+85

archangelski

Wanderer

GarryB

HM1199

Isos

Benya

A1RMAN

hoom

Singular_Transform

Big_Gazza

miketheterrible

havok

storm333

OminousSpudd

Skandalwitwe

Rodion_Romanovic

chicken

SeigSoloyvov

Flanky

gaurav

AK-Rex

KiloGolf

Singular_trafo

moskit

xeno

Neutrality

ult

GunshipDemocracy

Werewolf

jhelb

mutantsushi

x_54_u43

JohninMK

BKP

par far

Book.

franco

Berkut

artjomh

Tolstoy

Cyrus the great

Pinto

EKS

ricky123

flamming_python

victor1985

Rmf

FichtL_WichtL

max steel

TR1

TheArmenian

Firebird

Kimppis

mack8

Kyo

kvs

Viktor

Cyberspec

AlfaT8

calripson

Hachimoto

higurashihougi

Sujoy

etaepsilonk

sepheronx

Mindstorm

Arrow

dino00

Mike E

RTN

eridan

Morpheus Eberhardt

zg18

collegeboy16

magnumcromagnon

Asf

AbsoluteZero

George1

macedonian

medo

Stealthflanker

SOC

rambo54

Austin

Vann7

89 posters

Go to page :

1 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 23 ... 40

S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Mike E

Mike E: Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA

Post n°151

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Mike E Thu Aug 14, 2014 6:30 pm

etaepsilonk wrote:

Mike E wrote:
Never said that they shouldn't have "jamming functionality", but rather that it "exposes" them. - One of the main reasons the F-35 was built in the first place...

And which platform jammers DOESN'T expose?

"For both sides, the fundamental choice was whether or not to radiate, to use their radar
transmitters. Either choice carried benefits and dangers, and there was no "best" solution to the
problem. Nearly every American ship carried powerful air-search radars that could locate the raid
two hundred or more miles away. But those radar signals could be detected at an even greater
range, generating a return signal, that would potentially allow the Soviets to circle the formation,
pinpoint it, then converge in from all points of the compass.
The game was hide and seek, played over a million square miles of ocean. The losers died."

That's a quote from "red storm rising", a book you so detest.

- That is true, but I was talking about stealth aircraft in general. "Regular" aircraft aren't trying to hide, "stealth" aircraft are.

- I LOVE Clancy books (Red October is still my favorite, and the movie one of the best ever IMO.), don't get me wrong. However, they are called fiction novels for a reason. I can go look for some books that accurately talk about ECM tech etc.

etaepsilonk

etaepsilonk: Posts : 707
Points : 687
Join date : 2013-11-19

Post n°152

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

etaepsilonk Thu Aug 14, 2014 6:32 pm

Mike E wrote:
- That is true, but I was talking about stealth aircraft in general. "Regular" aircraft aren't trying to hide, "stealth" aircraft are.

That's where you're wrong.
Ever heard about EMCON discipline?

- I LOVE Clancy books (Red October is still my favorite, and the movie one of the best ever IMO.), don't get me wrong. However, they are called fiction novels for a reason. I can go look for some books that accurately talk about ECM tech etc.

LOL. You think I don't know that clancy books are pages upon pages of "america fuck yeah" ramblings?
Just as I said, books like "red storm rising" are good introduction into real life military units and and their approximate use.

Mike E

Mike E: Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA

Post n°153

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Mike E Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:18 pm

etaepsilonk wrote:

Mike E wrote:
- That is true, but I was talking about stealth aircraft in general. "Regular" aircraft aren't trying to hide, "stealth" aircraft are.

That's where you're wrong.
Ever heard about EMCON discipline?

- I LOVE Clancy books (Red October is still my favorite, and the movie one of the best ever IMO.), don't get me wrong. However, they are called fiction novels for a reason. I can go look for some books that accurately talk about ECM tech etc.

LOL. You think I don't know that clancy books are pages upon pages of "america fuck yeah" ramblings?
Just as I said, books like "red storm rising" are good introduction into real life military units and and their approximate use.

- Never heard of it... However, my point still stands. I've simply been saying that a stealth aircraft that uses its jammer gives up its "stealth" advantage.

- I get your point, but I'm one who would rather listen to someone who has worked in that industry, versus reading a 80's novel.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40557
Points : 41059
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°154

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

GarryB Fri Aug 15, 2014 12:55 pm

If you purposefully ignore such simple arguments, like highschool grade subjects on EM wave properties, then I'm afraid this discussion is over.

Point out the simple arguments you are referring to...

Gee, I wonder why F-35 is having a jammer, isn't it supposed to be stealth or something?

The F-35 has a jammer because it has an X band AESA radar that has a jamming function.

As described in this article posted on the thread about the F-35:

The US’s newly developed radar-evading F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will not be able to escape Russian radars.

“The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter... is not, in fact, stealthy in the eyes of a growing number of Russian and Chinese radars,” the Aviation Week said.

