PDA

View Full Version : Triumph advances to fire line



lurker
17 Aug 03,, 05:30
TRIUMPH ADVANCES TO FIRING LINE

The missile was launched without a hitch in the closed control loop at 12.25 Moscow time and engaged its target precisely at the desired point. The main objective of these tests was the functional check of new electronic equipment and software at the ground facilities, as well as the evaluation of missile guidance efficiency.

The Triumph's leading developer is the Almaz Central Design Bureau. According to Alexander Lemansky, General Designer of the Bureau, the comprehensive manufacturer's tests of the new-generation air defense missile system have demonstrated that it possesses considerably higher performance qualities in terms of the engagement envelope, effectiveness, and a variety of potential targets than was available with the previous generation systems. This phase of the preliminary design tests is scheduled to be completed by late 1999, A. Lemansky stressed.

The S-400 system is intended to engage current and future air threats such as tactical and strategic aircraft, Tomahawk cruise missiles and other type missiles, including precision-guided ones, as well as AWACS aircraft, at ranges of up to 400 km. It can also detect stealth aircraft and other targets at all altitudes of their combat employment and at maximum ranges.

Air Force Colonel General Anatoly Kornukov, Air Force Commander-in-Chief, characterizes the Triumph air defense system as a fourth-generation system with a brilliant future because its components are based on the most advanced know-how in the field of radiolocation, missile manufacturing, microcircuitry and computing technology.

Work on the development of the S-400 air defense missile system is a visible embodiment of cooperation among weapon developers. Besides the Almaz Central Design Bureau, these include leading enterprises of the Russian defense industry, such as the Fakel Machine-Building Design Bureau, the Novosibirsk Research Institute of Measuring Instruments, the St. Petersburg Special Machine-Building Design Bureau, and a number of others.

General Designer Vladimir Svetlov, head of the Fakel Bureau-the leading developer of missiles for the S-400 systems-underlines that the Triumph is the first system in the country and, perhaps, in the world that can selectively use several types of missiles, both previously developed SAMs and the new, unique SAMs.

"The long-range missile," Vladimir Svetlov says, "has no analogs. The other missile, the 9M96, does have foreign counterparts, such as an advanced American missile for the PAC-3 Patriot system, but outperforms it, as well as the French Aster, in terms of overall effectiveness by approximately twofold."

The two versions of the 9M96 medium-range missile (9M96E and 9M96E2) were discussed in detail in the March/Apr '99 issue of Military Parade. As for long-range missiles capable of engaging various targets at ranges of up to 400 km, It is premature to describe them, let us only note here that they are available and ready for trials.

The Triumph air defense system can also use 48N6E missiles of the S-300PMU-1 system and 48N6E2 missiles of the S-300PMU-2 Favorit system. Incidentally, the 48N6E missile was successfully test-fired on February 12, 1999.

A high degree of automation at all phases of battle performance, as well as modern types of circuitry, has made it possible to considerably reduce the attending personnel of the S-400 air defense system. The principles of construction and the ramified communications network of the S-400 system allow its integration into different level chains of control throughout the Air Force and other armed services. The arrival of the Russian Federation Defense Minister, Igor Sergeyev, at the test site is indicative of the importance of the next phase of Triumph trials. He told journalists that it was too early to sum up the results before the commencement of the state tests. However, it is expedient, in his opinion, to make investments into the development of the S-400 air defense system because in terms of the effectiveness-cost ratio it is 2.5 times more proficient than the now-functioning systems.

Sergei Babichev, Leonid Yakutin

bigross86
17 Aug 03,, 11:04
This phase of the preliminary design tests is scheduled to be completed by late 1999, A. Lemansky stressed

How old is this article?


It can also detect stealth aircraft and other targets at all altitudes of their combat employment and at maximum ranges.


How do they know it can detect stealth? The Russians used their own stealth bombers? Or the US participated in this test?

lurker
17 Aug 03,, 14:44
How old is this article?


lol. Looks like 1999. :) There just was a message that S-400 is going to be comissioned this year, and series of articles appeared.

I reposted this one and missied the date :)



How do they know it can detect stealth? The Russians used their own stealth bombers? Or the US participated in this test?

Russia have no revealed stealth program. Only some naval anti-ship missiles are known to have "classic" stealth airframe.

But the technology itself is not a secret. For exmaple there was a possibility to study F-117 shot down in Serbia.

bigross86
17 Aug 03,, 16:00
Yeah, but a shot-down F-117 on the ground will have much different charactaristics than a F-117 in flight.

lurker
17 Aug 03,, 16:13
Yeah, but a shot-down F-117 on the ground will have much different charactaristics than a F-117 in flight.

