Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 10 of 16 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 15 16
#4321414 - 12/19/16 05:07 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) ***** [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Hpasp


On this one, I would tend to agree with ricnunes.
Stealth technology is improving over the time.
Tacit Blue +20dBsm VHF/X-band
B-2 +10dBsm VHF/X-band (without active suppression), with active suppression it might be +0dBsm
F-35 is much newer, so my guess would be +0dBsm (without active suppression)


Thanks Hpasp.


Originally Posted By: Hpasp

Idea is that Nebo-M detects the F-35 at 100km, and the S-400 battery engages it with the active guidance 9M96D missile (120km range), where the S-400 MFR just sends MCG based on the Nebo-M measurements.

Probably it is by no accident, that the SDB range is currently extended...


By the way what's the Nebo-M target precision (not sure I'm using the correct term here), especially for a target located at around 100Km?

For example and from what I read the target precision for the P-18 radar is around 1km - I understand this as a target detected by a P-18 radar being within the radius of 1Km from the point (blip) indicated on the radar scope, right?
Probably such low precision which affects all VHF radars shouldn't affect much missiles with radar active guidance (like the 9M96D) since such missiles seekers should have a range of around 10 miles (in fact this should be around the maximum range of the AMRAAM missile radar seeker) which could offset any lack of precision with VHF radar such as the Nebo-M therefore this question is about my personal curiosity about the Nebo-M capabilities.

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4321431 - 12/19/16 05:45 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Senior Member
Hpasp  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
Originally Posted By: ricnunes
By the way what's the Nebo-M target precision (not sure I'm using the correct term here), especially for a target located at around 100Km?


Am I sharing information that nobody reads?
sigh
HERE

Range: 90m
Azimuth: 12min
Elevation: 10min

More than enough for MCG.

Be aware, that Nebo-M is the world first mobile AESA metric waveband phase modulated radar.
Being able to direct metric wavelength energy into an AESA phase modulated agile (narrow) pencil beam cause unprecedented acquisition range and measurement precision.

We can say, that till the US spent on the development of F-35, Russia spent on Nebo-M.



Last edited by Hpasp; 12/19/16 06:14 PM.

Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

(U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.)
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#4321456 - 12/19/16 06:26 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Patarames]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Patarames
@ricnunes

I think after the experiences of Northrop with the XST program by the time of Tacit blue they had mastered their methods for geometrical stealth, especially because the Tacit blue traded most of its aerodynamics for stealth and was a tech demonstrator. We can be quite confident that the changes until today were rather small as the law of physics stay the same, today a Tacit blue would probably just have better flying characteristics. If overall dimensions would significantly grow to B2 size, we could expect a great enhancement of geometric stealth performance in VHF band. The threat situation back then was also not much different with huge numbers of metric P-18/12 available to the Soviets, so the Tacit blue design was optimized for VHF band stealth performance.
The changes should be foundin RAM and RAS and this mainly in x-band where the wavelengths are within the size of the RAM layers and RAS. In metric wave the tacit blue is a good RCS representer and in this case, after 35 years we are lucky to have declassified documents available, we might lack the scale but Hpasp's interpretation makes much sense at this point.



Well here you're assuming that Stealth is limited to the laws of physics but for some odd reason that radars, namely VHF radars are not.

I can tell you that Stealth as evolved a LOT. Actually I have a nice article that came with a military aircraft magazine ("Combat Aircraft" if I'm not mistaken) which covered pretty much the history of Stealth (or Stealth aircraft). If I can find the article I'll post it here.
What I can tell you (and trying the resume the best I can) is that the aerodynamics limitations on early aircraft (like Tacit Blue) don't have anything to do with any trade or compromise between Stealth and Aerodynamics but instead because of computer power limitations of that era (remember this was the early 1980's) and as such computers were very limited in doing extremely complex calculation such as calculating/designing an airframe that could have excellent aerodynamics and very low RCS at the same time.

For example, why do you think that the F-117A surface is composed by flat panels (it almost looks like a shaped diamond) instead of more rounded shapes found on the F-22 and F-35?
The answer is just above: Computer power or more precise the lack of it.
Since in the late 1970's computer power was very limited (as it was in the 1980's specially in the early 1980's) it was much easier for a computer to design any shape like a stealth aircraft using flat surfaces rather than by using rounded ones.
The same principle applies to the Tacit Blue which while not having a surface composed of flat panels like the F-117A it was nevertheless a very "straight-line" design and thus easy to be generated on a computer.

