PDA

View Full Version : 96L6 surveillance radar will track stealth targets



Boba
24 Feb 05,, 10:49
Russia displayed the 96L6 surveillance radar for the S-400 missile system at the MAKS 2001 defence exhibition at Zhukovsky near Moscow, writes Miroslav Gy? It operates in C-band, and the manufacturers say it can detect and track aircraft and cruise missiles which use stealth technology.

Work on the 96L6 began in the second half of the 1980s, when Boris Vasilyevics Bunkin, the general designer of CKB Almaz defined the requirements for a surveillance radar to form part of the new S-400 missile system. The design of the new radar was assigned to the Lira design bureau, which is a part of LEMZ - the Lianozovskiz Elektromekhanicseskij Zavod (Lianozovo Elektromechanical Factory). Lira and LEMZ are part of the financial-industrial group Oboronitelniye Sistemi (Defence Systems).

During the development and trials stage OKR (Opitno-Konstruktorskaya Rabota) of the programme, the new radar was designated VVO (Vsevisotniy Obnaruzhitel = detector for all altitudes).

The requirements for the VVO were very rigorous. The team headed by the late main designer Yuriy Fyodorovics Lisin based its design on research by Professor VI Vinokurov into the detection of difficult signals.

Another organisation involved with the development programme was the scientific research experimental establishment (Naucsno-Issledovatelskaya Eksperimentalnaya Rabota) Slozhnost (Complexity), whose general designers are BV Bunkin and Yuriy Aleksandrovics Kuznecov.

An experimental radar was built and tested in a series of trials against Yak-52 training aircraft. Specialists from other Russian radar establishments such as LETI, NII-2 MO, NII-3 MO, UPI, CNIIRES and VNIIRT participated in the trials, and the resulting data influenced the future development of radar technology in what was then the Soviet Union.

In 1988, representatives of the main developing organisation and the customer signed agreement giving the go-ahead for wideband radar technology, based on this earlier research to be used in the VVO programme. As a result of theoretical and experimental research, a database of difficult signals was developed, along with signal processing hardware with a speed of 10 billion operations per second, plus other components.

In 1991, the Lira design bureau built a prototype of the VVO radar. This started operation in early 1992, and in April of that year was demonstrated against low-altitude targets. Later that year systems were delivered for trials at the training centre of NII-2, the scientific research institute of the Russian air-defence forces. The system was displayed in model form at the MAKS 97 defence exhibition.

When the system enters service it will replace the 5N66M and 76N6 (NVO/NVO-M) radars currently used for the detection of low-flying targets. (The 76N6 is known to NATO as 'Clam Shell'.) Both had been developed in the early 1970s by the design bureau of the LEMZ factory. Later the 96L6 will replace the 19Zh6/35D6/36D6 family (ST-68U/-68UM) of all-round surveillance radars, which were developed and produced in Ukraine by NPO Iskra.

The role of the 96L6 is the detection of air targets and measuring of their azimuth, elevation and range. It can be used with the S-300PMU surface-to-air (SAM) system, can autonomously assign targets for the 90Zh6E, 90Zh6E1 and 90Zh6E2 (S-300PMU-1 and later) air-defence missile complexes, and can be connected with the Baykal-1E and Senezh-M1E automated command and control systems or the radiotechnical forces' Osnova-1E and Polye-E command posts.

It can pass information about a wide spectrum of the aerial targets, including aircraft, helicopters, UAVs and missiles, to the 30N6E, 30N6E1, 30N6E2 ('Flap Lid') series of tracking and missile guidance radars.

The 96L6 is very effective against low flying targets and against targets in the medium and high altitudes. It maintains its performance in the presence of heavy jamming, and has a very low false-alarm rate.

Targets can be tracked at elevations from 60? down to 0?, but a minimum of -3? is available as an option. The antenna uses several beams when scanning in elevation. For detection of very low flying targets, or if the radar is deployed in a wooded area, the antenna can be mounted on a 966AA14 elevated tower. The latter consists of a 40V6M tower mounted on a MAZ-537G (74106) truck.

There are two versions of the 96L6 - one which is installed on a single vehicle, and another which uses two vehicles.

The single-vehicle variant consists of:

• a 966AA01 antenna array;

• a 966FF03 shelter which houses the receiving, transmitting and information-processing subsystems, an operator console, communication and IFF systems and a ZIP-O repair set;

• a TM966 vehicle based on a Type 7930 Astrolog wheeled chassis with a SEP-2L generator and power-distribution system; and

• a set of cables.

The two-vehicle version consists of:

• a truck and trailer-mounted 966AA00 antenna set incorporating the 966AA01 antenna, an SES-75, SES-75M or equivalent model of electrical generator and power-distribution system, plus cables; and

• a truck and trailer-mounted 966FF00 installation incorporating the 966FF03 shelter and SES-75/-75M electrical system.

The two vehicles can be deployed up to 100m apart.

Operating frequency C-band (4-6GHz)
Range 5-300km
Maximum target elevation up to 60?
Maximum number of tracks up to 100 targets
Time from target detection to availability of target data:
- For elevations under 1.5? 12s
- For elevations over 1.5? 21s
Maximum number of the false target co-ordinates in 30min no more than 3-5
Crew 3
All-round search performance
Azimuth 360?
Elevation 0-20? (-3? if required)
Doppler speed range ?30 to ?1,200m/s
Information update rate:
- in the low zone (0-1.5?) 6s
- in the upper zone (1.5-20?) 12s
Sector search
Azimuth up to 120?
Elevation 0-60? (-3? if required)
Doppler speed range ?50 to ?2,800m/s
Time taken: sector search up to 8s
Time taken: lower sector search 5.5s
Time taken: full search cycle 13.5s
Low-altitude target search
Azimuth 360?
Elevation 0-1.5?
Doppler speed range ?30 to ?1,200m/s
Search time 6s
Deployment time from the move 5min (single-vehicle) 30min (two-vehicle)
Time needed to install antenna on the tower 120min
Activation time when in combat position no more than 3 min
Activation time when alerted no more than 40s
Continuous operating time no limits
Operating environment
Temperature ?50?C
Dust up to 2.5g/m_
Wind up to 30m/s
Resistance to being over-turned by wind up to 50m/s
Operating altitude up to 3,000m
Service life before overhaul 10 years
Operating hours before overhaul 12,000h
Total service life 20+ years
Total operating hours 25,000-30,000h

Shadowsided
13 Apr 06,, 14:50
once again more people ignorant of the S400lol!! this can in no way touch any US stealth AC. :cool:

kNikS
13 Apr 06,, 16:23
once again more people ignorant of the S400lol!! this can in no way touch any US stealth AC. :cool:
One must read a hell of a lot of books to show such brilliance.

Jimmy
13 Apr 06,, 16:23
Maybe it can detect a stealth aircraft. But how stealth of an aircraft, and at what range? That's all that matters.

I can personally detect stealth aircraft completely without a radar. But since I can see it probably inside 5 miles, it doesnt accomplish much, does it?

canoe
13 Apr 06,, 20:21
I wonder how well it can track HARM's.

Garry
14 Apr 06,, 13:51
I wonder how well it can track HARM's.

Hi Canoe, HARM homes to the overall radiation of the radar (not the beam as I thought before). Russian industry is right now producing very cheap devices which full HARM and divert them from radar. On the testing the head of the project was staying on the radar station being attacked by actual anti-radar missile. So sure he was that probability of destroying actual radar surrounded by 100 diverts is close to 1/10,000.

HARM needs new homing.....

I was told that major elements of 96L6 surveillance radar were tested against ferrying F-117 and B-2. But we discussed that ferrying stealth may have specific measures to increase their visibility

Shadowsided
14 Apr 06,, 21:17
It's a sureveillance radar it can only track stealth targets targets 0.2 square meters and above our stealth AC have much smaller rcs's. Now show me a fire control radar that can do that the US has one.. already been built, being saved for the DDX. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mfr.htm

Standard missile have more range than the S400. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/stardsm3.htm
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-161.html

Now i find it rather silly when people think that the Us has no counterstealth capabilitites at all. Quite pathetic logic some people have. :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :cool:

Shadowsided
14 Apr 06,, 21:21
Hi Canoe, HARM homes to the overall radiation of the radar (not the beam as I thought before). Russian industry is right now producing very cheap devices which full HARM and divert them from radar. On the testing the head of the project was staying on the radar station being attacked by actual anti-radar missile. So sure he was that probability of destroying actual radar surrounded by 100 diverts is close to 1/10,000.