Sure it is, but the main interest is an actual construction of the ariframe, and the absorbing material.

Having this you can compute the rest.

bigross86
17 Aug 03,, 16:42
It took the US years to perfect it. Even with a semi working model it will still take ages for someone else to get it to work. How long has it been since the F-117 went down? And yet no one else has a Stealth plane out there.

ChrisF202
17 Aug 03,, 16:45
It took the US years to perfect it. Even with a semi working model it will still take ages for someone else to get it to work. How long has it been since the F-117 went down? And yet no one else has a Stealth plane out there.

1999 in Kosovo

bigross86
17 Aug 03,, 16:51
Almost 5 years, and no one has developed anything from it. Well, lurker?

lurker
17 Aug 03,, 17:04
Almost 5 years, and no one has developed anything from it. Well, lurker?

Just nobody unclassified anything.

Remember for how many years F-117 remained secret?

ChrisF202
17 Aug 03,, 18:00
Almost 5 years, and no one has developed anything from it. Well, lurker?

Just nobody unclassified anything.

Remember for how many years F-117 remained secret?

When was it unclassified?

lurker
17 Aug 03,, 18:17
When was it unclassified?

I mean existence revealed in 1988, 6 years after 1st production aircraft.

bigross86
17 Aug 03,, 18:53
Yeah, but it would make sense for any country to unveil it as early as possible, what with the way N. Korea is acting and the war on terror. Use it as a deterrent against anybody.

ChrisF202
17 Aug 03,, 19:18
Yeah, but it would make sense for any country to unveil it as early as possible, what with the way N. Korea is acting and the war on terror. Use it as a deterrent against anybody.

I hope they dont have any sealth planes

bigross86
17 Aug 03,, 19:26
I highly doubt they do. If they did they would have unveiled it before the shooting starts, as a deterrent, rather than use it after the US started bombing strategic targets inside N. Korea.

lurker
17 Aug 03,, 19:58
Yeah, but it would make sense for any country to unveil it as early as possible, what with the way N. Korea is acting and the war on terror. Use it as a deterrent against anybody.

Keeping it secret makes much more sense.

Nobody knows that you have it, so your enemy is hapilly jumping around and not spending any extra money on countermeasures. In the meantime you practically holding a gun to his head.

bigross86
18 Aug 03,, 08:55
Yeah, but hiding it until the US attacks mean you already have some damage to your country. Telling the US before they attack means they US thinks twice about attacking at all.

Bill
18 Aug 03,, 21:06
"It can also detect stealth aircraft and other targets at all altitudes of their combat employment and at maximum ranges. "

Why bother to keep stealth secret when you can shoot them down at will anyway? LOL.

I'm sure that the S-400 CAN detect and track stealth, just as i'm sure that detection radius is MUCH smaller than against standard aircraft. IOW, the stealth has to be REALLY close to the emmiting radar.

That's why the F-117, B-2, and F-22 all have automated threat detection that cues the pilot as to the best ingress/egress route to avoid detection.

lurker
18 Aug 03,, 22:20
Why bother to keep stealth secret when you can shoot them down at will anyway? LOL.

I'm sure that the S-400 CAN detect and track stealth, just as i'm sure that detection radius is MUCH smaller than against standard aircraft. IOW, the stealth has to be REALLY close to the emmiting radar.


Just to give it a thought:

S-300V (SA-12) was designed to achieve guaranteed interception of "Pershing" warheads on a distances up to 100 km.

Just compare RCS of the "Pershing" WH with B-2 and F-117A.

Bill
19 Aug 03,, 03:59
S-300 couldn't intercept a Pershing II IRBM RV, the track velocity is too high, and besides, PII was already out of service before S300 entered service.

Even IF S300's Flap Lid FCR could maintain track lock on a target moving at Mach 12, the missile would have to be literally coming right down on your head. S300's slant range and most importantly flight speed is insufficient to intercept a Mach 12 anything beyond about 5 miles from the launcher.

Hence the Mach 8.2 flight speed of the new USN SM-3 ABM. This allows a useful engagement sphere against extremely fast targets(like a descending IRBM or ascending ICBM). Even still, without a link to NORAD, relying on it's own SPY-1D radar, the SM-3 equipped Aegis would have an engagement range of only about 25 miles against an IRBM.

