RE: Stealth v Radar

The F-117 can be fitted with some kind of RCS increaser when necessary as for air show flights. My guess is the B-2 has something similar.

The device is called a “corner reflector” or Luneberg Lense. It can be retracted when desired and it will not interferre with the aircraft’s RCS.

Radar will be able to defeat stealth when CPU power is large enough to allow for discerning of trailing vortices in the air.

Like IR detection, it is subject to atmospheric conditions (humidity, wind, etc.). Your capabilities one day will not reflect the ability of the next day.

simple solution is using bi-static radars where transmitter and receiver is separated in distance.

Whether the signal is bounced back to the point of origin or another place, the problem is the same. The problem is, “if the signal is great enough to be detected by the reciever?”
One of the real expenses of stealth developement is, testing the new design against all known operational and in developement -radars. Learn at what point the new design can be detected, what angles, signal strength, etc..

When Lockeed spoke of a “bi-static” radar being able to detect a stealth aircraft, they were talking about something that still does not exist. A radar that transmits over two thousand separate frequencies on each pulse and being able to process all this data when the signals return.
Any one frequency can detect a stealth vehicle at a certain angle and distance. Change the angle or the distance by a meter and that frequency will not work but, some other frequency will work, there is no way of determining which signals will work versus those that won’t until testing!

Send up 1,000 knockoff Mig-21s and if quite a lot don’t come back it was an F-22, if they shoot down the target it was either a B-2 or F-117.

In aerial combat over the Balkans, two MiG.-29’s charged head-on at two F-15C’s. The F-15C’s fired two Slammer Missiles at a range of ten miles and killed the MiG.’s. What was not known until later was that in between the F-15’s and MiG’s at an altitude just two thousand feet lower than the fighters was a F-117! Neither the Mig’s (one pilot survived) nor the F-15’s detected the F-117.

that one of the DT&OE Raptors (Raptor07 I think) has a kill ratio of 87-0 against all comers

In some of those test, as many as sixteen F-15’s were against two F-22’s and none of the F-15’s ever saw the F-22’s. The F-22 has been tested against MiG.-29’s and Su-27’s! The Discovery Channel did a program about the F-22. They showed it (the F-22) keeping the “gun piper” on the center of the fuselage of an Su-27! The Suhkoi was maneuvering hard but, it did no good for the F-22 had no trouble keeping the piper in the middle of the fuselage.

Shape and radar absorbent material just dont work well against A-band radar.

Three cheers for history! The newer RAM’s are effective against lower and lower frequencies. Notice the F-35, it has straight lines at openings for gear doors or equipment doors. No longer the need for the saw tooth design at openings. The new RAM is thicker and has an embedded wire that breaks up the signal as it trys to enter the gap.
One real advantage of the new RAM is that the maintentance cost for the RAM of the F-35 is one-tenth of what it is for the F-22!!

Venik still has the SA-6 down as the system that shot down the F-117.
He utilised low frequency radars and got lucky with his battery.

NO! The F-117 flew almost directly over a “mobile radar battery” and was detected because it got to close. It was shot down by a SAM-3 battery of the 250th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Brigade.
If it was because of some modification to the radar then, there should have been F-117’s and B-2’s shot down and, this did not happen.
The USAF got arrogant and flew F-117’s into the same general target area four nights in a row at about the same time. On the fourth night the Serbs moved a mobile radar in between two fixed sights and detection was made.

They really were scraping the barrel in finding people to write this garbage. It reads like a 13 year old has got hold of his dads computer!
http://www.serbia-info.com/news/1999-06/01/12255.html

When the F-117 was shot down, television crews were out taking video before any official announcements were made. Have you seen any other “media circus” like that since…. HELL NO! For no other stealth aircraft was shot down.

