+61

Backman

owais.usmani

JohninMK

Enera

PeeD

bojcistv

obliqueweapons

Isos

Arrow

miketheterrible

GarryB

MarshallJukov

marcellogo

Zastel

George1

Erlindur

hoom

Rmf

Azi

eehnie

SeigSoloyvov

Singular_Transform

kvs

Batajnica

moskit

victor1985

sepheronx

max steel

Mike E

Swede55

Werewolf

magnumcromagnon

Hannibal Barca

nemrod

AlfaT8

macedonian

Rpg type 7v

Hachimoto

Vann7

KomissarBojanchev

Sujoy

SACvet

Firebird

gloriousfatherland

Mr.Kalishnikov47

Russian Patriot

ali.a.r

Corrosion

coolieno99

Notio

Viktor

TheArmenian

ahmedfire

medo

Mindstorm

SOC

TR1

victor7

IronsightSniper

Stealthflanker

Austin

65 posters

Go to page :

1 ... 14 ... 25, 26, 27 ... 31

Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Singular_Transform

Singular_Transform: Posts : 1032
Points : 1014
Join date : 2016-11-13

Post n°626

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Singular_Transform Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:18 am

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

...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.

Sorry, better to say "marginal losses" .

Rmf

Rmf: Posts : 462
Points : 441
Join date : 2013-05-30

Post n°627

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Rmf Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:10 am

Singular_Transform wrote:

Azi wrote:
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.

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.

not so fast, p-18 has 18 elements= 2x9 , while nebo-m has 7x24=168 aesa elements , .....thats 9,3 times difference just in antenna aperture , and with less transmit loses and less noise , nebo-m is a beast! it has more power per element and can focus those beams in tight parts of airspace.
recently some more information was released after 15 years in war diaries and computer reconstructions from crew memories.
f-117 was detected by search p-18 at 23km, and aquired by guidance radar which works at I-band (9 ghz) at 18km , it did break lock but was reaquired at 16km. so 23 vs 16 km not much difference = about 30%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_band_(NATO)

heres engagement display. in distance and height.

Rmf

Rmf: Posts : 462
Points : 441
Join date : 2013-05-30

Post n°628

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Rmf Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:28 am

now there has been some information released from war diaries and computer reconstructions from crew memories about engagements , here some explanation about neva snr-125 radar and its transmitter uv-10 ,receiver uv-11 f1 and f2 ,and missile link uv-12 each has its screen in cabin.http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engagement-Fire-Control.html

Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 26 2luysl3

Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 26 2luysl3

left is top b-2 track and bellow f-117 track and missile going its way....

right is f-117 left screen is the zoom , screen with larger fov is right , 3 pictures from the top - 1. aquired aircraft , 2.missile in flight after boost phase ,and 3. missile closing in to f-117 for proxy detonation .

MarshallJukov

MarshallJukov: Posts : 22
Points : 22
Join date : 2015-02-22

Post n°629

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

MarshallJukov Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:26 am

Azi wrote:
- 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!

Sorry to burst your bubble but:

1. As glass is NOT invisible to light (the only thing that is 100% transparent to EM is vacuum) as composite materians are not fully radio transparent. Moreover, you just can`t make entire aircraft out of composites. In fact that is worst you can do. Composites are there absolutely not for RCS reduction but for mass reduction. The outer skin of an airframe is always made out of conductive materials in "stealth" aircrafts, that is NOT radio transparent alloys. Thats entirely made for the purpose of "stealth" as it is the only way to maintain some control over direction of reflected signal.