HARM needs new homing.....

I was told that major elements of 96L6 surveillance radar were tested against ferrying F-117 and B-2. But we discussed that ferrying stealth may have specific measures to increase their visibility

once again this has been adressed in another thread. http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=4615&page=10&pp=20

once again sams arent scary. they havent even been successful at keeping conventional AC out.
the bottom two links show the limitations of sams and how terrain and radar horizons can affect their performance.
http://radarproblems.com/calculators/horizon.htm
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/pietrucha.html

the latest harms can use GPS and an active seeker when needed. http://www.atk.com/AdvancedWeaponSystems/advanceweaponsystems_aargm.asp
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aargm.htm

Garry
17 Apr 06,, 14:37
Please get lost kid. I read all but I talk only to grown up guys. I really have too little time to waist it for argues with meaningless people :)

canoe
17 Apr 06,, 22:21
I was told that major elements of 96L6 surveillance radar were tested against ferrying F-117 and B-2. But we discussed that ferrying stealth may have specific measures to increase their visibility

As I understand it thats correct. Someone (can't remember who) told me that the B2 has different modes when its not effectively in war mode its alot more visible then normal to a wide range of detection systems.

All that said I'm still not a fan of SAM based air defence. I don't think there much historical presidence to show SAM's were more or even comparably effective then having an actual airforce defending your airspace.

I'm still of the mind that if you want to have effective air defence you need to have alot of planes and well trained pilots.

Garry
18 Apr 06,, 07:37
As I understand it thats correct. Someone (can't remember who) told me that the B2 has different modes when its not effectively in war mode its alot more visible then normal to a wide range of detection systems.

All that said I'm still not a fan of SAM based air defence. I don't think there much historical presidence to show SAM's were more or even comparably effective then having an actual airforce defending your airspace.

I'm still of the mind that if you want to have effective air defence you need to have alot of planes and well trained pilots.

Hi Canoe, in my view SAMs is a cost effective PART of air defense. Without cover of Air Force it will not surive long. A good saturating salvo of cruise missiles from safe distance (strategic bombers can shoot salvos from over 3,000km) would finally break a breach in the coverage by SAMs and their low mobility (even for mobile SAM complexes) will not allow to cover this breach timelly.

However, in my view a coordination of air force and SAMs, can make a formidable air defense. AWACs flying inside coverage of friendly SAMs can detect enemy attack very far away, and risk only little countermeasure.... fighters can go in and out of friendly SAMs coverage thus attacking enemy and then returing to the safe areas where no enemy fighter (even stealthy) would risk engage them. Moreover fighters may get data on approaching enemy fighters much beyond of its radar capabilities when SAMs give this data to fighters.

In addition to that, the very essense of SAM is that it has VERY LOW maintenance cost compared to aircraft - you know that each fighter airframe uses up to 3-5 engine suites during its lifetime.

The acquisition cost is also an issue. With current variable cost per F-22 beyond $100mln, it also becomes much more economic to have many S-400 complexes for that cost. Due to its cost advantage you may build a heavilly defended zones where an overalapping coverage would make targets be detected and countered from several angles simultanuousloy.

So low cost + low maintenance make it very REASONABLE part of air defense. You need MUCH less resources of Air Force deviated to defense..... cause SAMs increase effectiveness of defencing Air Force.

In some way it resembles me a fortress once used in wars.... It will not survive by itself, but it may enforce your defense if used viselly, thus requiring enemy to either spend more RESOURCES to breach your defense or spend LONGER TIME.

ps. I meant modern SAMs with coverage zones of hundreds km.... not the short-range trash from 1970-es which is used by most of the world.

Shadowsided
18 Apr 06,, 14:47
Please get lost kid. I read all but I talk only to grown up guys. I really have too little time to waist it for argues with meaningless people :) Well your ignorance has shown as well as how little you know about aviation yourself (your previous posts in other threads show so) The 96L6 in incapable of engaging the Raptor as i have provided on other threads which you know yourself. Your posts show it, you know you were proven wrong in other threads give it up.


Current Russian fighters are already on par with America’s best fighter, the F-15. Europe's and Russia's newest class of fighters will surpass the F-15; they are set to roll off production lines by 2005
It also says advanded sams are a threat.

http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/index.html
http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/stealth.html


THE UPGRADED F/A-22 air-to-ground capability will produce a stealth aircraft able to "defeat modern surface-to-air missiles" like the SA-20 or S-400 family and to track and attack moving targets, he said. It also will be a key to cruise missile defense because with super-cruise speed it can position itself for both a "first and second shot," Roche revealed, which is difficult "because a cruise missile can come from any direction."

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=366456&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Favnow%2Fnew s%2Fchannel_awst_story.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dn ews%2F03224wna.xml

There you have it the F 22 is superior, in order to attack the sams it needs glide bombs like JSOW or cruise missiles like JASSM all it has now is a JDAM which is not good for moving targets. :biggrin: Hopefully we can now get back looks like this thread is won. Plus gary if shown you that even an F 15 can take out the S400, without an airforce your sams are cooked. :cool:

Check this out the Raptor is much more advanced than most people think.http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=366618&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Favnow%2Fnew s%2Fchannel_awst_story.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dn ews%2F05244wna.xml

Jimmy
18 Apr 06,, 20:58
Well your ignorance has shown as well as how little you know about aviation yourself (your previous posts in other threads show so) The 96L6 in incapable of engaging the Raptor as i have provided on other threads which you know yourself. Your posts show it, you know you were proven wrong in other threads give it up.


It also says advanded sams are a threat.

http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/index.html
http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/stealth.html



http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=366456&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Favnow%2Fnew s%2Fchannel_awst_story.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dn ews%2F03224wna.xml

There you have it the F 22 is superior, in order to attack the sams it needs glide bombs like JSOW or cruise missiles like JASSM all it has now is a JDAM which is not good for moving targets. :biggrin: Hopefully we can now get back looks like this thread is won. Plus gary if shown you that even an F 15 can take out the S400, without an airforce your sams are cooked. :cool:

Check this out the Raptor is much more advanced than most people think.http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=366618&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Favnow%2Fnew s%2Fchannel_awst_story.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dn ews%2F05244wna.xml

First off, you dont ignore any potential threat. Any SAM/AAA ring is going to be considered.

As far as the JDAMs...what kind of moving targets are you going after? Most "mobile" SAMs take a few hours to set up/tear down, and they're not carried on sports cars. If they move it, they're not moving it long distances, or else they've negated their own air defense. So an SA-20 for example, is going to be within a few miles of its previous position. So you look around for a good hilltop, then get some imagery of the gomers setting it up, then you hit it. "Mobile" SAMs arent usually all that mobile, unless they're tactical systems.

Edit: That Raptor article is 2 years old.

fkbello
18 Apr 06,, 21:12
Well your ignorance..., without an airforce your sams are cooked...

One could argue it is the other way around: during the second part of the 80's, WP air defence systems saturated the air space over the battle area to such a level that NATO canceled CAS from its doctrine

Shadowsided
18 Apr 06,, 23:15
First off, you dont ignore any potential threat. Any SAM/AAA ring is going to be considered.

As far as the JDAMs...what kind of moving targets are you going after? Most "mobile" SAMs take a few hours to set up/tear down, and they're not carried on sports cars. If they move it, they're not moving it long distances, or else they've negated their own air defense. So an SA-20 for example, is going to be within a few miles of its previous position. So you look around for a good hilltop, then get some imagery of the gomers setting it up, then you hit it. "Mobile" SAMs arent usually all that mobile, unless they're tactical systems.

Edit: That Raptor article is 2 years old.