That's why the NMD Aegis ships are being equipped with realtime threat data from NORAD/SPACOM. This extends the SM-3's range to the absolute maximum, because the missile can actually be launched to the intercept point long before the Aegis's own SPY-1D can track the inbound target.

BTW, PII has been out of service since about 1988 fella.

Also, PII had zero in the way of 'stealthing' applied to it's RV. This is a weapon that was designed in about 1978-80.

PII's protective shield was it's re-entry speed of Mach 12.

lurker
19 Aug 03,, 05:02
S-300 couldn't intercept a Pershing II IRBM RV, the track velocity is too high, and besides, PII was already out of service before S300 entered service.

I wasn't talking about PII

Babelfish translated S-300V missiles (http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?lp=ru_en&url=http://pvo.guns.ru/s300v/s300v_7.htm)

Babelfish translated S-300V general chart (http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?lp=ru_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpvo.guns.ru%2Fs 300v%2Fs300v.htm)

p.s. P-I WH RCS (and so is minimal target CRS fro S-300V) was 0.02 square meters.

Bill
19 Aug 03,, 07:26
Pershing I was obsolete in the 70's.

Big deal.

lurker
19 Aug 03,, 08:55
Pershing I was obsolete in the 70's.

Big deal.

Looking at the site that you yourself mentioned in another topic:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-31.html

- First PII battery became operational in 1983, which is the same year as first S-300v

But all this is totally irrelevant, since radar crossection of the B-2 (on approaching course) is compareable, and F-117 is bigger than crossection of P-I WH, and speeds of both aircraft are subsonic.

So there is no big deal for S-300V to detect and engage those aircraft on distances up to 100 km.

And claimed minimal target RCS for S-400 is at least twice smaller than those of S-300V.

bigross86
19 Aug 03,, 11:16
The RCS of the B-2 and F-117 is reputed to be smaller than a large bird's RCS, due to the shape of the plane, stealth coating, and various other classified features. Plus, with only a moderate amount of jamming, the B-2 or F-117 will be able to get in and out and the only evidence will be scorch marks.

lurker
19 Aug 03,, 15:21
The RCS of the B-2 and F-117 is reputed to be smaller than a large bird's RCS, due to the shape of the plane, stealth coating, and various other classified features.

0.02 m^2 is pretty small. It's 2 squares 10x10 cm (4 inch x 4 inch), pretty compareable to "big bird".


Plus, with only a moderate amount of jamming, the B-2 or F-117 will be able to get in and out and the only evidence will be scorch marks.

We were talking about can it or can't it detect stealth on useful distances.
But if there is "jamming", then there is conventional aircraft also, not only stealth.
Means we will be talking about totally different ranges of detection and engagement.

Bill
19 Aug 03,, 19:34
The B-2 and F-22 both have internal jammers.

Call me a skeptic, there is no way in hell that the S-300 Search radar can accurately track a F-117 to 100km. Even if it could, the Flap Lid FCS shortwave emmiter would be lucky to track one at 10km.

The cm waveform is simply too short.

BTW, the actual RCS of the F-117 et all is still HIGHLY classified. It is not publicly available information.

lurker
19 Aug 03,, 22:23
The B-2 and F-22 both have internal jammers.

Thats the first time I am hearing about it.


Call me a skeptic, there is no way in hell that the S-300 Search radar can accurately track a F-117 to 100km. Even if it could, the Flap Lid FCS shortwave emmiter would be lucky to track one at 10km.


S-300V have no "Flap Lid".
Actual tracking of the small RCS targets in S-300V is performed by "High Screen" radar (9S19M2).


BTW, the actual RCS of the F-117 et all is still HIGHLY classified. It is not publicly available information.

Well, the data I am using is not from the newspapers.

bigross86
19 Aug 03,, 22:32
M21Sniper wrote:
The B-2 and F-22 both have internal jammers.

Thats the first time I am hearing about it.


Did you actually believe that the newst generation of US bombers wouldn't have internal jammers? Sorry, but if you did believe that, that really is dense, no matter where you're from.




BTW, the actual RCS of the F-117 et all is still HIGHLY classified. It is not publicly available information.

Well, the data I am using is not from the newspapers

And somehow you have sources that the rest of the world doesn't? How interesting.

ChrisF202
19 Aug 03,, 22:42
M21Sniper wrote:
The B-2 and F-22 both have internal jammers.

Thats the first time I am hearing about it.


Did you actually believe that the newst generation of US bombers wouldn't have internal jammers? Sorry, but if you did believe that, that really is dense, no matter where you're from.