Later we had the B-2 which came up in the later part of the 1980's. The B-2 came up because of a combination of two factors:
- The invention of Fly-By-Wire (FBW) flight control systems in the late 1970's made possible that previously uncontrollable or hardly controllable aircraft design (like the "flying wing" design of the B-2) were now controllable.
- The "flying wing" is also a very straightforward design to be calculated on a computer (even on a more limited one) while at the same time it was found rather by accident in the 1950's (with the Northrop YB-49) that a "flying wing" design displayed a very low RCS.
So the B-2 came up.

So, it was only the in the early 1990's that computers started to have enough processing power to allow the design of aircraft that were both excellent aerodynamically and with very low RCS, therefore it was with no surprise that very low RCS and "conventional looking aircraft designs" like the F-22 and the JSF (later F-35) only came up in the 1990's.

I hope I haven't bother you with the "history of Stealth" but this is to prove that there's NO either you have a "more stealth but less aerodynamic" aircraft OR "less stealth but more aerodynamic" aircraft! You can actually have both: ""more stealth AND more aerodynamic" but you need a VERY powerful computer to design such aircraft, a reality which again was only possible starting from the 1990's.

And as such, Hpasp's prediction that the Nebo-M could detect a F-35 at a maximum range of 100km looks acceptable and perhaps even a little bit optimistic but again Hpasp mentioned that in this scenario the F-35 wouldn't be using its EW capabilities which makes it IMO quite believable.

So there's absolutely no way that a Nebo-M would be able to detect a F-35 at a range of 320Km, that would be a bet that I would easily put lots of my own money!


Originally Posted By: Patarames

As for jamming
I'm aware of dedicated jamming by systems such as the Growler but I question it in this debate where systems such as the S-300 and -400 could target those aircrafts at extended ranges if used in HOJ mode.
But this topic lead me to research a little on VHF band radars performance in jamming environment. I came across this website of a Belarus upgrade program for the P-18 with quite much information and RCS-range values.

http://www.kbradar.by/en/products/radiol...ooruzheniya/99/

I found the discrimination of RCS-range for the P-18 particularity interesting, the value for a F-14 is 175km. Assuming that they used a RCS value of ~8m² and that the Serbian SA-3 site detected the F-117 at ~28km, a calculated a RCS of 0,005m² for the F-117 in VHF band. Also interesting is the performance under heavy dedicated jamming at 500km distance. Giving the huge degradation for the original analogue system I think we can assume that the range performance of the P-18 was also degraded to some extend. Hence that engagement which suggests a 10 DBSM difference for X-band to VHF-band could be the result of jamming and the true difference could be in the order of 20 DBSM interpreted and extrapolated from those declassified Tacit blue documents.



HOJ against a "standoff jammer" like the EA-18G or the F-35 wouldn't likely work and why?
Because dedicated Electronic Warfare (EW) aircraft systems will know what is the frequency of the emitting radar, will geo-locate those radar emitters and will jam those radars on their own frequencies.
That's why only AESA radars (like the APG-81 found on the F-35) can be used as a standoff jammer antenna and why? Because AESA radars are composed by several programmable T-R modules which means that some or even all of these modules can be reprogrammed to emit on another frequency "on the fly". Or resuming, AESA radars can change their emitting frequencies while other radars such as Mechanically Steered radars and PESA radars cannot.
Actually the radar and sensor package of the F-35 was already capable of locating and jamming the F-22 Raptor's radars. Here:
http://aviationweek.com/awin/china-s-stealth-aircraft-program-will-face-advanced-defenses

So if the F-35 can perform EW against the F-22 radar, imagine what it will do to against those Nebo-M radars and even the S-400 radars!


What I mean with all this is that since the jamming is done on the emitting frequency of the radar then the practical effect on the radar (being jammed) is that nothing will be detected by this radar (including the jamming signal) - It is as if there was nothing in area or space where the jamming is coming. This is actually kind of an alternate way of Stealth. Look here how it works:

http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/videos/this-aircraft-is-a-marvel-of-electronic-warfare/38017


That's only a small part of an episode of a TV series (Air Warriors) but if you can, watch the full episode it's quite interesting. Nevertheless the part that you can watch above pretty much explain what I've posted about this subject.


