Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

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

Actually the B-2 Spirit model used in the book, as you have the chance to read, take into account very extensive RAM coverage (at constant magnetic and dielectric coeffcient) corresponding to the most up-to-date (time of book writing not B-2 creation ) ferromagnetic material.

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.

We lost basically 80% of our Neva launchers and every single fixed radar site that wasnt disassembled and moved elsewhere to storage. We lost few Kubs too but those spent more time on the move than actually being combat ready and thats why they survived. Two Dvina batteries we tried to reassemble were destroyed too halfway though preparations.

So its far from being true that we "remained intact", that is just load of BS. Stop claiming things that have no connection with reality whatsoever.

When its about our command chain, are you aware that we shot down own MiG-29? You know why? Because we had untrained bunch of baboons manning majority of our equipment and organisation like African tribes. Units that survived, survived either due to their nature or fact that certain officer in chain of command was not braindead. Generally speaking, those that actually did good job were mostly low ranking officers that commanded batteries.

You also need to know that our officers, many of them, took huge advantage of wartime, stealing military equipment, computers, radios... all kinds of supplies. Trust me... 1999. was not any kind of success.

hoom wrote:

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?

Ok, no problem!

kvs wrote:

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.

What is wrong with you??? Enemy forum??? Why you think I'm in this forum? Because I'm an american fanboy? Yeah....MURICA str*nk!

What education do you have? Ah, correct you are the chief designer for S-500 system!? I'm scientist (not radar specialist!) and know to handle numbers. You are going to a very personal level and I think this is not ok! If you mean to go personal everyone can do, little sunshine.

You can't confirm the bullshit you post! If B-2 and F-117 is not stealth, why serbian AD operators said it was harder to detect than normal aircraft? Why Iraq and other countries failed so great against stealth technology if it have complete no value?
So you want to tell me that stealth technology is complete bullshit, that's why russian air force is introducing new stealth platforms!? You want to tell me that 60'ies technology can easy detect stealth aircraft from 600 km and target it that easy with ad missile, that's why 60'ies technology was so good against stealth!? You want to tell me that EVERY object has a increase in RCS with longer wavelength, but the equation depends on the geometry of the object! You want to tell me that RAM coating have to be meters thick, but you forget that non resonant RAM coating exists!

Your discussion style is pissing me off! You are a fanboi and trolling, crying like a 10 year old! Live in you own bubble, I don't care about you and by the way I don't know if you heard it but PAK DA will be a STEALTH bomber. Yes, stealthy STEALTH! So please put your aggression to Russian MoD and please write them what kind of "shit" they are introducing with Su T-50 and PAK-DA, because you know it better!

If we can go back to a normal discussion, without personal insults and trolling I would be pleased! No one said stealth is complete invisible, depending on wavelength it can be seen from distance.

Azi wrote:
What is wrong with you??? Enemy forum??? Why you think I'm in this forum? Because I'm an american fanboy? Yeah....MURICA str*nk!

What education do you have? Ah, correct you are the chief designer for S-500 system!? I'm scientist (not radar specialist!) and know to handle numbers. You are going to a very personal level and I think this is not ok! If you mean to go personal everyone can do, little sunshine.

You can't confirm the bullshit you post! If B-2 and F-117 is not stealth, why serbian AD operators said it was harder to detect than normal aircraft? Why Iraq and other countries failed so great against stealth technology if it have complete no value?
So you want to tell me that stealth technology is complete bullshit, that's why russian air force is introducing new stealth platforms!? You want to tell me that 60'ies technology can easy detect stealth aircraft from 600 km and target it that easy with ad missile, that's why 60'ies technology was so good against stealth!?

You mixing up two distinct things.


DETECTION is easy with long wave radar, the B-2 and F-35 never meant to be invisible for long wave radars.



TARGETING is hard , because it needs precision and short wave length radar, and semi active radar homing that can work only with X band radars.


See?

The Serbian operators DETECTED the F-117 and B-2 aircrafts, but they never managed to TARGET them with the X band radars.

