A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nebo-U new russian antistealth radar



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2  
Old January 11th 04, 05:10 AM
George Ruch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(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.

  #3  
Old January 11th 04, 11:56 AM
M. J. Powell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #4  
Old January 11th 04, 12:14 PM
TJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #5  
Old January 11th 04, 03:35 PM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #6  
Old January 13th 04, 02:22 AM
George Ruch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(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?" |
\------------------------------------------------------------/
  #7  
Old January 14th 04, 04:17 AM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #10  
Old January 11th 04, 10:49 AM
Ian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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
--- --- ---=================----------- - -





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RUSSIAN WAR PLANES IN ASIA James Military Aviation 2 October 1st 03 11:25 PM
Vietnam era F-4s Q Ed Rasimus Military Aviation 87 September 27th 03 03:59 PM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM
[AU] Light plane sparked terror alert David Bromage Military Aviation 41 September 11th 03 05:37 PM
F15E Radar question. Bill Silvey Military Aviation 5 August 30th 03 06:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.