It said the jet, which the Pentagon hopes would be stealthy, is “having all sorts of shortcomings.”

The report said the jet is not even effective in “jamming enemy radar”, adding the US Defense Department is spending “hundreds of billions of dollars” for a “fighter that will need the help of specialized jamming aircraft.”

It said the F-35 is even “susceptible to detection by radars operating in the VHF bands of the spectrum.”

The report said Russian armed forces have been armed with a “highly counterstealth radar system” – unveiled at an air show near Moscow last August – that is able to “track small targets once the VHF radar has detected them.”

The F-35 has not been equipped with “onboard jamming,” the report said.

“Had the JSF requirements been tightened by one iota since the program started, its advocates would be blaming that for the delays and overruns,” it said.

The new US fighter’s “jamming is mostly confined to the X-band,” the report said.

Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/29/360578/us-stealth-jet-cant-evade-russia-radars/

Precisely

Except that the AESA X band radar on the F-35 does not operate and cannot detect the signals of the VHF radars that will be detecting the F-35... just the same as an AM band radio cannot pick up or jam signals in the FM band.

"For both sides, the fundamental choice was whether or not to radiate, to use their radar
transmitters. Either choice carried benefits and dangers, and there was no "best" solution to the
problem. Nearly every American ship carried powerful air-search radars that could locate the raid
two hundred or more miles away. But those radar signals could be detected at an even greater
range, generating a return signal, that would potentially allow the Soviets to circle the formation,
pinpoint it, then converge in from all points of the compass.
The game was hide and seek, played over a million square miles of ocean. The losers died."

That's a quote from "red storm rising", a book you so detest.

Yeah... crap.
By that stage the Soviets had their satellites to detect US carriers... there was no need for cat and mouse games with radars.

One SAM site scanning for air threats gives its position away to all those who listen... but a modern mobile radar can shut down and move in a matter of minutes and some SAMs can actually fire while moving.

Emissions in a net centric system act differently too an S-400s air search radar has a specific range for different targets and the radar waves travel that range x 2 because they go out and come back. the max effective range for a specific target is based on a calculation... but what if that radar is emitting and other radars of the same type all around the place are just listening... an S-400 system 300km away scanning the sky for targets... what if there is another S-400 unit near the border but not emitting and just listening that is only 100km from the target... if it can detect the target at 200km then it might detect the reflected emissions... especially when the target is stealthy and is designed to deflect signals in different directions but not back at the emitter... what if a listening radar is in the path those emissions is deflected to?

What if there is a VHF radar next to the emitting S-400 system and it detects the F-35 anyway?

If the F-35 jams the original emitter then the S-400 system sitting much closer will detect that jamming signal too. The F-35 doesn't have anything that operates in VHF except possibly its radio so it will have no idea the VHF system is painting it... let alone any option to jam.

- That is true, but I was talking about stealth aircraft in general. "Regular" aircraft aren't trying to hide, "stealth" aircraft are.

Well... technically regular aircraft have been hiding from radar since radar was invented using chaff which reflected the radars own signal and filled the screen with returns to hide the aircraft. Jamming is another way to hide conventional aircraft from radar.

That's where you're wrong.
Ever heard about EMCON discipline?

Emission control is practised by everyone... stealthy or non stealthy... but much more critical for stealthy... they spent trillions making your plane difficult to detect so turning on a radar or having long radio conversations is a no no. There is a reason the F-117 doesn't have a radar.

Just as I said, books like "red storm rising" are good introduction into real life military units and and their approximate use.

Yeah, like Mein Kampf is a good introduction to ... anything. Rolling Eyes

- Never heard of it... However, my point still stands. I've simply been saying that a stealth aircraft that uses its jammer gives up its "stealth" advantage.

Emission control is what the US Navy practised to make their carrier groups hard to spot. the ocean is huge and a carrier group is a serious concentration of firepower... so if the enemy stumbles upon it and is not ready for a fight the carrier group should be able to defend itself rather well.

If however the group goes around broadcasting radar noise in every direction the enemy will quickly work out their position... mass up an attack force and overwhelm the carrier group.

Of course there is plenty of room for tactics... a single vessel broadcasting lots of noise could turn out to be a trap... especially when we translate this back to land... a single S-300 turns on its radar and Israel goes nuts and loads up a few dozen fighter bombers and heads in to take that S-300 battery out. As they approach, however, they find S-300 missiles coming up to meet them from a dozen different locations and the munitions they do fire at all the S-300 positions they spot seem to explode a km or so before impact due to TOR or Pantsir-S1 systems...

There are measures and countermeasures... the problem with Clancy is that he is not a real expert on Soviet equipment.... he was an expert on US navy doctrine which was based on the Soviets acting in a specific way with certain technologies. It totally ignored the fact that the Soviets knew their Tu-142s would have trouble spotting US carriers and had started sending up satellites to do the job remotely...

etaepsilonk

etaepsilonk: Posts : 707
Points : 687
Join date : 2013-11-19

Post n°155

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

etaepsilonk Fri Aug 15, 2014 1:31 pm

GarryB wrote:Point out the simple arguments you are referring to...

