Russian counter stealth nullifies the f-22,f-35 stealth advantage.

[Moscow]

The asymmetric aspect of Russia's counter stealth effort is visible. It is centred on the use of two metre or VHF band radar technology, and the networking and integration of other sensors, including passive emitter locating systems.

Most recent Russian effort in the development of early warning and surveillance radars has been in the two metre band. All of these new radars, and upgrade packages for legacy Soviet era radars, are digital and mostly solid state designs. Many include sophisticated adaptive processing techniques for rejection of ground clutter and jamming, a technology to date seen mostly in recent US radar designs.

The focus on the two metre radio band, used primarily for TV broadcasting, is that it largely defeats stealth airframe shaping techniques designed for the decimetre and centimetre band radar. The Russians are adamant that US stealthy fighter aircraft will appear as beachball sized radar targets in the VHF band, rather than marble sized targets. Raleigh scattering regime physics support the Russian view.

A key development is the emergence of new technology VHF designs, built for high mobility to support mobile SAM batteries. The NNIIRT 1L119 Nebo SVU is the first ever VHF band Active Electronically Steered Array (AESA), and is accurate enough to provide midcourse guidance for a missile. Russian thinking on counter-stealth technique is to fly the missile close enough for its seeker to lock on despite the stealthiness of the target, using datalinking from a stealth defeating sensor. This radar can be deployed and stowed in 45 minutes. The new ByeloRussian KBR Vostok E wins the mobility game with an 8 minute deploy and stow time, using a hydraulically folded and elevated antenna. This new VHF radar is also fully digital, solid state, and employs an innovative "Kharchenko" square ring antenna element design. Defeat of US stealth is a primary claim by its designers, who state the ability to track an F-117A at 190 nautical mile range.

The effort in VHF radar is paralleled by developments in Emitter Locating Systems, specifically the networked 85V6 Orion/Vega and Topaz Kolchuga systems. Users of the earlier Tamara / Trash Can system claimed the ability to track the position of US aircraft with emitting JTIDS/Link-16 terminals. Other counter-stealth technology includes a VHF band multistatic radar being developed by NNIIRT.

Other important developments include the 20 kiloWatt class N-035 Irbis E hybrid phased array radar for the Su-35BM, which outperforms all US legacy fighter radars, the APG-79 in the Super Hornet, and APG-81 in the F-35. Russia's first AESA radar, the Zhuk AE, is being scaled up for the Flanker, and promises performance in the class of the latest US APG-77(V)2 and APG-63(V)3 AESAs


full link:-http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-09.html

 

[blain2]

While I have immense respect for Russian gear, I think ausairpower has had a tendency to over blow the capabilities of the Russian hardware due to the fact that the site owner and the site itself is essentially a lobbying entity trying to push RAAF to go for a mixed force built around F/A-22 and F-35 beyond the Hornet currently in service.

 

[Moscow]

While I have immense respect for Russian gear, I think ausairpower has had a tendency to over blow the capabilities of the Russian hardware due to the fact that the site owner and the site itself is essentially a lobbying entity trying to push RAAF to go for a mixed force built around F/A-22 and F-35 beyond the Hornet currently in service.

your assesment of the auspower is exactly correct sir
below i am posting the review of the above artcle by us experts


$337 Billion Stealth Jet Not So Stealthy:


Report
By David Axe January 07, 2009 | 1:36:27 PMCategories: Planes, Copters, Blimps, Raptor Watch
One of the main arguments for the military's $337 billion Joint Strike Fighter program is that the F-35 jet is stealthy -- and so it can't be seen by next-generation air defenses. But a new study, published by Air Power Australia, undermines that most basic rationale. According to the report, the F-35 is not as stealthy as the Pentagon and manufacturer Lockheed Martin claim, mostly due to recent changes in the aircraft's shape.

The Australian group has been pushing for the island nation to try and purchase the more advanced -- but way more expensive -- F-22s, instead of Joint Strike Fighters. According to report author Carlo Kopp, the F-35 is "demonstrably not a true stealth aircraft" like the F-22, B-2 and new-retired F-117. That's because the production version of the new aircraft has what aviation guru Bill Sweetman calls "some very conventional-airplane-shaped lumps and bumps around its underside, not to mention the hideous wart that covers the gun on the F-35A."

After all, Sweetman points out in a post at Ares, "the doctrine laid down by stealth pioneer Denys Overholser still stands: the four most important aspects of stealth are shape, shape, shape and materials." And the F-35's current shape is nothing like the flat and faceted shapes of past, and future, stealth aircraft.
The Pentagon lately has characterized the F-35 as "interchangeable" with the larger F-22 -- and Lockheed has said that the F-35, using "advanced stealth," can destroy the most advanced air and land targets "all before the F-35 is ever detected." On the basis of this assertion, the Pentagon is preparing to end F-22 production at probably around 230 airplanes, and accelerate purchases of up to 2,400 F-35s.

But Kopp's report posits that the F-35 isn't stealthy enough to operate alone against the latest Russian-made air defenses. Instead, the "stealth" fighter will have to rely on other aircraft -- bomb-carrying F-22s or other fighters firing radar-seeking missiles -- to destroy air defenses before it can move in to attack targets.

That option could be best labeled as “shooting a path through defenses”, which is essentially the “conventional” model pioneered and perfected during the Vietnam conflict and incrementally improved since then.

"The APA team does have an open agenda (as does the JSF team) but that does not mean that their data is bad," Sweetman stresses. "The analysis is crude insofar as it doesn't make any detailed estimates of the effects of radar absorbent material (RAM)."
But shape is more important than RAM, Sweetman says, and the F-35's shape means it's more like an F-16 than an F-22, except when it comes to price.

 

[Moscow]

Russian analysts like to note that the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning JSF, with a maximum speed of only 1,200 mph, is slower than both the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker - maximum speed 1,680 mph - and the MiG-35 Fulcrum - maximum speed 1,587 mph. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning's range of 1,320 miles is below the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker's range of 2,260 miles as well.

While these measures make the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter seem inferior, they are actually fully consistent with its projected mission: F-35s are designed to operate in tandem with Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptors, which would clear the way for F-35s in real combat


the highlighted above extract from the full artcle given points to the need of the f22 without which the capabilities of the f-35 might suffer severe setbacks.

link:-http://www.rusnet.nl/news/2009/01/15/currentaffairs02.shtml

 

[Shiny Capstar]

Russian analysts like to note that the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning JSF, with a maximum speed of only 1,200 mph, is slower than both the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker - maximum speed 1,680 mph - and the MiG-35 Fulcrum - maximum speed 1,587 mph. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning's range of 1,320 miles is below the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker's range of 2,260 miles as well.

While these measures make the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter seem inferior, they are actually fully consistent with its projected mission: F-35s are designed to operate in tandem with Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptors, which would clear the way for F-35s in real combat


the highlighted above extract from the full artcle given points to the need of the f22 without which the capabilities of the f-35 might suffer severe setbacks.

link:-http://www.rusnet.nl/news/2009/01/15/currentaffairs02.shtml

They mention the raw performance of a clean aircraft. The F35 carries weapons internally (at least in a first day of war scenario) and isn't affected by the drag of pylons and weapons, the Su/Migs are. So their actual top speed in combat will be lower.

Also, if the Russians are claiming to have defeated stealth then why are they so keen to get stealth aircraft themselves? If it is as useless as they claim they why do they want it?
Besides have they had a chance to test their tech against planes like the Raptor, probably not.

 

[Moscow]

They mention the raw performance of a clean aircraft. The F35 carries weapons internally (at least in a first day of war scenario) and isn't affected by the drag of pylons and weapons, the Su/Migs are. So their actual top speed in combat will be lower.

Also, if the Russians are claiming to have defeated stealth then why are they so keen to get stealth aircraft themselves? If it is as useless as they claim they why do they want it?
Besides have they had a chance to test their tech against planes like the Raptor, probably not.

sir the russians did not claim that they have defeated stealth but that stealth can be better countered by the use of certain counter stealth weapons.
also the russian application of stealth is different than the us.
the raptor is a very good plane but the as things stand the f-35 with be the western plane which will be mass produced and used by many countries in the near future so in that regard its an important development.
also this study is not done by the russians, its an independent defence study
and as with every study there will be some motive attached but there is no disrgarding the fact that in he near future a big part of the advantage that the f-35 claimed could be countered.
thanx

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

HOW ABUT RUSSIANS DEVELOPING CHEAP COUNTER STEALTH WEPONS AND EXPORT THEM .

 

[Moscow]

HOW ABUT RUSSIANS DEVELOPING CHEAP COUNTER STEALTH WEPONS AND EXPORT THEM .

first of all sir let the russians develop something concrete for themselves before they even think of exporting.