Regarding that F-117 shot down over Serbia, it's well known that the F-117 didn't have any EW support (in this case didn't have any EA-6 Prowler support) so your F-117 RCS against a VHF radar (P-18 in this case) is in a scenario without any EW noise/support.
And so, if the F-117 has an RCS against the VHF band of 0,005m² (a value that you came up with and which I personally trend to agree on) without any EW or jammer support why would the F-35 RCS be any higher, specially much higher like 0,16m²?? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

#4321464 - 12/19/16 06:34 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Originally Posted By: ricnunes
By the way what's the Nebo-M target precision (not sure I'm using the correct term here), especially for a target located at around 100Km?


Am I sharing information that nobody reads?
sigh
HERE

Range: 90m
Azimuth: 12min
Elevation: 10min

More than enough for MCG.


Oopps sorry, with the small letters I somehow missed the info banghead



Originally Posted By: Hpasp

Be aware, that Nebo-M is the world first mobile AESA metric waveband phase modulated radar


Well "mobile" is a bit of an overstatement! With that massive size (That radar array has the size of a building) I would say that at best it is "semi-mobile" (not much different from a P-18 in terms of mobility). wink

#4321474 - 12/19/16 06:44 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Senior Member
Hpasp  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
Originally Posted By: ricnunes
So if the F-35 can perform EW against the F-22 radar, imagine what it will do to against those Nebo-M radars and even the S-400 radars!


Guys!
Please calm down!
This is a forum for a Cool Headed SAM missile-man.

There is no Jamming Black Magic exist.
Each jamming type (I tried to educate you) can be used against a specific radar system, and can degrade its operation.
A Jamming effective against an F-22, would do NOTHING against a Nebo-M (metric AESA land-based acquisition radar).

Next SAMSIM version will include some jamming used in the last century...
biggrin

Last edited by Hpasp; 12/19/16 06:50 PM.

Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

(U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.)
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#4321475 - 12/19/16 06:50 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Hpasp


Each jamming type (I tried to educate you) can be used against a specific system, and can degrade its operation.
A Jamming effective against an F-22, would do NOTHING against a Nebo-M (metric AESA land-based acquisition radar).



You're talking about SAM Simulator and not about real life, right?

#4321476 - 12/19/16 06:54 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Senior Member
Hpasp  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
Name of the topic is: SAM SIMULATOR

We can discuss new developments on the field, and Im ready to share information I got.

Just please avoid flame wars here.
Best way is to support each of your statements with sources. (I try to excercise)
thumbsup

Last edited by Hpasp; 12/19/16 06:55 PM.

Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

(U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.)
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#4321479 - 12/19/16 06:59 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Name of the topic is: SAM SIMULATOR

We can discuss new developments on the field, and Im ready to share information I got.

Just please avoid flame wars here.
Best way is to support each of your statements with sources. (I try to excercise)
thumbsup



Please don't get me wrong, I'm not starting a flame war here.
Actually I think that my discussion here with Patarames and both our arguments (mine and Patarames) were very civilized and friendly (albeit a bit on the opposing side). I believe that Patarames will agree with me on this one.

If I said something that may have been on the "rough" side I apologize (but I don't think I did) wink

#4321481 - 12/19/16 07:04 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Senior Member
Hpasp  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
Jamming against a networked phase modulated radar is tough job.



Already during the 80's, Patriot batteries could simply triangulate their jamming sources.
Russians reached this level of automation only now, with the S-400...

Last edited by Hpasp; 12/19/16 07:05 PM.

Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

(U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.)
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#4321487 - 12/19/16 07:15 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Jamming against a networked phase modulated radar is tough job.



Already during the 80's, Patriot batteries could simply triangulate their jamming sources.
Russians reached this level of automation only now, with the S-400...



Yes, indeed.

In warfare there's no "magic bullets" that's for sure wink


Looking at your diagram that doesn't look like a "narrowbeam" and "narrowband" jamming associated with the F-35 (and also F-22) jamming capability using its own AESA radar as an antenna (link below - last paragraph) or am I reading the diagram in the wrong way?

http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/the-f-35-vs-the-vhf-threat/

#4321508 - 12/19/16 08:01 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 11
Patarames Offline
Junior Member
Patarames  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 11
Europe
I agree its just a civilized discussion.