My argument on unequal tradeoff between jammers and radars while increasing range, for example.

The F-35 has a jammer because it has an X band AESA radar that has a jamming function.

As described in this article posted on the thread about the F-35:

I think title "presstv" says it all isn't it?

Yeah... crap.
By that stage the Soviets had their satellites to detect US carriers... there was no need for cat and mouse games with radars.

Except those sats had low earth orbit, so weren't expected to survive for very long.

Emission control is practised by everyone... stealthy or non stealthy... but much more critical for stealthy... they spent trillions making your plane difficult to detect so turning on a radar or having long radio conversations is a no no.

You know, there have been some studies ragarding arab-israeli tank battles, if I remember correctly. And those concluded that initial detection while remaining undetected yourself had a critical importance in the outcome of the battle.
You think it's somehow different for aircraft? Wink

There are measures and countermeasures... the problem with Clancy is that he is not a real expert on Soviet equipment.... he was an expert on US navy doctrine which was based on the Soviets acting in a specific way with certain technologies. It totally ignored the fact that the Soviets knew their Tu-142s would have trouble spotting US carriers and had started sending up satellites to do the job remotely...

Those naval and air actions were based on Larry Bond's "Harpoon", a game where many settings were tweaked to create artificial tension, BTW Wink

If you read "red storm rising" you'll quickly notice that USA's enormous refueling tanker fleet is omitted.
Soviet subs aren't targeting convoys with 100km range wake homing torpedoes.
Soviet takeover of Iceland is completely unrealistic.
Soviets weren't using any foreign bases not in Europe.
CIWS tearing through multiple kh-22s? Suspect

Ticonderoga's arm-launchers were given a launch speed of VLS jocolor

As you can see, there's plenty of inaccuracies, because it's not meant to be an accurate description of ww3 in the first place.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40557
Points : 41059
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°156

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

GarryB Sat Aug 16, 2014 11:41 am

My argument on unequal tradeoff between jammers and radars while increasing range, for example.

You were talking about stealth aircraft using jammers... they don't.

You were the one that brought up emission control as a means of hiding carrier groups... do you think they would give away the location of their difficult to find stealth aircraft by having their stealth aircraft operating jamming equipment?

I think title "presstv" says it all isn't it?

Which part of the article is wrong?

Except those sats had low earth orbit, so weren't expected to survive for very long.

In the early 1980s what was going to kill them exactly?

You know, there have been some studies ragarding arab-israeli tank battles, if I remember correctly. And those concluded that initial detection while remaining undetected yourself had a critical importance in the outcome of the battle.
You think it's somehow different for aircraft?

Of course not being noticed increases your life expectancy in combat... do you think a sniper in the dark shining a torch at every one trying to dazzle other snipers looking at them through sniper scopes is being inconspicuous? there are lots of different ways of jamming enemy sensors but all of them involve transmitting a signal that to a third party betrays your presence... even the system used by the Rafale results in listening radar detecting signals from the original emitter and the jammer on the Rafale and each signal needs to be synchronised by the radar on the Rafale so the emitter thinks it is receiving anti signals that cancel out its own signal... from any different direction of course the signal and anti signal will never be synchronised and the jamming signal should allow detection and indeed triangulation of position.

As you can see, there's plenty of inaccuracies, because it's not meant to be an accurate description of ww3 in the first place.

So what you are saying is that it is bollocks and we shouldn't treat it seriously... isn't that what we are trying to tell you?

etaepsilonk

etaepsilonk: Posts : 707
Points : 687
Join date : 2013-11-19

Post n°157

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

etaepsilonk Sat Aug 16, 2014 2:20 pm

GarryB wrote:You were talking about stealth aircraft using jammers... they don't.

You were the one that brought up emission control as a means of hiding carrier groups... do you think they would give away the location of their difficult to find stealth aircraft by having their stealth aircraft operating jamming equipment?

If they're detected, yes. Jamming would furtherdegrade radar performance.
Non-stealth aircraft also don't emit at all times, in case you don't know that.

Which part of the article is wrong?

This one:
"The report said the jet is not even effective in “jamming enemy radar”, adding the US Defense Department is spending “hundreds of billions of dollars” for a “fighter that will need the help of specialized jamming aircraft.”"

Of course not being noticed increases your life expectancy in combat... do you think a sniper in the dark shining a torch at every one trying to dazzle other snipers looking at them through sniper scopes is being inconspicuous? there are lots of different ways of jamming enemy sensors but all of them involve transmitting a signal that to a third party betrays your presence... even the system used by the Rafale results in listening radar detecting signals from the original emitter and the jammer on the Rafale and each signal needs to be synchronised by the radar on the Rafale so the emitter thinks it is receiving anti signals that cancel out its own signal... from any different direction of course the signal and anti signal will never be synchronised and the jamming signal should allow detection and indeed triangulation of position.