Adrian

RE: Alfa and Soviet underwater Bastian Strategy Cold War

I have a theory the Americans and British couldn’t prosecute Alfa with torpedoes during its active service life of roughly 1979-1989/1990

Actually, it could be. The Alfa threat was trumped in the US Navy, Congress and, mass media the same way the need for the F-22 is being advertised now.
The Alfa could go very fast, it could also go very deep around 3,000 feet (900 meters) underwater but, it could not do them both at the same time. The Mk.-48 and the Tigerfish torpedos could do the job provided the Alfa was not at the limits of the kill zone to start with.

The Soviet SOSUS was not as sensative as its American counter-parts. Sometime reducing the RPM on the generators by ten percent was enough for the US subs to penetrate the barrier without being detected.
The US Navy did a lot of testing to find the limits of the Soviet underwater sound barrier. This was important for where the barrier and the Alfa were built the main threat came from America’s SSBM’s. If an American SSBM could be detected and an Alfa sent into the area to search for it, that would be the best way to counter this threat.

Mk 48 Adcap though approved in 89 for production may not have been as good as claimed.

There is nothing to back up “that claim” other than wishing! The US Navy is quite content with the ADCAP Mk-48 and there has been no major improvements planned since then. One thing about American weapon systems, you will find the faults when the military or manufacturer claims a need for an upgrade.

could not work under ice in mid 90s

The ADCAP could. The problem with the previous models of Mk-48’s was when the ice was thick and the distance between the ice and the floor of the ocean was less than two hundred feet then the ice stalagtites (SP?) would be a major problem.

I think Alfas wartime role in bastions was not as “interceptor” but as survivable Soviet underwater awacs.

The Alfa indeed was an underwater interceptor. After a NATO sub was detected by the Soviet type SOSUS, an Alfa would be sent out as quickly as possible to intercept the NATO sub. The hope was to detect a Polaris sub. The high speed was needed to get to the general vacinity quickly. The Alfa had a very noisey reactor. The last Soviet sub to be made without silencing as a primary aspect of the design.
The last thing any sub needs to do is to run around pinging all over the place. If the Alfa is in the bastion pinging away, many convergence zones away the pings can be heard. Alerting any sub in the region where the Alfa is.
If the Alfa is deep than the “enemy” sub would approach above the isothermal layer and, avoid detection.

Soviet tactic in cold war was to have 1 sub actively illuminating whilst other silent russian subs used these pings to detect

The problem was the first sub to ping was a target. Where as the NATO subs were far quieter than their Soviet counter-parts and the NATO sonars were far more effective than the Soviet sonars, pinging gives away your position. The last thing any SSBM needs is something around that attrack attention.

tactical speed would be higher than any other sub because it could be at full speed and still “see” if active.

You are talking about the dash speed. When the Alfa gets over ten knots the boundary layer over the hull shielded the sonars from external sound and makes the subs blind. The Alfa had to sprint and drift.
That is what makes the Seawolf and Virginia Class subs unique, they can hunt at twenty knots. The problems of seeing through the boundary wave have to great extent been solved.

the bastion being the white sea , and a super strong ASW patrol at the mouth I dont see how USN subs could ever penetrate there and make it out alive.

The “688” class boats and Royal Navy subs did so on a regular basis. This was the main reason behind the Shkval invention! The “688’s” several times sneaked up on a Soviet SSBM, within 5,000 meters and pinged the boomer. Then add insult to injury the “688” would escape without being detected.
Up to the mid-1980’s the US/UK sonars had a detection advantage in range of about 3:1 over the Soviet SSN’s! Add to that the NATO subs were significantly quieter than the Soviet SSN’s.

As for the SOSUS being hype remember this, during the Cuban Missile crisis the Soviet Navy sent four SSK’s to Cuba. Three of the subs were forced to the surface.
The Soviet command structure always felt in a NATO/WP conflict, after securing the bastions they would flood the Atlantic Basin with numerous subs. The walker family gave them information that showed in a conflict, the WP could lose twenty subs in the first four hours. It also explained why Soviet subs could sneak up on a carrier and in a crisis they couldn’t find a carrier!
A Soviet admiral once said, when he wants to know where his SSBM’s are all he has to do is to follow the Norwegian P-3 Orions! This became a real joke for the US Navy.