@ricnunes

I'm aware of quite some of the history of US stealth technology. You are right that the trade-off of stealth vs aerodynamic ratio is in favor of maneuverability for at least the same stealth characteristics. Point is that geometric stealth (behavior of waves reflecting the surface area) in the XST program was still some kind of black magic, Lockheed did it via computers, Northrop via experience and testing. But by the time of Tacit blue Northrop gained enough knowledge to get almost everything that was physically possible out of geometric stealth, the stealth method that is effective against VHF-band radars.
Even the F-117 should have made the very most of whats possible out of geometric stealth and the later tacit blue even had lower aerodynamic requirements, so that more emphasis on stealth design could be made.
This is why I think the VHF-band stealth performance of the tacit blue was good and still could be called state of the art and the F-117 also not much worse than F-22/35. Some people with wave physics knowledge claim that the B-2 is superior to everything due to its topological feature size which greatly degrades the benefits of VHF-band and its wave reflection behavior.

My 320km range value of F-35 vs Nebo-M is for the case that it performs 20 DBSM worse than in x-band for which it was optimized and in which its RAM and RAS come into the game. The value sounds huge I know but its the result of numbers and a sound looking chart interpretation of Hpasp, its weakpoint is that I proportionally also decreased the F-35 performance by 20 DBSM.

As for jamming.
A Prowler 800km away brute force noise jamming all frequencies of an old, large sidelobe, non frequency hopping, low bandwidth P-18 radar still could degrade its performance to a level where its reduced by lets say 30%. Do we know that there was no degrading noise interference at the Serbian P-18? For 1999 NATO principles I would expect at least a general jamming even if not dedicated to that P-18.

As for the 0,005m² vs 0,16m² RCS values. They are based on different assumptions and simplifications, yes but I have shown how these numbers came into being. I would take that 20 DBSM delta value out of the Tacit blue documents with Hpasp scale interpretation as a logic number. The extrapolation of the Serbian F-117 encounter is also useful but just like there are uncertainties with the tacit blue chart scale, I suspect that jamming could have degraded the P-18 performance in that night.

They say engineering without numbers is not engineering. What I try to do here is extrapolating numbers via known facts and logic interpretations. I read Hpasp's post and found his formula for range and RCS, I used this new skill here in my calculations which created that 320km of Nebo-M against 20 DBSM degraded F-35.

#4321523 - 12/19/16 08:39 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
Originally Posted By: Hpasp


Range: 90m
Azimuth: 12min
Elevation: 10min



Cool,but is this for the VHF part of the complex?

#4321593 - 12/20/16 12:18 AM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Patarames]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Patarames
I agree its just a civilized discussion.

@ricnunes

I'm aware of quite some of the history of US stealth technology. You are right that the trade-off of stealth vs aerodynamic ratio is in favor of maneuverability for at least the same stealth characteristics. Point is that geometric stealth (behavior of waves reflecting the surface area) in the XST program was still some kind of black magic, Lockheed did it via computers, Northrop via experience and testing. But by the time of Tacit blue Northrop gained enough knowledge to get almost everything that was physically possible out of geometric stealth, the stealth method that is effective against VHF-band radars.
Even the F-117 should have made the very most of whats possible out of geometric stealth and the later tacit blue even had lower aerodynamic requirements, so that more emphasis on stealth design could be made.
This is why I think the VHF-band stealth performance of the tacit blue was good and still could be called state of the art and the F-117 also not much worse than F-22/35. Some people with wave physics knowledge claim that the B-2 is superior to everything due to its topological feature size which greatly degrades the benefits of VHF-band and its wave reflection behavior.

My 320km range value of F-35 vs Nebo-M is for the case that it performs 20 DBSM worse than in x-band for which it was optimized and in which its RAM and RAS come into the game. The value sounds huge I know but its the result of numbers and a sound looking chart interpretation of Hpasp, its weakpoint is that I proportionally also decreased the F-35 performance by 20 DBSM.



Please don't get me wrong but it seems that you're considering Tacit Blue as a sort of a pinnacle of Stealth aircraft development and technology (please, correct me if I'm wrong) while in fact it isn't. Actually it's very far from it.
In fact Tacit Blue was among the first US Stealth experiments which actually lead to a dead end.
One of the reasons was that as you correctly said, Lockheed developed Stealth aircraft using computer models which resulted in aircraft that were not only more agile and better performing but also and especially more stealthy.

Besides, Tacit Blue design seemed to be intended as a battlefield surveillance aircraft which would fly just behind the front lines (but still over friendly territory) or resuming, basically a similar role as JSTARS which means that Tacit Blue was never meant as an interdiction aircraft which would need to penetrate well inside enemy territory like the F-117 and thus it didn't have the same stealth requirements (like for example to defeat Early Warning and/or VHF radars) like the F-117, B-2, F-22 and F-35 have.