Once the sniper is detected, that dazzling becomes quite useful I'd say.

In the early 1980s what was going to kill them exactly?

Sat killers. Technology for them was available not even in early 80-ties, but 70-ties Wink

So what you are saying is that it is bollocks and we shouldn't treat it seriously... isn't that what we are trying to tell you?

Yes, you shouldn't treat battle actions seriously, but not involved units and systems themselves.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40557
Points : 41059
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°158

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

GarryB Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:45 am

If they're detected, yes. Jamming would furtherdegrade radar performance.

The method of detecting stealth aircraft at long range is either incredibly powerful radar in X band or large VHF band radar.

Jamming is pointless against a powerful X band because the power of any jammer on an aircraft sized platform would be weak compared with the sort of equipment you could base on a truck mounted AESA X band radar plugged into the local power supply.

Against a VHF band radar a fighter sized target can't carry an antenna big enough to jam its signal... it likely wouldn't even know it was being detected... which means jamming in X band would actually reveal your position to all the X band radars around the place.

Non-stealth aircraft also don't emit at all times, in case you don't know that.

When using its jammer it does... which is why they don't have them.

This one:
"The report said the jet is not even effective in “jamming enemy radar”, adding the US Defense Department is spending “hundreds of billions of dollars” for a “fighter that will need the help of specialized jamming aircraft.”"

So what is the name of the jamming system on an F-35 that can jam VHF radar?

Once the sniper is detected, that dazzling becomes quite useful I'd say.

Except that while the sniper using the dazzler is looking for targets all the snipers in the area can see him very clearly and any one of them can kill him... or they can plot together to team up on him.

Sat killers. Technology for them was available not even in early 80-ties, but 70-ties

Sat killer weapons never reached service and were illegal under the ABM treaty... anything that could shoot down a satellite could be used against an ICBM and that was banned by the 1972 ABM treaty.

etaepsilonk

etaepsilonk: Posts : 707
Points : 687
Join date : 2013-11-19

Post n°159

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

etaepsilonk Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:29 am

GarryB wrote:The method of detecting stealth aircraft at long range is either incredibly powerful radar in X band or large VHF band radar.

Jamming is pointless against a powerful X band because the power of any jammer on an aircraft sized platform would be weak compared with the sort of equipment you could base on a truck mounted AESA X band radar plugged into the local power supply.

Against a VHF band radar a fighter sized target can't carry an antenna big enough to jam its signal... it likely wouldn't even know it was being detected... which means jamming in X band would actually reveal your position to all the X band radars around the place.

But what about short range? Do you think stealth aircraft won't ever put themselves in harm's way, for low altitude bombing runs, for example?

So what is the name of the jamming system on an F-35 that can jam VHF radar?

F-35 is supposed to receive a podded version of "next generation jammer" I think.
Although I'm not sure whether it can jam metric bands. But then again, VHF radar doesn't usually provide fire solution, so wouldn't you have to use usual FC radars to fire anyway? Wink

Sat killer weapons never reached service and were illegal under the ABM treaty... anything that could shoot down a satellite could be used against an ICBM and that was banned by the 1972 ABM treaty.

How about kamikaze satellites?

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40557
Points : 41059
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°160

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

GarryB Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:00 pm

But what about short range? Do you think stealth aircraft won't ever put themselves in harm's way, for low altitude bombing runs, for example?

The benefits of reduce detection ranges enjoyed by stealthy aircraft would be totally wasted if you want to overfly targets and bomb them with conventional bombs.

getting very close so they could use their jammers would be stupid because there are SAMs that are much shorter range that don't use radar guidance that can't touch stealth aircraft at more than 50km, but by getting close the stealth aircraft is flying within range of all those other systems that can deal effectively with both stealth aircraft and any ordinance they might try to deliver.

Using stealth aircraft in close is like trying to use snipers in close... you only do it if you really really have to because their best feature is firing at long range where the enemy can't see or reach them.

F-35 is supposed to receive a podded version of "next generation jammer" I think.
Although I'm not sure whether it can jam metric bands. But then again, VHF radar doesn't usually provide fire solution, so wouldn't you have to use usual FC radars to fire anyway?

VHF radar will detect the presence of stealth aircraft and give target data precise enough to get a radar or IR guided missile within detection range of its seeker. Modern digital VHF AESA radar are quite accurate and can locate a modern stealth aircraft to within a few kms... which is more than enough.

How about kamikaze satellites?

Hahaha... very funny. Even if it were possible the Soviets had the capacity to launch new satellites fairly rapidly... it was the only advantage of the shorter operational life of the Soviet satellites that meant the Soviets were able to rapidly replace satellites.

etaepsilonk

etaepsilonk: Posts : 707
Points : 687
Join date : 2013-11-19

Post n°161

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

etaepsilonk Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:16 pm

GarryB wrote:The benefits of reduce detection ranges enjoyed by stealthy aircraft would be totally wasted if you want to overfly targets and bomb them with conventional bombs.

getting very close so they could use their jammers would be stupid because there are SAMs that are much shorter range that don't use radar guidance that can't touch stealth aircraft at more than 50km, but by getting close the stealth aircraft is flying within range of all those other systems that can deal effectively with both stealth aircraft and any ordinance they might try to deliver.