I never said it would use JDAMS just JSOWS and JASSMs but it needs AARGMs. Besides what does the age of the article have to do with anything, the raptor can still take out the SA 20.The SA 20's anti stealth claims are old and the S 300 made the same claims.The S400 is advanced but not enough to take on a Raptor. That's quite a good point on the mobility of sams i can use that on ATS thank you very much. :) besides heres more sources http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a9a69082ec7.htm Beisdes the 96L6 is older the article i provided :cool:

Garry
19 Apr 06,, 18:03
First off, you dont ignore any potential threat. Any SAM/AAA ring is going to be considered.

As far as the JDAMs...what kind of moving targets are you going after? Most "mobile" SAMs take a few hours to set up/tear down, and they're not carried on sports cars. If they move it, they're not moving it long distances, or else they've negated their own air defense. So an SA-20 for example, is going to be within a few miles of its previous position. So you look around for a good hilltop, then get some imagery of the gomers setting it up, then you hit it. "Mobile" SAMs arent usually all that mobile, unless they're tactical systems.

Edit: That Raptor article is 2 years old.

Correct about trucks instead of sports cars but not correct about hours. At least reported time for change of position was stated to be minutes..... same for opening up on the new position.

You don't need to move very far from precision weapon like HARM..... Anyway the idea is not to run away from attack but to be capable to relocate assets and resources thus having flexibility not available with old stationary systems. You may move SAMs.... enforcing directions where you expect more threat. Idea is not to use them to cover evenly whole continent.

As I stated earlier HARM is easy to full. And these devices are available.

_______________

Hei Kid. Go play some football.

Jimmy
19 Apr 06,, 20:54
I never said it would use JDAMS just JSOWS and JASSMs but it needs AARGMs. Besides what does the age of the article have to do with anything, the raptor can still take out the SA 20.The SA 20's anti stealth claims are old and the S 300 made the same claims.The S400 is advanced but not enough to take on a Raptor. That's quite a good point on the mobility of sams i can use that on ATS thank you very much. :) besides heres more sources http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a9a69082ec7.htm Beisdes the 96L6 is older the article i provided :cool:

I wasnt criticizing the article, maybe I should've said its old news. I'd also agree that it'll be a good thing if they can mount other munitions in a Raptor.

As far as SAMs...most of them take a couple of hours at least. Some newer systems have shaved off a lot of time, but training is key. A well-trained team might be able to be ready to roll in a few minutes, but how often do they practice? How often do they run realistic exercises? There's a lot more involved in every weapons sytem than just what the manufacturer claims.

But anyway, I thought you were implying a shoot-pack-hide strategy when you mentioned JDAMs vs moving targets. My bad.

Shadowsided
19 Apr 06,, 22:22
It's ok we all make mistkaes well since now this thread is pretty much solved i can take a break.

highsea
20 Apr 06,, 00:29
...As I stated earlier HARM is easy to full. And these devices are available.I think you mean fool, Garry. As in spoof or trick, right?

Not belittling your English, it's a hell of a lot better than my Russian, lol. Just noticed you used the same spelling elsewhere in the same context. Full means not empty.

/end of English lesson ;)

I don't think we are fielding any of the older HARMs any longer anyway. Maybe we can dust them off when we invade Zimbabwe.

since now this thread is pretty much solved i can take a break What would we do without you? Lol. :tongue:

Shadowsided
20 Apr 06,, 00:43
I think you mean fool, Garry. As in spoof or trick, right?

Not belittling your English, it's a hell of a lot better than my Russian, lol. Just noticed you used the same spelling elsewhere in the same context. Full means not empty.

/end of English lesson ;)

I don't think we are fielding any of the older HARMs any longer anyway. Maybe we can dust them off when we invade Zimbabwe.
What would we do without you? Lol. :tongue: well i pretty much shut up the people that beleived the 96L6 can track US stealth AC that's about it. Anyways Garry ever hear of the AARGM its not exactly easy to fool considering the gps and active seeker enhancement. I just love it when people refer to the old harms failures. what fools I provided links to AARGM in my previous posts.

Garry
20 Apr 06,, 19:06
I think you mean fool, Garry. As in spoof or trick, right?

Not belittling your English, it's a hell of a lot better than my Russian, lol. Just noticed you used the same spelling elsewhere in the same context. Full means not empty.

/end of English lesson ;)

I don't think we are fielding any of the older HARMs any longer anyway. Maybe we can dust them off when we invade Zimbabwe.
What would we do without you? Lol. :tongue:

Hi Highsea, I did not know that you speak Russian. Always respected people who know foreign languages. This usually broadens understanding of reality.

I stand corrected. I meant fooling HARM not filling it.

I read some internet articles abotu HARM - AMG-88 and its recent modification (block E) which is called AARGM. If I understand corrected it was expected to be fielded in 2008 and was finally tested last year. Yes, its active radar homing would help to avoid false emmitters, but would make this missile a good target itself. As we all know S-300 and S-400 are always covered by short-range SAMs like Tor-M1, or in worst case cheap Patsir-1S. The primary goal of Tor-M1 are such missiles and it has good reaction time to engage them at 25km range. Moreover, AMG-88 have range of 150km... this range is quite dangerous against even S-300 PMU2 which attacks its targets at 200km, while S-400 range is further. So far F-117 is the only platform which is believed to be stealthy and capable using AMG-88. I gave you the all my reasonable doubts on its actual stealthiness.... and capability to attack S-300 or S-400.

Here I heard that F-22 would be invisible to S-300 and S-400. I again put this under doubt taking into consideration its size, shape, fins, and availability of active radar antena. Somebody here blindly stated somethign about S-400. I am really interested where they got their data on that complex? It is as classified ast Raptor, for which most of the information is not really creadible. Anyway, it AARGM is not fielded and it would take even longer to apply it to Raptor. So we are talking of at least 5 more years ahead of this application in combat scale.

Raptors true stealthiness would be objectivelly tested withing next couple of years. Unfortunatelly we would not have results of those test.

I am pretty sure that if F-22 is already out patrolling US territory it would be plenty of chance to observe it from sea based radars of special ships as it was done with earlier stealthy versions. Remaining Russian satelites are making fotographs/observation of bases where Raptor was based and tested. Hence observing where and when it flies. We both understand that as soon as it comes close to coasts it would be studied carefully. Somebody who would do this will be amazed by either how stealthy Raptor is or how overstated is its "low observability".

highsea
20 Apr 06,, 20:26
Hi Highsea, I did not know that you speak Russian. Always respected people who know foreign languages. This usually broadens understanding of reality. Hi Garry. Actually, my Russian is nonexistent. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. My foreign languages are limited to Spanglish and Japanese. (and classical greek, lol real useful ;) The Cyrillic alphabet is over my head.

Here I heard that F-22 would be invisible to S-300 and S-400. I again put this under doubt taking into consideration its size, shape, fins, and availability of active radar antena. Somebody here blindly stated somethign about S-400. I am really interested where they got their data on that complex? It is as classified ast Raptor, for which most of the information is not really creadible. Anyway, it AARGM is not fielded and it would take even longer to apply it to Raptor. So we are talking of at least 5 more years ahead of this application in combat scale. No AC is invisible, but the range at which Raptor is detectable and/or targetable is very low. Don't let the size and shape fool you- it is a very highly evolved AC. I wish I could post some pictures of the wing spars on the milling table- we had a hell of a time building them because we were making cuts in blind pockets where the operator could not even see the cutters. There is so much more to it than just making a smooth exterior surface with the right shape and edge alignments. No part of the AC escaped the most careful scrutiny. The airframe really is a work of art, and receives every bit as much attention as the exterior. Materials, coatings, surface finish, re-entrant triangles, etc. What gets in doesn't get back out, and if it does, it's going in a different direction than from which it came.

Defeating the new generation of double-digit SAMs is more than just defeating the radar- the Raptor is also attacking the computers that run the radars, and the missiles that get launched. It's definitely not a one-dimensional attack.

As far as ARM's, I know we used the HARM to very good effect in Iraq, but I am really not that up to speed on the specifics. I do know that the current block version is not the same animal as the early versions. You are right that it will be some time before the AARGM is available for the Raptor.

Raptors true stealthiness would be objectivelly tested withing next couple of years. Unfortunatelly we would not have results of those test.Well, if you are a doubter, nothing will convince you. So all I can say is that the people flying them and the people building them believe that a new standard has been set that will be very difficult to match. The low RCS gets the most attention, but it's the whole package that makes it so effective.

