-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 21175)
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 684 unique user posts.

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

Patches and Stickers for sale here

File 147162551411.jpg - (117.77KB , 1280x795 , Tu-160_(12956971034)_1.jpg )
21175 No. 21175 ID: b430d1
>At the end of 2016, the Russian Defense Ministry will receive the first delivery of the renewed NK-32 engines for the Tu-160M2 strategic missile-carrying bombers.

>According to the developers, the new engine will help the plane fly up to the stratosphere at an altitude of 60,000 feet.

>"The new NK-32 version can work not only as a reactive plane engine but also as a rocket engine. Thanks to this, the Tu-160M2 will be able to cruise at a height where no enemy anti-aircraft system can strike it," a source in the Russian defense industry said.

>The modernized plane's first flight will take place in 2018.

>According to Russian air force chief Viktor Bondarev, the Defense Ministry plans to buy about 50 Tu-160M2 planes.
10 posts omitted. Last 50 shown. Expand all images
>> No. 21201 ID: 050b51
File 147181287897.jpg - (1.12MB , 1600x1065 , US B-1B Lancer bomber 11.jpg )
The B-1B Lancer was more of a low-altitude bomber.
The charismatic, swing-wing B-1B rumbles past Nellis tower with Sunrise Mountain as a backdrop. The "Bone" has become an increasingly versatile asset within the USAF inventory. With close air support becoming a new specialty of the B-1 force, albeit controversially, these massive aircraft that were once relegated to low-altitude interdiction, area bombing and cruise missile launch platforms could now perform tasks once only in the domain of fighter aircraft. This means that on any given Red Flag deployment, the B-1 force could provide a whole slew of tactical options to mission planners. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/these-are-the-amazing-planes-of-this-years-red-flag-aer-1692329388
>> No. 21202 ID: 050b51
File 147181299281.jpg - (743.64KB , 1600x1065 , US B-1B Lancer quartet of GE-F101 turbofans in ful.jpg )
Another angle of the B-1 as it claws its way into the Las Vegas gloom, it's quartet of GE-F101 turbofans in full reheat.
>> No. 21203 ID: 050b51
File 147181310531.jpg - (0.96MB , 1678x759 , US B-1B Lancer quartet of GE-F101 turbofans in ful.jpg )
Loud as f@#k. Four General Electric F101s in full blower pushing a big gas and bomb container along the runway is pretty outrageous, but that same thing at night is downright otherworldly.
>> No. 21204 ID: d4c8ee
File 147181332112.jpg - (121.30KB , 1600x864 , B58-4.jpg )
The B-1 was also capable of reaching 60,000 feet when it went into production.

So was the 1950s era B-58 Hustler.
>> No. 21205 ID: 385f49
File 147181468037.jpg - (187.08KB , 962x578 , TU160.jpg )
>I am sure the Air Force & CIA brass told Gary Powers the same hopeful fantasy.
I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation. He was flying directly over the missile launch sites (trying to get a photos of them), with low speed, in straight line, completely unaware of the attack.

Tu-160, modernized to match next generation, is going to fly at 2+ Mach, at maximum altitude in deep neutral airspace (200+ km) carrying a long-range winged payload and engaging ECM. And of course by the time it is in the air, you are going to have a whole lot more of other troubles to deal with.
>> No. 21206 ID: 050b51
File 147182431524.jpg - (1.55MB , 2253x1696 , US F-18F Boeing Super Hornet climbing sharpley.jpg )
I guess that's why she will be invulnerable to attack even though the listed interceptors fly faster and higher than the Tu-160 Blackjack and she will still be within high-altitude SAM range.

The problem will be more acute with lower and slower US Navy interceptors like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet that only has a maximum speed of Mach 1.8 (1,190 mph, 1,915 km/h) and a service ceiling of just 50,000+ ft (15,000+ m). The Hornets still pack the AIM-120 AMRAAMs to give them that extra reach.