Using stealth aircraft in close is like trying to use snipers in close... you only do it if you really really have to because their best feature is firing at long range where the enemy can't see or reach them.

How about F-117s and B-2s, who bombed serbia in 1999? Weren't they "totally wasting their stealth capabilities"?

VHF radar will detect the presence of stealth aircraft and give target data precise enough to get a radar or IR guided missile within detection range of its seeker. Modern digital VHF AESA radar are quite accurate and can locate a modern stealth aircraft to within a few kms... which is more than enough.

That's the case for ARH missiles, for example. But what about much more numerous SARH systems?

Hahaha... very funny. Even if it were possible the Soviets had the capacity to launch new satellites fairly rapidly... it was the only advantage of the shorter operational life of the Soviet satellites that meant the Soviets were able to rapidly replace satellites.

Soviets were able to rapidly launch 20 ton, nuclear powered RORSATs? Rolling Eyes

Viktor

Viktor: Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 44
Location : Croatia

Post n°162

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Viktor Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:35 am

Now this post is very important Very Happy

as it makes a direct confirmation of what I have found and reported 5 months ago and concerns engagement channels of the S-400 system

Remember this The Triumf system is more than two times more effective that previous systems. Each system can attack 10 targets with up to 20 missiles. post ....

and now look at this Karpenkovs post from "nevskii-bastion" blog LINK where he reports about S-400 system from "Engineering Technologies - 2014" in Zhukovsky.

well here we go: Very Happy

The performance characteristics:

The affected area in range, km "aerodynamic targets" - 3-380
ballistic targets - 5-60

Min. / Max. Height destroys targets, km
"Aerodynamic targets" - 0.01 / 30
ballistic targets - 2/25

Number of simultaneously tracked trails purposes pcs. - 300

Number of simultaneously engaged targets AAMS, pcs. - 80 *

Number of simultaneously induced missiles AAMS, pcs. - 160 *

* At full strength air defense system

And oh yea two more important things:

1. Each regimental composition in its full streingh consists of 8 (not 6 as in previous modes) S-400 batteries

COMPOSITION:
"Tools 30K6E "Up to 8 anti-aircraft missiles 98ZH6E

2. Im sure you noticed the range of the system ... and is now 380km for aerodynamic targets russia

Is it me or did 91N6 just got nastier looks

S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2 - Page 7 H8X5Y0S

S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2 - Page 7 KMOnyx0

As if that is not enough regimental command post just got more goodies as it is now able to do all these things which previously required brigade lvl command post and the brigade lvl command post also got lvl up for an order of magnitude

SU 30K6E designed to control the combat work:

- SAM system 98ZH6E 40R6E
- "S-300PMU2"
- "AAMS S-300PMU1
- "air defense system" Favorite "(S-300PMU2) through SU 83M6E2, S-300PMU1 through SU 83M6E
- "AAMS" Tor-M1 "through the battery command post (BCP)" ranked-M "(subject to finalization )
- "ZRPK" Armour-S "
- "Additionally imparted RFCs 91N6E
- "en-route radar output type VZV 96L6E," Enemy-GE "," Gamma-DE "
- "AAMS customer - with more work on information technology pairing SU 30K6E radar:

Now this is just too damn brutal thing to comprehend (number of engagement channels has grown by 40%, number of missile channels has also grown by 40%, number of

batteries in missille regiment has grown by 25% and regimental command post itself has grown to the previous brigade lvl command post)

and if we multiply all that meaning:

Effectiveness of S-400 in comparison with S-300Favorit: = 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.25 = 2.45 TIMES !!!!!

and Deputy Defence Minister Yuri Borisov said

The system “is about 2-2.5 times better than existing systems in terms of cost efficiency”, he added

of course this is rough numbers because many more factors arises from much more capable post that would up this number by few more points too but that analysis is beyond our means

Mike E

Mike E: Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA

Post n°163

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Mike E Tue Aug 19, 2014 2:08 am

I'm overwhelmed with all of this good news! russia

Now all we need is some more good news on the S-500.......

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40557
Points : 41059
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°164

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

GarryB Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:47 am

How about F-117s and B-2s, who bombed serbia in 1999? Weren't they "totally wasting their stealth capabilities"?

Serbia didn't have any digital AESA radars operating in VHF frequencies, and as far as I am aware even the stealth aircraft in that theatre and every theatre operated with escort jammers.

The escort jammers would give away their own position, but help conceal the stealth aircraft. The old model SAMs the Serbs had could be jammed by the escort jammers and the SAMs they used could not reach the jamming aircraft.

