Nebo-U new russian antistealth radar

In article ,
"Ian" wrote:

(PS - I've recently seen a concept drawing of an F-22 with external stores,
and not just fuel tanks. Won't that really harm the RCS etc, or have they
developed stealthy weapons and pylons? Or was it just some bored aviation
artist?)

They have the option of an F-22 with external stores, for *after* air
superiority is achieved.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ian" wrote:

(PS - I've recently seen a concept drawing of an F-22 with external
stores,
and not just fuel tanks. Won't that really harm the RCS etc, or have
they
developed stealthy weapons and pylons? Or was it just some bored
aviation
artist?)

They have the option of an F-22 with external stores, for *after* air
superiority is achieved.

I'm reliably informed that with the radar in Eurofighter, and the
partnership with AMRAAM / METEOR air to air superiority only becomes a
problem against F-22. Hopefully we'll not end up fighting against the US?

In article ,
"Ian" wrote:

I'm reliably informed that with the radar in Eurofighter, and the
partnership with AMRAAM / METEOR air to air superiority only becomes a
problem against F-22. Hopefully we'll not end up fighting against the US?

Well, as long as the European manufacturers don't sell them to anyone
nasty. Which isn't a good bet, thinking about the last twenty years or
so.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On 11 Jan 2004 01:10:51 -0800, (Michael Petukhov) wrote:

"Matteo" wrote in message ...
Michael Petukhov wrote:
RuAF have received first 10 new NEBO-U long range antistealth radars
working in the range of meter's waves. It was designed in Nizhniy

I don't want to argue the fact hat low frequency radar can detect stealth
aircraft; pratically everybody knows it since low frewuency radar are very
old stuff. Americans, english and germans realized them still in 1940s since
low freq. radar were simpler to build.
But they have some drawback that strongly reduce their effectiveness in real
combat.
First they share frequencies with UHF telecomunication devices like radio
and TV so, unless you're figthing in the middle of the desert and your
soldiers don't have radios, they will pick up every piece of electromagnetic
garbage created by radio and TV broadcasting and show it like an aircraft.

No neccesary it depends on signal shape and antenna.

Second, since antenna's dimensions are proportional to wave lenght, in order
to generate a narrow beam they must use very big anennas, something like a
three stories building! (quite difficult to hide...)

true, it is around that size. However Nebo-u is truck based radar.

Third, due to the low frequency they have poor data rate, enough for
detection, but not for target tracking.

That's exactly what was solved in nebo-u. It is first 3D radar at high
accuracy. The guys received the state prize exactly for that achivement.

Michael

Bye

Russia could not afford, much less build, an effective "anti-stealth" radar.
They cannot even tow a sub without it sinking.

Al Minyard

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:36:54 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
"Ian" wrote:

While the signature of the Eurofighter isn't as low as that of the
much fabled F-22 (do I add the /A as well?), it is considerably lower
than any in service aircraft (and many of the planned ones as well).

You *are* excluding the F-117 from that comment, right? The
Eurofighter, while using some RCS reduction tech, is nothing like a true
stealthy airframe, and isn't stealthy at all when carrying weapons from
many angles. Basically, they took it from "barn door" to "manhole
cover" in RCS.

I would be willing to bet the farm that the B-2 has a lower RCS than the
Eurofighter.

And the B-2 is a very large aircraft.

Al Minyard

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:25:30 -0000, "Ian" wrote:


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ian" wrote:

While the signature of the Eurofighter isn't as low as that of the
much fabled F-22 (do I add the /A as well?), it is considerably lower
than any in service aircraft (and many of the planned ones as well).

You *are* excluding the F-117 from that comment, right? The
Eurofighter, while using some RCS reduction tech, is nothing like a true
stealthy airframe, and isn't stealthy at all when carrying weapons from
many angles. Basically, they took it from "barn door" to "manhole
cover" in RCS.

Sorry - yeah I was excluding the F-117 and B-2.

Eurofighter's original concept was to be stealthy, i'll agree to that.
However, given the four (originally more) partner nations requirements, it
was never going to work. Thats when they went for the "stealthier" option.
The concept of operations would seem to be scoot to within range of the
weapon and then bug out. The cruise missiles they'll carry (Storm Shadow
and Taurus) have ranges that allow them to do this. AMRAAM (and hopefully
Meteor when it is finsihed) will allow this in AA.

I know its dangerous to say this, but when do we next envisage a war with
Air to Air? GWII didn't have it, and had next to no 'real' SAM activity (if
you discount the patriot attacks on the RAF and USN(F-18?)). GWI had a bit
more, but that was more due to the missions the RAF undertook with JP233 and
low level bombing (the standard tactic developed for 'cold war attacks using
Tornado and predecessors). The last true air to air I can think of, would
be the Falklands, when the AIM-9L (I think?) was given its operational debut
(and what a debut)

I don't doubt if the 4 partner countries had the money, they would develop
an F-22 level stealth aircraft. I know they're working on some very
interesting concepts for future aircraft that will be at that level if not
better.

(PS - I've recently seen a concept drawing of an F-22 with external stores,
and not just fuel tanks. Won't that really harm the RCS etc, or have they
developed stealthy weapons and pylons? Or was it just some bored aviation
artist?)
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Yes, but they are not intended for use in a high threat area. They go on after
enemy air and AA assets no longer exist (day two).

Al Minyard

"Nebo-U" is
able to detect small-size and barely visible targets, including also
those built using Stealth Technology.

I dont know about this radar,but if its a backscatterer it wont be able to
detect any stealth plane at meaningfull distances.
(Serbian style "internetting" then maybe)

From: Chad Irby
Date: 1/11/2004 5:05 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Jack Linthicum) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Allen Thomson) wrote:

See http://www.nniirt.ru/files/nebo-ye.htm and
http://www.nniirt.ru/files/nebo-svu.htm for pictures of what are
apparently other members of the NEBO family. Note that counter-
stealth capability is claimed for them also.

*Everyone* making radar nowadays is claiming some level of
"counter-stealth." It's a buzzword, like "ergodynamic" in cars, or
"synergy" in business models.

Like slightly different radio frequency use, different pulse rate,
different pulse shape and an optical sight to find the airplane in
visual frequencies.

"We have invented a great new anti-stealth tracking system! Within
ranges of a few miles, we can detect most stealth aircraft for about 50%
of the diurnal cycle!"

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Binoculars?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

From: Chad Irby
Date: 1/11/2004 5:05 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"We have invented a great new anti-stealth tracking system! Within
ranges of a few miles, we can detect most stealth aircraft for about 50%
of the diurnal cycle!"

Binoculars?

That has to be it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:46:16 +0000 (UTC), Steven James Forsberg wrote:

: 20 year old technology at that time. The USAF didn't even bother to go back
: to blow it up.
: Russia still doesn't have a stealthy aircraft, neither does Europe or China.
: Russia is just flying around in warmed over Sukhoi designs. When a Phoenix
: missile takes out your Sukhoi at 200 miles out and you can't even see where
: it came from, you'll be saying "I wish I had stealth" just as your parachute

Highly unlikely. First of all, the Phoenix never had a range of
200 miles. Secondly, it has been (or is being rapidly) retired from
service.
Secondly, while 'stealth' is nice to have, note the US is not
buying any more stealth aircraft. New fighters will have "stealth
features" but do not meet the military's own definition of 'stealth'.
The F-117 is hardly a fighter at any rate...

regards,
-----------------------------------------------------------



Where in the world did you get the idea that the F-22
and F-35 are not stealth aircraft??

Obviously, no aircraft is completely invisible to radar, but
when you get down to the RCS of a bird, that is stealth.

Al Minyard