Azi wrote:
You want to tell me that EVERY object has a increase in RCS with longer wavelength, but the equation depends on the geometry of the object! You want to tell me that RAM coating have to be meters thick, but you forget that non resonant RAM coating exists!

Your discussion style is pissing me off! You are a fanboi and trolling, crying like a 10 year old! Live in you own bubble, I don't care about you and by the way I don't know if you heard it but PAK DA will be a STEALTH bomber. Yes, stealthy STEALTH! So please put your aggression to Russian MoD and please write them what kind of "shit" they are introducing with Su T-50 and PAK-DA, because you know it better!

If we can go back to a normal discussion, without personal insults and trolling I would be pleased! No one said stealth is complete invisible, depending on wavelength it can be seen from distance.

Occam's razor : if coating can make something "stealth" then no one needs complicated and expensive shaping, all the stealth technology needs is a spray can and a monkey to spray it onto the air-plane.

The stealth idea and technology 40 years old. And there is no magic paint.

long electromagnetic wave will be scattered from the edges, and no paint can help this, only if it is extremely thick.

Militarov wrote:

We lost basically 80% of our Neva launchers and every single fixed radar site that wasnt disassembled and moved elsewhere to storage. We lost few Kubs too but those spent more time on the move than actually being combat ready and thats why they survived. Two Dvina batteries we tried to reassemble were destroyed too halfway though preparations.

So its far from being true that we "remained intact", that is just load of BS. Stop claiming things that have no connection with reality whatsoever.

When its about our command chain, are you aware that we shot down own MiG-29? You know why? Because we had untrained bunch of baboons manning majority of our equipment and organisation like African tribes. Units that survived, survived either due to their nature or fact that certain officer in chain of command was not braindead. Generally speaking, those that actually did good job were mostly low ranking officers that commanded batteries.

You also need to know that our officers, many of them, took huge advantage of wartime, stealing military equipment, computers, radios... all kinds of supplies. Trust me... 1999. was not any kind of success.

I presume you are a half empty guy : )

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

Actually that would be logical...

Compare the issue with light waves... a Tu-95 has lots of bumps and shaped bits, while a B-2 is a carefully crafted mirror to generate a perfect reflective surface that redirects the reflection away from the source of the light... a bit like the opposite of a retroreflector as placed on the moon so earth ground based lasers can be reflected on them.

If you change the signal frequency so the all the little cracks and crannys are no longer visible on the Tu-95 then of course the result will be totally different.

Cheaper than Tu-160 would imply not a swing wing.

I very much agree here... swing wing is for high speed flight from a long runway... a subsonic aircraft does not need a swing wing... just like a Bear does not need a swing wing.

Of course a high subsonic bomber would need a swept wing, but the angle of sweep would not be extreme and would allow takeoff from runways that are not too big.

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)

A Tu-22 sized aircraft would have no strategic value. I would expect the same number of engines... ie four, but with the afterburner removed or reduced in power for perhaps takeoff assistance only to reduce field operations range.

"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.

Well actually the Kh-101 and Kh-102 are supposed to be 5,000km range weapons.

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

Actually I would expect the PAK DA to be longer ranged than the Blackjack and with more internal volume for a wider variety of bulky air to ground munitions.

I suspect the new Blackjack might even have added internal weapons bays for self defence AAMs.

People should read up on phased arrays. Phased array systems can target track ICBM warheads thousands of miles away.
I can't believe that this discussion raised the "radar" wavelength as being under some major constraint from targeting limitations.
The whole purpose of a phased array is to remove this limitation.

The GaN amplifiers allow extreme signal discrimination. So that extremely weak signals can be received and processed.
They allow the "radar" wavelength to be extended well into the regime where everything that is flying can be easily tracked.
No matter what type of RAM coating and shaping is used.

A Tu-22 sized aircraft would have no strategic value.

Yeah I meant to imply something between Tu-160 (267t) & Tu-22 (124t), say 150-170ton loaded weight so similar or a bit bigger than B1B/B2.

