Re: Nebo-U new russian antistealth radar

[B2431]

>From: (Michael Petukhov)
>Date: 1/10/2004 11:48 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>RuAF have received first 10 new NEBO-U long range antistealth radars
>working in the range of meter's waves.

Meter wavelengths? You mean the same ones com/nav radios use?

Both the Germans and Brits realized that stuff was near useless in WW2. They
needed centimeter wavelengths. About 15 years ago the U.S. was playing with
millimeter wavelengths if memory serves.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[George Ruch]

(B2431) wrote:

>>From: (Michael Petukhov)
>>Date: 1/10/2004 11:48 AM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>RuAF have received first 10 new NEBO-U long range antistealth radars
>>working in the range of meter's waves.
>
>Meter wavelengths? You mean the same ones com/nav radios use?

He probably does.

The article on the F-117 kill (http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117down.htm)
indicates that the kill was from two SA-6 missiles.

But... The inbound tracking was reportedly accomplished by a 1950's vintage
Soviet radar operating in the 165 - 190 cm range (158 - 181 MHZ). Useful
for ground-based early warning, but pretty much useless for fire control
purposes.

>Both the Germans and Brits realized that stuff was near useless in WW2.

True for any sort of precise tracking, mapping and fire control. The big
Chain Home and German early warning systems were easy targets.

>They needed centimeter wavelengths.

Especially for airborne use. Size, weight and power consumption become
much greater issues.

> About 15 years ago the U.S. was playing with millimeter wavelengths if
> memory serves.

I've been out since 12/1992, but I do remember reading about some work on
systems operating in the 20 GHz - 40GHz range.

| George Ruch
| AF, MSgt, ret.

[Michael Petukhov]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (Michael Petukhov)
> >Date: 1/10/2004 11:48 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >RuAF have received first 10 new NEBO-U long range antistealth radars
> >working in the range of meter's waves.
>
> Meter wavelengths? You mean the same ones com/nav radios use?
>
> Both the Germans and Brits realized that stuff was near useless in WW2. They
> needed centimeter wavelengths. About 15 years ago the U.S. was playing with
> millimeter wavelengths if memory serves.

True. That's why NEBO-U is so important development in
the field of radar design.

Michael

>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (Michael Petukhov)
>Date: 1/11/2004 3:13 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>> >From: (Michael Petukhov)
>> >Date: 1/10/2004 11:48 AM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >RuAF have received first 10 new NEBO-U long range antistealth radars
>> >working in the range of meter's waves.
>>
>> Meter wavelengths? You mean the same ones com/nav radios use?
>>
>> Both the Germans and Brits realized that stuff was near useless in WW2.
>They
>> needed centimeter wavelengths. About 15 years ago the U.S. was playing with
>> millimeter wavelengths if memory serves.
>
>True. That's why NEBO-U is so important development in
>the field of radar design.
>
>Michael
>
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
<yawn>

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ian]

"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "--= Ö§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí =--" > wrote in message
> ...
> > A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, BOB URZ <"sound
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >> RuAF have received first 10 new NEBO-U long range antistealth radars
> > >> working in the range of meter's waves. It was designed in Nizhniy
> > >> Novgorod Scientific Research Institute of Radio Engineering (NNIIRT).
> > >> Leading specialists NNIIRT which is headed by the designer, Aleksandr
> > >> Zachepitskiy, have received a State prize for the creation of the
> > >> three-dimensional "Nebo-U" radar with a digital phased antenna array,
> > >> the Privolzh'e Novoe Telegrafnoe Agenstvo is reporting. The radar is
> > >> an automated complex which provides all weather control of the
> > >> airspace at a range of several hundred kilometers. The "Nebo-U" is
> > >> able to detect small-size and barely visible targets, including also
> > >> those built using Stealth Technology.
> > >>
> > >> Michael
> > >
> > > So, how did they test it so they know it works?
> > > Buy a B2 and F-117 off of Ebay?
> >
> > No, they got their own free sample to play with from Yugoslavia. Not
that
> > they really needed it to develop the radar.
> >
> > http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117down.htm
> > http://www.serbnews.com/vk.html
> >
> > Not to mention the fact that stealth designs evolved from original work
> done
> > by Russian scientists in the first place!
> >
>
> Whose rover is on the surface of Mars right now and whose isn't?
> Check out the NASA or JPL websites to see all of the missions that are
> currently underway. Russia flys a 1970's Soviet rocket to supply the space
> station and launches sats for people with hard cash. It's own weather
sats,
> nuke arms verification sats and GPS sats are in horrible shape. When the
> talk about a new space race was mentioned, Russia never came up.
>
> > Before you open your big, fat, ignorant mouth and claim the F-177
> shootdown
> > is propaganda, the DoD has verified the story:
> >
> > http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/news99/uns99072.htm
> >
>
> 20 year old technology at that time. The USAF didn't even bother to go
back
> to blow it up.
> Russia still doesn't have a stealthy aircraft, neither does Europe or
China.
> Russia is just flying around in warmed over Sukhoi designs. When a Phoenix
> missile takes out your Sukhoi at 200 miles out and you can't even see
where
> it came from, you'll be saying "I wish I had stealth" just as your
parachute
> opens.
> Even the super new Eurofighter is about as stealthy as an elephant in a
> china shop. Maybe that's because it took the Euro-bureaucrats 30 years to
> build it?

