Tu-160 "White Swan"

B-2 it is very stealth. Tu-160 is an easy target. It can only be used as an ALCM platform.

Arrow wrote:B-2 it is very stealth. Tu-160 is an easy target. It can only be used as an ALCM platform.

That is the reason they built them.
B-2 is for what exactly? I am not talking about stadiums fly overs.
B-21 its not a thing yet, maybe a day Will be a bomber...if the US has the financial resources...

The Russian PVO can detect stealth aircraft.
One unusual feature of the P-18 is its counter-stealth capability. Since the radar uses metre-length wave VHF, the shaping features and radar absorbent materials used on stealth aircraft are less efficient, allowing VHF based radars to detect targets at a greater range than centimeter or millimeter wave radar which stealth aircraft are optimized against. The presence of a P-18 radar in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War is believed to have contributed to the loss of a US F-117 Nighthawk during the conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-18_radar#Combat_History
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Low-Band-Radars.html

Their new UAVs will also detect them:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-china-russia-plan-crush-americas-stealth-aircraft-13708

The shorter range B-1Bs & B-2s can be refueled & have more foreign airfields to use than the Tu-160s. OTH, Tu-160s can use their speed & EW suits to evade fighters, suppress the enemy IADs & penetrate its denied areas.
Ironically, the US made Venezuelan F-16s escorted them! At least they r not grounded for lack of support/parts as some would have us believe.

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Russian PVO can detect stealth aircraft.
One unusual feature of the P-18 is its counter-stealth capability. Since the radar uses metre-length wave VHF, the shaping features and radar absorbent materials used on stealth aircraft are less efficient, allowing VHF based radars to detect targets at a greater range than centimeter or millimeter wave radar which stealth aircraft are optimized against. The presence of a P-18 radar in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War is believed to have contributed to the loss of a US F-117 Nighthawk during the conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-18_radar#Combat_History
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Low-Band-Radars.html

Their new UAVs will also detect them:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-china-russia-plan-crush-americas-stealth-aircraft-13708

The shorter range B-1Bs & B-2s can be refueled & have more foreign airfields to use than the Tu-160s. OTH, Tu-160s can use their speed & EW suits to evade fighters, suppress the enemy IADs & penetrate its denied areas.
Ironically, the US made Venezuelan F-16s escorted them! At least they r not grounded for lack of support/parts as some would have us believe.

It is possible to detect the B-2/21 and so on, but it won't give weapon quality tracking.

The shaping is interesting at 200km , the missiles are usable from that range.

It is possible to detect the B-2/21 and so on, but it won't give weapon quality tracking.

But it will be allow to send sukhois armed with IR and canons on them. Then they are dead.

Newer radar like Nebo M can detect stealth from very far away with very high resolution. P-18 is just old and been replaced/updated with something much newer.

So yeah, they tracked stealth long ago. It's different story now where even US is looking at speed, not stealth, as the future.

Tu-160 can also be refueled in the air.

miketheterrible wrote:Newer radar like Nebo M can detect stealth from very far away with very high resolution. P-18 is just old and been replaced/updated with something much newer.

So yeah, they tracked stealth long ago. It's different story now where even US is looking at speed, not stealth, as the future.

They have huge stock of p-18/19 and other soviet radars easily upgradable for a fraction of the Nabo price.

They only need two or three operators so you can deploy many of them probably 3 or 4 per each s-300/400 regiments.

The big advantage of these systems is that they are very hard to detect. Even with their huge antenna they have low precision which means a smaller antenna in ARM can't target them and fighters EW can't find them precisly. Only know direction and power but no range indication.

And last VHF radars have resolution of 100-200m in range so they can guide active raar SAM like future s-350's missiles on targets which will activate their raar from 20km and found their targets by their own for final strike.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Russian PVO can detect stealth aircraft.
One unusual feature of the P-18 is its counter-stealth capability. Since the radar uses metre-length wave VHF, the shaping features and radar absorbent materials used on stealth aircraft are less efficient, allowing VHF based radars to detect targets at a greater range than centimeter or millimeter wave radar which stealth aircraft are optimized against. The presence of a P-18 radar in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War is believed to have contributed to the loss of a US F-117 Nighthawk during the conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-18_radar#Combat_History
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Low-Band-Radars.html

Their new UAVs will also detect them:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-china-russia-plan-crush-americas-stealth-aircraft-13708

The shorter range B-1Bs & B-2s can be refueled & have more foreign airfields to use than the Tu-160s. OTH, Tu-160s can use their speed & EW suits to evade fighters, suppress the enemy IADs & penetrate its denied areas.
Ironically, the US made Venezuelan F-16s escorted them! At least they r not grounded for lack of support/parts as some would have us believe.

