Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

delft

Brigadier
As you have noted the increased aeroelasticity of the forward swept wing will indeed increase flutter, unless its rigidity is increased. Carbon fibre is one solution, and works quite well in most applications, but while it can be very simple and cost effective. It does introduce a need for extreme precision in order to maintain that strength, as well as a very clean working area and a large autoclave to cure the carbon fibre resin.

Now none of these are problems per se, just different, and if what you produce is beautiful and cost effective, all is good. This little aircraft is different looking, no doubt its kool, but its not particularly attractive, and I rather doubt it flies any better? although roll control could be enhanced, and at the lower speeds it will travel, that may be a need..... it just doesn't have a very attractive overhead planform, I think the wing may be a little smallish, with an increased chord near the root, and a neat taper it could have been at least a little more attractive, and that still sells airplanes. LOL

Just pulling your chain a little to keep you on your toes?
I well remember during a oral examination the professor remarked "Rote Teile, schwarze Ziffren", Black parts, red numbers, but that was long ago and working with carbon fibre has been made much easier and cheaper by now.
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
S400 is a "aerial denial" system

There is only two aircraft In the world that could fly through this type of air space

Those are F22 Raptor and F35

At very high altitude you could fly in E3, E8 J-STARS, U-2 and RQ-4 global hawk
 

b787

Captain
S400 is a "aerial denial" system

There is only two aircraft In the world that could fly through this type of air space

Those are F22 Raptor and F35

At very high altitude you could fly in E3, E8 J-STARS, U-2 and RQ-4 global hawk
if you honest and strict that can not be answered until both systems go against each other in real life, why? see

Almaz Antey claims the F-22 has no chance.


both companies have PR campaings

“Nebo-UE” (55Zh6UE) Radar System
The “Nebo-UE” (55Zh6UE) radar system is designed to provide long-range detection and automatic tracking of airborne objects including low-visibility, small ballistic targets, and to measure their spatial coordinates and motion parameters.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The earlier Nebo SVU is a modern AESA design carried by semitrailer and capable of stowing and deploying in 20 minutes, significantly less time than observed with legacy Soviet air defense radars. The 84-element folding AESA combines mechanical steering in azimuth and tilt, like a conventional radar, and provides electronic beam steering. This is used during conventional circular sweeps to provide highly accurate angle measurement, with errors claimed by NNIIRT to be similar to the S-band 64N6E Big Bird series phased array used for SA–20 target acquisition. In sector search mode, the Nebo SVU is mechanically rotated to point at the threat sector, and then performs agile electronic beam steering through a claimed ~50° arc, not unlike the Patriot’s MPQ–53 phased array radar. The primary cited application for the Nebo SVU is target acquisition for SAM batteries. The Nebo M RLM–M is the much more powerful and accurate self-propelled offspring of the Nebo SVU. Using a similar but much larger hydraulically deployed and stowed AESA design with 168 active elements, this system is carried on the same 8×8 all-terrain BAZ–690915 chassis as SA–21 SAM system launchers. It provides around 40 percent more range and much more accurate angle measurement than the Nebo SVU, retaining the electronic beam steering agility of its predecessor. The RLM–M is a formidable modern radar in its own right. It is intended for use as part of the Nebo M multiband counterstealth radar system, which employs the VHF-band RLM–M, the L-band RLM–D, and the S-band RLM-S AESA radars, all networked together via the RLM–KU command post. What is not stated in the Russian-language PowerPoint slides is that by default, this system must incorporate a radar track fusion capability similar to that in the recently introduced U.S. Navy Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) system.13 Proper deployment of the Nebo M would see the VHF-band radar painting incoming stealth aircraft head on and the flanking L-band and S-band components painting the target from the often less stealthy sides. Also unstated is that with an operational networked “CEC-like” track fusion system resident in the RLM–KU command post, other more potent configurations with multiple radars are feasible—for instance, networking and fusing tracks from several RLM–M or RLM–D systems
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

Brumby

Major
if you honest and strict that can not be answered until both systems go against each other in real life, why? see

Almaz Antey claims the F-22 has no chance.


both companies have PR campaings

Whilst the current stealth platforms and IADS had not gone head to head, we do know how the prior generation of stealth platform performed against a very concentrated IADS in those days. In the opening day of Operation Desert Storm, F-117's navigated through 500 radars with over 8000 antiaircraft pieces and completed its mission set undetected.

upload_2016-1-18_13-45-41.png
upload_2016-1-18_13-46-18.png
upload_2016-1-18_13-47-3.png
 

b787

Captain
Whilst the current stealth platforms and IADS had not gone head to head, we do know how the prior generation of stealth platform performed against a very concentrated IADS in those days. In the opening day of Operation Desert Storm, F-117's navigated through 500 radars with over 8000 antiaircraft pieces and completed its mission set undetected.
they never faced the best of Russia and Serbia downed one

Zoltan Dani had problems of his own. He commanded a unit which was low on resources and vulnerable to attack by the F16s. But his men were not short on morale or skill.
Each night he would move his unit from place to place - operating the equipment in 20-second bursts to avoid the attention of anti-radar missiles.
Citing Serbian electronics genius Nikola Tesla as an inspiration, Zoltan had the equipment modified so it would operate beyond the usual wavelengths.
Perhaps it was this which allowed him to detect Dale Zelko's stealth fighter.