Adrian

RE: Detection range and BVR

> what real advantage does superior detection range of APG-70 bring to the Eagle driver?
In a 1V1 or 2V2 the longer range gives the F-15’s the ability position themselves so they will be more difficult to attack. If both aircraft are approaching head-on and the F-15 makes detection first, he can break left or right and get outside the “lateral” detection range of the F-16 or, the F-15’s gain or lose altitude to also make detection more difficult. A high altitude low altitude split (with a 2V2 situation) can also get an unseen shooter into the merge -ambush.
Range is not the only difference between the two aircraft. The F-15’s radar is more ECM resistant and scans a “larger volumn of the sky.” In essence even if the two are not apporaching each other head-on or not at the same altitude, the greater likelyhood that detection will be made with the F-15’s radar.
When the Israeli AF sent its aircraft to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, they chose the F-16’s as the attack craft and F-15’s as top cover (instead of using another group of eight F-16’s as top cover). On 09/11/01, when the NORAD mess was straightened out, the USAF had Air Force One escorted by F-15’s!
The reason is the F-15’s performance range is far greater than that of the F-16 is because the F-15 is designed to go a long ways with minimum support the greater radar is just part of the equation.

> flex297
> The question is, why would you need to invest massive money into enhancing the
> detection range even further if your missiles still stay within their 50km range?
Additional range allows the pilot time to decide how he wants to handle the attack. If he wants to attack or decline combat, he might be outnumbered greatly. Greater detection range also allow the commander of the flight to dispatch his forces into multiple groups.
EXAMPLE;
I know with the Israeli pilots having great range allows them to fly over the Bekaa Valley on patrol. The pilot gets word from GCI that Syrian Migs just took off and are approaching. Upon radar contact you must now decide how you will proceed with the attack, if the MiG’s change course to adjust to your movement, how you will counter that. Always be in a position where while in radar contact of the MiG, if he fires at you, it will be a low percentage shot. Finally, make visual ID fire your missile (at this point you should have the MiG. in a position where your shot is high percentage! Fire the missile, visually see the kill (if not be prepare to fire again) and, if killed return to Israeli or Lebanese airspace. You don’t want to go to far into Syrian air space and possibly widen the war.

Adrian

RE: Eurofighter

> flex297
> That is not true… Direct impact missiles have been given up decades
> ago…
> sferrin
> That proximity fuses don’t work by detonating the warhead at
> the closest point in a near miss or that there is no such thing
> as “hit-to-kill”?
There are several hit to kill weapons. The US Navy’s SM-3 ATBM has no explosives in the warhead! In the ATBM role it will hit the ballistic missile re-entry vehicles.
The IDF/AF Python-5, Sidewinder-9X also are hit to kill. When Raytheon was still competitor for the -9X, there was a video on the web showing how the Infra Red detector is different from a Infra Red Imaging detectors. Technology is moving on and what existed ten years ago is not necessarily true today.

Adrian

RE: Incident at Sakhalin

> Author
> Some nitpicking here, Adrian
I have no problem with nitpicking “if” I am wrong. (Having a wife and four daughters, I am used to being informed when I am wrong! My oldest of five grand daughters (14yo) is learning to behave the reast of the women in the family act! -Smile)

> a KAL 707 was forced down by Su-15s over the Kola Peninsula in 1979
No, KAL-902 was shot down on April 20th 1978.

> The pilot repeatedly refused to respond to or even acknowledge to the Soviet’s signals,
> after he indeed made a U-turn over Kamchatka
Kamchatka is in the Pacific Ocean and Sea of Okhotsk. Flight #902’s incident occurred near the Kola Penninsula, east of Finland.

> The black boxes were handed over by Boris Yeltsin to the UN and subsequently to
> ICAO, in 1993 i believe.
I stand corrected, I thought the transfer occurred earlier than that.