BTW, the actual RCS of the F-117 et all is still HIGHLY classified. It is not publicly available information.

Well, the data I am using is not from the newspapers

And somehow you have sources that the rest of the world doesn't? How interesting.

me thinks hes making it up, maybe im wrong but thats my opinion

Bill
19 Aug 03,, 22:53
"S-300V have no "Flap Lid".
Actual tracking of the small RCS targets in S-300V is performed by "High Screen" radar (9S19M2). "

Flap Lid still provides terminal illumination for the S300, and even the S400. The SA-10 series is SARH(TVM), so it requires a cm band illuminator.

Search radars are much longer waves, and are not suitable for guidance because the refresh rate is too low.

bigross86
19 Aug 03,, 23:09
Whats a SARH (tvm) and whats a cm band illuminator?

troung
20 Aug 03,, 00:14
Do some research.

bigross86
20 Aug 03,, 00:17
I can't. I've got an image to maintain. I never research when I can ask. It's much easier in the long run (come to think of it, it's usually easier in the short run also...) And it gives people the good feeling of sharing their knowledge with others who don't know as much as them on the subject. It's a win-win situation, even if some win more than others...

Bill
20 Aug 03,, 00:49
SARH= Semi Active Radar Homing

TVM= Track Via Missile

Cm wave means the waveform of the radar is in the centimeter wavelength.

bigross86
20 Aug 03,, 00:51
Thankx, Snipe. See, Troung? All I had to do was wait a bit, and someone got the satisfaction of teaching someone of the younger generation, and not being thought of as an idiot. It brings a tear to my eye every time I help one of them gain that satisfaction.

lurker
20 Aug 03,, 01:40
"S-300V have no "Flap Lid".
Actual tracking of the small RCS targets in S-300V is performed by "High Screen" radar (9S19M2). "

Flap Lid still provides terminal illumination for the S300, and even the S400. The SA-10 series is SARH(TVM), so it requires a cm band illuminator.

Search radars are much longer waves, and are not suitable for guidance because the refresh rate is too low.

and again...
- S-300V is not TVM
- S-300V does not have "Flap Lid"
- S-300V NATO designation is SA-12, not SA-10

look at the pictures:

- This is "Flap Lid" A :
http://maniac.deeptown.org/images/30N6-.jpg

- This is "Flap Lid" B:
http://maniac.deeptown.org/images/30N6E2-.jpg

This is S-300V surveillance radar - "Bill Board" (9S15)
http://pvo.guns.ru/images/sa12/9s15m.jpg

This is S-300V sector radar - "High Scren" (9S19)
http://pvo.guns.ru/images/sa12/9s19m.jpg

This is S-300V control/illuminator - "Grill Pan" (9S32)
http://pvo.guns.ru/images/sa12/9s32.jpg

bigross86
20 Aug 03,, 02:03
lurker wrote:

bigross86 wrote:
LOL! btw- whats the S-300? Snipe, do you think the Israeli Chetz (Arrow) could be implemented effectively on AEGIS warships?


Here:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-300pmu.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-300v.htm

It's the same system, installed mostly on cruisers (Kirov class, Slava class and others).


Umm, dude? According to those websites which you sent me to, the S-300 IS the SA-10. It also happens to be the SA-12 AND the SA-N-6.

lurker
20 Aug 03,, 02:48
Umm, dude? According to those websites which you sent me to, the S-300 IS the SA-10. It also happens to be the SA-12 AND the SA-N-6.

Actually there is 3 systems:

- S-300P (PT/PS/PM/PMU-1/PMU-2) - Airforce, for the "Static" AA defence of the HQ's, bases and other important objects.
- S-300F (FM) - Navy, for the AA of the ships groups.
- S-300V - Army, for the mobile "front line" area AA.

S-300P (SA-10) and S-300F (SS-N-6) are highly unified and use the same kind of missiles (TVM).
S-300V (SA-12) is using about 50% of the same equipment, and different kind of missiles. S-300V were also deployed in Missile defence forces (which were a separate army branch, but now are joined with Strategic Missile Forces)

bigross86
20 Aug 03,, 02:51
Hey, live a day, learn something new. That's what it's all about. (That and Computer, TV, Guitar, Friends, Food, and oh yeah, PORN!!!!!)

Bill
24 Aug 03,, 22:19
Ho hum.

Flap lid is a FIRE CONTROL radar, NOT a search radar.

You DO know the difference, right?

bigross86
24 Aug 03,, 23:10
One finds the plane, one guides the missile to the target...

lurker
25 Aug 03,, 00:29
Ho hum.