While the signature of the Eurofighter isn't as low as that of the much
fabled F-22 (do I add the /A as well?), it is considerably lower than any in
service aircraft (and many of the planned ones as well).

On a slight divergence, how long has it taken for F-22 to get to where it is
now? And F-35? I remember the team for the demos for JAST (or whatever its
project name was back then) when I was still at school??

> > > And whos computer chips and DSP's are running it?
> > > Is there a X86ski?
> >
> > Why don't you take your x86 out of your Wal-Mart PC and read where it's
> > manufactured. See the little letters that say "Malaysia"? Maybe you got
> one
> > that says Phillipines, or Costa Rica.
> >
>
> I think it's called "economics". Funny thing though...they don't say
"Made
> in Russia" on them.
>
> > You might also want to look at how much foreign stuff is in U$ military
> > equipment these days, you'll probably **** yourself.
> >
>
> No Sukhoi's flying over my house.
>
> > --
> > --=( Ö§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí )=----- ----- --- - -
> > Rebel Alliance Galactic Usenet News Service
> > --- --- ---=================----------- - -
>
>

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Ian" > wrote:

> While the signature of the Eurofighter isn't as low as that of the
> much fabled F-22 (do I add the /A as well?), it is considerably lower
> than any in service aircraft (and many of the planned ones as well).

You *are* excluding the F-117 from that comment, right? The
Eurofighter, while using some RCS reduction tech, is nothing like a true
stealthy airframe, and isn't stealthy at all when carrying weapons from
many angles. Basically, they took it from "barn door" to "manhole
cover" in RCS.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, George Ruch
> writes
(B2431) wrote:
>
>>>From: (Michael Petukhov)
>>>Date: 1/10/2004 11:48 AM Central Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>RuAF have received first 10 new NEBO-U long range antistealth radars
>>>working in the range of meter's waves.
>>
>>Meter wavelengths? You mean the same ones com/nav radios use?
>
>He probably does.
>
>The article on the F-117 kill (http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117down.htm)
>indicates that the kill was from two SA-6 missiles.
>
>But... The inbound tracking was reportedly accomplished by a 1950's vintage
>Soviet radar operating in the 165 - 190 cm range (158 - 181 MHZ). Useful
>for ground-based early warning, but pretty much useless for fire control
>purposes.
>
>>Both the Germans and Brits realized that stuff was near useless in WW2.
>
>True for any sort of precise tracking, mapping and fire control.

Cape Matapan?

>The big
>Chain Home and German early warning systems were easy targets.

Chain Home certainly was not.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[TJ]

"George Ruch" wrote:

> The article on the F-117 kill
> indicates that the kill was from two SA-6 missiles.
snippet from the link:

"Russian Minister of Defence Igor Sergeyev announced that the stealthiest of
the world's aircraft was brough down by two SA-6 surface-to-air missiles.
Yugoslav Air Force officials said that the F-117 was also hit by one AAM
launched from a MiG fighter aircraft."

This is a Venik article from 1999 and as usual has not been updated. The
information he used in the article was derived from information supplied to
him from Djordje Pavicevic who was a Serb teenager back in 1999. Pavicevic
is the guy who claiming to have seen captured F-117 pilots and witnessed the
wrecks of a B-52H and been shown images of a downed B-2A. The Russian
Defence Minister, quoted in the article, was wrong too about the SA-6
GAINFUL. The Yugoslav military has revealed that the missiles used were SA-3
GOA of the 250th Rocket Brigade. The boosters and the nose cone from the
missiles launched that night are on display in the Yugoslav Aeronautical
Museum. The claim of the MiG fighter came from the Yugoslav Ministry of
Information. Yugoslav MiG-29 pilots revealed after the war that they had
fired no air-to-air missiles in any encounter and were upset that their
combat reports had been altered by groups and individuals in the Yugoslav
Ministry of Information.