It is possible to detect the B-2/21 and so on, but it won't give weapon quality tracking.

The shaping is interesting at 200km , the missiles are usable from that range.

The intention of stealth is to attack unseen, to have the advantage of a surprise. If you can see the B2, B21, F-35 or F-22 in the VHF band there is no surpise anymore!!!

It's true that VHF band limits the accuracy to a few hundreds of meters, but there are solutions for this! The VHF radar see at a long distance something is there and that's the opportunity to focus a sharp radar beam in shorter wavelength exactly in this direction. Normally a radar cone lose energy fast with distance, if the angles are too wide, to retain the energy the cone must be focused more to a beam (for x-band radar). You can do this easy in a integrated air defense network. Of course both systems not connected are helpless, the VHF will receive no weapon track and the x band radar will see the stealth plane too late But Russia has a integrated air defense network. It's by the way possible to raise the sensitivity of x-band detector, that it can detect the small amount of reflection from stealth planes, makes sense in the integrated air defense network, there you can focus on a small part and ignore the rest of background noise. Another point is for big bombers to sneak silent behind enemy lines and that's not possible in Russia, because the big OTH radar see the B-2 from long distance and the B-2 (B-21) has no fighter support, is helpless even against a Mig-21.

By the way the 92N2 radar produce a very focused radar beam! The 91N6E has a engagement range against stealth targets of 150 km, detection range is more.

It's true...stealth planes can come a little closer to air defense lines, but not close enough! Russia 2018 is not Iraq 2003, but Muricans think it is and their technology is soo extreme superior.

Arrow wrote:B-2 it is very stealth. Tu-160 is an easy target. It can only be used as an ALCM platform.

very stealth is true!  but very stealth ,ust be defined to what bandwith? and optical systems also dont see it? no 1000+ Celsius  exhaust can be traced by IR detectors? wow




Krasna Zvezda interview with the Commander of the long-range aviation, Lieutenant-General Sergei KOBYLASH,

http://redstar.ru/rabotali-na-polnyj-radius/

For the first time this academic year, we carried out practical launches of new aircraft guided missiles by combatant crews at the sea range, at the sea target. Not without pride, I will emphasize: The launches were made regularly, all the missiles hit the target, which proves the high efficiency of the new aviation weapons and their skillful use

sea tragets? Zircons?


In the near future, long-range aircraft will receive upgraded Tu-160M2 aircraft with improved performance.

+++
Please, a little more in detail about the course of modernization of the long-range aircraft fleet.

- The ongoing modernization will extend the life of these aircraft to 45-50 years. They will be installed fundamentally new avionics cockpit. On-board radio-electronic systems will be replaced by an on-board radio-electronic complex with an integrated information and control environment. The complex will include new promising systems: inertial, astroinertial, satellite navigation, radio near navigation, air signals, as well as an onboard defense complex, electronic warfare complex.
This will allow the aircraft to use both existing means of destruction and promising increased range.
The industry conducts all works in accordance with the agreed schedule and with high quality.

Azi wrote:

The shaping is interesting at 200km , the missiles are usable from that range.

The intention of stealth is to attack unseen, to have the advantage of a surprise. If you can see the B2, B21, F-35 or F-22 in the VHF band there is no surpise anymore!!!

It's true that VHF band limits the accuracy to a few hundreds of meters, but there are solutions for this! The VHF radar see at a long distance something is there and that's the opportunity to focus a sharp radar beam in shorter wavelength exactly in this direction. Normally a radar cone lose energy fast with distance, if the angles are too wide, to retain the energy the cone must be focused more to a beam (for x-band radar). You can do this easy in a integrated air defense network.
+++
It's true...stealth planes can come a little closer to air defense lines, but not close enough! Russia 2018 is not Iraq 2003, but Muricans think it is and their technology is soo extreme superior.[/quote]

True what you are saying but although stealth is no silver bullet it is also not useless. Otherwise Russians would work on VLO technologies. VLO is not only shape and cover but also em spectrum "camouflage" to have smallest possible footprint across all spectrum. In order to come as close as possible with standoff weapons. Either very fast ot]r very low observable.