The trick is to intercept and destroy the bombers before they can drop their cruise missiles. Hmm... dropping cruise missiles at 60,000 feet? Send a hornet to chase them down, destroying the free-falling missiles with guns. Would make for an interesting video game mission.
>> No. 21207 ID: 050b51
File 147182445197.jpg - (2.04MB , 2592x3888 , US bomb RIM-174 Standard Extended Range Active Mis.jpg )
The USN has some splendid air defense missiles, like the RIM-174 Standard Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM), aka Standard Missile 6 (SM-6). Operational range ~130–250 nmi (240–460 km; 150–290 mi), flight ceiling greater than 110,000 ft (34,000 m) and speed of Mach 3.5.

Launched from Aegis air defense ships, these are probably very effective.

- The U.S. Navy Arleigh-Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53) launches a RIM-174 Standard ERAM (Standard Missile-6, SM-6) during a live-fire test of the ship's Aegis weapons system in the Pacific Ocean. Over the course of three days, the crew of John Paul Jones successfully engaged six targets, firing a total of five missiles that included four SM-6 models and one Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) model.
>> No. 21208 ID: 050b51
File 147182799130.jpg - (617.34KB , 1334x750 , 3X0wT1M.jpg )
Why did those Blackjacks take off from Northern Russia, way up on the Kola Peninsula, close to the border with Norway, fly all the way around Europe, enter the Western Mediterranean, fly all the way across the Med to attack targets in Syria, and fly over Syria, Iraq and Iran and then up across Western Russia to land in Olengorsk? Why not base the Tu-160 bombers in Southern Russia and make a quick strike to Syria and back? Were they concerned that they would be attacked by the Ukrainians?

- Tu-160 route to bomb Daesh targets in Syria.
>> No. 21209 ID: 050b51
File 147182831911.jpg - (676.15KB , 2380x1389 , Russian Tu-160 launches a cruise missile on a targ.jpg )
Russia Seeks ‘Revenge’ for Killed Pilot by Launching Bombs in Syria
Russian President Vladimir Putin is seeking revenge on the group that killed the pilot that parachuted from a downed plane over Syria by launching at least a dozen bombs, a rebel leader said.

The region near the border of Turkey is controlled by Turkmen rebels, who took credit for shooting the pilot as he parachuted from a fighter jet that the Turkish Air Force hit.

Turkmen are ethnic Turks who have lived in parts of Syria, Iraq, and Iran since the 11th Century. They released a video of themselves standing over the body of the pilot and chanting “Allahu Akbar,” or God is Great in Arabic. Turkey has pledged support to the Turkmen, though they’re Syrian citizens.

The region they control was targeted by Russian forces on November 25, with at least 12 airstrikes hitting Latakia’s northern countryside, according to British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Amidst the bombings were pro-government forces–who are currently aligned with Russia–clashing with rebel fighters, including al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and Turkmen insurgents.

A Turkmen commander said some of the missiles were launched from Russian warships in the Mediterranean. Russia announced via Russia Today that a missile cruiser had moved into the area and was equipped with long-range surface-to-air missiles.

Hassan Haj Ali, the head of Liwa Suqour al-Jabal, a rebel group operating in western Syria, told the group that there was heavy fighting in the area.

Another local rebel leader, Jahed Ahmad, said he Russians appear to be taking “revenge” for the plane’s downing by Turkey, a key backer of the rebels in the area, reported the Associated Press. He said via Skype that Russian jets were providing cover for advancing Syrian ground forces and their Lebanese Hezbollah allies.

- A Russian air force Tu-160 bomber launches a cruise missile on a target in Syria on Nov. 20, 2015. Russians bombed Syrian rebel groups in retaliation over a pilot being killed, according to the groups. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1906974-russia-seeks-revenge-for-killed-pilot-by-launching-bombs-in-syria/
>> No. 21210 ID: 050b51
File 147182869811.jpg - (696.23KB , 3071x2046 , Russian Su-34 Fullback lands at Latakia airport, S.jpg )
Why not just use the Su-34 Fullbacks based in Syria for precision strikes?
- The Su-34 lands at Latakia airport, Syria.
As for the Su-34 fighter bomber, it is a 4++ generation jet, which can accelerate to a maximum speed of 1,200 miles per hour and can fly a maximum range of 2,500 miles without refueling.