> Mathias Rust pulled his stunt in May 1987, three and a half years after the
> KAL007 shootdown
I had read previously that the Cessna incident occurred three months earlier than KAL-007 and that was why the PVO reacted the way they did. What ever I read was incorrect.
In researching this incident I just found out Rust flew from Helsinki, Finland to Moscow, Soviet Union. So, did he fly from West Germany to Helsinki?

> The 707 was hit in one of the outer engines by an R60 missile fired by cpt. Bosov, 431IAP,
> Afrikanda AB, from his Su-15TM
The intial reports (AW&ST) indicated the B-707 was shot down by cannon fire. That the people killed sat in the rear two rows of seats.

> The Boeing didn’t really crash: it made an emergency landing on the frozen lake Korpiyarvi
> although i believe one passenger didn’t survive this incident.
All the passengers who died did so before the landing.
This situation of an airliner landing on a frozen lake has been a nightmare scenario for all ski patrol and mountain rescue poeple.

> By all accounts, this one was not a matter of p!ss-poor navigation by the KAL crew, but
> a deliberate turn back into forbidden airspace they had previously wandered into.
I disagree….. it was the pilots turning south to early that caused the problem in the first place. The KAL flight crew did not know exactly where they were. Look at a map and you can see that an early turn from the trans-polar course “902” had been flying, is indeed the source of the problems.

> I think the number is a bit higher than that
It was twenty-seven with the downing of KAL-007. AW&ST did an article on all the aircraft shot down by interceptors and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

> including a few probable ones and a few deliberate decaptitation attempts.
Killing an airliner as a means of assasination is real messy. There is so much that could go wrong. If the truth ever comes to light, there will be all sorts of political hell to pay.

> I don’t know of any KLM airliner shot down ever.
It was during the war so a KLM airliner was flying for the Luftwaffe. The aircraft was (at least) formerly a civilian airliner.

> None of the SALT treaties was ever ment to be verified by aircraft overflights.
> Sattelites were to be used instead.
The SALT Treaties spelled out that regular flights in international airspace would not be considered a provocative action.
The USA flew RC-135’s up and down the Soviet coast at specific times for signal identification. The Soviets used Tu-95 ELINT aircraft down the east coast of the USA to Cuba and later would return. These flights often were just beyond the NORAD’s radar coverage.

> None of the SALT treaties was ever ment to be verified by aircraft overflights.
> Sattelites were to be used instead.
ELINT are also used because they have flexibility that satellites don’t have. A change in time for some test could catch the satellite on the wrong side of the horizon!

> flying at the 6 o’clock position from a B747 at dusk, without any serious clues about the
> scale of things, i don’t think it’s impossible to misidentify a 747 for an RC-135
The interceptors were not always at the six o’clock position. Upon initial contact, the interceptor pulled along side the “747” up near the nose in an effort to attract the KAL pilot. From this position the interceptor pilot could see the two rows of windows, the hump behind the pilot compartment extending over the lower level first class passenger section.
At the northern latitudes of which the incident took place plus the altitudes (34,000+ ft), first light occurs at around 04:30AM!

> If i’m not mistaken, he also found some bits and pieces he attaches to E-2s and even
> an SR-71 which he claims to have been shot down during that night…
That is a bunch of balona! The ELINT equiptment used is different than ESM or RWR equiptment!
If the Soviets found any ELINT, ESM or, RWR equiptment don’t you think they would have “blasted” President Regan after all the negative things he said about the Soviet Union. There were a lot of “liberals” in the US Congress who would have loved to have found out about the usage of a civilian airliner for spy work and caused the death of 269 people.

The only airliner on a regular flight that had ESM/RWR equiptment was a Pan Am flight from Tokyo, Japan to New Dehli, India taking a short cut over North Viet Nam! This went on the entire Viet Namese conflict. War is one thing but, there are times in which it is not allowed to interferre with business! This short-cut saved 1,500 miles over the normal trip that would normally gone around south of Viet Nam and Laos then across the Indian Ocean to New Delhli.

