Russian anti-stealth weaponry

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Spitfire-FreeBirds-VFW

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2007, 19:13
  • Location: Norway, Illinois, USA

Unread post12 Feb 2007, 21:13

Today, February 12th, 2007 I was listening to a nation-wide syndicated radio talk show and the discussion turned to weaponry being provided by the Russians to Iran including the SSN4 (or Ra'ad) which is an anti-aircraft-carrier low altitude cruise missile capable of evading radar jamming and immune to electronic countermeasures. The discussion then turned to a new "anti-stealth anti-aircraft missile system" as it was described dubbed the Tor-M1. :!: :( Does anone know if the claims of the Tor-M1 made on this show are true? :?: And if they are what does it mean to U.S. air power given our huge investment in the F-22 and F-35 programs not to mention the B-2? :?: Suffice to say that the F-117 is on its way out anyways.

For more reference follow these links:

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_20553.shtml
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-02/07/content_5711275.htm

Looks like the U.S. could be spending $150 million per copy on a dead horse. :? Does "plasma-type" stealth have any advantage over "conventional" stealth with regards to these weapons? :?:

Awaiting discussion.....
Offline

seat_dreamer

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 278
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2006, 16:49
  • Location: Athens, Greece

Unread post12 Feb 2007, 21:52

I highly doubt...

"Immunity" does not exist (this is theoretically true for the Raptor too) when it comes to combat. Suffice to say that the links provided are from countries that can be very biased against american weaponry, and of course, very promotional to Iran and Chinese weaponry.

I also don't think the TOR-M1 is of such capabilities. With it's ceiling and range it would be totally useless anyways, since it's low-altitude, point-defense. "Plasma-stealth"....Wet dreams....It won't happen for decades for many reasons, so no advantage for it.

And one more thing (friendly tip): Your questions are too borderline with you-know-what, so please expect similar replies...:D
"144-0 kill ratio.....Ok 144-1 but that's 1 compared to your entire airforce."
Offline

Thumper3181

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 05:49

Unread post12 Feb 2007, 22:07

OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are sooooooooooooooooooooo screwed. All those billions spent on stealth and now the Russians have once again magically came up with technology that defies all the laws of physics (meanwhile they can't even build a nuclear sub that doesn't kill the crew) and instantly renders all those hundreds of billions of $$$$$$ of research obsolete!


NOT

Suggest you do a search on plasma stealth.
Offline

snypa777

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1539
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 02:00

Unread post12 Feb 2007, 22:41

TOR M1 (SA-15), has a max ` engagement alt` of around 20K ft. with a max` range of 7-8 miles. It is supposedly a very agile and advanced missile. The US and Israel really disliked the sale of TOR M1 to Iran. That could tell it`s own story...What capabilities are they claiming and who is making the claims?

Cyprus was considering buying TOR M1 or the Aspide 330 system from Italy a few years back but I don`t recall the outcome...I think China and Greece, the Ukraine and of course Russia use the system..
"I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Offline

Scrappy

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2006, 21:49

Unread post12 Feb 2007, 23:37

The Tor m-1 is decribed as jamming-resistant. Can it be jammed? Probably, but even if it were immune it can still be defeated. It can't even begin to be a threat to a raptor or B-2 at high altitudes. What it does do is make it difficult to strike the target it is protecting by destroying incomming bombs/missiles. Even if it does everything it is supposed to do flawlessly it is just a question of how many bombs you need to drop to take it out.

It can simultaniously track 48 targets, plot the interception of 10, and engage 2. In basic configuration it has 4 launch vehicles with 8 ready to fire missiles each. So how many bombs would it take? A pain in the a$$ for sure, but not some kind of super anti-stealth weapon. Needless to say these would be some of the first things to go. Whatever we do to counter it you can bet Russia will be watching and learning how to make it better. Same thing with the GPS jammers that showed up in Iraq just before the invasion.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /sa-15.htm






As far as the super-duper unstopable ship killing cruise missile, it's sounds like more hype to me.
Offline

dwightlooi

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1170
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006, 00:14

Unread post13 Feb 2007, 00:42

Scrappy wrote:The Tor m-1 is decribed as jamming-resistant. Can it be jammed? Probably, but even if it were immune it can still be defeated. It can't even begin to be a threat to a raptor or B-2 at high altitudes. What it does do is make it difficult to strike the target it is protecting by destroying incomming bombs/missiles. Even if it does everything it is supposed to do flawlessly it is just a question of how many bombs you need to drop to take it out.

It can simultaniously track 48 targets, plot the interception of 10, and engage 2. In basic configuration it has 4 launch vehicles with 8 ready to fire missiles each. So how many bombs would it take? A pain in the a$$ for sure, but not some kind of super anti-stealth weapon. Needless to say these would be some of the first things to go. Whatever we do to counter it you can bet Russia will be watching and learning how to make it better. Same thing with the GPS jammers that showed up in Iraq just before the invasion.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /sa-15.htm






As far as the super-duper unstopable ship killing cruise missile, it's sounds like more hype to me.