If there's any need for evidence on this, I can give you just one: The F-22 Raptor.

The F-22 Raptor is not only much more stealthier than Tacit Blue in every possible radar band but it's also extremely agile and much better performing and it looks much more like an actual fighter aircraft instead of some weird stuff taken from a 1950's Sci-Fi movie/TV-show (like Tacit Blue is).

And the F-35 follows this exact same trend as the F-22.

If you want to design a Stealth aircraft, a computer model is the only way to go since a computer model allows the design of stealth aircraft that are both more stealthy and much better performing - With a computer model you can experiment with much more variables while at the same time being exponentially much faster compared with any other kind of experiment like Tacit Blue.
For example, lets look at all US (and only) Stealth aircraft that ever entered in service: F-117, B-2, F-22 and F-35. All except one (B-2) were designed by Lockheed with the help of computer models.
The only exception, the B-2 which was designed by Northrop - which was also the designer of Tacit Blue - which used a design that had absolutely nothing to do with Tacit Blue. It used a flying wing design, a design that once again was found to be stealthy rather by accident.
And I'm willing to bet that even the B-2 design had some help by using computer models.

In the end, I believe that Tacit Blue can be considered to be somehow a "failed experiment".


So yes, I'm pretty sure that the F-35 is much more stealthier than the Tacit Blue against VHF radars.
Like Hpasp said, the B-2 was already stealthier in this regard against VHF radars compared to Tacit Blue and the US knows how instrumental was a VHF radar (P-18) in downing the F-117 over Serbia so I'm pretty sure that the US military and Lockheed Martin objectives include making the F-35 stealthy against VHF radars as well.


Therefore I agree with Hpasp, the dBsm gain of the F-35 RCS against VHF radars should be around or next to none/zero (0).


Originally Posted By: Patarames

As for jamming.
A Prowler 800km away brute force noise jamming all frequencies of an old, large sidelobe, non frequency hopping, low bandwidth P-18 radar still could degrade its performance to a level where its reduced by lets say 30%. Do we know that there was no degrading noise interference at the Serbian P-18? For 1999 NATO principles I would expect at least a general jamming even if not dedicated to that P-18.

As for the 0,005m² vs 0,16m² RCS values. They are based on different assumptions and simplifications, yes but I have shown how these numbers came into being. I would take that 20 DBSM delta value out of the Tacit blue documents with Hpasp scale interpretation as a logic number. The extrapolation of the Serbian F-117 encounter is also useful but just like there are uncertainties with the tacit blue chart scale, I suspect that jamming could have degraded the P-18 performance in that night.

They say engineering without numbers is not engineering. What I try to do here is extrapolating numbers via known facts and logic interpretations. I read Hpasp's post and found his formula for range and RCS, I used this new skill here in my calculations which created that 320km of Nebo-M against 20 DBSM degraded F-35.



There were no Prowlers available to support the downed F-117 over Serbia.
In the link below:

https://www.amazon.com/Stealth-Down-Fighter-Combat-Dramatic/dp/1886391491

Which is from a book on sale about the F-117 shot down over Serbia, you can read the following in the preview:

"For the first and only time during the air campaign, the Stealth fighters were sent into Serbia without EA-6B Prowlers that can jam enemy radars and also collect vital information about their location and operating parameters for pilots who are trying to avoid being shot down by surface-to-air missiles. Other aircraft like F-16CJs that carry high-speed anti-radiation missiles (HARMs), to knock out SAM sites, were also held outside the target area in central Serbia on the fourth night of the air campaign."

and this:

"Colonel Daniel "Doc" Zoerb, the Air Force officer who headed up the "Red Team," the official U.S. Air Force investigation of the shootdown for the Air Combat Command, says the HARM shooters and EA-6B electronic jammers were diverted to counter another threat that developed while the F-117s were en route to the target from Aviano Air Base in Italy."


Finally you can play this same scenario here in SAM Simulator - Hpasp has meticulously research hisorically all current scenarios in SAM Simulator - and you won't find any jammers and/or SEAD flights in there (like happened in real life - see link and description above).


Regarding the EA-6 Prowler jamming range, that's definitely not 800km as you say. I found the following page on F-16.net (an interesting site with lots of very interesting information) where a guy there quoted an article from Aviation Week (Jan. 2010) - which unfortunately I could not find - where it says that the standoff jamming range of the EA-6 Prowler was around 80 (eighty) nautical miles (mi) or resuming around 148Km.
Here's the page:
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13493

#4321696 - 12/20/16 01:06 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: piston79]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp


Range: 90m
Azimuth: 12min
Elevation: 10min



Cool,but is this for the VHF part of the complex?



