I didn’t say that. It’s just that S-300 fired in exercise at low RCS targets, and one of the drones was intercepted at 60km in heavy jamming enviorement and the drone RCS is 0.07m2. Does that prove that it can fire at F-22 at 60km? No. But it have more weight than any speculation what F-22 can do against such a threat.

Maybe because you stated this: “0.1m^2 – 61.75nm” which is around twice lower than the actual. And i used 250 figure to simplify the calc.

Even using the numbers you posted, it puts the F-22 and F-35 outside the WEZ by a large margin, and RCS numbers aren’t linear, which is where the original number came from. The problem that I have is when statements about weapon systems, like “can engage stealthy/LO targets” are taken without looking at the context. The F-35 and F-22 are several orders of magnitude stealthier than the targets they’ve engaged in training. Then the RCS figures are simply dismissed, as are any examples that might lead one to believe that they’re more accurate than- “the Russians claim the RCS is_____,” as if they’ve had the opportunity to put them on a pole, or closely examine them.

Math was not your strong subject in school, right?
For 10 fold decrease in RCS we have halved detection range. Let’s make some simple calcs.
250nm against 2m2
125nm against 0.2m2
62.5nm against 0.02m2
So my statement is right.
And what you wrote is just your assumptions. It is fact that S-300PM engaged 0.07m2 target at 60km. The only thing that you can claim now is that F-22 have all round marble sized RCS, which will be nonsense.

I was using your numbers- what’s the problem? We’re both using roughly the same number for .02m2, except you changed the larger number from 247 to 250, which made for small differences. You did stop at .02m2 though, which is where I believe you to be in error.

Your calculations are wrong. Ten fold decrease means 123.5 against 0.2m^2 target and 61 against 0.02….. Trying to cheat?

No- it doesn’t work that way. Even using your figures though-
.02- 61nm
.002- 30.5nm
.0002- 15.75nm
(and bear in mind these are detection ranges, not tracking ranges)
The takeaway from this is that the F-35 and F-22 can stay outside the detection ranges of these systems, and engage at their leisure from >60nm (at roughly $30-40k per bomb vs. $500k-1m+ per missile).

Jessmo24 if you read some serious publiation on the subject (the book i have suggested to you in the previous post is a good starting point, because take into examination the theme in question and just in the South East Asia theatre) you will find that the great problem of NATO’s airbase around the world is that them lack almost completely any type of IAD networks.

The motivation is simple: creating an IAD ,discounting even the enormous technological gap accumulated in the field with Russians ,who have always heavily invested,since URSS times,in complex air defence structures and in advanced rocketry, amassing enormous “know-how” and engineering traditions at now very difficult to match or acquire (naturally is true also the opposite for western technological primacies and traditions very difficult to acquire now for Russians), require several years of efforts and enormous expenses ,naturally uncompatible with an air centric doctrine founded around power projection and requiring fatally very numerous logistical and support assets spreaded around the globe.
Besides this point we must add that ,in general ,the efficiency of an IAD follow the exponential function of its spatial extention,another element incompatible with an efficient IAD for those assets.

That’s some awfully good Kool-Aid that you’ve been drinking. The difference is in philosophy, and doctrine, not in the know how.

“The claims are that targets in the .1-.01m^2 RCS range, can be detected at ~90km” and i should have distorted what has been said about those SAMs ?
Ha ha ha !!!
Is YOU that have maked an immense confusion with the tracking range figures provided for…. IRBIS-E (the radar of SU-35BM/S) and you have also reduced it of an intere order of magnitude !!!

The S-400 is generally credited with a detection range(under optimal circumstances) of ~400km vs. a 3m^2 target. The general rule of thumb is that for every 10 fold reduction in RCS, the detection range is halved. This is all before taking into account the radar horizon, and the detection range of the missile seekers(i.e. if the target is below the radar horizon, and the missile has to rely on it’s own seeker which won’t see a VLO target beyond 2-3km tops). Now add in further signal degradation from ECM/EA, and hopefully you’ll see that it’s not quite as cut and dry as you seem to think. I’m sure you’ll be happy to provide us with some stats, showing better performance than what I’ve listed, so by all means, let’s see them.

I can agree with that. They’ve got enough to field very tough point defenses around their most valuable sites, that would result in high attrition rates.

How much would an F-35 cost in 1998 though, if we’re using those numbers?