Flap lid is a FIRE CONTROL radar, NOT a search radar.

You DO know the difference, right?

Do you? Maybe you also can show me a mesage, where I called "Flap Lid" a search radar?

Maybe I also need to explain to you the difference between TVM and Midcourse guided/Active seeker, and why S-300V is not using a "Flap lid"?

bigross86
25 Aug 03,, 09:46
I know what TVM is, but what's that other thing, Midcourse guided/Active seeker

lurker
25 Aug 03,, 14:44
I know what TVM is, but what's that other thing, Midcourse guided/Active seeker

Means that for the most of the trajectory missile is receiving guiding commands only (not sending anything), and for the last few seconds it engages the active seeker.

Bill
25 Aug 03,, 17:50
Track via missile means that the missile seeker forwards it's return to the tracking station in order to increase illumination range. The SA-10 is a TVM guided missile.

The SA-10 is not active terminally guided by it's onboard seeker.

You stated that the SA-10 doesn't use flap lid, then proceeded to post a bunch of pictures of search radars to illustrate your point....incorrectly.

All SA-10's use flap lid or Top dome for terminal illumination.

lurker
25 Aug 03,, 18:10
Are you on special ed. or something?

Let me remind you how it was:
1. You expressed doubts that S-400 will b able to detect and intercept stealth.
2. I told you that S-300V was detecting and intercepting the same RCS class targets long time ago. Those targets were Pershing-1 warheads.
3. You stated that S-300V cannot do this, because it's TVM
4. I told you, that S-300V is not TVM, it's not S-10 (it's SA-12), and provided you with pictures of all the stations for S-300V.

So why we just agree that you don't know jack?

p.s. funny to see your "been there/seen that/everything is crap" messages - In the meantime it looks to me, that you just walking down the street with a naked ass, pointing your fingers at people and laughing...
Keep up the good work - I enjoy the show. :D

p.s.p.s. If you are so potent about TVM disadvantages, why dont' you explain to all of us the advantages of the "Improved Hawk" over "Patriot"? "Patriot" is TVM, isn't it?

Stinger
25 Aug 03,, 18:36
Lurker you jackass, perhaps if you could back up your assertations with some evidence the rest of us might take your ramblings a little more seriously....

lurker
25 Aug 03,, 18:51
Lurker you jackass, perhaps if you could back up your assertations with some evidence the rest of us might take your ramblings a little more seriously....

What evidence for god sakes? Just read the topic thru.
Do a google search (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=sa%2D12) and look for "S-300V" there.
Read the FAS (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-300v.htm) if nothing helps. It's not too hard, right? :D

Stinger
25 Aug 03,, 19:15
Hmmm... nope I don't feel like searching around for things to provide evidence for your side in this discussion. Its not my responsibillity but yours to provide the evidence

lurker
25 Aug 03,, 19:21
Hmmm... nope I don't feel like searching around for things to provide evidence for your side in this discussion. Its not my responsibillity but yours to provide the evidence

I can prove that Sniper is wrong, for anybody who is not a lazy ass and able to read.
Sniper can't prove me wrong.

Until this situation remains - remains my point that "Sniper don't know shit about the subject". :)

Stinger
25 Aug 03,, 19:24
You can prove Sniper wrong but are (apparently)unwilling too? ok if you say so.

lurker
25 Aug 03,, 19:31
You can prove Sniper wrong but are (apparently)unwilling too? ok if you say so.

S-300P is TVM and there is "Flap Lid"
S-300V is command-guided with active seeker. There is no "Flap Lid".

If someone do not understand the difference between 2 systems, he shouldn't express his "expert" opinion, and should do some reading instead.

What else do you need? Pictures? I've posted them (oops, no "Flap Lid" in S-300V).
So, maybe I should ask Clancy to write that into one of his chirldren fantasy books? :roll: If thats the only reading someone prefers.

Stinger
25 Aug 03,, 19:37
Actually if you can post some articals or links to websites that support what you've said then I would do that. Until then its your word vs Snipers as far as I'm concerned, and I trust Snipers word more.

bigross86
26 Aug 03,, 10:40
Sorry, lurker, Sniper's word is going to be believed here, not yours... If you bring links though, we might at least stop laughing at you.

lurker
26 Aug 03,, 15:03
Sorry, lurker, Sniper's word is going to be believed here, not yours...
It's like I care :D But this is surely says all about the forum level.