BTW is stealth is so safe then USAF wont be requiring B-21 to be only "optionally manned". So in most important missions are to be one-way only.




What I am curious about is whether Tu-160M2/ Tu-22M3M (or as I've heard Tu-22M7) receive also active defenses i.e. direct energy weapons. Lasers or EM guns. Then we are back to the future: like self defense gun turrets on bombers ;-)

GarryB wrote:The fact is that the majority of US strategic bombers are B-52s and B-1Bs... they have less than 20 B-2s and are not making any more.

Their confidence in stealth is clear as their new bomber design is expected to be fast rather than stealthy.

you mean B-21? is stealth but much cheaper than 2$bln a piece B-2. Fast bomber can be of course considered X-37 or is similar vehicles but this i orbital category to me

GB wrote:The Russians have a lot of Bears, which are no worse than B-52s while being much much younger airframes, while the 14-15 Blackjacks would be totally inadequate on their own they are going to build a lot more, and with the new upgrade of the Tu-22M3M with inflight refuelling the Backfire actually starts to become a very close equivalent of the B-1B is several aspects...

And of course the PAK DA is in the process of development too, but even it will not be a traditional strategic bomber... more a theatre bomber and missile carrier and strategic cruise missile carrier... and perhaps even an MPA... and depending on the new fixed radar antenna arrays it could easily become a flying wing with embedded 360 degree radar for the AWACS role too.

not sure what is the difference between "missile carrier" and strategic bomber? In Russian Tu-160/22/95 are called "Raketonoscy" i.e. missile carriers.

AWACS on PAK DA? technically possible but if you use tens of kW radiation power why would you need stealth platform?!

GarryB wrote:
The Russians have a lot of Bears, which are no worse than B-52s while being much much younger airframes, while the 14-15 Blackjacks would be totally inadequate on their own they are going to build a lot more, and with the new upgrade of the Tu-22M3M with inflight refuelling the Backfire actually starts to become a very close equivalent of the B-1B is several aspects...

With Kh-47M2s, 3M22 Zircons, Kh-32s you could say the Blackjacks have the decisive advantage in firepower. Even with conventional warheads, 4 daggers on its pylons, and 6 Zircons/Kh-32s internally effectively makes them nigh-wunderwaffes.

No Kh-32 internally. To big. But six new Kh-50 cruise missiles would also be great.

magnumcromagnon wrote:2s you could say the Blackjacks have the decisive advantage in firepower. Even with conventional warheads, 4 daggers on its pylons, and 6 Zircons/Kh-32s internally effectively makes them nigh-wunderwaffes.

As Hole mentioned Kh-32 is way too big, I've never heard about air launched Zircon too. Unless this is called GZUR. kh-50 and GUZUR were to fit into internal revolver launcher. Kh-50 also 2 under wing pylons. I presume GZUR can be also mounted that way.


In short 8 supersonic missiles with 1,500km range means half a sauadron a squadron such bombers being able to deliver 48 hypersonic missiles. I donth think any CSG can survive that.

GZUR and Zirkon could me more or less the same. We don´t know it yet.

The only problem I see with hypersonic missiles at the moment is possible waste of missiles. If you fire 24 Kinzhals against a CSG of 12 ships half of your missiles could land in the water because there are no more targets left.

Hole wrote:GZUR and Zirkon could me more or less the same. We don´t know it yet.

The only problem I see with hypersonic missiles at the moment is possible waste of missiles. If you fire 24 Kinzhals against a CSG of 12 ships half of your missiles could land in the water because there are no more targets left.

not really, GZUR is to be ~1,500kg and cannot be muvh more than 5m in length (Tu-22M3 bomb bay...) Zircons is uniukely be lighter or smaller then then Onyx (~3000kg) + 9m in length.


Withing next 10 years US shoudl have working anti hypersonci defenses, that's what actually Russian military say. Other thing is that saturation attack is really tought nut to cracks.

Hole wrote:GZUR and Zirkon could me more or less the same. We don´t know it yet.

The only problem I see with hypersonic missiles at the moment is possible waste of missiles. If you fire 24 Kinzhals against a CSG of 12 ships half of your missiles could land in the water because there are no more targets left.