It will be based on the Tu-160s basic shape and if that wing tunnel model above is an indication it may have a body like section extending back from the centre wing area making it potentially heavier than the blackjack.

Obviously not something they could do to the blackjack to increase payload or range because area rule means it needs a narrow body section.

With a subsonic design however you can have an extended rear section acting as a lifting body so it does not add too much to the RCS or drag.

That would maximise space for larger internal weapon and fuel capacity... those new long range cruise missiles and hypersonic cruise missiles will not be small weapons... it would also add the possibility of an anti ship model able to perhaps carry 12 Zircon hypersonic anti ship missiles for example.

A subsonic model will be much lower cost than the Blackjack... like the Bear in fact... so using it in a scenario like Syria to deliver a dumb bomb load of 20 odd tons or more over theatre ranges of perhaps 3-4 thousand kms would be a useful role for the aircraft in addition to its strategic nuclear role.

For such a role high altitude operations would make it rather safer than stealth so it would not carry a full payload or a full load of fuel for such an operation to maximise its operating altitude and get a reasonable speed performance.

Singular_Transform wrote:
You mixing up two distinct things.
.
.
.
The Serbian operators DETECTED the F-117 and B-2 aircrafts, but they never managed to TARGET them with the X band radars.

I mixed nothing up! It is clear that detection and targeting are two pair of shoes.

But it should be clear that a B-2 will not be visible at max. detection range of Nebo VHF or a OTH radar. I gave a example...B-2 has in short wave a RCS of 0,0001 estimated by murican fanboys and realistic of 0,001 sqm. In VHF area it is estimated 100 times larger, so 0,1 sqm, means a detection range of 170 km and that's pretty good. Painting and targeting is something different and not so easy at 170 km. And of course it is pure soothsaying, but based on some data and that's more than just saying stealth is shit!

By the way...
It is possible to paint a stealth aircraft with short wave radar and shot it down. Serbian AD did it in 1999! Magic words are datalink, sensitivity of receiver, good data processing and energy of painting sender (ok, not used by serbian AD  ).

But the discussion is about this...

GarryB wrote:

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

Actually that would be logical...

Singular_Transform wrote:Occam's razor : if coating can make something "stealth" then no one needs complicated and expensive shaping, all the stealth technology needs is a spray can and a monkey to spray it onto the air-plane.

The stealth idea and technology 40 years old. And there is no magic paint.

long electromagnetic wave will be scattered from the edges, and no paint can help this, only if it is extremely thick.

You should remember that they are 3 techniques to make a object stealth:

- First is to you use material that is invisible to radar, like glass to light. Many composite materials are invisible to radar, it goes simple through material without interaction.

- Second is to use RAM coating. RAM "absorbs" radar through interference (thickness) or excitation on molecular level, for example like water absorbing microwaves. In long wave range some RAM are loosing near all of their ability, some other retain more. There is a large selection of RAM based on different physic characteristics.

- Third is geometry of object!

Normally no technique in itself is good enough to make a aircraft really stealth, so the techniques must be combined. Of course stealth features are weaker in long wave radar, but we can't generalize and say EVERY stealth aircraft loose complete stealth ability in VHF area. We must pick up aircraft after aircraft and analyse it and we will see that F-22 and F-35 loose nearly all stealth characteristics in VHF and B-2 retain some stealth ability in long wave radar.

About this I was writing and answer was "not to jerk off too much".

kvs wrote:People should read up on phased arrays.  Phased array systems can target track ICBM warheads thousands of miles away.  
I can't believe that this discussion raised the "radar" wavelength as being under some major constraint from targeting limitations.
The whole purpose of a phased array is to remove this limitation.

The GaN amplifiers allow extreme signal discrimination.   So that extremely weak signals can be received and processed.  
They allow the "radar" wavelength to be extended well into the regime where everything that is flying can be easily tracked.
No matter what type of RAM coating and shaping is used.

No! Long wave radar in HF and VHF spectra can only see if something is there, they lack complete accuracy for targeting at long distance. If two aircraft are flying near together you can't distinguish the two from each other at long distance, both would be one signal. By the way, this was the method how Russia was sending nearly undetected aircraft to Syria in 2015. In the "shadow" of normal support flights. NATzO and USA was complete surprised seeing at satellite image dozens of russian aircraft.

You are right that you reach a better detection with phased array, data processing and so on, but the problem is still the wavelength. If you are using wavelength around 1 m you can't be precise in the same area. For example it's impossible to see atoms or electrons with EM in visible light spectra, even with the best microscope in the world.

Targeting takes place in short wave area. For example the AN/TPY-2 of US THAAD system works in X-Band with a range of 1000 km and high accuracy. Here a link to russian engagement and fire control radar

You are right with the point that all data can be combined and processed to reach a greater detection and engagement range. That's right, but the specifications are secret and we simply don't know what will be detection and engagement range against specific stealth aircraft. In the end we will know it in a conflict, but no one want a conflict so it's better to keep that secret, than to reveal it in a hot conflict.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

We lost basically 80% of our Neva launchers and every single fixed radar site that wasnt disassembled and moved elsewhere to storage. We lost few Kubs too but those spent more time on the move than actually being combat ready and thats why they survived. Two Dvina batteries we tried to reassemble were destroyed too halfway though preparations.

So its far from being true that we "remained intact", that is just load of BS. Stop claiming things that have no connection with reality whatsoever.

When its about our command chain, are you aware that we shot down own MiG-29? You know why? Because we had untrained bunch of baboons manning majority of our equipment and organisation like African tribes. Units that survived, survived either due to their nature or fact that certain officer in chain of command was not braindead. Generally speaking, those that actually did good job were mostly low ranking officers that commanded batteries.

You also need to know that our officers, many of them, took huge advantage of wartime, stealing military equipment, computers, radios... all kinds of supplies. Trust me... 1999. was not any kind of success.

I presume you are a half empty guy : )

Lets call it being realistic.

Militarov wrote:We lost basically 80% of our Neva launchers and every single fixed radar site that wasnt disassembled and moved elsewhere to storage.

Interesting, and where come from those data ?

Surely not even from NATO sources

Not even in the theirs initial damage assessment finding - December 1999 - (subsequently significantly revised down for the results of MEAT direct finding on the field) a similar figure was ever claimed.

In fact also in that first assessment, where the initial figure of 11 out of 16 С-125 was claimed to have being put out of service by NATO Air Forces in the course of the entire campaign, the "event" was related to elimination of the battery's radars ,sustaining "severe to lethal" damages, not the much harder to engage launchers.  

Let me guess : that secret thruth, that not even the same initial NATO's assessment had ever had the courage to claim, has been confided by your legendary " AD commanding officiers" .....

Reality, as always, is much more simple : NATO air campaign was obvioulsy highly effective in destroy and degrade Serbian economic, civil and production infrastructures (up to unstustainable level for the political leadership) while failing shockingly to inflict any relevant damage to the overall military structure, in spite the crushing difference in the realitive force's size and age of their systems.

NATO's Air Forces employed its most up-to-date sytems (some of which still in validation phase), such as AGM-130, B-2 bomber, ALE-50 decoy, JDAM and so on, against at best end of '60 years AD technology, but in spite of that, as explained previously, what those Air Forces exploited was simple ,usual, old  kinematical and reaction times limits of those antediluvian SAM systems.

When ,for the effect of personal initiative of the operatives,  a single, totally insulated, Serbian AD battery (equiped with the same antediluvian systems) managed to partially blur those limits the effect on the relative exchange ratio against those overwhelming forces was instantly subverted.

Militarov wrote:

Lets call it being realistic.

So, what you think, compared to say US AD operators , is your capability and training on par with them or inferior ?

Azi wrote:


By the way...
It is possible to paint a stealth aircraft with short wave radar and shot it down. Serbian AD did it in 1999! Magic words are datalink, sensitivity of receiver, good data processing and energy of painting sender (ok, not used by serbian AD  ).

?
so, what is the target ?

To make it hard to detect OR to make it hard to shoot down?

Azi wrote:
You should remember that they are 3 techniques to make a object stealth:

- First is to you use material that is invisible to radar, like glass to light. Many composite materials are invisible to radar, it goes simple through material without interaction.

- Second is to use RAM coating. RAM "absorbs" radar through interference (thickness) or excitation on molecular level, for example like water absorbing microwaves. In long wave range some RAM are loosing near all of their ability, some other retain more. There is a large selection of RAM based on different physic characteristics.

- Third is geometry of object!

Normally no technique in itself is good enough to make a aircraft really stealth, so the techniques must be combined. Of course stealth features are weaker in long wave radar, but we can't generalize and say EVERY stealth aircraft loose complete stealth ability in VHF area. We must pick up aircraft after aircraft and analyse it and we will see that F-22 and F-35 loose nearly all stealth characteristics in VHF and B-2 retain some stealth ability in long wave radar.

About this I was writing and answer was "not to jerk off too much".

Ok, it is getting interesting : )

There are radar transparent materials, example every aircraft contain lot of air , and that is transparent for radar. And completly irrelevant .



The thickness of the coating is quite thin, due to weight restrictions, means the effect of the coating is magnitude smaller than


the most important feature, the shaping.

Quite much like the gamma radiation protection on the spacecrafts.
Exist, but practicaly useless.good for calibration.

So, you can play with the coating, but that won't change too much about the signature.

And the shaping has smaller and smaller effects as the size vs wavelenght getting closer to 1:1, and at that level it become irrelevant.

The resolution of a radar array depeding on the number of emiters.

So, the NEBO-M resolution is only 1/6 of the F-35 radar, and the smallest details are half meter bit, not few mm big as with the AN/APG-81,


But thanks for the scattering still possible to identify other aircrafts.


The 170 km for the NEBO-M is the minimum deistance.

Azi wrote:
No! Long wave radar in HF and VHF spectra can only see if something is there, they lack complete accuracy for targeting at long distance. If two aircraft are flying near together you can't distinguish the two from each other at long distance, both would be one signal. By the way, this was the method how Russia was sending nearly undetected aircraft to Syria in 2015. In the "shadow" of normal support flights. NATzO and USA was complete surprised seeing at satellite image dozens of russian aircraft.

You are right that you reach a better detection with phased array, data processing and so on, but the problem is still the wavelength. If you are using wavelength around 1 m you can't be precise in the same area. For example it's impossible to see atoms or electrons with EM in visible light spectra, even with the best microscope in the world.

Targeting takes place in short wave area. For example the AN/TPY-2 of US THAAD system works in X-Band with a range of 1000 km and high accuracy. Here a link to russian engagement and fire control radar

1m wavelenght decrease the angular information, but the scattering increase the frequency information.

The X band radards collecting fata from the angular infromation, and from the dopler shift, the VHF from the frequency infromation, and from the dopler shift.

Exapmle, the two aircrafts identification will require similar methods like sorting out diferent materials from a visual spectral of a glowing object.

- First is to you use material that is invisible to radar, like glass to light. Many composite materials are invisible to radar, it goes simple through material without interaction.

Point one counters point three.

There is no point in spending billions of dollars on designing and manufacturing an aircraft to a fraction of a mm accuracy if you are going to make the outside skin radar invisible... if you make the skin radar invisible the radar wave will go through to the internal structure.

Do you even know what a corner reflector is?

A 1.5m triangular corner reflector can generate a RCS of tens of thousands of metres...

An SA-6 drone missile used for training SAM sites has a RCS of 0.1-0.3m with a normal nose cone but with a corner reflector can simulate up to a 5 metre RCS... With a radar transparent nose cone it has a RCS of 1m.

So which is the best performance... a normal radar reflecting skin (0.1-0.3m), a radar transparent skin (1m) with a flat empty plate at the back, or internal bits and pieces that increase radar reflection (3-5m).

Longish Interview

Scientific director of the State Research Institute of Aviation Systems (GosNIIAS),YEVGENY FEDOSOV ABOUT THE PROSPECTS OF MILITARY AVIATION

https://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2017/02/27/422309.html

Austin wrote:Longish Interview

Scientific director of the State Research Institute of Aviation Systems (GosNIIAS),YEVGENY FEDOSOV ABOUT THE PROSPECTS OF MILITARY AVIATION

https://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2017/02/27/422309.html

Thanks Austin.

Is conforting once in a while openly read highly informed opinions ,from other people in the know, about subjects so often horribly twisted ,up theirs more inherent basis, in public media - "stealth" technology above any other -.

Mindstorm wrote:

Austin wrote:Longish Interview

Scientific director of the State Research Institute of Aviation Systems (GosNIIAS),YEVGENY FEDOSOV ABOUT THE PROSPECTS OF MILITARY AVIATION

https://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2017/02/27/422309.html

Thanks Austin.

Is conforting once in a while openly read highly informed opinions ,from other people in the know, about subjects so often horribly twisted ,up theirs more inherent basis, in public media - "stealth" technology above any other -.

Can you say us quickly what is said ?? Translations on Google are not that good. Thanks

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Lets call it being realistic.

So, what you think, compared to say US AD operators , is your capability and training on par with them or inferior ?

We had more than adequate training pre 1991. we even had live fire trainings on regular basis till then, after that very few live fire trainings were conducted. We even used to travel to USSR and use their training facilities now and then.

Equipment is... old, some of it in quite sorry state... i mean, we still have few P-15s around so figure.

Militarov wrote:

We had more than adequate training pre 1991. we even had live fire trainings on regular basis till then, after that very few live fire trainings were conducted. We even used to travel to USSR and use their training facilities now and then.

Equipment is... old, some of it in quite sorry state... i mean, we still have few P-15s around so figure.

Then why you moan?

The personnel get out the most from the equipment ,and actually shown top level performance.


The AD restricted quite well the operation of the air forces, and there was no military loss on Serb side due to that .

The only reason why that was lost is because the US started to bomb the civilian infrastructure.

And that is quite hard to protect with anything.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

We had more than adequate training pre 1991. we even had live fire trainings on regular basis till then, after that very few live fire trainings were conducted. We even used to travel to USSR and use their training facilities now and then.

Equipment is... old, some of it in quite sorry state... i mean, we still have few P-15s around so figure.

Then why you moan?

The personnel get out the most from the equipment ,and actually shown top level performance.


The AD restricted quite well the operation of the air forces, and there was no military loss on Serb side due to that .

The only reason why that was lost is because the US started to bomb the civilian infrastructure.

And that is quite hard to protect with anything.

Right...

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

We had more than adequate training pre 1991. we even had live fire trainings on regular basis till then, after that very few live fire trainings were conducted. We even used to travel to USSR and use their training facilities now and then.

Equipment is... old, some of it in quite sorry state... i mean, we still have few P-15s around so figure.

Then why you moan?

The personnel get out the most from the equipment ,and actually shown top level performance.


The AD restricted quite well the operation of the air forces, and there was no military loss on Serb side due to that .

The only reason why that was lost is because the US started to bomb the civilian infrastructure.

And that is quite hard to protect with anything.

...They lost rough 2k men, about 60 types of armored vehicles and over 100 aircraft.

considering how weak the AD was that is still a massively good job compared to what they had to fight sure. It showed that even a weak ass nation that really should have had it's AD taken out in a couple of weeks held of a much much much much bigger air force and a MUCH more advanced one with tech over 30 years behind it. That is an accomplishment and shows anyone who thinks the airforce can do jack of anything at large scale is wrong.

But to say they took no military loss, I honestly don't know where you got that idea.