If you bring links though, we might at least stop laughing at you.
ha-ha-ha :D There is many ways to laugh at people. Including a strange one I described one page before. :)

Bill
26 Aug 03,, 20:32
When did i say SA-10 wasn't TVM????

I said it IS TVM...

"Track via missile means that the missile seeker forwards it's return to the tracking station in order to increase illumination range. The SA-10 is a TVM guided missile."

Next, where did i say TVM was 'bad'? I didn't....

Moving on...

"Means that for the most of the trajectory missile is receiving guiding commands only (not sending anything), and for the last few seconds it engages the active seeker"

That is NOT what TVM means. TVM means that the SARH seeker in the missile itself recieves the return from the FCR illuminator, and then forwards this data via a datalink to the command station. The reason for this is because the seeker in the missile(Being progressively much closer to the target), will recieve a progressively stronger radar return than the FCR located at the radar site. Thus, less illuminator power is required, and tracking range is INCREASED. Next, the return sent back from the missile is used for command guidance to 'aim' the missile at it's target. This data again being sent via the datalink.

THAT'S what TVM does. TVM is NOT active radar homing. ARH is something entirely different. The ONLY ARH guided SAMs are the ASTER and the SAMRAAM. The AMRAAM and the Phoenix are examples of ARH aam's, but all these also employ SARH mode, and midcourse command guidance.

Moving on....

"2. I told you that S-300V was detecting and intercepting the same RCS class targets long time ago. Those targets were Pershing-1 warheads.
3. You stated that S-300V cannot do this, because it's TVM "

No, i stated that the terminal velocity of the Pershing is GREATER than the maximum target track speed of the SA-10's control station's computer. Pay attention(ALL missile systems have a maximum target track speed).

The reason for this is because the return from the FCR has to be processed, then the corrected flight trajectory has to be forwarded to the outbound missile and enacted. This requires very fast computers. As target velocity increases, so does the neccesary processor speed of the system. Pershing I is a Mach 9+(terminal reentry) target. It's too fast for the 4kps(rumored) max track speed of the SA-10 system.

I also stated that the Pershing I IRBM is not 'stealthed'.

Further, it is MUCH easier to detect a target at high altitude(like a MIRV)...stealth or no stealth..because there is no intervening LOS barriers to the tracking radar. Obviously, this would not be the case for a F-117 on a hi-lo-hi attack into a heavily fortified area.

Further, just going by actual RCS is misleading, because the absorbtive properties of the F-117 ensure that a much longer wavelength radar is neccesary to track it.

A cm or mm wavelength beam is absorbed almost fully by the RAM coatings, and gives almost no return.

Care to guess what fire control radars are? SHORT cm and mm wavelength waves.

It's the search radars that use the long m length waves neccesary to track a stealth aircraft.

The devil, as always, is in the details. While you can track a 117 with your long wave radar, you NEED a short wave radar to illuminate the target and guide SAMs/AAMs. These are the radars that stealth beats hands down.

So what good is tracking it, when you can't shoot it anyway?

LOL....

BTW, SA-10 DEFINITELY uses Flap Lid and or Top Dome ONLY as it's FCR.

If you really need me to, i WILL post a link. :)

lurker
26 Aug 03,, 20:36
Ha-ha-ha :D You f***g clown :D

Bill
26 Aug 03,, 20:38
What a skillful rebuttal.

lurker
26 Aug 03,, 20:41
What a skillful rebuttal.

Repeat after me:

1. S-300V is not S-300P
2. S-300P is SA-10
3. S-300V is SA-12
4. S-300P is TVM
5. S-300V is not TVM
6. If you still don't understand, - repeat from line 1 :D

Bill
26 Aug 03,, 20:46
When was i talking about the SA-12?

Point to ANY statement i made about the SA-12 in this thread.

There are none, cause i was only speaking of the SA-10/SA-N-6.

Further, i don't give a damn about them in any case, cause the first time the US faces faces them they'll almost all eat a TACTOM, TLAM, or F-22 launched SDB before they even know there's a war on anyway. :)

lurker
26 Aug 03,, 20:53
When was i talking about the SA-12?

Point to ANY statement i made about the SA-12 in this thread.

There are none, cause i was only speaking of the SA-10/SA-N-6.


If you are talking abuot the thing that can intercept "Pershing" it's S-300V.
All the talks that S-300P can't is bullshit. Nobody ever said that it can.