O.K. Kh-32 is too big for the internal rotary launcher, maybe Zircon, if that's still too big than the P-800 Onyx will do. Also it wouldn't make sense for them to both fund Zirkon and Kh-47m2 if they were the same exact thing. Besides 'Dagger' is air launched Iskander-M, which is purely a rocket powered system, while Zircon will be a scram jet system, probably with a rocket booster initial stage...and likely much slimmer. I don't see why Zircon couldn't be air launched, how else will it gain it's 1000km range? Brahmos 2 is export version of the system, and the successor to Brahmos which eventually had an air launched version, likely the same thing is going to happen. Obviously from a high altitude (15-20km) launch approach, otherwise it will be like 300-500km range system at a sea-level launch approach.

....Also, you wouldn't use 24 missiles when your using a nuclear warhead.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:


Withing next 10 years  US shoudl have working anti hypersonci defenses, that's what actually Russian military say. Other thing is that saturation attack is really tought nut to cracks.

They have to prove first that they can fix the problems of PAC-3 and THAAD. The PAC-3 system, despite being many years newer, is still in many ways inferior to the S-300PM system (circa 1989):

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1-300#%D0%A1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC

...Theodore Postol of MIT put out a scathing rebuke of THAAD's capabilities. Because of their deficiencies ins aerospace defense, they're even outsourcing to the Israelis for their expertise (Arrow/Iron Dome). Before they can produce a system that can defeat maneuverable hypersonic objects, they have to learn to 'ride a bike' before they can start 'flying planes'.[/quote]

magnumcromagnon wrote:....Also, you wouldn't use 24 missiles when your using a nuclear warhead.

True, that's not what is called non nuclear deterrence though. Non nuclear deterrence is part of naval startegy doc. Published on Kremlins www.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Withing next 10 years  US should have working anti hypersonci defenses, that's what actually Russian military say. Other thing is that saturation attack is really tough nut to crack.

They have to prove first that they can fix the problems of PAC-3 and THAAD. The PAC-3 system, despite being many years newer, is still in many ways inferior to the S-300PM system (circa 1989):

Is you compare  the newest Us system with old Soviet one, and the newest US system is inferior to Old Soviet one this simply means the  both systems were built for different purposes.

To defend a ship grouping or fixed installation you dont need super sophisticated missiles. It is enough to leave any, heavy enough, object on hypersonic missile trajectory in right time. Soviets did successful experiments shooting rods against incoming ICBM  warheads in 80s BTW.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

To defend a ship grouping or fixed installation you dont need super sophisticated missiles. It is enough to leave any, heavy enough, object on hypersonic missile trajectory in right time. Soviets did successful experiments shooting rods against incoming ICBM  warheads in 80s BTW.

That was super site specific (silos), it's not something that could be practically done on a ground mobile system. The thing is that to build anything you a solid foundation, meaning you cant just build a wunderwaffe ABM when the prior systems were questionable in the first place.

Just ask yourself this question: why does US DoD require the expertise of a country (Israel) with infinitesimal smaller economic and scientific base in comparison? It speaks volumes when they just threw the towel and basically gave up in PAC-3 and basically asked Rafael (based in Israel) to design PAC-4, and get Arrow, Davids' Sling, Iron Dome to protect you....Iron Dome, the same system that uses missiles that cost $100 thousand a piece, to destroy rockets that cost a couple hundred dollars to make.

Iron Dome wasn´t so impressive the last time Hamas fired a few fire crackers.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
That was super site specific (silos), it's not something that could be practically done on a ground mobile system. The thing is that to build anything you a solid foundation, meaning you cant just build a wunderwaffe ABM when the prior systems were questionable in the first place.

with tech advancements yes you can - shipborne why not? I dont see technical problem. you just let something like "shot" round that puts steel structures on GZUR trajectory in right time.

If ABM is so ineffective why Russia has been pumping billions $ in Avangard? about 10 years timeframe was talking Russian military not me. If not 10 then 15 lts say but still time doent stand still.

MC wrote:Just ask yourself this question: why does US DoD require the expertise of a country (Israel) with infinitesimal smaller economic and scientific base in comparison? It speaks volumes when they just threw the towel and basically gave up in PAC-3 and basically asked Rafael (based in Israel) to design PAC-4, and get Arrow, Davids' Sling, Iron Dome to protect you....Iron Dome, the same system that uses missiles that cost $100 thousand a piece, to destroy rockets that cost a couple hundred dollars to make.  

Im not sure if asking Israel was really tech question or lobbying. Nonetheless: Glide Breaker is reality, will it be expensive? yes, do USA have money for this? yup they do.