and camouflage systems) to practically inflict the entire amount of losses suffered by NATO aircraft in the entire campaign without suffering a single loss itself.


That case for inside analysts not only represented an very clear proof of the total correctness of domestic AD design planning and threat modelling, but also of the complete incapability of the combined NATO Air forces to cope even only with the reduced capabilities offered by a single system operative almost 20 years before in Soviet Forces.

GarryB wrote:

If the wave cm long then coating can decrease further the reflection.But in meter wavelenght it hasn't got too much effect.

a coating is frequency specific and does not absorb all frequencies.

To effect longer wave frequencies the RAM needs to be half a wavelength thick... in VHF frequencies that means dozens of metres thick... so the thin coating that effect high frequency signals would have no effect...

The Australian long wave radar array at Jindalee is reported to have tracked B-2s at very very long ranges (ie thousands of kms)...

Russia is surrounded by such radar and the coverage is getting improved all the time.

Excellent post, the whole premise of the US first strike capability to take out Russia as peddled in the Diplomat (reflecting
US elite opinion) was that the Russia would be unaware of the B-2 from long distances (among other things). Clearly this is
utter BS and such delusions can get us to WWIII quickly with unexpected consequences for the US elites.

So anyway back directly on topic:

Fedosov wrote:The Tu-160 is very expensive. The military decided to make a new plane is cheaper, but greater in number. He must replace three plane — line Tu-22M3, Tu-95MS and Tu-160.

Cheaper than Tu-160 would imply not a swing wing.
As well as lower take-off power from non-afterburner engines I think replacing Tu-22 also implies relatively small. (vs Tu-160/Tu-95)

Also he has been talking of a new longer range & lighter cruise missile to replace Kh-101
https://rns.online/military/V-Rossii-razrabativaetsya-aviatsionnaya-sverhdalnyaya-krilataya-raketa-2017-02-23/

Fedosov wrote:"Now lay in the project of the modernized Tu-160M the so-called missile X-DB – long range. The range of its classified. It is known that its predecessor, the Kh-101 conventional charge has a range of 3 thousand km the new missile's range will be much greater," — said Fedosov.

According to him, "today was designated concept: do not enter a long-range aircraft in the air defense zone of the enemy."

Longer range missiles is compatible with a somewhat smaller, shorter range plane than Tu-160.

I do like the BWB type designs like the famous wind tunnel model

So if its not T4MS based I'd be happy to see one of those

Azi wrote:

hoom wrote:

These RCS numbers are only for the 10 GHz frequency (3 cm). For 3 GHz (10 cm) the mean RCS jumps to 0.93 m^2 (front) from 0.13 m^2.
For 1 GHz (30 cm) the mean RCS for the front jumps to 5.46-5.78 m^2. For 166 MHz (180 cm) the mean RCS for the front jumps to 12.2-12.33 m^2.

I was going to highlight the point that RCS changes with the frequency but you've gone better with RCS values as well  

Linking those to radars & Ausairpower detection range graphs would give S-400 vs B2 detection ranges something like this?
180cm = Nebo-M = 650km+ detection
10/30cm (?) = 96L6 = 300-450km
3cm = 92N6 = 110km

LOOOOL! So you guys wanna tell me that the B-2 has a greater RCS in VHF than a Tu-95!?

The Data of RCS 0,1 - 0,05 sqm for B-2 was for VHF!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In X-Band it has only about 0,0001 sqm, the RCS of a seagull. The data is not official and is estimated by some american "experts". I can't say what is correct or not! US Air Force made data never official.

By the way it's not done with a simple mathematic equation. For a plate the RCS is depending on frequency, but not for a ball! So the RCS in a different wavelength area can't be calculated that easy, you must respect the shape of aircraft.

Don't jerk off too hard, sunshine.  The calculations done in the book prove already that all posts such as yours purporting
to show a less than 0.1 m^2 RCS are BS.   What are you going on about a single frequency, numbskull, the calculations
clearly show the rapid increase in RCS with increasing wavelength.   And your "simple formula" crap just shows you have
no education in the field.   The geometry of each of the several aircraft being considered in the book required numerics
to obtain.

Your only hope is RAM, but as has been pointed out already, it's effectiveness declines with wavelength already.

BTW, the fixation of the short wavelength radar (of the 1950s) was because shorter wavelengths scatter more
easily and a weak receiver is able to collect the backscatter.   But with modern phased arrays and GaN amps this
1950s constraint is a distant memory and not something to waste time yapping about with clueless fanbois trolling
an "enemy" forum.

hoom wrote:So anyway back directly on topic:

Fedosov wrote:The Tu-160 is very expensive. The military decided to make a new plane is cheaper, but greater in number. He must replace three plane — line Tu-22M3, Tu-95MS and Tu-160.

Cheaper than Tu-160 would imply not a swing wing.
As well as lower take-off power from non-afterburner engines I think replacing Tu-22 also implies relatively small. (vs Tu-160/Tu-95)

Also he has been talking of a new longer range & lighter cruise missile to replace Kh-101
https://rns.online/military/V-Rossii-razrabativaetsya-aviatsionnaya-sverhdalnyaya-krilataya-raketa-2017-02-23/

Fedosov wrote:"Now lay in the project of the modernized Tu-160M the so-called missile X-DB – long range. The range of its classified. It is known that its predecessor, the Kh-101 conventional charge has a range of 3 thousand km the new missile's range will be much greater," — said Fedosov.

According to him, "today was designated concept: do not enter a long-range aircraft in the air defense zone of the enemy."

Longer range missiles is compatible with a somewhat smaller, shorter range plane than Tu-160.

I do like the BWB type designs like the famous wind tunnel model

So if its not T4MS based I'd be happy to see one of those

Something of this shape is likely since it will have a low cross section from the sides and the front and will have much better
RCS numbers than the current crop of Tu jets which are from a different era. But I do not see the stealth aspect being
effective against long range detection.

The lifting body design has the plus that it extends range for the same amount of fuel and engine type.