Works against old generation stuff developed before stealth aircraft were a reality... would not work now against Russia... as Russia rearms will be even less effective.

That's the case for ARH missiles, for example. But what about much more numerous SARH systems?

Very few SARH missiles in the Russian inventory... most are TVM or ARH, or command guided.

Soviets were able to rapidly launch 20 ton, nuclear powered RORSATs?

Faster than the US could launch a satellite on a collision course to hit all the satellites in orbit... other satellites would not be in close orbits to prevent accidental collision so it would require a new launch or a lot of manouvers to get a collision... both of which will be detected and seen as an act of war... and of course the US Navy was riddled with spies who would have tipped the Soviets off... use it before you lose it.

etaepsilonk

etaepsilonk: Posts : 707
Points : 687
Join date : 2013-11-19

Post n°165

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

etaepsilonk Tue Aug 19, 2014 12:59 pm

GarryB wrote:Serbia didn't have any digital AESA radars operating in VHF frequencies, and as far as I am aware even the stealth aircraft in that theatre and every theatre operated with escort jammers.

The escort jammers would give away their own position, but help conceal the stealth aircraft. The old model SAMs the Serbs had could be jammed by the escort jammers and the SAMs they used could not reach the jamming aircraft.

Works against old generation stuff developed before stealth aircraft were a reality... would not work now against Russia... as Russia rearms will be even less effective.

There there no supersonic stealth crafts and AESA jammers as well.
As for escorts, maybe there's some reason why they're called standoff jammers.

Very few SARH missiles in the Russian inventory... most are TVM or ARH, or command guided.

TVM is also SARH.

Also, I see you have trouble realizing what 5th gen is really about.
It's an evolutionary improvement over previous gens, basically.
Here you say that 5th gen cannot under any circumstances be put in harm's way, must only use standoff weapons, etc.
Well guess what, many people were saying exactly the same about 4th generation aircraft, calling them "gold plated hangar queens" and such. But that somehow didn't prevent them having jammers, being used for low altitude bombing runs, did it?
And I suspect the same might have been the case for previous generation as well.
So you really say nothing new here, but just repeat the process, comrade. jocolor

Faster than the US could launch a satellite on a collision course to hit all the satellites in orbit... other satellites would not be in close orbits to prevent accidental collision so it would require a new launch or a lot of manouvers to get a collision... both of which will be detected and seen as an act of war... and of course the US Navy was riddled with spies who would have tipped the Soviets off... use it before you lose it.

RORSTATs would be mostly used over north atlantic, yes?
And USA's space centers are in Florida, on atlantic coast, yes?

So was it really that difficult to maneuver rocket into correct trajectory? I don't think so.

Mindstorm

Mindstorm: Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20

Post n°166

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Mindstorm Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:01 pm

etaepsilonk wrote:Standoff mainlobe jamming should be very difficult to deal with, even with advanced radars.

etaepsilonk wrote:As far as I know, it's the other way around, jammers become more effective with increased range, because radar signal becomes weaker.

etaepsilonk wrote:As for escorts, maybe there's some reason why they're called standoff jammers.

I have just read some of your statements and "ideas" on signal jamming and ......i hope that what i say will not offend you.......i find even surprising that you have allowed a series of truly elementary reasoning mistakes (at this level it is not even a matter of specific knowledge) to fool you completely in your line of reasoning.

1) Wanting to simplify the thing at maximum it is possible to define the maximum detection range for a particular radar how the higher range at which the re-radiated power density at the receive antenna - for a target with a specified RCS in the transmitter band , at example 3m2 RCS in the X band - allow the related processing module to extract ,from the noise, a stable positional data of the illuminated object at the specified distance (more simply it is called : the minimum input signal power ).
This overall figure ....obviously Very Happy

....is a constant for a particular radar ,at the specified parameters and take already into account the two-way extinction coefficient in the date radar band Wink

2) In general (separating from this point the several kind of offensive and defensive techniques at disposition of both sides to slightly modify the brute "energetic balance" of this "signal-to-noise battle") all jamming platforms attempting to degrade that particular radar under its maximum detection range figure, for a target with the specified RCS, must reach a minimum threshold of jamming signal density (usually expressed in W/MHz for radar channel) at the source antenna and that discounting the overcoming of defensive frequence hopping and pseudo-random modulation of the radiating signal.

3) In order to achieve a successful "stand-off" jamming of an enemy weapon system (such as a SAM battery), the jamming platforms need to achieve a stable and coherent degradation of the reradiating signal under the lower limit of input power for discriminating signal-to-noise performance of the radar from outside the engagement range of the enemy interceptor elements.
That mean that if, at example, 5 E/A-18 Growlers are capable to obtain the required jamming density to degrade,( from outside SAM engagement range) all channels of a single TAR of an enemy SAM battery equipped with missiles with an engagement range of 50 km ,a simple increase of the engagement range of this SAM at 100 km (doubling) would require .....25 E/A-18 Growlers (square function) to obtain the same stand-off jamming signal density at the source antenna capable to jam that single TAR !!
Therefore each increase of SAM engagement range put disproportionate burden on the jamming platforms in terms of sheer radiating power output.