TJ

[Ian]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >,
> "Ian" > wrote:
>
> > While the signature of the Eurofighter isn't as low as that of the
> > much fabled F-22 (do I add the /A as well?), it is considerably lower
> > than any in service aircraft (and many of the planned ones as well).
>
> You *are* excluding the F-117 from that comment, right? The
> Eurofighter, while using some RCS reduction tech, is nothing like a true
> stealthy airframe, and isn't stealthy at all when carrying weapons from
> many angles. Basically, they took it from "barn door" to "manhole
> cover" in RCS.
>
Sorry - yeah I was excluding the F-117 and B-2.

Eurofighter's original concept was to be stealthy, i'll agree to that.
However, given the four (originally more) partner nations requirements, it
was never going to work. Thats when they went for the "stealthier" option.
The concept of operations would seem to be scoot to within range of the
weapon and then bug out. The cruise missiles they'll carry (Storm Shadow
and Taurus) have ranges that allow them to do this. AMRAAM (and hopefully
Meteor when it is finsihed) will allow this in AA.

I know its dangerous to say this, but when do we next envisage a war with
Air to Air? GWII didn't have it, and had next to no 'real' SAM activity (if
you discount the patriot attacks on the RAF and USN(F-18?)). GWI had a bit
more, but that was more due to the missions the RAF undertook with JP233 and
low level bombing (the standard tactic developed for 'cold war attacks using
Tornado and predecessors). The last true air to air I can think of, would
be the Falklands, when the AIM-9L (I think?) was given its operational debut
(and what a debut)

I don't doubt if the 4 partner countries had the money, they would develop
an F-22 level stealth aircraft. I know they're working on some very
interesting concepts for future aircraft that will be at that level if not
better.

(PS - I've recently seen a concept drawing of an F-22 with external stores,
and not just fuel tanks. Won't that really harm the RCS etc, or have they
developed stealthy weapons and pylons? Or was it just some bored aviation
artist?)
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
George Ruch > writes:
> (B2431) wrote:
>
>>>From: (Michael Petukhov)
>>>Date: 1/10/2004 11:48 AM Central Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>RuAF have received first 10 new NEBO-U long range antistealth radars
>>>working in the range of meter's waves.
>>
>>Meter wavelengths? You mean the same ones com/nav radios use?
>
> He probably does.
>
> The article on the F-117 kill (http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117down.htm)
> indicates that the kill was from two SA-6 missiles.

I've got to make a correction, here. The F-117 kill was made by an
SA-3 site. This is important.

> But... The inbound tracking was reportedly accomplished by a 1950's vintage
> Soviet radar operating in the 165 - 190 cm range (158 - 181 MHZ). Useful
> for ground-based early warning, but pretty much useless for fire control
> purposes.

Which, BTW, is the normal EW/Air Search radar of the SA-3. Really old
missiles, like the SA-2 and SA-3 have, oddly enough, an advantage when
engaging stealth aircraft. The missiles are Command Guided - all of
the tracking, and all of the smarts required to compute the intercept
and guide the missile, are on the ground. The missile itself is
fairly simple, with an autopilot to keep it pointed right, and a radio
receiver to pick up the steering commands sent from the ground.
The tracking of the target by the fire control system can also be
performed manually, with human operators designating the point that
represents teh target. This makes integrating passive tracking, like
telescopes or TV cameras (Either normal or LLTV) into the system a lot
easier. Humans are also better at picking faint of intermittent
targets out of clutter - it's the way our brains are wired.

With a well-trained crew, a command guided SAM, using a long-wave
radar to let them know that something's there, could pick the airplane
visually, and engage that way. Which is pretty much what happened.

A more advanced system, with high resolution autotracking radars, and,
say, a Semiactive homer in the missiles, isn't going to be able to
have enough time to engage. Stealth doesn't mean that it disappears,
it menas that the detection ranges are much shorter.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Ian" > wrote:

> (PS - I've recently seen a concept drawing of an F-22 with external stores,
> and not just fuel tanks. Won't that really harm the RCS etc, or have they
> developed stealthy weapons and pylons? Or was it just some bored aviation
> artist?)