The Su-34 is designed to deliver high-precision strikes on heavily guarded targets in any weather conditions, day or night, and fields weaponry including a 30mm GSh-301 cannon, rockets, air-to-air, air-to-ground and anti-ship missiles, as well as guided and unguided bombs.

Notably, both the Tu-160 and the Tu-34 successfully took part in Russia's anti-Daesh air campaign in Syria, alongside the Tu-95, a four-engine turboprop-powered strategic bomber and missile platform. http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160509/1039308441/russia-bombers-victory-parade.html
>> No. 21211 ID: 050b51
File 147182905398.jpg - (0.96MB , 1500x900 , Russian Su-35 lands at the Hmeimim base in Latakia.jpg )
A Russian Sukhoi Su-35 bomber lands at the Russian Hmeimim military base in Latakia province. http://www.dawn.com/news/1256479
>> No. 21212 ID: 050b51
File 147182916826.jpg - (936.23KB , 1500x900 , Russian Su-34 rearmed at the Hmeimim base in Latak.jpg )
Russian servicemen prepare an SU-34 fighter jet for a mission from the Russian Hmeimim military base in Latakia province.
>> No. 21213 ID: 050b51
File 147182919441.jpg - (1.03MB , 1500x900 , Russian Su-34 rearmed at the Hmeimim base in Latak.jpg )
Russian servicemen attach a bomb on an SU-34 fighter jet before a mission from the Russian Hmeimim military base in Latakia.
>> No. 21215 ID: 9723b1
Stratosphere only starts at 60,000ft and ends at 200,000ft. I think it was just translated wrong by someone who didn't know better, because an air breathing rocket engine is not a requirement at 60,000ft. The only reason they would mention rockets is if they meant to go higher than that, vid related.

Also a point of interest flying at those altitudes is difficult for two main reasons, jet air intake drops and the control surfaces dont have enough air passing over them to work. The U-2 is a great example because the low speed at 65,000ft meant the pilot had basically no control ability, the engine also barely provided any thrust and the airplane had to mostly glide. Basically the airplane could get up there, but it couldn't exactly evade.

To fix these two problems the vehicle needs to go faster. For example if someone wants to fly and control an aircraft at 65,000 feet altitude they have to fly at around Mach 2. At 75,000ft altitude the speed necessary is Mach 2.8, if someone wants to both fly and control their aircraft. Flying at Mach 3.3 permits an altitude of 85,000ft. To get to 90,000ft and still have some maneuverability, an airplane would have to be hypersonic. To get to 100,000ft with an airbreathing engine, the speeds are so high that the lifting surfaces would have to be reversed and force it DOWNWARD, because it's above escape velocity.

This is why engines like Sabre (vid related) and this new NK-32 are so important, they can close the jet cycle and pump liquid oxygen in, traveling at essentially any altitude they want.

Experience purposes.

It's becoming clear is that Russia is trying to absorb as much practical experience as possible from the war in Syria.

One thing they're doing is rotating troops in a way to give as many soldiers as possible a chance to fuck up and get quality combat experience. Another thing they've decided is instead of doing things the easy way they are doing everything the hardest possible way they can think of. For example they're launching ship borne mach 2 cruise missiles which aren't meant for low value targets.... and using strategic bombers like Tu-160 on high-stress flight paths to take out a few mud huts.

Doing things the hard way puts the most stress on their forces, letting them see the fault lines and weak links in their organization. If they see the problems, they can fix them.
>> No. 21216 ID: 369bd6
File 147201542268.jpg - (184.08KB , 1200x800 , CkksVV4WkAAkojg.jpg )
> launching ship borne mach 2 cruise missiles which aren't meant for low value targets

Pretty sure that was for sales and moral purposes. They break out all their new toys to try and stir up interest on the export market. (new missiles, new planes, attack helicopters, T-90 tanks, ect) Also I think the ships launching cruise missiles off the shore of middle eastern nations was meant to draw direct comparison to another world power. And as far as the Tu-160 mission went, pretty sure it was just to prove they could. Circle Europe with a strategic bomber loaded with missiles, probably meant to send a message.
>> No. 21217 ID: 9723b1
No man I'm sure they just want to sell the Tu-160, it's just an export advertisement.
>> No. 21218 ID: cce514
File 147214998457.jpg - (155.77KB , 1767x942 , A-12 OXCART.jpg )
Still the fact remains that everybody stopped developing high-fast bombers after the 60s. Even back then they knew that SAMs were getting too good to allow that. Hell, a A-12 got hit by fragments from a SA-2 over Vietnam.