I am pretty sure that if F-22 is already out patrolling US territory it would be plenty of chance to observe it from sea based radars of special ships as it was done with earlier stealthy versions. Remaining Russian satelites are making fotographs/observation of bases where Raptor was based and tested. Hence observing where and when it flies. We both understand that as soon as it comes close to coasts it would be studied carefully. Somebody who would do this will be amazed by either how stealthy Raptor is or how overstated is its "low observability".We are pretty cautious about how much we expose the Raptor right now. All flights are within CONUS, and what ventures off the California coast have been made have been very limited, and we make sure that there are no prying eyes about. I could tell you some anectdotes about using radar and GPS around San Diego Bay- you would be surprised.

There may come some opportunities to observe the Raptors based in Langley now that the 1FW is getting filled out, but since 9/11, the US coasts are pretty heavily patrolled. It won't be that easy to go sauntering around in a trawler without atracting some unwanted attention. And of course any emissions from a spy ship would not go unnoticed.

As far as satellite surveillance, well about all you can get is the shape from photos. I doubt you would get much in the way of SAR imaging from it, even if you had the sats (which I don't think you do). And you can probably get better pics from the Air Force website, lol.

But nothing stays secret forever, eventually the Raptor will give up it's secrets and become just another fighter. (Hopefully not for some time, though...)

Bill
20 Apr 06,, 23:21
Always respected people who know foreign languages. This usually broadens understanding of reality.


Speciba. :)

Shadowsided
21 Apr 06,, 02:56
Hi Highsea, I did not know that you speak Russian. Always respected people who know foreign languages. This usually broadens understanding of reality.

I stand corrected. I meant fooling HARM not filling it.

I read some internet articles abotu HARM - AMG-88 and its recent modification (block E) which is called AARGM. If I understand corrected it was expected to be fielded in 2008 and was finally tested last year. Yes, its active radar homing would help to avoid false emmitters, but would make this missile a good target itself. As we all know S-300 and S-400 are always covered by short-range SAMs like Tor-M1, or in worst case cheap Patsir-1S. The primary goal of Tor-M1 are such missiles and it has good reaction time to engage them at 25km range. Moreover, AMG-88 have range of 150km... this range is quite dangerous against even S-300 PMU2 which attacks its targets at 200km, while S-400 range is further. So far F-117 is the only platform which is believed to be stealthy and capable using AMG-88. I gave you the all my reasonable doubts on its actual stealthiness.... and capability to attack S-300 or S-400.

Here I heard that F-22 would be invisible to S-300 and S-400. I again put this under doubt taking into consideration its size, shape, fins, and availability of active radar antena. Somebody here blindly stated somethign about S-400. I am really interested where they got their data on that complex? It is as classified ast Raptor, for which most of the information is not really creadible. Anyway, it AARGM is not fielded and it would take even longer to apply it to Raptor. So we are talking of at least 5 more years ahead of this application in combat scale.

Raptors true stealthiness would be objectivelly tested withing next couple of years. Unfortunatelly we would not have results of those test.

I am pretty sure that if F-22 is already out patrolling US territory it would be plenty of chance to observe it from sea based radars of special ships as it was done with earlier stealthy versions. Remaining Russian satelites are making fotographs/observation of bases where Raptor was based and tested. Hence observing where and when it flies. We both understand that as soon as it comes close to coasts it would be studied carefully. Somebody who would do this will be amazed by either how stealthy Raptor is or how overstated is its "low observability".
Well you seem to be forgetful of past threads when we talked of LPI radar. Dont let the shape fool you its very stealthy near the B-2's level very close. You'd be surpised how much info on the S400 is made public just look in the right places you need to do more research on it all of the raptors stats arent on one page you need to look at alot. The S400 is nothing new it's simply an upgrade of the S300PMU2. It used to be under the label of S300PMU3 the label S400 is just marketing. Well you dont need AARGM to have the raptor perform SEAD. Well if you want proof look at the sources. I posted sources, reliable sources stating the slaughter of the S400 if it went up against the raptor. Its time for you to do the same. The US has similar radars like the S400 ones. Such as the AN/SPY 3. Photo's are not enough to counter the stealth if that were true no public photo's would be released.Well do you have any proof other than your own speculation that the Raptor's stealth is overstated. Any ship surveying the US would be interrogated and if necessary destroyed good luck with that.

here are the links
S400's slaughter.....
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/03224wna.xml
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a9a69082ec7.htm
More F/A 22 abilities....
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=366618&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Favnow%2Fnew s%2Fchannel_awst_story.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dn ews%2F05244wna.xml
AN/SPY 3
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mfr.htm
Raptor's stealth tech and overview.....
http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/index.html
http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/stealth.html

The raptor is not made for crappy enemies, its for sophisticated enemies with double digit sams and advanced aircraft that's why the ATF program started in the first place to counter future advanced threats.

Garry
21 Apr 06,, 06:59
Speciba. :)

Did you learn it from prisonned Viet Kong fighter :)

Bill
21 Apr 06,, 07:42
Did you learn it from prisonned Viet Kong fighter :)

Nyet. :)

hello
21 Apr 06,, 15:04
Please get lost kid. I read all but I talk only to grown up guys. I really have too little time to waist it for argues with meaningless people :)

It's "waste", not waist. They are totally different things, Garry.

Why would only F-22s and B-2s do SEAD against SA-10/12/20s? F-35s can carry a pair of JSOWs + a pair of AMRAAMs internally. Say 4 JSFs, escorted by a pair of F-22s, are to break through a wall of double-digits to allow SuperHornets, StrikeEagles, and Warthogs in. The F-35s can come head-on, and with front RCS smaller than the F-22, attack the SAMs with AGM-154B Anti-Armor JSOWs, breaking the entire defense structure.

Garry
21 Apr 06,, 15:32
It's "waste", not waist. They are totally different things, Garry.

Why would only F-22s and B-2s do SEAD against SA-10/12/20s? F-35s can carry a pair of JSOWs + a pair of AMRAAMs internally. Say 4 JSFs, escorted by a pair of F-22s, are to break through a wall of double-digits to allow SuperHornets, StrikeEagles, and Warthogs in. The F-35s can come head-on, and with front RCS smaller than the F-22, attack the SAMs with AGM-154B Anti-Armor JSOWs, breaking the entire defense structure.

OK. Stand corrected.

F-35 is not yet operational while first 4 divizions of S-400 are in Mocow region by end of the year + talks of 10 more to be ordered for 2007. It is impossible to judge now what F-35 would be capable untill it gets out and proves itself against S-400 or at least S-300 (same applies o SAMs against F-22 and F-35).

Anyway one S-400 costs much less than a single F-35, not withstanding any comparison to the huge cost of F-22. So lets see what a wall can be made against it for the same cost? How many launchers and radars would be engaged? And each is guarded by few short-range systems like Tor-M1. So to take out each you would need a good salvo of cruise missiles..... only B-2 can cary these much to have a good saturating salvo.

And finally. As I stated above, any SAM which has no coordination with Air Force is a sitting duck. Like medieval fortress it can stand only for a while but would be breached when enemy spends some TIME and RESOURCES.

Russian S-400 when covered by early warning system radars, AWACs and fighters which would engage enemy and hide in safe area is a formidable force.

Bill
21 Apr 06,, 16:10
S-400 is like old testament biblical death if you get into it's WEZ in a non-stealth conventional fighter.

Unfortunately for the S400 users, the USAF has several stealthy platforms already in service, and by far the best stand-off jammers in the world.

S400 will create huge problems for legacy type A/C, but against stealth it's detection envelope is so small that i really don't expect it to be all that effective.

My particular opinion is based on fairly detailed commentary in posts/emails by a USAF F-117A pilot that posts on my board.

hello
21 Apr 06,, 16:26
The AGM-154B Anti-Armor JSOW is different from the normal/penetrator AGM-154A and the slightly more anti-ship oriented AGM-154C. It doesn't go and fly head-on into the target. When it nears it's target, it drops hundreds of bomblets while flying over the target area, similar to a cluster bomb, enough to destroy or disable over half an SAM sight. Each F-35 can carry a pair of these internally, as I repeat.