2. You just posted utter gibberish. RAM utilizes basicaly same laws as antennas do. It absorbs EM radiation. And just as antenna, it needs to have specific geometry to be effective in a specific wavelength and direction. Just as antenna, to be more or less efficient in target wavelength, it MUST be at least within 1/16th of the size of that wavelength. Now, old P-18 has operating wavelength between 1,7m and 2,1m. That means in order to give ANY effect in that band your RAM must be as thick as 100mm. And to be anyhow relevant it must be 1/8th or less, so its like 200mm+. B-2 or any other VLO aircraft has its RAM coating in order of few milimeters or less, 2 or more orders of marginite below threshold of relevance.
RAM never contributes over 10% of total RCS reduction even within milimeter wave band.

3. Shape is ALL that matters in so called "stealth"

Isos

Isos: Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-07

Post n°630

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Isos Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:54 am

- 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.

If it goes throught the material, it will be reflected by a material on the plane (like engines). Many composite materials transforms radiation into heat, that's the only way a material can reduce RCS. It would be funny to see with a OLS a F-22 illuminated by Mig-25's radar...

The main rcs reduction is the geometry of the plane.

IMO, F-22 is all propaganda. They say that the F-35 which is 30 years younger and cost as much if not more doesn't have a better RCS, a better radar, better electronics than a 30 years old fighter ... That's just bullshit. They never deploy them and if they deploy them it's in safe area.

I'm not saying it's a bad Aircraft but that it's role is to be used for propaganda, not air force. The french general of French airforce said that a 5th generation Aircraft is not needed because "stealth" is not important. And he knows what he is saying as rafale was already opposed to the F-22.

Russian bears (which are full of electronic instruments) were intercepted by F-22 near the west coast. They probably turned on their radar to see how effective they are against f-22. The S-400 and Pak Fa dev takes all that in consideration.

Now that this myth was studied they are introducing the F-35 in big numbers because they know that the small amount of F-22 won't be that usefull in a war as it doesn't have any ground capability, the number they have is very low, most of the aircrafts will be kept in USA and not deployed ashore because USA want to protect themselves first so they keep a majority in the Mainland. Imagine a russian-us war and Russia manage to destroy 3 of the 10 US carriers. The rest will be call back near the Mainland. And contrary to what majority of poeple think US is also for the quantity over the quality. Most of their stuff are not the best in their class. European stuff is generaly better but they have less of them. Leo 2 bettter than Abrams, Rafale better than F-18/16/35, Exocet better than harpoon, Meteor better than AMRAAM, Horizon destroyer better than Burkes ...and so on. But they are god enough and in big quantity to win a war.

kvs

kvs: Posts : 15858
Points : 15993
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada

Post n°631

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

kvs Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:02 pm

MarshallJukov wrote:

Azi wrote:
- 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!

Sorry to burst your bubble but:

1. As glass is NOT invisible to light (the only thing that is 100% transparent to EM is vacuum) as composite materians are not fully radio transparent. Moreover, you just can`t make entire aircraft out of composites. In fact that is worst you can do. Composites are there absolutely not for RCS reduction but for mass reduction. The outer skin of an airframe is always made out of conductive materials in "stealth" aircrafts, that is NOT radio transparent alloys. Thats entirely made for the purpose of "stealth" as it is the only way to maintain some control over direction of reflected signal.

2. You just posted utter gibberish. RAM utilizes basicaly same laws as antennas do. It absorbs EM radiation. And just as antenna, it needs to have specific geometry to be effective in a specific wavelength and direction. Just as antenna, to be more or less efficient in target wavelength, it MUST be at least within 1/16th of the size of that wavelength. Now, old P-18 has operating wavelength between 1,7m and 2,1m. That means in order to give ANY effect in that band your RAM must be as thick as 100mm. And to be anyhow relevant it must be 1/8th or less, so its like 200mm+. B-2 or any other VLO aircraft has its RAM coating in order of few milimeters or less, 2 or more orders of marginite below threshold of relevance.
RAM never contributes over 10% of total RCS reduction even within milimeter wave band.

3. Shape is ALL that matters in so called "stealth"

Point (2) is not the primary issue. The only reason why the RAM needs to be a certain thickness is that absorption is wavelength dependent. A thin sheet of
any material becomes more and more translucent to incoming EM as the wavelength is increased. And more opaque as the wavelength is shortened.
In the case of gamma rays the penetration is associated with their high energy as per the range-energy relations for different materials and the fact
that they have very short wavelengths does not mean that they will not penetrate deep and through objects. As discussed in this thread already, it
is the longer wavelength "radar" signals that are the most effective at detecting B-2, F-22, etc. So the RAM fix is a lost cause since very thick layers
need to be applied to absorb the incoming signal and emit it in some other wavelength ranges depending on the chemistry of the RAM coating. This
brings us back to your point (3), which is correct since the RAM can't do the job by a long shot.

Point (2) is interesting since the interaction of EM fluxes in RAM and the metal skin of the aircraft will generate an antenna-like EM field of its own.
Depending on the geometry of this field, there may even be significant backscatter.

MarshallJukov

MarshallJukov: Posts : 22
Points : 22
Join date : 2015-02-22

Post n°632

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

MarshallJukov Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:40 am

kvs wrote:The only reason why the RAM needs to be a certain thickness is that absorption is wavelength dependent. .

That was exactly my point. Also, gamma rays are high energy photons which is not the case on our topic as they have different properties than radiowaves. However new type of photonic radars is comming. Which supposedly make "stealth" completely obsolete by all means.

Azi

Azi: Posts : 803
Points : 793
Join date : 2016-04-06

Post n°633

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Azi Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:05 pm

MarshallJukov wrote:
1. As glass is NOT invisible to light (the only thing that is 100% transparent to EM is vacuum) as composite materians are not fully radio transparent.

Invisible was not the correct word, that's right (englisch is not my native language!). The correct word is transparent. Normal glas has a transmission value of ~95% in visible light spectra. It exist special glas with higher transmission values.

There are many composite materials wich don't interact with radar or microwaves. Key point is the absence of electric or magnetic dipole or multipole moment. So most plastic materials without that dipoles or multipoles are transparent to radar. Best example is plastic dish in a microwave oven, you can heat water in it but the plastic dish will not warm up.

MarshallJukov wrote:2. You just posted utter gibberish. RAM utilizes basicaly same laws as antennas do. It absorbs EM radiation. And just as antenna, it needs to have specific geometry to be effective in a specific wavelength and direction. Just as antenna, to be more or less efficient in target wavelength, it MUST be at least within 1/16th of the size of that wavelength. Now, old P-18 has operating wavelength between 1,7m and 2,1m. That means in order to give ANY effect in that band your RAM must be as thick as 100mm. And to be anyhow relevant it must be 1/8th or less, so its like 200mm+. B-2 or any other VLO aircraft has its RAM coating in order of few milimeters or less, 2 or more orders of marginite below threshold of relevance.
RAM never contributes over 10% of total RCS reduction even within milimeter wave band.

Thanks for your very nice words...utterish gibberish!

RAM is based on two effects. The first effect is pure absorption of EM waves. Radar, or let's better name it microwaves are electromagnetic radiation. The photons have a electric and a magnetic field vector, this fields can interact with with electric or magnetic dipoles (or multipole). This is exactly what happens in a microwave oven, the photon interacts with the dipole and pushes the molecule, so EM energy is transformed into heat. This effect happens over a broad spectra and is of course best at resonance frequency, if you go away from this resonance frequency the effect is weaker. This means for RAM that absorption will still occur at longer wavelengths, but of course not so good. Good absorbers are ferrites, they have a great dipole moment below the Curie Temperature (for most ferrite not very high ~200 °C).

The second effect is destructive interference, and at this point you are correct the RAM should have a thickness in relation to the specific wavelength. In Salisbury Screen, "in which a sheet of resistive material overlays a conductive back plane, the two being separated by dielectric material whose thickness is 1/4 of the subject radar's wavelength" (quote from materials today). There are many ways to craft "resonant RAM", a good way but very thick are pyramidal absorbers.

MarshallJukov wrote:
RAM never contributes over 10% of total RCS reduction even within milimeter wave band

LOL! Have a look Radar absorbing material design Yuzcelik, Cihangir Kemal!

MarshallJukov wrote:3. Shape is ALL that matters in so called "stealth"

Shape is a part of stealth concept but it's not "ALL"! If shape is all, why Su T-50 has RAM coating? Why nearly all stealth objects have a RAM coating?

I'm not a Murican fanboy! I'm not a stealth fetishist! I'm scientist and must admit the concept of stealth is not bad at all. It's not the "Wunderwaffe" but in some situations it can give you the advantage. There are many systems to counter stealth or to reduce the advantage that stealth gives, of course!

Last edited by Azi on Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:27 pm; edited 1 time in total

Azi

Azi: Posts : 803
Points : 793
Join date : 2016-04-06

Post n°634

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Azi Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:17 pm

MarshallJukov wrote:

kvs wrote:The only reason why the RAM needs to be a certain thickness is that absorption is wavelength dependent. .

That was exactly my point. Also, gamma rays are high energy photons which is not the case on our topic as they have different properties than radiowaves. However new type of photonic radars is comming. Which supposedly make "stealth" completely obsolete by all means.

When will photonic radars come into service? You have a specific date? I'm sure that humans will travel to other stars, but I simply don't know when!

Photonic radar is a very promising concept but the technology is not mature NOW! The introduction will take decades.

By the way...Photons have all the same properties, they are only different in wavelength (energy). Different energy means different types of interaction with matter. (I know...I'm a smart-arse Laughing

)

MarshallJukov

MarshallJukov: Posts : 22
Points : 22
Join date : 2015-02-22

Post n°635

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

MarshallJukov Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:14 am

Azi wrote:The first effect is pure absorption of EM waves."

There is no such thing as "pure absorbition of EM waves"

Azi wrote:This effect happens over a broad spectra and is of course best at resonance frequency

And longer the waves are, the less effect is. Within band we currently duscussing it is absolutely, totaly irrelevant in terms of lowering radar ranges, not just " not so good."

Azi wrote:Radar absorbing material design Yuzcelik, Cihangir Kemal

Gee, this again? Did you bothered yourself to read it in the first place? Go to page 51 and see that test was made at 300 Mhz upon PEC covered with 100mm thick RAM structure and BEST result they was able to achieve was reduction from 26Db to 3,8Db for a wavelength of 1 meter, didn`t i told you which wavelength the old P-18 has? Don`t you know what kind of RAM thickness actual aircrafts have? Don`t you aware that actual radars also give out much more than 26Db signal level? Sorry but you did not even saw forest behind the trees in that monography. And just so you know, 20-25Db signal reduction is EXACTLY the best ideal RAM can offer and thats EXACTLY around 10% contrubution to total RCS reduction in real world and EXACTLY why "stealth" is ***ALL*** about SHAPE.

Azi wrote:Shape is a part of stealth concept but it's not "ALL"!

Its ABSOLUTRELY EVERYTHING.

Azi wrote: why Su T-50 has RAM coating?

Because its potential enemies do not have any advanced long wave radars, ya see? And as we already discussed, efficiency of RAM grows as wavelength gets shorter. A bit of RAM to squeeze a bit more of RCS reduction is always fine. Just as, for example, they battle to win every kilogram of weight in that kind of machinery. Its not like T-50 bets everything on RAM or on "stealth" as a whole as american jets do.

Azi wrote:concept of stealth is not bad at all.

It is VERY bad concept when you try to bet your success on it entirely. Read the story of "King`s new clothes" story to get what i mean.
Reduction of RCS means nothing if capabilities of your adversary to detect your jets are few orders of magnitude above the treshold your "stealth" can offer even under ideal circumstances. Thats why Russian designers invest much more in kinetic abilities of new jetfighter, more into its sensors and weapons, leaving "stealth" measures as mere weaves of fashion only.

Azi wrote:When will photonic radars come into service?

I bet much eartlier than US will be able to come up with viable F-22/35/B-2 replacement.

Azi wrote:Photonic radar is a very promising concept but the technology is not mature NOW! The introduction will take decades.

Photonics: From the laser to "radar sight"

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40553
Points : 41055
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°636

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

GarryB Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:04 am

If RAM alone can make you stealthy why not apply it to all existing aircraft and save a lot of money.

The reality is that there is no such thing as a stealth aircraft that was not designed from scratch as a stealth aircraft.

Planes can be made more stealthy, and their RCS can be reduced but never to the level it could be reduced if you had a from scratch stealth design.

Radar invisible materials are worse than conventional materials.

A corner reflector magnifies a radar signal to a degree that no flat piece of metal ever could.

A flat piece of metal will give a decent radar return... a corner reflector can return a signal equivalent to thousands of square metres of target...

magnumcromagnon

magnumcromagnon: Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

Post n°637

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

magnumcromagnon Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:22 am

Azi wrote:

MarshallJukov wrote:

kvs wrote:The only reason why the RAM needs to be a certain thickness is that absorption is wavelength dependent. .

That was exactly my point. Also, gamma rays are high energy photons which is not the case on our topic as they have different properties than radiowaves. However new type of photonic radars is comming. Which supposedly make "stealth" completely obsolete by all means.

When will photonic radars come into service? You have a specific date? I'm sure that humans will travel to other stars, but I simply don't know when!

Photonic radar is a very promising concept but the technology is not mature NOW! The introduction will take decades.

By the way...Photons have all the same properties, they are only different in wavelength (energy). Different energy means different types of interaction with matter. (I know...I'm a smart-arse )

Decades lmao?!?! Meanwhile KRET is set to introduce ROFAR by 2018, you can wipe the egg off your face now.... Razz

Azi

Azi: Posts : 803
Points : 793
Join date : 2016-04-06

Post n°638

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Azi Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:00 pm

MarshallJukov wrote:

Azi wrote:The first effect is pure absorption of EM waves."

There is no such thing as "pure absorbition of EM waves"

Ah Mr. Einstein writes! Absorption doesnt't exist? So how would you name the phenomena?

MarshallJukov wrote:

Azi wrote:This effect happens over a broad spectra and is of course best at resonance frequency

And longer the waves are, the less effect is. Within band we currently duscussing it is absolutely, totaly irrelevant in terms of lowering radar ranges, not just " not so good."

In longer wavelength you have -5 to -10 dB! That's NOT irrelevant!!!

MarshallJukov wrote:

Azi wrote:Radar absorbing material design Yuzcelik, Cihangir Kemal

Gee, this again? Did you bothered yourself to read it in the first place? Go to page 51 and see that test was made at 300 Mhz upon PEC covered with 100mm thick RAM structure and BEST result they was able to achieve was reduction from 26Db to 3,8Db for a wavelength of 1 meter, didn`t i told you which wavelength the old P-18 has? Don`t you know what kind of RAM thickness actual aircrafts have? Don`t you aware that actual radars also give out much more than 26Db signal level? Sorry but you did not even saw forest behind the trees in that monography. And just so you know, 20-25Db signal reduction is EXACTLY the best ideal RAM can offer and thats EXACTLY around 10% contrubution to total RCS reduction in real world and EXACTLY why "stealth" is ***ALL*** about SHAPE.

Do you realize what BULLSHIT do you write? 25 dB signal reduction is not 10%! You know what dB means? It's logarithmic, so a reduction of 20 dB for example means a RCS 100 times smaller!

In laboratory a reduction of -40 to -50 dB is possible (perfect wavelength, good absorber), in reality it's more -20 to -30 dB.