>During a flight on 30 October 1967, pilot Dennis Sullivan detected radar tracking on his first pass over North Vietnam. Two sites prepared to launch missiles but neither did. During the second pass, at least six missiles were fired, each confirmed by missile vapor trails on mission photography. Looking through his rear-view periscope, Sullivan saw six missile vapor trails climb to about 90,000 ft (27,000 m) before converging on his aircraft. He noted the approach of four missiles, and although they all detonated behind him, one came within 100 yards (91 metres) to 200 yards (180 metres) of his aircraft.[31] Post-flight inspection revealed that a piece of metal had penetrated the lower right wing fillet area and lodged against the support structure of the wing tank. The fragment was not a warhead pellet but may have been a part of the debris from one of the missile detonations observed by the pilot.

This is just a incremental service upgrade combined with the usual Baghdad Bob "Russia unveils most powerful firework ever: K15 Big Thunder Boom!" blustering.
>> No. 21219 ID: 8effed
File 147216396770.jpg - (1.01MB , 3000x2226 , US Lockheed A-12 Oxcart CIA reconnaissance aircraf.jpg )
Damn, Charlie was playing with the big boys.
Oxcart traveling down the road
Peasants with a heavy load
They're all V!C! when the bombs explode.
Napalm sticks to kids.

- US Lockheed A-12 Oxcart CIA reconnaissance aircraft from 1967. Mach 3.2 at 90,000 feet. Replaced by the SR-71 in 1968.
>> No. 21220 ID: ad2b13
Do you think it can't catch up to F-15 or F-16? I guess we should stop producing jet aircraft since all of them fall well into the SA-2 capability range.

That's not how it works. Obviously some missiles can touch them, but total immunity is never the point.
>> No. 21221 ID: 8effed
File 147218494440.jpg - (216.97KB , 1922x3000 , US F-15E Strike Eagle pops flares during an aerial.jpg )
No, but even though the F-15 Eagle is a high altitude interceptor, the folks at McDonnell Douglas (or Boeing), to my knowledge, did not tout it as being able to "fly up to the stratosphere at an altitude of 60,000 feet and cruise at a height where no enemy anti-aircraft system can strike it". That would just be asinine and easily refutable.

- OVER GUAM -- An F-15E Strike Eagle from the 391st Expeditionary Fighter Squadron pops flares during an aerial training dog fight here recently. The 391st EFS are deployed here from Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, on a rotational basis supporting the U.S. Air Force's continued forward presence in the Western Pacific.
>> No. 21222 ID: 8effed
File 147218545731.jpg - (2.98MB , 3000x2067 , US F-15 Eagle soars upon takeoff 1.jpg )
Although I have heard the bold claim that the F-15 is the only operational jet fighter to have never been shot down in combat. I wonder if that is still the case or at least true when comparing to other fighters that have been operational for ten years or more (easy for a brand new operational fighter to make the claim of never being shot down in combat). Not bad for a plane that was introduced in 1976 and is still operational 40 years later.
>> No. 21223 ID: 8effed
File 147218637264.jpg - (480.98KB , 1619x1800 , US bomb Vought ASM-135A-1 anti-satellite missile l.jpg )
But for some real high altitude interception, the F-15 successfully launched an anti-satellite missile and hit a satellite in goddamn space!