Further, i don't give a damn about them in any case, cause the first time the US faces faces them they'll almost all eat a TACTOM, TLAM, or F-22 launched SDB before they even know there's a war on anyway. :)

bla-blah-blah. :)
Those things are only good against butt-naked natives in the jungle. :D
First F117 was shot down by an ancient S-75 SAM, once those junk planes encounter real fighter jets or SAM's - they're toast. :D

Stinger
26 Aug 03,, 21:00
[quote]Further, i don't give a damn about them in any case, cause the first time the US faces faces them they'll almost all eat a TACTOM, TLAM, or F-22 launched SDB before they even know there's a war on anyway. :)

bla-blah-blah. :)
Those things are only good against butt-naked natives in the jungle. :D
First F117 was shot down by an ancient S-75 SAM, once those junk planes encounter real fighter jets or SAM's - they're toast. :D

I suppose your right, but I thought we were talking about them going up against Russian equipement?

Bill
26 Aug 03,, 21:04
"If you are talking abuot the thing that can intercept "Pershing" it's S-300V.
All the talks that S-300P can't is bullsh*t. Nobody ever said that it can"

Ah, so now the SA-12 was in service in 1982, when the Pershing Ia was withdrawn???

LOL

Further, how did they test the ability of the SAM to track a Pershing RV? Did we lend them some, or did we invite them to test firings at White Sands, NM????

LOL!

" once those junk planes encounter real fighter jets or SAM's - they're toast. "

They already did. January 1991....in case you missed it. Not a SCRATCH. ;)

""First F117 was shot down by an ancient S-75 SAM,"

Actually, it was shot down by one out of dozens fired at it, after taking the same route night after night. Even a blind man can get lucky and crack you in the head with his cane sometimes.

Besides, the F-117 is ancient.

If i was you, i'd be much more worried about the F-22.

Well, actually, if i was Russian, i'd be LOTS more worried about the economy...

lurker
26 Aug 03,, 21:11
I suppose your right, but I thought we were talking about them going up against Russian equipement?

Well, training of the crews is the first thing that reflects the whole performance.

How good is a tank, or gun, if the crew can't operate it? That is why all the talks about "kill ratios" in tanks and jets anybody should take wit a huge grain of salt.

(Just to give it a thought, my friend who was a tank commaner in the army - said that they were putting a shell into chosen target track, left or right, from 3000 m, when moving. On a bet)

Performance of the US weapons was good because it was used by US troops. Russian equipment was used by anybody but russians.

Stinger
26 Aug 03,, 21:27
Oh well if were going by training then I'm most assured that the Russians and their large military budgets allow for far more training than US units. Of course our equipment is still light years beyond the nearest Russian equivalent.

Bill
26 Aug 03,, 21:38
Russians in Russian equipment wouldn't do any better than Arabs in Russian equipment.

Their training sucks, lets face it....they're conscripts.

But, instead of assembling a professional military, the Russians keep building more 'high tech' junk, and at the same time their soldiers go unpaid...BassAckwards.

Praxus
27 Aug 03,, 04:54
Those things are only good against butt-naked natives in the jungle. Very Happy
First F117 was shot down by an ancient S-75 SAM, once those junk planes encounter real fighter jets or SAM's - they're toast. Very Happy

Actually I believe they used a combo of IR and Optical Tracking to identify the target, they did this of course after they knew were it was flying.

The F/A-22 from what I have heard can not be picked up by Anti-Radiation SAM's because it's radar can randomly hop frequancy.

Bill
27 Aug 03,, 08:21
It's radar is also LPI, and it also will eventually incorporate the next generation ATFLIR of the Super(cough..gag) Hornet.

Stinger
27 Aug 03,, 13:12
Sniper you still getting those pains when the Hornet and or Sryker is mentioned?


on second thought perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned both beasts in the same sentence

bigross86
27 Aug 03,, 13:22
Medic!!! Medic!!! He keeps saying "Strike the bug, strike the bug". What's he talking about?

Bill
27 Aug 03,, 19:54
Stryker.....retch.....super bug.....gag......Osprey.....chest pain.....rumsfeld.....flatline....

I think i will need that medic...

bigross86
31 Aug 03,, 12:07
Stinger! You cause one of our respected members to need medical assistence. For that you are on Troll Duty for another week.

Garry
06 Sep 04,, 18:57
Actually I believe they used a combo of IR and Optical Tracking to identify the target, they did this of course after they knew were it was flying.

The F/A-22 from what I have heard can not be picked up by Anti-Radiation SAM's because it's radar can randomly hop frequancy.

Praxus how can you know where is F-117 is flying everydat if you ABSOLUTELLY CAN NOT DETECT IT? IR in old systems could be used only for very short range or even portable SAMs....