>> Adrian
>> So, the interceptor pilots used their cannons and shot down the B-707!
> Author
> The Boeing didn’t really crash: it made an emergency landing on the frozen lake Korpiyarvi
If you are a top cover pilot and you fire at the enemy, you don’t kill him but, you do damage his aircraft and he has control difficulties. The bad guy does not make is back to base, do you get credit for a kill? CHECK MATE!

>> Adrian
>> The USSR had better be thankful that the fiasco was not an attack!
> GarryB
> A single aircraft attack?
Look at what happened in these two incidents. KAL-902 two missiles were fired at a B-707 yet, the pilot had sufficient authority/control over the aircraft to crash land it.
With KAL-007 again two missiles were fired at the B-747 and the first missile exploded behind the aircraft doing some damage to the elevators and rudder. The second missile exploded about three meters above the inboard starboard engine.
Now these two large non-maneuvering aircraft and not a single impact by any of the four missiles!
KAL-007 also had a pair of interceptors sent to intercept it but, GCI gave the wrong vector. Next KAL-007 flew within range of a SAM site but by the time the crew was ready to fire the missile KAL-007 was then out of range!
Had these been B-52’s that region would have been in real trouble trying to kill these two aircraft and, that is without an radar jamming.

Adrian

RE: Incident at Sakhalin

HOLD ON THIS IS LONG!

> Indian1973
> I just finished reading the book “incident at sakhalin” . it states that flight 007
> was just part of a large scale US attempt to provoke the Ussr air defence
> network with half a dozen planes of different types at the same time and
> that a bunch of Mig23 and Mig31 fighters shot a few of these intruders
> down , the Flt 007
There are all sorts of conspiracy theories the trajedy and all of these were derived on both sides. The Soviets were saying the USA was spying, some Americans said, the Soviets were trying to kill an American Congressman who was anti-Soviet, others say there is proof -no bodies were found, etc..

These all existed before Premiere Gorbachev gave the “black boxes” to President Bush Sr. as a peace jesture and Premiere Gorbachev on be-half of the Soviet people “apologized!”
The USSR had better be thankful that the fiasco was not an attack! When KAL-007 entered Soviet airspace and a flight of intereceptors were sent up to intercept the intruder. GCI gave the interceptors the wrong vector and they never made contact with the airliner! Then KAL-007 flew within range of a SAM site but, by the time they were ready to fire, “007” was out of range! So a second set of interceptors were sent up and they got a visual sighting on 007. The rest is history.

This incident is one that caused a lot of problems for the USSR! President Regan called the USSR “The Evil Empire!” President Regan had been having difficulty convincing the liberals about the need to build up the military. After “007” the President had no provlems getting the Congress to restart the B-1 bomber, A-10, F-16A, AWACS integrate into the USAF, develope the M-1, M-2, MLRS and, the building of the 600 fleet Navy!

This incident occurred about three month “after” the young German man flew a Cessna-172 from West Germany and landed in Red Square, Moscow! Now he had been detected and his position tracked. The Soviet Air Defense sent up jets and they saw it was a small civilian aircraft, unfortunately the German pilot did not see these aircraft. Later as he continued to fly deeper into the Soviet Union, they sent up a helicopter which followed the young man and determined he was no threat militarily. The Air Defense heads planned to arrest the pilot when he landed at Moscow air port.
Much to the dimise of many careers the young man landed in Red Square….. and the first person he talked to was a reporter! He told the reporter that he had not seen an interceptor at all. This is the story that they world first heard. For Soviet Military people who worked with their Western counter-parts at different places around the world, they were teased to death! Jokes like, America is building a new bomber and the prime contractor is Cessna!!!

I would never fly Korean Air Lines! The Soviet Union shot down two of their airliners! The first one was on 04/20/78, Flight #902 from Seoul, Korea to Anchorage, Alaska, USA to Oslo, Norway. In their navigation the aircrew made a mistake and turned south to early. So instead of heading towards Oslo they instead, were headed towards the Kola Penninsula!
She interceptor pilots ordered Flight 902 to follow them the pilot refused! Korea had no diplomatic relations with the USSR! So, the interceptor pilots used their cannons and shot down the B-707!
Airline pilots around the world have all been ordered, the interceptor pilot is “boss,” do whatever he says or indicates!

When this first started US and Japanese intelligence thought it was an air defense exercise. While the PVO had a data link of sorts, the conversations between the pilot to his GCI were transmitted in the clear. This went on for a while and there was no alarm until the computer which was recording the ELINT, hear the phrase “shot down.” Then all hell broke loose. It wasn’t until KAL-007 was more than twenty-five minutes over do did the civilian air traffic control started broadcasting calls for KAL-007, did the ELINT people start to wonder if the target was KAL-007?

On September 11, 2001 when NORAD was ordering all commercial aircraft over North America to land, a B-747 of KAL did not land as ordered and CF-18A’s “forced” it to land in Anchorage, Alaska!

All told, there are about three dozen airliners that have been shot down by interceptors/fighters in history. The first was early in WW2 (1942?). When a Spitfire shot down a KLM Royal Dutch Airliner.

Finally, the second letter to the editor published by Aviation Week & Space Technology was on the shoot down of KAL-007. My letter basically stated that the Soviets were regularly visited by a RC-135 Strategic Arms Limitation talks (SALT) as “national means of verification,” as spelled out in the SALT #1 Treaty. Did the Soviets feel they were killing an RC-135? That the interceptors could not tell the difference between RC-135 (B-707 type aircraft) and a B-747 of which was more than three hundred thousand pounds heavier?? (First light was appearing at that latitude and the pilots could make out shapes -well enough to see the missile that did the greates amount of damage exploded about ten feet above the inboard starboard engine!)
Why should the US Congress ratify the SALT II Treaty if the Soviets were trying to kill the national means of verification aircraft?

Adrian

RE: US Denies French Fighters Emergency Landing Rights 2

> junipergoth
> i thought the carriers could do radar approaches in fog as they had radar and radar control?
I read the article right after CNN posted it. The original story said there was an American carrier in the area which denied the French aircraft permission to land, I never heard why this happened?
Can anyone enlighten me??

Adrian

RE: Eurofighter a shooting star in clash with US jets

> KGG
> Eurofighter a shooting star in clash with US jets
Can you imagine the repercussions that would exist if the US fighter won! I would like to see how well the fifth generation aircraft do against the F-15K? Basically a F-15E on a F-15C frame, now if the F-15K is not just mowed don’t, then there is some hope of a modified fourth generation aircraft in combat against these new fighters.
I would like to see how well the F-14D with its TCS does against a fifth generation aircraft in a BVR engagement where the two types of aircraft approach each other headon.

> much to the Americans’ surprise, the Eurofighter shook them off, outmanoeuvred
> them and moved into shooting positions on their tails
Anyone who truely believed that the F-15 (any model) has a real chance to win in the WVR aerial combat…. please contact me, I have the deed to the Golden Gate Bridge and its on sale this week only for the right price.

> SteveO
> the F/A-22, 5x F-15s flown by F/A-22 pilots where beaten by 1x F/A-22
The fact that makes this more amazing is the F-22 shot down all five F-15’s in three minutes! None of the F-15 pilots ever knew they were under attack

> The first Typhoon vs Raptor play fight will be interesting
Only in WVR!

> Sauron
> I predict that as soon as the F-22 is involved in wars games with other
> than American forces we will hear that the F-22 was beaten regardless of
> the type or vintage of the opposition
So far by mid-March 2005 all 188 engagements between the F-22’s and other aircraft, the F-22 has one and seldom has the opposing pilot ever see the F-22 that killed. I know of only a couple engagements where the opposing pilot saw the F-22 that killed him. #1) The F-16 that was bounced and gunned by the F-22 and #2) the AV-8B that was gunned from the sky while starting in the WVR envirement.
The F-22 has all the tools to prevent its opponents from getting close, avoid furballs, etc..

Adrian