Fighters would be useless, for the F-35s would be escorted by F-22s and if an F-22 can come WVR to an E-3 Sentry, how would an A-50 AWACs do any better, and if it did, by how much or how little? The defense strusture of the S-300/400 wall, AWACs, Su30/35/37s flying CAP and MiG-31s ready to intercept is quite strong, but not enough to counter stealth technology, at least for now.

With only 16 B-2s, it would not be preferable for them to loiter around doing SEAD in dangerous areas. So far, they've only flown missions in which they take off from US bases, fly to the target with tanking, fly right through defenses, bomb their target and fly back, not stopping in any other country. I don't think any other country has special hangars to accomodate B-2s, so they probably can't stay anywhere else.

Shadowsided
21 Apr 06,, 22:16
It's "waste", not waist. They are totally different things, Garry.

Why would only F-22s and B-2s do SEAD against SA-10/12/20s? F-35s can carry a pair of JSOWs + a pair of AMRAAMs internally. Say 4 JSFs, escorted by a pair of F-22s, are to break through a wall of double-digits to allow SuperHornets, StrikeEagles, and Warthogs in. The F-35s can come head-on, and with front RCS smaller than the F-22, attack the SAMs with AGM-154B Anti-Armor JSOWs, breaking the entire defense structure.
Are you sure the F/A 22 is stealthier than the F 35 . Anyways what i like is the idea of B-2's,F 22's and JSF"s working together to kill sams with RC 135 Rivet joint and stand off jamming by the B 52, the jamming isnt needed but it will give the sam no warning the AARGM is coming at it otherwise it will just go outta the way unless you use JSOW or JASSM of course.Anyways JSF doesnt carry AMRAAM internally.

Shadowsided
21 Apr 06,, 22:38
OK. Stand corrected.

F-35 is not yet operational while first 4 divizions of S-400 are in Mocow region by end of the year + talks of 10 more to be ordered for 2007. It is impossible to judge now what F-35 would be capable untill it gets out and proves itself against S-400 or at least S-300 (same applies o SAMs against F-22 and F-35).

Anyway one S-400 costs much less than a single F-35, not withstanding any comparison to the huge cost of F-22. So lets see what a wall can be made against it for the same cost? How many launchers and radars would be engaged? And each is guarded by few short-range systems like Tor-M1. So to take out each you would need a good salvo of cruise missiles..... only B-2 can cary these much to have a good saturating salvo.

And finally. As I stated above, any SAM which has no coordination with Air Force is a sitting duck. Like medieval fortress it can stand only for a while but would be breached when enemy spends some TIME and RESOURCES.

Russian S-400 when covered by early warning system radars, AWACs and fighters which would engage enemy and hide in safe area is a formidable force.
Well sir we know it can go up the S400 the S400 detects low signature targets but only .02 square meters the raptor is much lower. Well if i apply your logic how can we be sure the S400 isnt overstated these systems are good but not against B-2's and F 22's.There is plenty of reliable info on the system on many sites it's scattered though.

highsea
21 Apr 06,, 22:56
...Anyways JSF doesnt carry AMRAAM internally.Of course it does. One on each inboard station.

hello
22 Apr 06,, 04:15
Are you sure the F/A 22 is stealthier than the F 35 . Anyways what i like is the idea of B-2's,F 22's and JSF"s working together to kill sams with RC 135 Rivet joint and stand off jamming by the B 52, the jamming isnt needed but it will give the sam no warning the AARGM is coming at it otherwise it will just go outta the way unless you use JSOW or JASSM of course.Anyways JSF doesnt carry AMRAAM internally.

Yes, the F-22 is stealthier than the F-35. From the front angle, the F-35 has a smaller RCS, but from all other angles, the F-22's is smaller, making the F-22 stealthier. F-22 has the RCS of a fly or smaller, F-35 has the RCS of a golf ball, an F-35 with external stores has the RCS of a basketball and the Superbug has that of a 3-ft sphere. Yes, the F-35 can carry AMRAAM internally. I think you got it confused with the sidewinder, which only F-22 can carry internally. F-35s can carry an AMRAAM in each bay along with upto a 2000-pound bomb or equivalent weapon, but Sidewinders cannot be carried internally.

By the way, the RC-135 Rivet Joint is a communications aircraft. Also, SEAD isn't the kind of mission I think B-2s will ever be assigned to do, and EB-52s do not stop an SAM from knowing an AARGM is coming, they only try to reduce it's WEZ ring and prevent lock-on to friendly aircraft.

Shadowsided
23 Apr 06,, 00:19
Of course it does. One on each inboard station.
Can you show me a source?

hello
23 Apr 06,, 03:40
I've already provided a link in another thread here (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=11280&page=4&pp=20). Each of the 2 internal bays can carry :

1 2000 pound JDAM/Paveway + 1 AMRAAM,
1 1000 pound JDAM/Paveway + 1 AMRAAM,
1/2 500 pound JDAM, Paveway, or WCMD + 1 AMRAAM,
1 JSOW + 1 AMRAAM, or
4 SDBs + 1 AMRAAM

The AIM-132 ASRAAM short-range air-to-air missile can also be carried internally, but seeing how the ASRAAM and SidewinderX are similar, it's strange that it can be carried internally while the 9X can't. Equally strange is that although Paveway and JDAM guided smartbombs can be carried internally, but MK80 series GP bombs can't. Also it turns out that the F-35B and C will have guns, but they will be external 25mm cannons in "stealth pods", the B model can carry AMRAAMs + 1000 pound class weapons internally and the USAF is ordering 250 Bs on top of its order of 1000 As. Or maybe Globalsecurity was mistaken here.

If JSFs can carry 8 SDBs + 2 AMRAAMs internally, it would actually make a better SEAD package than an F-22 carrying 6 SDBs + 2 9X or 8 SDBs + nothing.

Dago
23 Apr 06,, 05:12
I could tell you some anectdotes about using radar and GPS around San Diego Bay- you would be surprised.


I'm currently in the San Diego area. Is the GPS somewhat restricted in the Bay area? I remember hearing stories of people getting black reads in the area while trying to take the boats out.

Shadowsided
23 Apr 06,, 15:29
Thanks for the link but it says F/A 22 has a smaller frontal RCS on it.

Bill
23 Apr 06,, 17:49
By the way, the RC-135 Rivet Joint is a communications aircraft.

RC-135 is an COMINT/ELINT bird.

Bill
23 Apr 06,, 17:51
ASRAAM and SidewinderX are similar, it's strange that it can be carried internally while the 9X can't.

ASRAAM has no fins. But i still thought 9X could be carried internally.

Garry
23 Apr 06,, 20:07
The AGM-154B Anti-Armor JSOW is different from the normal/penetrator AGM-154A and the slightly more anti-ship oriented AGM-154C. It doesn't go and fly head-on into the target. When it nears it's target, it drops hundreds of bomblets while flying over the target area, similar to a cluster bomb, enough to destroy or disable over half an SAM sight. Each F-35 can carry a pair of these internally, as I repeat.

As I said that there is a short-range systems taking care of these threats if anybody came that close.

We were talking about HARM and its evolution to more advanced AARGM not a carpet bombing....

F-35 must come close enough to use this munitions against S-400. There is no F-35 in army to guess if it is capable.... and it never actually performed against any long-range system like S-300 or S-400 are.


Fighters would be useless, for the F-35s would be escorted by F-22s and if an F-22 can come WVR to an E-3 Sentry, how would an A-50 AWACs do any better, and if it did, by how much or how little? The defense strusture of the S-300/400 wall, AWACs, Su30/35/37s flying CAP and MiG-31s ready to intercept is quite strong, but not enough to counter stealth technology, at least for now.

Again - there is no EVIDENCE of F-22 being actually LOW VISIBLE against complexes like S-300, S-400 or modified early warning radards. Its stealthiness is just ASSUMED and not proven. I doubt that Pentagon would report what is actual weakness in its stealthiness. It is business of Russian millitary to see where are the weak sides of its stealthiness. Lets wait before making unsupported assumptions?


With only 16 B-2s, it would not be preferable for them to loiter around doing SEAD in dangerous areas. So far, they've only flown missions in which they take off from US bases, fly to the target with tanking, fly right through defenses, bomb their target and fly back, not stopping in any other country. I don't think any other country has special hangars to accomodate B-2s, so they probably can't stay anywhere else.

Right. What do you mean? Russians I talked to state that they flown out of US territory. But this is not even important. Do you think that US/Russian/Any other territory is not permeable for radars? Assets like B-2, F-22 and F-117 are very closelly observed.

Garry
23 Apr 06,, 20:21
Hi Garry. Actually, my Russian is nonexistent. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. My foreign languages are limited to Spanglish and Japanese. (and classical greek, lol real useful ;) The Cyrillic alphabet is over my head.
No AC is invisible, but the range at which Raptor is detectable and/or targetable is very low. Don't let the size and shape fool you- it is a very highly evolved AC. I wish I could post some pictures of the wing spars on the milling table- we had a hell of a time building them because we were making cuts in blind pockets where the operator could not even see the cutters. There is so much more to it than just making a smooth exterior surface with the right shape and edge alignments. No part of the AC escaped the most careful scrutiny. The airframe really is a work of art, and receives every bit as much attention as the exterior. Materials, coatings, surface finish, re-entrant triangles, etc. What gets in doesn't get back out, and if it does, it's going in a different direction than from which it came.

Defeating the new generation of double-digit SAMs is more than just defeating the radar- the Raptor is also attacking the computers that run the radars, and the missiles that get launched. It's definitely not a one-dimensional attack.

As far as ARM's, I know we used the HARM to very good effect in Iraq, but I am really not that up to speed on the specifics. I do know that the current block version is not the same animal as the early versions. You are right that it will be some time before the AARGM is available for the Raptor.
Well, if you are a doubter, nothing will convince you. So all I can say is that the people flying them and the people building them believe that a new standard has been set that will be very difficult to match. The low RCS gets the most attention, but it's the whole package that makes it so effective.
We are pretty cautious about how much we expose the Raptor right now. All flights are within CONUS, and what ventures off the California coast have been made have been very limited, and we make sure that there are no prying eyes about. I could tell you some anectdotes about using radar and GPS around San Diego Bay- you would be surprised.

There may come some opportunities to observe the Raptors based in Langley now that the 1FW is getting filled out, but since 9/11, the US coasts are pretty heavily patrolled. It won't be that easy to go sauntering around in a trawler without atracting some unwanted attention. And of course any emissions from a spy ship would not go unnoticed.

As far as satellite surveillance, well about all you can get is the shape from photos. I doubt you would get much in the way of SAR imaging from it, even if you had the sats (which I don't think you do). And you can probably get better pics from the Air Force website, lol.

But nothing stays secret forever, eventually the Raptor will give up it's secrets and become just another fighter. (Hopefully not for some time, though...)

Hi Highsea,

I really know pretty few about it, but there is a good reason for that! This bird is heavilly classified. I just did not want to make some assumptions on nothing. But we both understand that regardless of beliefs reality exists. So my rule is try to keep myself from blind mind with emotions of doubt/overenthusiasm. What you say is interesting - plus I trust that you talked to those involved with Raptor.

ps. Spy ships use neutral waters.... US/Russian spy ships always roam around interesting objects from neutral waters, where they are allowed to be by legislation. For example, when Kursk exploded there were quite a few in North Ocean.

I agree that there would little chance to catch Raptor around the coasts (Russia has too few spy ships left operational to hunt it efficiently, and ships can not move fast). But there would be a good chance when it goes to station in UK (which can be observed through).

Garry
23 Apr 06,, 20:31
Well sir we know it can go up the S400 the S400 detects low signature targets but only .02 square meters the raptor is much lower. Well if i apply your logic how can we be sure the S400 isnt overstated these systems are good but not against B-2's and F 22's.There is plenty of reliable info on the system on many sites it's scattered though.

I did heard from a person who I consider highly reliable, and not overenthusiastic (like many people in the industry tend to be) that S-300 was tested on F-117 and B-2 on different occasions. USSR did spend a lot of resources on that and collected a lot of data of radar observation of both. These was achieved through - satelite observation, Cuba radar stations (now shut down), radar observation ships with VERY powerfull radars of high energy. Both did fly outside of US territory and were carefully observed by radars.

S-400 specs are not really known. There are in serial production since mid 2005 and only 4 divizions existing for less than one year. None would be exported in the next decade or more.

Shadowsided
23 Apr 06,, 21:29
As I said that there is a short-range systems taking care of these threats if anybody came that close.

We were talking about HARM and its evolution to more advanced AARGM not a carpet bombing....

F-35 must come close enough to use this munitions against S-400. There is no F-35 in army to guess if it is capable.... and it never actually performed against any long-range system like S-300 or S-400 are.



Again - there is no EVIDENCE of F-22 being actually LOW VISIBLE against complexes like S-300, S-400 or modified early warning radards. Its stealthiness is just ASSUMED and not proven. I doubt that Pentagon would report what is actual weakness in its stealthiness. It is business of Russian millitary to see where are the weak sides of its stealthiness. Lets wait before making unsupported assumptions?



Right. What do you mean? Russians I talked to state that they flown out of US territory. But this is not even important. Do you think that US/Russian/Any other territory is not permeable for radars? Assets like B-2, F-22 and F-117 are very closelly observed.
Ive already shown you the US has similar advanced radars they can test on. Also most of the Raptor's potential is classified. Well post sources they were tested on a B-2 or F 22 and stop talking about it. Ive shown you evidence of the F 22 being very stealthy and able to avoid the S400 yet you choose to ignore it simply because you cant face the facts. You have posted no sources,no proof, and certainly not good logic you still think photo's are enough to counter stealth.You seem to be very stubborn and conceited.

Shadowsided
23 Apr 06,, 21:31
I did heard from a person who I consider highly reliable, and not overenthusiastic (like many people in the industry tend to be) that S-300 was tested on F-117 and B-2 on different occasions. USSR did spend a lot of resources on that and collected a lot of data of radar observation of both. These was achieved through - satelite observation, Cuba radar stations (now shut down), radar observation ships with VERY powerfull radars of high energy. Both did fly outside of US territory and were carefully observed by radars.

S-400 specs are not really known. There are in serial production since mid 2005 and only 4 divizions existing for less than one year. None would be exported in the next decade or more.
Well the F 22 hasnt flown out of the US and how can we be sure he is not just making stuff up everyone knows you can track stealth AC with huge wavelengthsunfortunately its inaccurate for fire control. i can give you the S400 sources here you go http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Asia-Sams-Pt1.pdf
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Asia-Sams-Pt2.pdf
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/03/algerian-arms-deal-brings-russia-75-billion-gas-market-leverage/index.php
http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1695&catid=264
http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=264&linkid=1696

Its no where near as classified as you think garry you just need to look harder. Besides if i apply your logic the S400 claims can be assumptions as well.

Garry
24 Apr 06,, 08:17
Well the F 22 hasnt flown out of the US and how can we be sure he is not just making stuff up everyone knows you can track stealth AC with huge wavelengthsunfortunately its inaccurate for fire control. i can give you the S400 sources here you go http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Asia-Sams-Pt1.pdf
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Asia-Sams-Pt2.pdf
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/03/algerian-arms-deal-brings-russia-75-billion-gas-market-leverage/index.php
http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1695&catid=264
http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=264&linkid=1696

Its no where near as classified as you think garry you just need to look harder. Besides if i apply your logic the S400 claims can be assumptions as well.

You are too young if you take this all too serious. I looked through the sources and interesting articles you gave. It was many interesting things to learn about S-300.

But it was too few and nothing reliable on S-400. The Triumph is a new variant, with different acquisition radar and different new long range missile. Even, experts in the industry don't have ACTUAL details of its radar, and its missile which is shown in one of the articles DOES NOT EXIST YET. Its testing is scheduled for near future..... There are some bold assumptions.... but what are the prove for that? THERE ARE ONLY FOUR DIVIZONS AROUND MOSCOW. Lets separate facts from interesting internet publications.

There are many data here published about Raptor. Would you call it unclassified? Would you take seriously all the data published about it on different sites? We never know what was actual and what was reported so to mislead adversary.

Shadowsided
24 Apr 06,, 15:07
You are too young if you take this all too serious. I looked through the sources and interesting articles you gave. It was many interesting things to learn about S-300.

But it was too few and nothing reliable on S-400. The Triumph is a new variant, with different acquisition radar and different new long range missile. Even, experts in the industry don't have ACTUAL details of its radar, and its missile which is shown in one of the articles DOES NOT EXIST YET. Its testing is scheduled for near future..... There are some bold assumptions.... but what are the prove for that? THERE ARE ONLY FOUR DIVIZONS AROUND MOSCOW. Lets separate facts from interesting internet publications.

There are many data here published about Raptor. Would you call it unclassified? Would you take seriously all the data published about it on different sites? We never know what was actual and what was reported so to mislead adversary. Well you seem to forget that the S400 is nothing but an upgrade its nothing but an upgrade to its flap lid,software etc the only new thing is it can get the 96L6 surveillance radar. The aquisition radars are just upgrades. Same with the engagement radars. Just face it The Raptor is ahead of the S400. You however have been making baseless claims. You seem to be too young and too gullible. You seem to be a 8 year old with the intelligence of a five year old please get lost. We dont have time to deal with stupid kiddies like you. Your lack of knowledge seems to expose that and prove it. Well Garry why dont u just go eat $h1t.Plus if we apply the same logic all the russian tech could be overhyped and full of lies as well so think before you speak. Horse *****

hello
25 Apr 06,, 13:24
Hi Highsea,

I really know pretty few about it, but there is a good reason for that! This bird is heavilly classified. I just did not want to make some assumptions on nothing. But we both understand that regardless of beliefs reality exists. So my rule is try to keep myself from blind mind with emotions of doubt/overenthusiasm. What you say is interesting - plus I trust that you talked to those involved with Raptor.

ps. Spy ships use neutral waters.... US/Russian spy ships always roam around interesting objects from neutral waters, where they are allowed to be by legislation. For example, when Kursk exploded there were quite a few in North Ocean.

I agree that there would little chance to catch Raptor around the coasts (Russia has too few spy ships left operational to hunt it efficiently, and ships can not move fast). But there would be a good chance when it goes to station in UK (which can be observed through).

There is no evidence of Raptors hiding from S-400s but there is no proof that S-400s have detected Raptors, so either way, it's just assumed. S-400s have never tracked stealth aircraft, but however, F-15s/16s/18s have all attempted to track Raptors and have only been able to at about 1-2 miles distance, where they can see it, and the Su-30series and MiG-29/31s radars probably not better enough or better at all over the F-15/16/18s radar to detect F-22s from any further, so Raptors are most likely stealthy, unless the exercises were completely false. Probably the S-400 can detect an F-117, but not an F-22, F-35 or B-2.

About the spy ships, is there any evidence or sources that these super-stealthy, undetected spy ships have detected stealth planes, or if they even exist? If they do, how come they haven't been found yet, on radar or on GPS, for if you can track an individual plane, tracking a ship should be easy. Is there any proof that anyone has these ships, for if they are classified and undetected, chances are that there must be a Mach-3 plus, super stealth hyper plane hidden too, like the F-117 was in the 1980s? Also, if they are classified, then they're existance shouldn't be known about at all.

Garry
25 Apr 06,, 18:01
There is no evidence of Raptors hiding from S-400s but there is no proof that S-400s have detected Raptors, so either way, it's just assumed. S-400s have never tracked stealth aircraft, but however, F-15s/16s/18s have all attempted to track Raptors and have only been able to at about 1-2 miles distance, where they can see it, and the Su-30series and MiG-29/31s radars probably not better enough or better at all over the F-15/16/18s radar to detect F-22s from any further, so Raptors are most likely stealthy, unless the exercises were completely false.

You understood me correctly. So many things are assumed..... both ways.

Shadowsided
25 Apr 06,, 20:57
Well the raptors been tested and during the excerise it took on 5 F 15's without ever being detected during the excercise.

Garry
30 Apr 06,, 16:36
The Cope India is a good example what conclusions one can make wrong if it has not all details of the exercise and its results. (just like a stupid kid who believes to be great expert in SAMs and KNOWS capabilities of S-400 before Russians do) :biggrin:

Lets put it like this.... five F-15 with RSC like basketball did not detect one Raptor with RCS like a fly (probably steel coated fly). In this form it is good to announce results to public and yield political support to expensive program. :tongue:

Shadowsided
30 Apr 06,, 17:08
The Cope India is a good example what conclusions one can make wrong if it has not all details of the exercise and its results. (just like a stupid kid who believes to be great expert in SAMs and KNOWS capabilities of S-400 before Russians do) :biggrin:

Lets put it like this.... five F-15 with RSC like basketball did not detect one Raptor with RCS like a fly (probably steel coated fly). In this form it is good to announce results to public and yield political support to expensive program. :tongue: You really are a dumbass cope india was with F 15's and Su 30's. We were outnumbered,had no awacs while they did, had extra ac in addition to Su 30's and no BVr. It was WVR engagements. Everyone knows flankers have better WVR missiles and are more maeuverable. Yes and you are proabably a stupid little kid who thinks he knows everything of the S400. A lot of publiccly released info is present about the S400 and its mostly an upgrade of the S300PMU2 S400 is simply marketing. Yes it is easy to say the Raptor excercise was propoganda bu there is no proof. The same can be said about anything including all russian equipment.

Jimmy
01 May 06,, 20:18
That whole Raptor vs F-15 exercise...you guys act like it was a one-time deal. It wasnt. It has happened several times. I know some Eagle drivers who dont get a kick out of fighting Raptors anymore...they're tired of dying without seeing their adversary.

Shadowsided
01 May 06,, 21:21
i know that is pretty funny to bad garry is too much of an idiot ot understand. He sepnds way too much time on google.ru LOL! he probaly sucks russian ****

Garry
02 May 06,, 09:57
few bascketballs did not notice on fly.... :)

kids! why don't you simply go playing football, date girls.... or whatever! You won't irritate Garry with whatever stupid chatting. :tongue:

He feels simply too old to pay attention to kids speaking about RCSs of bees, flies and basketballs. Spy kids with access to supersecret fighters and SAMs in their comics :)

Garry
02 May 06,, 10:01
That whole Raptor vs F-15 exercise...you guys act like it was a one-time deal. It wasnt. It has happened several times. I know some Eagle drivers who dont get a kick out of fighting Raptors anymore...they're tired of dying without seeing their adversary.

But probably your friends were not able to give you all details of the exercise..... Lets start with first Which Eagle? What radar? What distance? What cover? Any supply of data from SAMs / AWACS? What altitudes? What happened to RWRs?

I am sure your friend who participated there knows so many details that matter and which he can not disclose.

kNikS
02 May 06,, 11:53
I can't believe it.

Do I see a fountain of wisdom, experience, knowledge (especially in spheres of entomology and future weapon systems), maturity and language mastery?

urmomma158, you surpassed yourself.

Shadowsided
02 May 06,, 18:15
few bascketballs did not notice on fly.... :)

kids! why don't you simply go playing football, date girls.... or whatever! You won't irritate Garry with whatever stupid chatting. :tongue:

He feels simply too old to pay attention to kids speaking about RCSs of bees, flies and basketballs. Spy kids with access to supersecret fighters and SAMs in their comics :)

Well you seem to be not be that taleneted in avaition tech. Nor do you have any rpoof to back your your pathetic statements. Not to mention you suck russian **** which you seem to do.Also you never seem to learn anything from any of the forums you just seem to forget it. im unaffected . You can diss anyway. So please get lost.

Shadowsided
02 May 06,, 18:15
I can't believe it.

Do I see a fountain of wisdom, experience, knowledge (especially in spheres of entomology and future weapon systems), maturity and language mastery?

urmomma158, you surpassed yourself.
Unless you're going to be contributing anything please get lost. Im not sure if that was sarcastic but if it wasn't thanks. I hope we can get along better.

Lunatock
02 May 06,, 18:27
I can't believe it.

Do I see a fountain of wisdom, experience, knowledge (especially in spheres of entomology and future weapon systems), maturity and language mastery?

urmomma158, you surpassed yourself.

Us moderators tend to be generous about letting others target trolls, depending on various strongpoints or sensitive issues among the Mod team said trolls touch apon.

Wrt urmomma158. His knowledge of entomology and his ability to not get lost should be tested by Horrido. :biggrin:

Shadowsided
02 May 06,, 18:35
But probably your friends were not able to give you all details of the exercise..... Lets start with first Which Eagle? What radar? What distance? What cover? Any supply of data from SAMs / AWACS? What altitudes? What happened to RWRs?

I am sure your friend who participated there knows so many details that matter and which he can not disclose.

Well considering the way it fights its entirely possible it can take out 5 F-15's with ease. We are no longer talking about WVR but BVR. Its got supercruise, the ability to fly at mach 1.5 - mach 1.7 without afterburners greatly expanding speed and range capabilities and giving the enemy much less time to engage it. Long range AIM120C's allow it to fight at BVR at 100km and once the D model comes out it will give it 50% more range and obviously it has stealth. The same questions can be asked about the S400. You have nothing to back up your statement other than your own speculation. Please use your common sense and try again. I don't have time to waste on dumb kiddies like you. Judging by the way you argue and the your lack of memory, you seem to be a 10 year old with the intelligence of an 8 year old.
You were wondering about the radar.

The F/A-22's avionics and software system is the most advanced ever integrated into an aircraft. It is the first aircraft to use integrated avionics, where the weapons management system, electronic warfare system and the AN/APG-77 radar work as one, giving the pilot unprecedented situation awareness. http://www.f-22raptor.com/af_radar.php I remeber you asked of the radar well here you go. Maybe when you actually start learning you can talk with the big boys.
any other questions you asked.... http://www.qr.hq.af.mil/pdf/fa_22talkingpoints_15august20051.pdf

Insulting people is not something I like to do but you and some other people never learn anything from threads and post stupid things.Please stop with the stupid claims and I(and hopefully the others) will stop as well.

Shadowsided
03 May 06,, 01:46
few bascketballs did not notice on fly.... :)

kids! why don't you simply go playing football, date girls.... or whatever! You won't irritate Garry with whatever stupid chatting. :tongue:

He feels simply too old to pay attention to kids speaking about RCSs of bees, flies and basketballs. Spy kids with access to supersecret fighters and SAMs in their comics :)
No just because we read more aviation articles than you and read more baout the spec's is no reason to get angry, anyways you semm to make the shitiest disses. the reason why you say it won't irritate you is you're in your own little world lost somewhere in your active imagination. how much did the Russians pay you to kiss their ****, no really.

Sandman
03 May 06,, 03:48
entomology? The study of bugs? :confused: :eek: :biggrin:

TopHatter
03 May 06,, 03:54
No just because we read more aviation articles than you and read more baout the spec's is no reason to get angry, anyways you semm to make the shitiest disses. the reason why you say it won't irritate you is you're in your own little world lost somewhere in your active imagination. how much did the Russians pay you to kiss their ****, no really.
*Taking off my moderator [top]hat*

Dude....grow the hell up. :rolleyes:


*Putting my moderator [top]hat back on*

Garry
03 May 06,, 09:39
Us moderators tend to be generous about letting others target trolls, depending on various strongpoints or sensitive issues among the Mod team said trolls touch apon.

Wrt urmomma158. His knowledge of entomology and his ability to not get lost should be tested by Horrido. :biggrin:

without trolls any forum will be too boring! I agree with you that too much moderation would only spoil discussion. As for me I enjoy reading this forum.... only it really takes too much of my time reading this and other forums, while I better focus more on earning my US Dollars :)

times goes by....

TopHatter
03 May 06,, 18:40
without trolls any forum will be too boring!
Don't forget the constant stream of disturbed teenagers bearing sock puppets :biggrin:

Shadowsided
03 May 06,, 19:44
without trolls any forum will be too boring! I agree with you that too much moderation would only spoil discussion. As for me I enjoy reading this forum.... only it really takes too much of my time reading this and other forums, while I better focus more on earning my US Dollars :)

times goes by.... Well you seem to have the intelligence of one since you never learn anything new and always stick to your mindless garbage. You remind me of CaptainDrunk a lot.

Shadowsided
03 May 06,, 19:46
*Taking off my moderator [top]hat*

Dude....grow the hell up. :rolleyes:


*Putting my moderator [top]hat back on*
Its not me its him stupid people just piss me off. I tend to take the tactics of some other members on this forum when responding to stupid remarks. I really dont have that much time to waste on fools like Garry or Catain Drunk especially since they never learn anything and make outrageous claims.

Lunatock
03 May 06,, 19:48
Its not me its him stupid people just piss me off. I tend to take the tactics of some other members on this forum when responding to stupid remarks. I really dont have that much time to waste on fools like Garry or Catain Drunk especially since they never learn anything and make outrageous claims.

Then perhaps leave this discussion alone and quit throwing fuel on the fire?

Shadowsided
03 May 06,, 19:50
Then perhaps leave this discussion alone and quit throwing fuel on the fire?
Good idea its simply a waste of enery to argue with morons. I'll come back when something interesting happens.

Dago
09 Feb 12,, 08:32
I'm currently in the San Diego area. Is the GPS somewhat restricted in the Bay area? I remember hearing stories of people getting black reads in the area while trying to take the boats out.

Totally bringing up an old thread, and I know Highsea isn't around any more, what is it with GPS and the San Diego Bay that maybe High Sea was referring to?

I could tell you some anectdotes about using radar and GPS around San Diego Bay- you would be surprised.

Versus
14 Feb 12,, 18:12
Oh wow,antoher stealthy discussion...and it is getting hot.:)

Jimmy
15 Feb 12,, 00:18
No, that was almost 6 years ago.

Gun Grape
15 Feb 12,, 00:32
Kittens must die. Zombie Ronald must eat.

Hope your happy:mad:

ArtyEngineer
15 Feb 12,, 04:02
Totally bringing up an old thread, and I know Highsea isn't around any more, what is it with GPS and the San Diego Bay that maybe High Sea was referring to?

I could tell you some anectdotes about using radar and GPS around San Diego Bay- you would be surprised.

Sorry to contribute to teh necromancing of a long dead thread, but can give a little insight into Dagos question.

Not that long ago I was rolling arounf Las Pulgas area on Camp Pendleton doing some Nav Subsytem testing after a software upgrade. Well as I was rolling around in the 7 Ton my Display kindly alerted me to the fact "Warning GPS Jamming in Effect - Nav Subsystem Degraded observe INS/VMS procedures" Lets just say that there are units/organisations that have equipment that does these things in that area, and this equipment requires Preventative Maintenance Checks and Services (PMCS) just like any other piece of equipment. Oh yeah, and occasionally it is left on accidentally.

Regards

Arty

Versus
15 Feb 12,, 07:20
My bad, I didn't want to feed the zombies.Honestly :)

bigross86
15 Feb 12,, 08:08
Sorry to contribute to teh necromancing of a long dead thread, but can give a little insight into Dagos question.

Not that long ago I was rolling arounf Las Pulgas area on Camp Pendleton doing some Nav Subsytem testing after a software upgrade. Well as I was rolling around in the 7 Ton my Display kindly alerted me to the fact "Warning GPS Jamming in Effect - Nav Subsystem Degraded observe INS/VMS procedures" Lets just say that there are units/organisations that have equipment that does these things in that area, and this equipment requires Preventative Maintenance Checks and Services (PMCS) just like any other piece of equipment. Oh yeah, and occasionally it is left on accidentally.

Regards

Arty

You're adding relevant and pertinent info, so you're not necroing. Dago, on the other hand...

bigross86
15 Feb 12,, 08:08
My bad, I didn't want to feed the zombies.Honestly :)

Dago is the one that summoned the undead, not you

Doktor
15 Feb 12,, 09:10
Witch-hunt?

If Dago started a new thread to ask the question would have been better?

Chogy
15 Feb 12,, 14:16
Again, it's not necro if new, pertinent, important information is added.

The worst of all necro is the 5 year thread resurrected with the dreaded "I agree completely" text body. THAT is worthy of zombies, dead clowns, and flesh consumption on a massive scale! ;)