That's a very good question which I would like to know the answer as well.

By reading the brochure posted by Hpasp we can see that the system is composed by 3 different radar systems - A VHF radar, a L-Band (decimetric band) radar and finally a S-Band (centimetric band) radar.

Is it possible that the 90 (ninety) meter target precision comes from the S-Band radar instead from the VHF radar?

If this is the case it's likely that the S-Band radar detection range for a 1 square meter target isn't 510km but quite lower, right?


Anyway even if the VHF radar precision is much lower lets say the similar as the P-18 or around 900 (nine hundred) meters or lower than I believe this should still be enough to guide an active-radar guided missile towards the vicinity of the target, right?

#4321744 - 12/20/16 04:26 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Senior Member
Hpasp  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
Comparing P-18 capabilities to Nebo-M; an analogue mechanically scanned antenna system to a fully digital computerized AESA.
I cannot emphasize enough how big step is this, like a move from F-86 to F-35?

Last edited by Hpasp; 12/20/16 04:30 PM.

Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

(U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.)
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#4321757 - 12/20/16 04:54 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Comparing P-18 capabilities to Nebo-M; an analogue mechanically scanned antenna system to a fully digital computerized AESA.
I cannot emphasize enough how big step is this, like a move from F-86 to F-35?


No, no, I'm not comparing both! I guess you misunderstood my post. I have no doubts that the Nebo-M is much more advanced than the P-18.

However VHF radars which works on the metric band will always have limitations compared to centimetric band radars (like X or S bands) and if I'm not mistaken one of such limitations is indeed the targeting precision, is this correct?

I'm also not implying that the Nebo-M precision is around 900m which is the same as the P-18. What I say or more precisely what asked was if that even a radar with a precision of 900m could be used to cue an active radar guided missile?

Obviously I believe that the targeting precision of the Nebo-M radar should be quite better than the P-18 (or resuming considerably lower than 900m) but piston79 really posted a very good question:
- Is the precision of 90 (ninety) meters the targeting precision of the VHF radar from the 55zh6ME system that you posted?
- Or instead it's from one of the other two radars (like the S-band radar for example)?

That system, the 55zh6ME according to the brochure that you posted uses three different radars (VHF, L-Band and S-Band) and the specs are about the entire system so isn't it possible that the 90 (ninety) meter targeting precision comes from the S-Band radar of the system instead of the VHF radar of the same 55zh6ME system?

#4321770 - 12/20/16 05:28 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
Nebo-M is consisted of 3 radars:

- 64L6
- modification of 59N-6e
- modification of 1L119

Here what APA said about 59N-6E:



Here 64L6:


#4321782 - 12/20/16 06:17 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Interesting info, thanks for sharing it piston79.

Digging a bit more on the subject and considering that the VHF radar from the Nebo-M system is an evolution/modification of the 1L119 VHF radar I found the following about the "predecessor" variant of the Nebo-M VHF radar, the 1L119 "Nebo-SVU" VHF radar system:




This info can be found here:
http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/1219/1241/1340


And considering that the targeting precision of the 1L119 VHF radar is 100 meters, it seems that the 90 meter precision data can indeed come from the VHF radar of the Nebo-M system.

#4321791 - 12/20/16 06:34 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Senior Member
Hpasp  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
I would always handle Carlo Kopp's estimations with a grain of salt.
Beside that he written a nice page about SAMSIM .
thumbsup

So the reality is...
biggrin




Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

(U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.)
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#4321800 - 12/20/16 06:48 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
I would always handle Carlo Kopp's estimations with a grain of salt.
Beside that he written a nice page about SAMSIM .
thumbsup



Yes, I fully agree with you about Carlo Kopp that's for sure wink


But I didn't take my data about the Nebo-SVU from his data, if you notice I took the data from here:

http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/1219/1241/1340

Which looks like an official page from Almaz-Antey, the manufacturer of these systems.


It's curious that the data that I gathered is indeed different than yours.

Thanks for the data Hpasp! Your data certainly look more reliable (and/or believable) to me. thumbsup


Oh, so Carlo Kopp wrote something about SAM Simulator, eh? It's about time he writes anything good biggrin

Page 10 of 16 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 15 16

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0