"When it hit, it felt very, very good. Like scoring the winning goal in a football match," says Mr Dani.
The US pilot's perspective was naturally a little different. But once he had ejected from his now uncontrollable plane, Mr Zelko had some surprisingly generous thoughts.
"I thought about the Serbian SAM (surface-to-air missile) operator, imagining having a coffee and conversation with this guy, saying to him: 'Really nice shot.' I had this huge respect for him and the Serbian people."
Dale Zelko shows his and Zoltan Dani's children the wreckage of his stealth plane
Image caption
The wreckage of Mr Zelko's plane is now in Belgrade's museum
This, perhaps, helps to explain why Mr Zelko was so receptive when the idea of meeting the man who shot him down was first floated.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
SA-3 was what down it
 
Last edited:

Brumby

Major
they never faced the best of Russia and Serbia downed one


SA-3 was what down it
I am surprised that you bring up the Serbia incident because if that is all that you have to advance your case it is really razor thin. The Serbia incident is well documented in that it was sloppy flight planning that the same route was adopted for weeks. They just had to wait for the opportunity. An outlier under dubious circumstance don't make a case. In contrast, there were 1297 sorties in Operation Desert storm without incident.

Radar science is not some mystical black art. We know when an aerial platform has certain RCS features we have a sense of what the risk profile is in detection range when matched against high frequencies radar. If you wish to advance your case that the S400 or whatever system presents an effective area denial you actually have to specify how that is effected. Frankly, attaching some you tube animated video doesn't cut it because they don't present any technical information. I would not even consider them to be marketing materials for the same reason.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
The Serbia incident is well documented in that it was sloppy flight planning that the same route was adopted for weeks
Exact in fact a " tactical problem " and F-117 demonstrated its effectiveness during several operations only one lost and new F-22/35 get a clearly less big RCS can cause problem to S-400 also.

Futur S-500 is different more big only 2 by TEL normaly ? better range as S-400 up to 600 km and mainly able vs BM also at this range, S-400 as latest S-300 have a ABM range of "only " 40/60 km.
 
Last edited:

Scratch

Captain
S400 is a "aerial denial" system

At very high altitude you could fly in E3, E8 J-STARS, U-2 and RQ-4 global hawk

Just for understanding, are you talking about overflying the system? Even the SA-2(D?) could reach the max altitudes of the aircraft you mention.
Overflying S400 type systems with aeroplanes is essentially impossible, as those systems pretty much reach into space.
 

b787

Captain
I am surprised that you bring up the Serbia incident because if that is all that you have to advance your case it is really razor thin. The Serbia incident is well documented in that it was sloppy flight planning that the same route was adopted for weeks. They just had to wait for the opportunity. An outlier under dubious circumstance don't make a case. In contrast, there were 1297 sorties in Operation Desert storm without incident.

Radar science is not some mystical black art. We know when an aerial platform has certain RCS features we have a sense of what the risk profile is in detection range when matched against high frequencies radar. If you wish to advance your case that the S400 or whatever system presents an effective area denial you actually have to specify how that is effected. Frankly, attaching some you tube animated video doesn't cut it because they don't present any technical information. I would not even consider them to be marketing materials for the same reason.
one small detail, what do you expect to hear from the USAF? do you think they do not lie?

First fact in 1999, was Yeltsin`s Russia, Serbia did not receive any help by Russia, so basically Serbia had to modify their old SA-3s to down an aircraft that supposedly was immune to the SA-3.

Question 2 when was the F-117 retired and why? we still see F-15s and F-156s and F-18s all are operational but the vaunted F-117 retired why? i mean aircraft that flew in 1970(F-15), 1974 (F-16s) are still flying.

The answer is easy under the air defense umbrella Russia in 2010 could boast the F-117 would not have last, so you do not need a slow, detectable crap that is neither quick or agile, you need a deep penetration fast aircraft like F-22 or thousands of faster slightly more agile and quicker F-35s
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
We covered this before B737. Stealth is not invisibility its a combination of shaping, materials and tactics to camouflage. The F117 kept using the same routes. All the locals had to do was listen for reports of F117 sightings or mysterious aircraft. Then park a Sam sight.

As to the "sudden" retirement of the F117. If it had been the result of the SA3 then why did they wait so long? Could it be oh I don't know... Perhaps because another stealthy aircraft was available for use and carried more weapons? Like say the F22A? And perhaps it was helped because the F117 is a very single mission role aircraft that of penetration bomber and for the past decade + the USAF was dealing with asymmetric warfare against a foe with no Air defense systems and generally speaking Manned aircraft declined.
 
Top