You HARM its radar then cluster bomb the launchers and other support vehicles.
Offline

ATFS_Crash

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 760
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2006, 00:28

Unread post13 Feb 2007, 01:06

[Sarcasm] I'm so afraid. We should surrender now to avoid annihilation. [/Sarcasm]
Offline

Night

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2006, 17:53

Unread post13 Feb 2007, 01:52

I do remember hearing about the selling of the TOR-M1 to Iran, but there weren't that many if I remember correctly.

Guys, the F-22 wont be working alone. While it is stealth, the USAF isn't stupid, they wont usually send F-22's into air defense saturated areas. While the TOR-M1 might be a good missile, the lovely arsenal of HARMs the US possesses will keep the operators afraid to turn on the radar.
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post13 Feb 2007, 10:26

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/miss ... /sa-15.htm

http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/tor.htm

Tor-M1

1. A short range missile system with a radar detection or tracking range of up to 25 km only.

2. FIRE CONTROL: Sights w/Magnification Electro-optical (EO) television system with the effective range of 20 km.

3. Missile: Maximal effective range 12 km, and maximal effective intercepting altitude 6,000 m (less than 20,000 fts).


You call this kind of weapon system as an anti-stealthy weapon system??? What a Joke the Great!!! Even F-16 shall be able to cause much more threat to F-22A than this kind of anti-stealthy weapon system!!!!


F-22A:

1. Its normal operating altitude is 40,000 to 60,000 fts+ ~ Even F-22A has no stealthy capability, Tor-M1 still can't cause any threat to Raptor at that kind of altitude.

2. With the help of 1.5 Mach supercruise at the height of 50,000 fts (which is still not the upper limit of F-22's supercruise capability), F-22A can hit the target of 44 km away with just basic 1,000Ib JDAM.
Offline

Pilotasso

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 532
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2006, 03:35

Unread post13 Feb 2007, 14:01

Anti stealth weaponery does not exist. There are special long wave radars to try detect LO aircraft but they are very limited and do not provide targeting infromation simply because they are not precise enough for it.

Plasma stealth is a fairy tale. I cant hink of why bother going other way than the usual aproach to LO of current tehcnology.
Offline

Night

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2006, 17:53

Unread post13 Feb 2007, 15:25

I agree completely with you pilotasso, plasma stealth is a waste of research.

Guys, the F-16 HARMs OUTRANGE the TOR-M1.

Of course, I've heard rumors that Iran is protecting it's bushwehr power plant using both TOR-M1's and S-300's.
Offline

RoAF

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 632
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2006, 22:45
  • Location: Romania

Unread post13 Feb 2007, 16:52

Iran doesn't have S-300.
The Tor was designed to operate in a highly integrated layered air defence. Something like:
- Tunguska
- Tor M-1
- Buk-1M(SA-11)
- S-300PMU

That would be your "food chain" if you want to protect something effectively.
"It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom" (William Wallace 1272-1305)
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3146
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post13 Feb 2007, 16:54

Tor is a nice combo when paired with the big super Sams or used on the battlefield. However our fast mover legacy aircraft and even the B-52 can avoid it all together by contempt of engagement. I can touch you but you can't touch me. Tor just doesn't have the reach. An A-10 or Apache however would have a ruined day if one of these were waiting around.

While I don't like discussing ESM stuff. Public consumption shows Tor to use X band there abouts for some of its aquisition. JSF being narrow band stealth is tuned to X-band threats (common air intercept radar, SAM/AAA weaponeering radar etc).... ( you did want the low low price for your fighter... right? :lol: ) So as long as JSF stays out of visual range I doubt it will be hurt. I could see a JSF coming down for a guns pass in CAS support after using it's PGMs up and maybe run risk against a TOR like threat, otherwise it is up high and safe.
F-22 is near all aspect wideband stealth. Meaning just about every emitter out there is going to have a problem trying to aquire it. ( you get what you pay for ).... ( that aussie wild man, Dr. Koop explains this quite well so even I, a non avionics engineer can understand it. )
Tor should be respected. It's a killer. However, for us, it can be managed.
- ELP -
Offline

idesof

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: 29 May 2006, 22:59

Unread post13 Feb 2007, 17:19

Scrappy wrote:So how many bombs would it take?


Umh, all I gotta say is, picture a single B-2 with more than 200 SDBs, each of which is damned hard to intercept. A B-1 could carry even more, or dozens of 500 lbs. JDAMs. The USAF is very close to being able to turn any enemy into swiss cheese in a single night, no matter his defences.
Offline

TC

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 4004
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 07:06

Unread post13 Feb 2007, 17:33

You got it dude! 8) After the cruise missiles do the dirty work, and the Weasels take out the radars, the allies are pretty well defended and unimpeded.

The aircraft carrier missile to me is just a waste of money. Sure, it might be able to poke a big hole in the carrier, but what happens when said Nimitz-class carrier drops anchor just out of the missiles max range? They get a nice view of the missile fusing out and going into the drink, while their strike force is heading out to blow the launching culprit's Sierra away.

This is of course, assuming we ever let them have the chance to launch. Not likely.
"He counted on America to be passive...He counted wrong." -- President Ronald Reagan
Next

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests