F-16.net

Elite 2K Joined: Jan 14, 2004 Posts: 2807 Status: Offline

idesof wrote:

what IS the (approximate) RCS of your standard 500/1000/2000 lbs. JDAM??? What about the SDB? Has any attempt been made to apply RAM to any of the above?

Don't go there...

There are weapons that the bad guys will have much difficulty seeing, before they are vaporized. I'll leave it at that. If someone else wishes to jump in, tread lightly. I'll simply quote JR:

JR007 wrote:

Fox One to the face,
you never saw it.
Fox One to the face,
you really bought it.
At the merge today,
we blew your Sierra away...

F-16.net Sponsor

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1088 Status: Offline

elp wrote:

urmomma158 wrote:

LOL trust me the Tor M1 won't do any goood against an F 22 or B-2 even if it's in the engagement range and altitude of the Spirit and Raptor. But thinking a JDAM is gonna take out the Tor is sheer stupidity. These systems are extremely mobile and no bomb on coordinate weapon will hit it. You need something like AN SDB II,JSOW,JASSM etc. LOCAAS was good until it was cancelled but the SMACM program seems interesting.

Depends. JDAM can take it out if it doesn't move. A snap shot with a JDAM could be a minute or less of bomb fly time. So... that is the time that one would have to make a decision to move. And oh btw even know that a weapon is on it's way down and/or toward them. JDAM has killed plenty of mobile hardware.... that at the time, wasn't moving.

I think what he was trying to say is that TOR is designed from the get go to take out PGMs. That's it's job. They even focused on getting the cost of the missile down as low as possible because they realized firing a million dollar missile at a $35,000 dollar JDAM would be impractical. Apparently the thing is command guided and the only electronics on board are the things necessary for it to fly. Of course that would make it a nice target for an EMP weapon but I guess you can't have everything.

Newbie Joined: Feb 27, 2005 Posts: 14 Status: Offline

Is it not conceivable that an aircraft could have an outer radar transparent surface in addition to an inner surface, with the plasma contained between the two layers? This would overcome the obstacles of a "plasma trail" and the need to regenerate plasma lost to the relative wind. Even if the panels needed to contain a cloud of an inch or more in thickness, I'm sure such a feat would be attainable. Granted, the entire aircraft would need to be covered by such panels, but stealth seems to present unique challenges in all its forms.

Shonuff wrote:

Also, I've heard that the S-400 was so super special because it can share its data with other sites and can use other sites like multiple receivers. That got me thinking. Say radar A, B and C are working together to detect aircraft. Radar A sends a pulse of radiation in the direction a stealth aircraft happens be flying. Whatever amount of radiation that actually reaches the aircraft is totally butchered (absorbed and scattered in almost every direction). This means that radars B and C will probably not get enough radar waves to even detect the stealth. So what good would it do to try to share info or use multiple receivers when those other receivers cant see sh!t?

Not quite right. The concept is sensor fusion. Let's say you have three radars. Each one thinks they see something out there but none of them can stay on him long enough to start a track. But, if you could combine all the stray hits into a single integrated system, there could be enough hits now to establish a track, or at least a strong enough trend where you could at least vector a fighter.

What you discussed was bi-static radars, where radar A sends out the pulse and Radar B picks it up. Since one of the basics of RF LO is to bounce the radar signal in a direction other than from which it came, Bi-static receivers could in theory pick up those off-boresight reflections. What makes this so hard though is for a radar to work the precise instant of transmission and reception of the pulses must be known (easy for a single radar that transmits and receives) to calculate the range, and (b) bi-static radars are very susceptible to multipath ground clutter.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Russian anti-stealth weaponry