In reality the platforms required for such a task would be significantly higher for simple sidelobe geometrical reasons and the situation would be exacerbated not only because the enemy IAD's ELS would ,at this point and very easily, provide positional data ....and several fire solutions..... of those jamming platforms for any TEL/TELAR waiting for the neutralization or for the intercepting air squadrons directly toward them but also because a modern IAD can place TEL/TELAR (often completely hidden) at dozen of km of distance from a battery TAR and ,even more share a fire solution in a matter of seconds with virtually any SAM system in position for the neutralization of the intruders and relocate in minutes.

I believe that ,at this point, would result even fruitlessly demeaning to cite the immense increase in jamming signal density resistance achieved by even only modernized versions of those same vastly outdated SAM systems against which US and Israeli AF has been force to divert in pasted conflict a so high amount of jamming platforms in order to achieve stand-off jamming . Laughing

Last edited by Mindstorm on Wed Aug 20, 2014 4:14 pm; edited 1 time in total

etaepsilonk

etaepsilonk: Posts : 707
Points : 687
Join date : 2013-11-19

Post n°167

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

etaepsilonk Tue Aug 19, 2014 8:27 pm

OK, firstly, I'd like to ask you not to use bolded letters so excessively in the future, it makes your comments quite difficult to read.

3) In order to achieve a successful "stand-off" jamming of an enemy weapon system (such as a SAM battery), the jamming platforms need to achieve a stable and coherent degradation of the reradiating signal under the lower limit of input power for discriminating signal-to-noise performance of the radar from outside the engagement range of the enemy interceptor elements.
That mean that if, at example, 5 E/A-18 Growlers are capable to obtain the required jamming density to degrade,( from outside SAM engagement range) all channels of a single TAR of an enemy SAM battery equipped with missiles with an engagement range of 50 km ,a simple increase of the engagement range of this SAM at 100 km (doubling) would require .....25 E/A-18 Growlers (square function) to obtain the same stand-off jamming signal density at the source antenna capable to jam that single TAR !!
Therefore each increase of SAM engagement range put disproportionate burden on the jamming platforms in terms of sheer radiating power output.

Interesting. Could you provide me with the formula you used for these calculations?

medo

medo: Posts : 4343
Points : 4423
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia

Post n°168

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

medo Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:05 pm

So, S-400 is now equipped with big missile to have 380 km range. Excellent.

Mindstorm

Mindstorm: Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20

Post n°169

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Mindstorm Tue Aug 19, 2014 10:47 pm

etaepsilonk wrote:Interesting. Could you provide me with the formula you used for these calculations?

Do you really are requesting a formula for this elementary example ?
What i have represented in the example with the increase of the number of Growlers from 5 to 25 is the product of the square increase of the required jamming radiated power (i the selected band) for effect of the doubling of the propagation range, in order to maintain the same signal density at the receive antenna ; simple like that Very Happy

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 40557
Points : 41059
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°170

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

GarryB Wed Aug 20, 2014 4:45 am

There there no supersonic stealth crafts and AESA jammers as well.

Supersonic doesn't make much difference... if anything a supersonic target is less able to out manouver a highly supersonic SAM.

AESA radars have jamming capabilities... many radar guided missiles have home on jam capabilities too.

As for escorts, maybe there's some reason why they're called standoff jammers.

They are supposed to operate outside the range of the air defences to make noise so non stealthy aircraft can operate without being detected. Stealthy aircraft would be even harder to detect with such noise in the X band, but AFAIK there are no airborne VHF frequency jammers so VHF adar should be able to detect them at long range... and large SAMs should still be able to intercept both the jammers and the stealth aircraft...

Also, I see you have trouble realizing what 5th gen is really about.
It's an evolutionary improvement over previous gens, basically.

Evolutionary means a 4th gen aircraft could be upgraded to 5th gen... just like the T-72 can be upgraded to near T-90 performance because they are both on the same evolutionary chain.

The F-22 is a revolutionary design not directly related to the F-16 or F-15C.

The same with the F-35, which didn't evolve from any one previous design.

The role of the F-22 is pretty much similar to the F-15C, but it has changed as well.

Here you say that 5th gen cannot under any circumstances be put in harm's way, must only use standoff weapons, etc.

No I didn't.

What I said is that for every measure there is a counter measure and the time when air defences weren't equipped to deal with stealthy aircraft is over in terms of Russia.

In 1990 an F-117 could not have bombed Moscow because it would be armed with two laser guided bombs and is subsonic so even an old model MiG-29 with IR guided missiles and IRST could run it down and kill it.

the F-22 would be a different kettle of fish because it could shoot back well before the MiG pilot could get close... but it would only get 6 shots and then have to return to base.