Maj. Wilbert "Doug" Pearson successfully launched an anti-satellite, or ASAT, missile from a highly modified F-15A Sept. 13, 1985 over Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. He scored a direct hit on a satellite orbiting 340 miles overhead. http://www.110aw.ang.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=9&page=18
>> No. 21224 ID: 8effed
File 147218713155.jpg - (1.01MB , 2949x1365 , US bomb Vought ASM-135 ASAT anti-satellite missile.jpg )
Air-launched anti-satellite missiles (ASAT), such as this Vought ASM-135 missile, were carried under F-15 aircraft. In 1985 a test launch successfully resulted in the destruction of an obsolete satellite. The missile was never put into production or made operational.
>> No. 21225 ID: 8effed
File 147218725821.jpg - (591.10KB , 793x1050 , US bomb Vought ASM-135A-1 ASAT F-15A anti-satellit.jpg )
ASATs were generally given low priority until 1982, when information about a successful USSR program became widely known in the west. A "crash program" followed, which developed into the Vought ASM-135 ASAT, based on the AGM-69 SRAM with an Altair upper stage. The system was carried on a modified F-15 Eagle that carried the missile directly under the central line of the plane. The F-15's guidance system was modified for the mission and provided new directional cueing through the pilot's head-up display, and allowed for mid-course updates via a data link. The first launch of the new anti-satellite missile took place in January 1984. The first, and only, successful interception was on September 13, 1985. The F-15 took off from Edwards Air Force Base, climbed to 38,100 feet (11,613 m) and vertically launched the missile at the Solwind P78-1, a U.S. gamma ray spectroscopy satellite orbiting at 555 km (345 mi), which was launched in 1979. Although successful, the program was cancelled in 1988. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon
>> No. 21226 ID: 8effed
File 14721878299.jpg - (1.74MB , 1500x2100 , US bomb RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 ABM to destroy .jpg )
USA-193 was an American Reconnaissance satellite, which was launched on 14 December 2006 by a Delta II rocket, from Vandenberg Air Force Base. It was reported about a month after launch that the satellite had failed. In January 2008, it was noted that the satellite was decaying from orbit at a rate of 1,640 feet (500 m) per day. On 14 February 2008, it was reported that the United States Navy had been instructed to fire an RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 ABM weapon at it, to act as an anti-satellite weapon.

According to the U.S. Government, the primary reason for destroying the satellite was the approximately 1,000 lb (450 kg) of toxic hydrazine fuel contained on board, which could pose health risks to persons in the immediate vicinity of the crash site should any significant amount survive the re-entry. On February 20, 2008, it was announced that the launch was carried out successfully and an explosion was observed consistent with the destruction of the hydrazine fuel tank.

- Launch of the SM-3 missile used to destroy USA-193.
>> No. 21227 ID: 8effed
File 147218801832.jpg - (854.62KB , 1200x1800 , US bomb RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 ABM test launch.jpg )
So if the US Navy's SM-3 can be used as an anti-ballistic missile or take out satellites in orbit, then bombers in the stratosphere are at risk.

- Standard Missile - 3 (SM-3) is launched from the Pearl Harbor-based Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG-70), during a joint Missile Defense Agency, U.S. Navy ballistic missile flight test today. Minutes later, the SM-3 intercepted a separating ballistic missile threat target, launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawaii. The test was the sixth intercept, in seven flight tests, by the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, the maritime component of the "Hit-to-Kill" Ballistic Missile Defense System, being developed by the Missile Defense Agency. All previous Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense flight tests were against unitary (non-separating) targets.
>> No. 21238 ID: 9723b1
Certain companies routinely used to claim stealth is a panacea and perfect shield against SAM until they got BTFO by some. They still do sometimes with F-22 and F-35.
>> No. 21244 ID: d0041a
They are actually making new airframes

It's going to be an uphill battle for them, not all of the parts of the original were made in the Russian SFSR, and they got screwed big time when Ukraine scrapped it's Tu-160 Fleet.
There is also the fact that the original Tu-160's schematics are almost certainly compromised.