Bigross
the quality of the tests with shot down F-117 are good enough - all you need is body and cover material.... Look at the pictures of what was collected - there is a whole wing and pretty big parts of fusselage + plus you have tons of good quality pictures+videos of the bird from all directions.

and yes indeed the actual signature of the F-117 is times higher than what was claimed ("classified" ha ha ha). The records from the radar which shot it prove it as well. I don't remember who has compared it to the golf ball - it is wrong.

F-117 is LOW DETECTION not an UNDETECTABLE weapon. And now with new radars it is very detectable and trackable at quite a high distances. Radar capabilities increased times. You need much less signature now to detect objects. And technology goes on...

Hei are you all here praying on Sniper? Sounds quite childish. He is not expert not even an engineer but a smart guy who reads much and then claims much not always having understood what actually he read......

To do

Garry
11 Nov 05,, 10:01
was just scanning the interview of Minster of Defense and noticed the piece about the HIGH price of S-400 Triumph..... one unit of S-400 Triumph is same price as a regiment of S-300 Favorit, meaning that it will cost around $ 800 mln

In general one S-300 regiment means 3 divizion (not division), each consisting 3 baterries. One battery is around 12 launch units (with 4 missiles each).... So total number of launch units in S-300 regiment is 108..... hence Triumph is around 100 times more expensive that S-300.....

Sounds very high.... probably reporters has missed something again

Shadowsided
10 Mar 06,, 21:34
was just scanning the interview of Minster of Defense and noticed the piece about the HIGH price of S-400 Triumph..... one unit of S-400 Triumph is same price as a regiment of S-300 Favorit, meaning that it will cost around $ 800 mln

In general one S-300 regiment means 3 divizion (not division), each consisting 3 baterries. One battery is around 12 launch units (with 4 missiles each).... So total number of launch units in S-300 regiment is 108..... hence Triumph is around 100 times more expensive that S-300.....

Sounds very high.... probably reporters has missed something again

lol! u s400 supporters make me luagh an F 177 is totally a different generation of stealth B2's and F 22's are far more advanced russia cant make blended body stealth aircraft F/A 22 is designed to go after advanced fighters and Sams now and into the future http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=3296

read F/A 22 vs the PacRIM near the bottom

Shadowsided
10 Mar 06,, 21:37
Praxus how can you know where is F-117 is flying everydat if you ABSOLUTELLY CAN NOT DETECT IT? IR in old systems could be used only for very short range or even portable SAMs....

Bigross
the quality of the tests with shot down F-117 are good enough - all you need is body and cover material.... Look at the pictures of what was collected - there is a whole wing and pretty big parts of fusselage + plus you have tons of good quality pictures+videos of the bird from all directions.

and yes indeed the actual signature of the F-117 is times higher than what was claimed ("classified" ha ha ha). The records from the radar which shot it prove it as well. I don't remember who has compared it to the golf ball - it is wrong.

F-117 is LOW DETECTION not an UNDETECTABLE weapon. And now with new radars it is very detectable and trackable at quite a high distances. Radar capabilities increased times. You need much less signature now to detect objects. And technology goes on...

Hei are you all here praying on Sniper? Sounds quite childish. He is not expert not even an engineer but a smart guy who reads much and then claims much not always having understood what actually he read......

To do


only partly true yes you are corrwect of the undetectable part but no matter what fire control radars that are used to guide missiles cant lock onto the stealth aircraft everyone knows that Ew surveillance radars that operate in HF,VHF,UHF radars cabn detect stealth however they are too inaccurate for fire control you will always miss stealth fighters are designed to evade fire control radar not surveillance if they wanted to aviod surveillance they'd be a lot larger a lot larger
why do u think peopel still use fire control radarsd etecting it is no problem u cant shoot it down though and Ew radars are hard to move and large and have less low alttude capaiblty during the 1991 gulf war the US sent low flying apches and low flying cruise missiles to knock out the early warning sysytems after they were down all F177's stormed in and attacked baghdads ground targets and other targets nevr being shot down or even scratched and IRAQ had modern sams supplied by the russians at that time they hada formidable air defense no fighter jet was allowed unless they wanted to die.

Garry
31 Mar 06,, 22:13
Niether Iraq nor Yugs had ANYTHING more modern than 1970-es in terms of technology.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-defence-equipment.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/serbia/airforce.htm
(look at bottom)

if damn old S-125 managed to get one..... F-117 is too outdated for S-300 or S-400..... When F-117 are scheduled for retirement?