And again P-18 is old soviet technology, the precision is 1 km (WOW!), so you CAN'T distinguish if 1 B-52 or 100 F-35 are coming to "visit" you! Serbia had P-18 radar and in Kosovo war the perfomance was (old story!)...ok, 1 F-117 is better than nothing! True.

MarshallJukov wrote:

Azi wrote:Shape is a part of stealth concept but it's not "ALL"!

Its ABSOLUTRELY EVERYTHING.

Bullshit again and again! A B-2 stealth bomber made of pure steel would blink like a christmas tree in almost every bandwith! Shape and RAM (or composite, transparent to radar) are in the stealth concept combined!

MarshallJukov wrote:

Azi wrote: why Su T-50 has RAM coating?

Because its potential enemies do not have any advanced long wave radars, ya see? And as we already discussed, efficiency of RAM grows as wavelength gets shorter. A bit of RAM to squeeze a bit more of RCS reduction is always fine. Just as, for example, they battle to win every kilogram of weight in that kind of machinery. Its not like T-50 bets everything on RAM or on "stealth" as a whole as american jets do.

Aaaaah yeah! Western countries have no long wave radars!? Sure!

US Navy use AN/TPS-71 ROTHR in HF band. US Air Force use AN/FPS-118 in HF band, a successor should follow soon. Other countries have OTH radar as well, for example Australia.

But at the last point I'm with you! T-50 is not so extreme for stealth optimized like F-35. For me the T-50 is a much better concept than F-22 or F-35, the point is Russia have only prototypes now and will lack the huge numbers USA and allies will have in F-35. F-35 is still dangerouse beside of stealth, stealth is not the important factor for F-35.

MarshallJukov wrote:

Azi wrote:concept of stealth is not bad at all.

It is VERY bad concept when you try to bet your success on it entirely. Read the story of "King`s new clothes" story to get what i mean.
Reduction of RCS means nothing if capabilities of your adversary to detect your jets are few orders of magnitude above the treshold your "stealth" can offer even under ideal circumstances. .

You mean that F-22 and F-35 have only stealth? They are full fighters! In real warfare it's not the point if your fighter is 100 km per hour faster or you can turn a bit smaller rounds, it's about electronic countermeasure, the precision of your missile and bombs, datalink and tactic. And I think you underestimate NATzO complete in this case!

You are correct with the point that T-50 has much better maneuverability, I never wrote something against this point. But how many fights there dogfights in the last 30 years of aerial warfare?

MarshallJukov wrote:Thats why Russian designers invest much more in kinetic abilities of new jetfighter, more into its sensors and weapons, leaving "stealth" measures as mere weaves of fashion only

T-50 is much newer than F-35 and F-22 and of course it's electronics are newer and better! But T-50 is not to counter stealth, it's radar is a X-Band radar, so it needs information from ground stations or AWACS to search for stealth planes.

MarshallJukov wrote:

Azi wrote:When will photonic radars come into service?

I bet much eartlier than US will be able to come up with viable F-22/35/B-2 replacement.

I think you are correct with your steatement, but it will take a long time to the point Russia will have photonic radar in large quantities, that's the point. One experimental photonic radar in 2018 will change nothing!

And photonic radar brings much better perfomance with lighter weight, but range is less. And don't mix quantum radar with photonic radar, that are two different pair of shoes!

Last edited by Azi on Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

Azi

Azi: Posts : 803
Points : 793
Join date : 2016-04-06

Post n°639

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Azi Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:14 pm

GarryB wrote:If RAM alone can make you stealthy why not apply it to all existing aircraft and save a lot of money.

The reality is that there is no such thing as a stealth aircraft that was not designed from scratch as a stealth aircraft.

Planes can be made more stealthy, and their RCS can be reduced but never to the level it could be reduced if you had a from scratch stealth design.

Radar invisible materials are worse than conventional materials.