They got a little too comfy with just having the Tu-95 and the Tu-22M do the heavy lifting, the TU-95 has it's limitations and is showing it's age to the point Russia is considering developing a bomber variant of a COTS airliner, and the TU-22M has a limited bomb load because it was designed to haul huge cruise missiles/AShM's
>> No. 21245 ID: b86cd3
>20 year old design flying straight and level on a flight path that was being reused gets shot down by missiles being volley-fired into the air without guidance after a ground spotter says the airplane passed overhead
>"s-s-stealth doesn't work guys! btfo!"
>> No. 21246 ID: 385f49
File 147259929139.jpg - (82.53KB , 791x1200 , 978-1-891121-66-1-frontcover.jpg )
>stealth doesn't work guys
Seems like this guy is blissfully unaware that "stealth technology" was invented by Russians 50 years ago and defeated by Russians 20 years ago.
>> No. 21247 ID: 119437
File 147260515060.jpg - (296.30KB , 1800x1200 , US F-117A dropping a GBU-28 5000-lb laser-guided b.jpg )
The Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter proved very successful in the 1991 Gulf War in Iraq where the F-117A flew approximately 1,300 sorties and scored direct hits on 1,600 high-value targets in Iraq and flying over 6,905 flight hours. The F-117 made up 2.5% of Coalition tactical aircraft in Iraq but they attacked more than 40% of the strategic targets (mostly with laser-guided bombs). The F-117 had bombing accuracy problems in the 1989 Panama invasion and one was shot down over Serbia in 1999. Reported to have been shot down by a Yugo SA-3 Goa SAM when the F-117's bomb bay door was open. The F-117 Nighthawk was introduced in October 1983 and retired on 22 April 2008.

- An F-117 Nighthawk engages it's target and drops a GBU-28 5,000-pound (2,268 kg) laser-guided "bunker busting" bomb during the 'live-fire' weapons testing mission COMBAT HAMMER, at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. (8 Jul 2000)
>> No. 21248 ID: 119437
File 147260625210.jpg - (1.17MB , 1960x3008 , Iraqi_dome.jpg )
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AFPN) -- A member (bottom right) of the Combined Weapons Effectiveness Assessment Team assesses the impact point of a precision-guided 5,000-pound bomb through the dome of one of Saddam Hussein's key regime buildings here. The impact point is one of up to 500 the team will assess in coming weeks.
>> No. 21249 ID: b86cd3
File 147268568659.png - (72.83KB , 800x1745 , tumblr_mhgcs6PtMw1qgbu2uo1_1280.png )
>soviets declare his research to be "useless" and make no effort to pursue it
>researcher told that further research will have a "detrimental effect" on his career due to it having "no military or economic value"
>lockheed researcher goes "oh I read a paper on this" when they start developing stealth aircraft, because the "useless" research had been published publicly due to it's uselessness

tumblr in charge of aircraft design and production.
>> No. 21250 ID: 119437
File 147268865619.jpg - (170.56KB , 1800x1285 , US F-117A Lockheed Nighthawk 1983 stealth fighter-.jpg )
I read about that declassified Soviet paper on angled shapes obliquely reflecting electromagnetic waves and Lockheed using these ideas to develop stealth technology that went into the development of the F-117 stealth fighter and B-2 Spirit stealth bomber.
Pyotr Yakovlevich Ufimtsev (Russian: Пётр Я́ковлевич Уфи́мцев) (born 1931 in Altai Krai) is a Soviet/Russian physicist and mathematician, considered the seminal force behind modern stealth aircraft technology. In the 1960s he began developing equations for predicting the reflection of electromagnetic waves from simple two-dimensional shapes.

Much of Ufimtsev's work was translated into English, and in the 1970s American Lockheed engineers began to expand upon some of his theories to create the concept of aircraft with reduced radar signatures.

Ufimtsev became interested in describing the reflection of lasers while working in Moscow. He gained permission to do work on it after being advised that work was useless and would curtail his advancement. Because the work was considered of no military or economic value, Ufimtsev was allowed to publish his work internationally.

A stealth engineer at Lockheed, Denys Overholser, had read the publication and realized that Ufimtsev had created the mathematical theory and tools to do finite analysis of radar reflection. This discovery inspired and had a big role in the design of the first true stealth aircraft, the Lockheed F-117. Northrop also used Ufimtsev's work to program super computers to predict the radar reflection of the B-2 bomber. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Ufimtsev
>> No. 21251 ID: 119437
  History Documentary - Stealth Technology - History Channel https://youtu.be/fCvp36uQC7s
Stealth technology additionally termed LO modern technology (reduced observable innovation) is a sub-discipline of army methods as well as easy electronic countermeasures, which cover an array of strategies used that incorporates personnel, plane, ships, submarines, missiles and satellites to make them much less noticeable (preferably unseen) to radar, infrared, finder as well as various other detection techniques. It corresponds to military camouflage for these parts of the electromagnetic spectrum (Multi-spectral camouflage).

Advancement of modern stealth technologies in the United States began in 1958, where earlier efforts in avoiding radar tracking of its U-2 spy planes during the Cold War by the Soviet Union had actually been not successful. Designers counted on develop a particular form for aircrafts that tended to decrease detection, by redirecting electromagnetic waves from radars. Radar-absorbent material was likewise tested and also made to decrease or obstruct radar signals that mirror off from the area of aircrafts. Such changes to shape and also emerge structure form stealth technology as presently utilized on the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit "Stealth Bomber".
>> No. 21253 ID: 385f49
Hey, Russians can do documentaries too.

>tumblr in charge of aircraft design and production
"Stealth" is not a magic cloak and neither you should treat it as one. It is not a hoax either, and can be classified as another big budget black hole of Cold War, surrounded by a million lies and half-truths.
>> No. 21257 ID: 9723b1
That's not an argument.

My point was that stealth is not a total counter, and it fucking isn't, despite being claimed so for propaganda purposes.
>> No. 21263 ID: 5111f0
File 147295864111.jpg - (530.91KB , 1439x1079 , Boeing_B-52_dropping_bombs.jpg )
>stealth is not a total counter
No, to my knowledge no technology or technique is a total counter to air defense (unless the Lockheed Skunk Works is developing space bombers that have cloaking devices and are immune to attack by navigating dimensions). But, examining the operational record of the F-117 Nighthawk, stealth seems to work well against SAMs. Or at least the Russian air defenses used by the Iraqis in 1991 and 2003. Sure, the British fighters saw the stealth fighters just fine on their radar, but that's a different situation (want to defend against stealth aircraft, then dominate the sky with your fighters).

The B-52 flew above 30,000 feet during the Vietnam War (the Stratofortress service ceiling is 50,000 ft (15,000 m)), and that placed her far above the range of anti-aircraft artillery, but still within the range of high altitude SAMs like the SA-2 Guideline. 17 B-52 bombers were lost in combat (faring far better than the more numerous F-105D Thunderchief that lost 283 in combat). Strategic Air Command saw that high altitude bombing against targets protected by SAMs was a losing game where missiles could be more easily made to reach high altitude aircraft. Sure, if you are bombing paupers who do not have good high altitude SAMs, then go nuts with strato-bombing until their cities all burn and you bid the citizens to quench the fires with their tears.

- A U.S. Air Force Boeing B-52F-70-BW Stratofortress (s/n 57-0162, nicknamed "Casper The Friendly Ghost") from the 320th Bomb Wing dropping Mk 117 750 lb (340 kg) bombs over Vietnam. This aircraft was the first B-52F used to test conventional bombing in 1964, and later dropped the 50,000th bomb of the "Arc Light" campaign. B-52Fs could carry 51 bombs and served in Vietnam from June 1965 to April 1966 when they were replaced by "Big Belly" B-52Ds which could carry 108 bombs.
Date: circa 1965-1966
>> No. 21269 ID: 9315da


this is actually a nice summary of the incident.

The first SAM didn't actually strike the U2 but the blast was nearby and strong enough to damage the U2 to the point of being uncontrollable.

Had no idea the soviets had a modified fighter try to catch the U2 only to be shot down by his own SAMs.
>> No. 21284 ID: 9723b1
>examining the operational record of the F-117 Nighthawk, stealth seems to work well against SAMs.
Two F-117s were shot down by radar guided SAMs. How many A-10s have been shot down by radar guided SAMs, despite more missions flown? Yeah stealth is really worth the 5x higher price for an airplane.

The best defense against a missile is to put yourself in a kinematic position where engagement is difficult, either very low altitude hiding behind terrain or trees, or very high altitude to stress the fuel capacity of a missile, or very high speed with difficult vector.