They have the option of an F-22 with external stores, for *after* air
superiority is achieved.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Ian]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Ian" > wrote:
>
> > (PS - I've recently seen a concept drawing of an F-22 with external
stores,
> > and not just fuel tanks. Won't that really harm the RCS etc, or have
they
> > developed stealthy weapons and pylons? Or was it just some bored
aviation
> > artist?)
>
> They have the option of an F-22 with external stores, for *after* air
> superiority is achieved.
>
I'm reliably informed that with the radar in Eurofighter, and the
partnership with AMRAAM / METEOR air to air superiority only becomes a
problem against F-22. Hopefully we'll not end up fighting against the US?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Ian" > wrote:

> I'm reliably informed that with the radar in Eurofighter, and the
> partnership with AMRAAM / METEOR air to air superiority only becomes a
> problem against F-22. Hopefully we'll not end up fighting against the US?

Well, as long as the European manufacturers don't sell them to anyone
nasty. Which isn't a good bet, thinking about the last twenty years or
so.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Alan Minyard]

On 11 Jan 2004 01:10:51 -0800, (Michael Petukhov) wrote:

>"Matteo" > wrote in message >...
>> Michael Petukhov wrote:
>> > RuAF have received first 10 new NEBO-U long range antistealth radars
>> > working in the range of meter's waves. It was designed in Nizhniy
>>
>> I don't want to argue the fact hat low frequency radar can detect stealth
>> aircraft; pratically everybody knows it since low frewuency radar are very
>> old stuff. Americans, english and germans realized them still in 1940s since
>> low freq. radar were simpler to build.
>> But they have some drawback that strongly reduce their effectiveness in real
>> combat.
>> First they share frequencies with UHF telecomunication devices like radio
>> and TV so, unless you're figthing in the middle of the desert and your
>> soldiers don't have radios, they will pick up every piece of electromagnetic
>> garbage created by radio and TV broadcasting and show it like an aircraft.
>
>No neccesary it depends on signal shape and antenna.
>
>> Second, since antenna's dimensions are proportional to wave lenght, in order
>> to generate a narrow beam they must use very big anennas, something like a
>> three stories building! (quite difficult to hide...)
>
>true, it is around that size. However Nebo-u is truck based radar.
>
>> Third, due to the low frequency they have poor data rate, enough for
>> detection, but not for target tracking.
>
>That's exactly what was solved in nebo-u. It is first 3D radar at high
>accuracy. The guys received the state prize exactly for that achivement.
>
>Michael
>
>> Bye

Russia could not afford, much less build, an effective "anti-stealth" radar.
They cannot even tow a sub without it sinking.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:36:54 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Ian" > wrote:
>
>> While the signature of the Eurofighter isn't as low as that of the
>> much fabled F-22 (do I add the /A as well?), it is considerably lower
>> than any in service aircraft (and many of the planned ones as well).
>
>You *are* excluding the F-117 from that comment, right? The
>Eurofighter, while using some RCS reduction tech, is nothing like a true
>stealthy airframe, and isn't stealthy at all when carrying weapons from
>many angles. Basically, they took it from "barn door" to "manhole
>cover" in RCS.

I would be willing to bet the farm that the B-2 has a lower RCS than the
Eurofighter.

And the B-2 is a very large aircraft.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:25:30 -0000, "Ian" > wrote:

>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. ..
>> In article >,
>> "Ian" > wrote:
>>
>> > While the signature of the Eurofighter isn't as low as that of the
>> > much fabled F-22 (do I add the /A as well?), it is considerably lower
>> > than any in service aircraft (and many of the planned ones as well).
>>
>> You *are* excluding the F-117 from that comment, right? The
>> Eurofighter, while using some RCS reduction tech, is nothing like a true
>> stealthy airframe, and isn't stealthy at all when carrying weapons from
>> many angles. Basically, they took it from "barn door" to "manhole
>> cover" in RCS.
>>
>Sorry - yeah I was excluding the F-117 and B-2.
>
>Eurofighter's original concept was to be stealthy, i'll agree to that.
>However, given the four (originally more) partner nations requirements, it
>was never going to work. Thats when they went for the "stealthier" option.
>The concept of operations would seem to be scoot to within range of the
>weapon and then bug out. The cruise missiles they'll carry (Storm Shadow
>and Taurus) have ranges that allow them to do this. AMRAAM (and hopefully
>Meteor when it is finsihed) will allow this in AA.
>
>I know its dangerous to say this, but when do we next envisage a war with
>Air to Air? GWII didn't have it, and had next to no 'real' SAM activity (if
>you discount the patriot attacks on the RAF and USN(F-18?)). GWI had a bit
>more, but that was more due to the missions the RAF undertook with JP233 and
>low level bombing (the standard tactic developed for 'cold war attacks using
>Tornado and predecessors). The last true air to air I can think of, would
>be the Falklands, when the AIM-9L (I think?) was given its operational debut
>(and what a debut)
>
>I don't doubt if the 4 partner countries had the money, they would develop
>an F-22 level stealth aircraft. I know they're working on some very
>interesting concepts for future aircraft that will be at that level if not
>better.
>
>(PS - I've recently seen a concept drawing of an F-22 with external stores,
>and not just fuel tanks. Won't that really harm the RCS etc, or have they
>developed stealthy weapons and pylons? Or was it just some bored aviation
>artist?)
>> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>>
Yes, but they are not intended for use in a high threat area. They go on after
enemy air and AA assets no longer exist (day two).

Al Minyard

[Denyav]

>"Nebo-U" is
>able to detect small-size and barely visible targets, including also
>those built using Stealth Technology.

I dont know about this radar,but if its a backscatterer it wont be able to
detect any stealth plane at meaningfull distances.
(Serbian style "internetting" then maybe)

[B2431]

>From: Chad Irby
>Date: 1/11/2004 5:05 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> (Jack Linthicum) wrote:
>
>> Chad Irby > wrote in message
>> >...
>> > In article >,
>> > (Allen Thomson) wrote:
>> >
>> > > See http://www.nniirt.ru/files/nebo-ye.htm and
>> > > http://www.nniirt.ru/files/nebo-svu.htm for pictures of what are
>> > > apparently other members of the NEBO family. Note that counter-
>> > > stealth capability is claimed for them also.
>> >
>> > *Everyone* making radar nowadays is claiming some level of
>> > "counter-stealth." It's a buzzword, like "ergodynamic" in cars, or
>> > "synergy" in business models.
>>
>> Like slightly different radio frequency use, different pulse rate,
>> different pulse shape and an optical sight to find the airplane in
>> visual frequencies.
>
>"We have invented a great new anti-stealth tracking system! Within
>ranges of a few miles, we can detect most stealth aircraft for about 50%
>of the diurnal cycle!"
>
>--
>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
Binoculars?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >From: Chad Irby
> >Date: 1/11/2004 5:05 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >"We have invented a great new anti-stealth tracking system! Within
> >ranges of a few miles, we can detect most stealth aircraft for about 50%
> >of the diurnal cycle!"
>
> Binoculars?

That has to be it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:46:16 +0000 (UTC), Steven James Forsberg > wrote:

>: 20 year old technology at that time. The USAF didn't even bother to go back
>: to blow it up.
>: Russia still doesn't have a stealthy aircraft, neither does Europe or China.
>: Russia is just flying around in warmed over Sukhoi designs. When a Phoenix
>: missile takes out your Sukhoi at 200 miles out and you can't even see where
>: it came from, you'll be saying "I wish I had stealth" just as your parachute
>
> Highly unlikely. First of all, the Phoenix never had a range of
>200 miles. Secondly, it has been (or is being rapidly) retired from
>service.
> Secondly, while 'stealth' is nice to have, note the US is not
>buying any more stealth aircraft. New fighters will have "stealth
>features" but do not meet the military's own definition of 'stealth'.
>The F-117 is hardly a fighter at any rate...
>
>regards,
>-----------------------------------------------------------

>
>
Where in the world did you get the idea that the F-22
and F-35 are not stealth aircraft??

Obviously, no aircraft is completely invisible to radar, but
when you get down to the RCS of a bird, that is stealth.

Al Minyard

[George Ruch]

(Peter Stickney) wrote:

>In article >,
> George Ruch > writes:
>> (B2431) wrote:
>>
>> The article on the F-117 kill (http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117down.htm)
>> indicates that the kill was from two SA-6 missiles.
>
>I've got to make a correction, here. The F-117 kill was made by an
>SA-3 site.