A corner reflector magnifies a radar signal to a degree that no flat piece of metal ever could.

A flat piece of metal will give a decent radar return... a corner reflector can return a signal equivalent to thousands of square metres of target...

Eh? What do you want to tell me?

RAM is used in and on conventional fighter planes, for example the new batch of F-18 is partially covered with RAM. If you know what RAM is, then you would not write this!!! Of course a real stealth plane is made from scratch and you couldn't modify a existing plane to a stealth plane. Imagine the weight of 5 mm of ferrite (ceramic) covering a conventional plane!? What would your new payload be? By the way aplying RAM is not that easy like painting a garden fence.

And corner reflectors...
If parts of the plane are transparent to radar, for example wings, the "corner reflectors" inside the plane would be geometrical modified and covered with RAM. And inside you will maybe have the space for 5 - 20 cm RAM absorber. This comes not from my brain, composite are used in modern jets, for example B-2.

Azi

Azi: Posts : 803
Points : 793
Join date : 2016-04-06

Post n°640

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Azi Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:41 pm

magnumcromagnon wrote:
Decades lmao?!?! Meanwhile KRET is set to introduce ROFAR by 2018, you can wipe the egg off your face now....

When it's not in service it's not in service! They can write 2018 or 2020 it doesn't matter. ROFAR is not in service and even if it comes to service, you think 1000 of radars are available after a few months? A wizard comes and multiplies it over night? If a military product comes into production line it will takes decades before you reach the planned numbers. With one or two ROFAR you wouldn't win a war!

But on other side it's good that Russia works on this technology and a named date is good, that shows that ROFAR has reached some degree of mature. I'm not pessimistic!

Rmf

Rmf: Posts : 462
Points : 441
Join date : 2013-05-30

Post n°641

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Rmf Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:13 am

its a different kind of radar revolutionary not evolutionary, i dont think they would advertise it so soon ,even if they had it.

Rmf

Rmf: Posts : 462
Points : 441
Join date : 2013-05-30

Post n°642

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Rmf Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:59 am

and i speculate quantum radar will be sooner then we all think , already infrared detectors are using quantum technology- qwip on GeAs plates (same germanium-arsen plates used in aesa radar, hehe)

Rmf

Rmf: Posts : 462
Points : 441
Join date : 2013-05-30

Post n°643

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Rmf Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:02 am

GarryB wrote:If RAM alone can make you stealthy why not apply it to all existing aircraft and save a lot of money.

The reality is that there is no such thing as a stealth aircraft that was not designed from scratch as a stealth aircraft.

Planes can be made more stealthy, and their RCS can be reduced but never to the level it could be reduced if you had a from scratch stealth design.

Radar invisible materials are worse than conventional materials.

A corner reflector magnifies a radar signal to a degree that no flat piece of metal ever could.

A flat piece of metal will give a decent radar return... a corner reflector can return a signal equivalent to thousands of square metres of target...

true , and thats the reason i think russians kept sarh (semi active radar homing) guidance or combined seeker aided guidance -sag, missile can receive reflected signal from upper hemisphere while coming down on its stealth target or from under it.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40553
Points : 41055
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°644

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

GarryB Sun Apr 09, 2017 7:53 am

SARH is also cheaper and already in service.

Isos

Isos: Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-07

Post n°645

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Isos Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:18 pm

GarryB wrote:If RAM alone can make you stealthy why not apply it to all existing aircraft and save a lot of money.

The reality is that there is no such thing as a stealth aircraft that was not designed from scratch as a stealth aircraft.

Planes can be made more stealthy, and their RCS can be reduced but never to the level it could be reduced if you had a from scratch stealth design.

Radar invisible materials are worse than conventional materials.

A corner reflector magnifies a radar signal to a degree that no flat piece of metal ever could.

A flat piece of metal will give a decent radar return... a corner reflector can return a signal equivalent to thousands of square metres of target...