RCS reduction, like ECM, is just gravy on the drumstick.
>> No. 21285 ID: 8ae0c8
File 147400769820.jpg - (109.85KB , 995x708 , US A-10 Thunderbolt II warthog.jpg )
Great! Have all strike bombers replaced with A-10s. Except the Warthog's range is 250 nmi (288 mi, 460 km) at 1.88 hour loiter at 5,000 ft (1,500 m), 10 min combat on a typical CAS mission. The F-117 Wobblin Goblin had a range of 930 NM (1720 km). Different planes, different missions. The A-10 is a tactical treetop tank-killer. The F-117 is a strategic deep penetration night bomber.
>> No. 21286 ID: b430d1
>Two F-117s were shot down
>actually posting Serbian propaganda

Go shill for the Caliphate somewhere else Ivan.
>> No. 21288 ID: 9723b1
>Different planes, different missions.
Yeah comparing a lo lo lo with a hi hi hi mission profile is pretty silly. Warthog has 4,150km ferry range to Nighthawks 5,230km, the difference isn't enough to warrant the cash drop.

Also... compare the payload please.

>slavs like muslims
Dude what are you ON?

Are you the retard trying to claim Russia is behind the migrant crisis?
>> No. 21292 ID: ad2b13
A-10 is CAS, as such it carries excess armor and is designed to take hits. If you want to compare F-117 to a bomber, compare it to F-111, F-15E, F/A-18, or an A-6.

The A-6 is probably closest since its essentially designed to enter by stealth through bad weather when the enemy fighters are incapable of taking off or finding them.
>> No. 21294 ID: 8f9c57
File 147415357197.jpg - (1.29MB , 3193x2395 , US A-10 Thunderbolt II over the desert 1.jpg )
The A-6 Intruder's heyday was the mid-'60s during the Vietnam War. Heavy payload, precise bombing computers, long range, but no air-to-air capability (no gun nor method to fire air-to-air missiles). The F-4 Phantom could carry a lot of bombs, more different types or ordinance, and could dogfight.

Problem with the A-10 was that the pilot would need to wear night vision goggles in order to do night attack missions or use the infrared camera on their AGM-65 Maverick TV-guided missiles. Good at low-ceiling poor weather CAS, but not designed as a night bomber.
>> No. 21295 ID: 8f9c57
File 147415368472.jpg - (608.78KB , 1500x998 , US A-10 Thunderbolt II Warthog boneyard 3.jpg )
But the A-6 has been retired. Along with the F-117. And the Air Force has been in an ongoing controversy in retiring the A-10. The Air Force’s latest retirement schedule, unveiled in its latest budget request for FY17, begins divesting the A-10s in FY18. The last A-10 would be sent to the boneyard in FY22. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/04/25/house-legislation-restricts--10-retirement/83508968/
>> No. 21296 ID: ad2b13
Aside of heavy payload that's kind of why it makes for a great example. This was before stealth, so you can think of it as a pre-stealth stealth bomber.

The most modern example of a bomber using speed, storms and terrain for "stealth" would be F-15E, or that new Sukhoi bomber.
>> No. 21298 ID: 63313b
File 14743524825.jpg - (335.03KB , 1024x909 , LAP-render-top.jpg )
If we're on the old stealth vs. terrain cover debate...why not both? Apparently a low-altitude penetrator version of the B-2 was under consideration at one point in its development.

>rocket engine
Is that a translation error? I would expect a hybrid turbo-ramjet like the SR-71 had.
>> No. 21299 ID: b86cd3
Imagine modern air combat as playing flashlight tag in a field at night. You can turn on your flashlight (radar) to try and find other players, but they in turn see your light (EM emissions). Low-observability technology is represented by some players wearing ninja suits while others wear reflective vests.
>> No. 21300 ID: 9723b1
Erm I think the point is to cut costs so more platforms can be produced with a lower tech base. Any total war scenario is going to involve nukes, and nukes will crash your tech base pretty fast.

Although I don't think the A-6 guy is talking about that, he's just being pedantic about the comparison.

Modern stealth is only effective in a narrow band, called the X band. It's not effective in other bands of radar, such as those used by ground, shipborne or AWACS search, tracking and interrogation radars. Or in infrared, which is becoming distressingly common and depressingly sophisticated. Or passive radar... once that comes in it's pretty much over for stealth forever.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]

Delete post []
Report post