Today with modern VHF radar entering service and S-350 and S-400 and soon S-500 systems and of course all the upgraded IADS systems being introduced the F-22 can no longer fly around the place at high altitude shooting down enemy aircraft climbing up to get them why supercruising at moderate supersonic speeds.... it would be detected and gang raped.

Now it has to fly at low level like planes of old, so all the advantages of flying high like much greater speed and much longer range and of course added range to missiles launched are all gone and the threat from ground based systems... even including small arms fire suddenly make that expensive stealth plane much more vulnerable.

Stealth is not useless, but it isn't invincible either.

The US invested everything in stealth... the Russians added jammers and ECM and ESM equipment to their stealth fighter as well as high manouver capability. the PAK FA will be a real dogfighter as well as sniper.

the PAK FA wont be used to send into enemy territory to take over enemy airspace for an invasion. It will be used to defend Russian airspace.

Well guess what, many people were saying exactly the same about 4th generation aircraft, calling them "gold plated hangar queens" and such. But that somehow didn't prevent them having jammers, being used for low altitude bombing runs, did it?

4th gen fighters were never able to operate at medium to high altitudes over the battlefield in enemy airspace where the enemy had any decent air defence capabilities without jamming or heavy enemy air defence suppression operations being continually mounted. Even then flying low and fast made them safer.

And I suspect the same might have been the case for previous generation as well.
So you really say nothing new here, but just repeat the process, comrade.

On paper the age of air power should be over... but few countries actually have the full chess set of pieces like the US does. It has inflight refuelling and transport and jammers and recon and UCAVs and a wide range of assets it can use as well as satellite and other sources of intel on an enemies air defences. Most of the countries the US has fought didn't even have a full set of pawns let alone the other pieces... there is a reason these other support pieces are called force multipliers... if you just have fighters then you are vulnerable to an enemy that has fighters and AEW or AWACS because he can manage his forces more efficiently and concentrate them so he always has superior forces on hand when needed.

Only Russia really has a full set of defence pieces and even then they are increasing and adding to that stock as we speak. Could the US penetrate Russian defences right now with a small attack that might succeed... probably. In a full scale attack on Russia would the US win... I very much doubt it because the US has never fought such a war where the risk of loses are 1 to 1 or worse. they have never faced such a well equipped competent enemy before and for their sake I hope they never do.

that is not to say russia is all powerful and can invade any country and win... take away their nukes and I don't think they could successfully invade Europe and get to Berlin.

Of course you can't take away their nukes so they are pretty safe from external threats.

So was it really that difficult to maneuver rocket into correct trajectory? I don't think so.

they were in very specific highly eliptical orbits... I am sure NASA could manage to match orbits but I don't think they could do it quickly as there would be several stages needed to align the orbital paths and synchronise the orbit so a collision actually becomes possible... and I sure as heck don't think they could hide what they were doing... it would be pretty immediately clear what they were trying to do... resulting in the Soviets likely launching ICBMs and giving the attack order to their fleet... the old saying... use it before you lose it.

Interesting. Could you provide me with the formula you used for these calculations?

The problem of wave propagation is the same for sound as it is for radio waves.

Imagine a man is shouting and you want to block his "signal". You obviously have to do this in the same range that he is broadcasting in but both signals... the original and the jamming signal degrade as a square function of distance... ie you can't just double the range and expect to be successful with double the volume and the further away you move the worse it gets.

Viktor

Viktor: Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 44
Location : Croatia

Post n°171

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Viktor Wed Aug 20, 2014 5:17 pm

Now we know where first regiment will go Very Happy

The first regiment of the newest system S-500 will cover the center of Moscow and Russia

and in few months another S-400 regiment will start guarding the Moscow sky

One more regiment in Moscow region to adopt S-400 systems this autumn

after proving its worth

S-400 systems down 3 ballistic missiles during exercises in Astrakhan region

and size does matter Very Happy

S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2 - Page 7 7JukYf2

magnumcromagnon

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

Post n°172

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

magnumcromagnon Thu Aug 21, 2014 2:28 am

Viktor wrote:and size does matter

That's what she said! See the woman's fixation of the size of the tube? Chicks dig the big and long missile, especially if they're tipped with an expanding rod! Wink

Mike E

Mike E: Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA

Post n°173

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Mike E Thu Aug 21, 2014 2:32 am

Oh my....

Those tubes sure are big, are those for an S-300V system of some sort? They look too big to be the regular S-400 or S-300.

Viktor

Viktor: Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 44
Location : Croatia

Post n°174

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Viktor Thu Aug 21, 2014 3:21 am

Mike E wrote:Oh my....

Those tubes sure are big, are those for an S-300V system of some sort? They look too big to be the regular S-400 or S-300.

Actually these are tubes of both systems (S-400 (in front) and S-300V4 in the back).

Mike E

Mike E: Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA

Post n°175

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Mike E Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:44 am

I never knew that the standard S-400 had such large missile tubes.... They absolutely dwarf those people!

Russia Defence Forum

S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #2

Similar topics

Similar topics