The design of stealth Aircraft reflect the radar signals in other direction, that's a big part of the "stealt technology". Most radar Producer are working on passive radar that detect the civilians signal reflected by planes. If they achieve to put this in a SARH missiles and make them work with passive early warning radar it will be a stealth S-400 and that will be much more dangerous than the S-400 we know.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40553
Points : 41055
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°646

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

GarryB Sun Apr 09, 2017 7:18 pm

If you have one radar then you can scan all you like but there are problems.

First of all by scanning you are giving away your location so anyone planning an attack can plot flightpaths that avoid your position, and even the flight profile of the aircraft can be planned to ensure when they are most vulnerable (ie closest to your radar), that they are either flying very low or are even behind something like a low row of hills or even buildings or whatever.

With an IADS or Integrated Air Defence System you don't need all the radars to be emitting in a scan mode... some can scan and some can listen and some can be moving.

This greatly complicates the planning problems of an enemy... if you scan with a high frequency radar and don't get a return, but are getting returns from other radar signals from those radars just listening the data from 4 or 5 radars could be used by a battle management system to triangulate the approximate position of objects not appearing on conventional radar... once the locations have been triangulated specialist sensors can be directed to try to detect threats like stealth aircraft.

This means you don't need all your radar scanning all the time, yet you still have a good chance of detecting threats fairly early on.

Think of stealth as a pane of glass in the canopy of a helicopter.

A normal plane is like the bubble canopy of a Hughes 500... no matter which way it is facing you can see the spot of the sun reflecting in the canopy from almost any angle because of the round shape.

In an Mi-28N however the canopy is made of small flat panels so you only see the sun reflecting in the canopy at very specific angles and with a moving helo only for a few seconds at a time.

The best terminal guidance method for a long range missile for use against a stealth aircraft would be IIR, but it would need guidance to fairly close proximity to the target for that to be effective. Long wave radar and bistatic radar offer excellent options to get the missiles close enough to get a lock.

Singular_Transform

Singular_Transform: Posts : 1032
Points : 1014
Join date : 2016-11-13

Post n°647

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Singular_Transform Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:10 am

Russia has working low power (passive) radar system.

There are many example, based on phone/radio/tv broadcasting systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar

Obivous problem is if the electricity supply gone then the illuminators die as well.

Singular_Transform

Singular_Transform: Posts : 1032
Points : 1014
Join date : 2016-11-13

Post n°648

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Singular_Transform Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:59 am

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-52E6MU-Struna.html

hoom

hoom: Posts : 2352
Points : 2340
Join date : 2016-05-06

Post n°649

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

hoom Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:08 pm

And to be anyhow relevant it must be 1/8th or less, so its like 200mm+. B-2 or any other VLO aircraft has its RAM coating in order of few milimeters or less, 2 or more orders of marginite below threshold of relevance.

Well if you design the plane right you can get big depths in wing edges & chines
Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 26 I_012

KINGFISH, inverted, undergoing RCS testing. Note the serrated leading and trailing edges into which would later be fitted dielectric wedges to further reduce the aircraft’s RCS. The intakes located above the wing would also contribute to lowering the design’s radar return. (Lockheed Martin)

Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 26 Kingfish_02

They did it all round the wing & along the chine of A-12/SR-71 too.
Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 26 I_014

Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2? - Page 26 Blackbird_02

I think they don't do that anymore though.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40553
Points : 41055
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°650

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

GarryB Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:09 pm

That is because when they were doing it then they had no clue what they were actually doing...

They would make a shape and build a prototype and then suspend it in the air and point a radar at it to test it... then based on the results they would redesign it and test it again... a very slow relatively expensive way of doing things.

It was only after a Russian developed the necessary mathematic model that could be used to predict radar returns using a computer that they could rapidly develop shapes and designs.

Russia Defence Forum

Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Re: Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Similar topics

Similar topics