I should have figured that. An SA-6 kill would have needed a lot of luck,
esp. once the guidance beam came on.

>> But... The inbound tracking was reportedly accomplished by a 1950's vintage
>> Soviet radar operating in the 165 - 190 cm range (158 - 181 MHZ). Useful
>> for ground-based early warning, but pretty much useless for fire control
>> purposes.
>
>Which, BTW, is the normal EW/Air Search radar of the SA-3. Really old
>missiles, like the SA-2 and SA-3 have, oddly enough, an advantage when
>engaging stealth aircraft.

[much good info snipped]

I remember that setup from my old EW days. Add a decent LLTV/IR
combination and a decent crew and you'd have a very dangerous package.

> Stealth doesn't mean that it disappears, it menas that the detection
> ranges are much shorter.

True. I worked F-111s and F-15s when I was in. Barn doors compared to the
117.

/------------------------------------------------------------\
| George Ruch |
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?" |
\------------------------------------------------------------/

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
George Ruch > writes:
> (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> George Ruch > writes:
>>> (B2431) wrote:
>>>
>>> The article on the F-117 kill (http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117down.htm)
>>> indicates that the kill was from two SA-6 missiles.
>>
>>I've got to make a correction, here. The F-117 kill was made by an
>>SA-3 site.
>
> I should have figured that. An SA-6 kill would have needed a lot of luck,
> esp. once the guidance beam came on.
>
>>> But... The inbound tracking was reportedly accomplished by a 1950's vintage
>>> Soviet radar operating in the 165 - 190 cm range (158 - 181 MHZ). Useful
>>> for ground-based early warning, but pretty much useless for fire control
>>> purposes.
>>
>>Which, BTW, is the normal EW/Air Search radar of the SA-3. Really old
>>missiles, like the SA-2 and SA-3 have, oddly enough, an advantage when
>>engaging stealth aircraft.
>
> [much good info snipped]
>
> I remember that setup from my old EW days. Add a decent LLTV/IR
> combination and a decent crew and you'd have a very dangerous package.

Yery dangerous indeed. There are times when the unsophisticated
system is more effective than the new Gee-Whiz stuff. Of course,
system performance of something like an SA-3, SA-2, or Nike-Herc
depends a lot more on crew quality, (and quantity, it takes a lot of
people to run them), and they can get saturated a lot mroe easily.
But it can also take advantage of the pattern recognition wired into
the human brain. In the period leading up to Viet Nam, the Navy put a
lot of effort into deception jammers. (Repeaters & Track Breakers &
such). They consumed less power, and could be made smaller, so you
could fit 'em internally, and not sanitize a pylon carrying a pod. (A
big issue with the F-8 and early A-4s, 'casue they didn't have a lot
of pylons to begin with. And they worked pretty good against our best
systems. The only problem is, that when they were put up against the
the SA-2's Fan Song radars, after a while, they weren't quite as
effective. The manual operators were, with practice, often able to
pick out the true targets from the false ones. The Air Force went in
more for noise jammers, and these tended to work better in that
environment. If you fill the radar's screens with solid noise,
there's nothing to pick out.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Denyav]

>:New fighters will have "stealth
>:features" but do not meet the military's own definition of 'stealth'.
>

F35 will probably be the last manned US aircraft employing "passive" stealth
for the survival.

>Yeah. You only can't see them up until right after they kill you.
>Some 'stealth feature'.

Yeah right,with 600 mile range stand off air-air misilles maybe.
>

[Denyav]

>Obviously, no aircraft is completely invisible to radar, but
>when you get down to the RCS of a bird, that is stealth.
>

Frontal RCS of f22 is even smaller than insects,but that is stealth only for
good old backscatterers.period.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >:New fighters will have "stealth
> >:features" but do not meet the military's own definition of 'stealth'.
> >
>
> F35 will probably be the last manned US aircraft employing "passive"
stealth
> for the survival.
>

Mainly because its apt to be the last US manned fighter.

Keith

[Denyav]

>haphazardly with AA while trying to find the F-117s. The first night of the
>first Iraq war, all the F117's came back from their missions without so much
>as a scratch.

Lots of of them did not even get to their assigned targets during the first
night of DS I to start with.
If Jammers had not spoofed guided launches aganist some them,world would not
have to wait till balkan for first f117 stratches,thats second.
Iraq,like,Afghanistan,Panama,Zambia,Somalia etc is a backward third world
country,and thats the third point.