Does the Russian Tor-M1 render most of the USAF worthless?

the AGM-129a stealth acm was designed to penetrate heavily fortified and defended positions and installations and would have no problem with any defense system unless it's DEW, and thats if they can track it.

Originally posted by StellarX

Well in terms of overall strategy that might be true but remember that Soviet and air defenses in general are there to protect not only strategic forces but mainly mobile forces ( strategic air defense rest on a combination of fixed air defense and aircraft) and the fact is that the American air force would not have been able to choose where to attack but would have had to respond to Soviet penetrations thus robbing them of the strategic initiative already.

So if the US were to strike sites across Russia for some political reason tomorrow, Russia would retaliate by invading Poland?

And yes. You do need significant military economic resources to avoid invasion. N Vietnam, Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia all had about as best defense systems as you can get outside of Russia.

No they did not and especially not compared to the resources of those they were attacked by. North Vietnam were a devastated country suffering various occupations for decades before. The US had ten years to destroy ( and they largely did) Iraqi's actual air defenses and the Balkans were hardly a quite area in which the Serbs could spend all their money on air defenses when they were required to fight ground wars. Libya is not worth mentioning and i am not sure why you did.

How can you say that about N. Vietnam? They had hundreds of SAM's and AAA all around Hanoi and Haiphong. It's defenses probably rivaled Moscow in terms of density. They hurt US aircraft pretty good, but that still did not deter a switch to unrestricted air ops in those cities.

Iraq's highly ranked and prepared air defenses did not deter the air war prior to the 1st coalition invasion.

Serbia--although NATO air forces had their hands full and I'm sure pilots had SAMs #1 on their minds, NATO still flew thousands of missions against them. Even your own source the EW group, flew over 700. It was an operation in which we didn't want to get into a major ground war. We weren't trying to bomb the people into the stone age. So they didn't fly low to kill ground units. . . (Besides for effectiveness you need men to kill men and tanks to kill tanks) The mission was to get Milosovic to back off and he did.

Libya is an example of a decently armed country being attacked by US aircraft. At the time it had 450 SAM launchers mostly SA-2's some SA-3's, 5's, and 6's. 200 SAM launchers defended Tripoli specifically.

There was no way either countries could deploy air defenses or air forces ( what were they supposed to do if not use Sam's?) in the numbers required to really prevent US aggression anyways.

That's my whole frigin point. That is why the US is a superpower. That is why we can put hundreds of aircraft over any nation. Sure we lose aircraft--but the loses are miniscule in view of the big picture. Air defenses or Tor-M1's will shoot stuff down, but won't ever deter the US aircraft from attacking in the first place.
That is why N Korea and Iran are making nukes.

If the air wars in Iraq and Serbia provide any lessons to the world, it's that air defenses won't keep the US away if your on its sh** list.

Originally posted by DoBravery
So if the US were to strike sites across Russia for some political reason tomorrow, Russia would retaliate by invading Poland?

As i have said on numerous occasions the US could only launch a full scale attack on Russia as anything less would make their extensive ABM defenses even more effective and give them time to reload both their remaining ABM launchers ( which are almost all mobile) and their silo's/SSBN's and road mobile ICBM's.. Why would Russia want to invade Poland when it can gain the economic concessions it requires by other means?

How can you say that about N. Vietnam? They had hundreds of SAM's and AAA all around Hanoi and Haiphong.

Well free to bring me the factual material that shows that what you think are in fact true and that the S-200 type missiles were ever supposed to be used against such overwhelming force in such meager numbers or that it was in fact designed specifically to counter long range bombers as is so commonly believed.

It's defenses probably rivaled Moscow in terms of density.

And now your just assuming what best suits your bias completely independent of anything to do with objective fact. Please do some research?

They hurt US aircraft pretty good, but that still did not deter a switch to unrestricted air ops in those cities.

There were never enough air defenses or air defense infrastructure to seriously impede the American bombing campaign as American politicians held back the air campaign that could have ensure the end of the war far sooner.

Iraq's highly ranked and prepared air defenses did not deter the air war prior to the 1st coalition invasion.

Highly ranked based on which authorities? How much of it was deployed with the ground forces and how much was compromised by employing European technology which the NATO members understood so well?

Serbia--although NATO air forces had their hands full and I'm sure pilots had SAMs #1 on their minds, NATO still flew thousands of missions against them.

Flying thousands of missions achieving so little against the ground forces you were supposed to interdict should tell us volumes about what could be expected from the Soviet or current Russian air defenses...

An antiseptic war, fought by pilots flying safely three miles high. It seems almost too good to be true-and it was. In fact-as some critics suspected at the time-the air campaign against the Serb military in Kosovo was largely ineffective. NATO bombs plowed up some fields, blew up hundreds of cars, trucks and decoys, and barely dented Serb artillery and armor. According to a suppressed Air Force report obtained by NEWSWEEK, the number of targets verifiably destroyed was a tiny fraction of those claimed: 14 tanks, not 120; 18 armored personnel carriers, not 220; 20 artillery pieces, not 450. Out of the 744 "confirmed" strikes by NATO pilots during the war, the Air Force investigators, who spent weeks combing Kosovo by helicopter and by foot, found evidence of just 58.

www.geocities.com...

Even your own source the EW group, flew over 700. It was an operation in which we didn't want to get into a major ground war.

They flew plenty and ensure little beside the massive expense that results from such operations doing proportionally very little damage against deployed Serbian ground forces.

We weren't trying to bomb the people into the stone age.

Maybe not the stone age but the aim was obviously terror bombing when it was realised that Serbians ground forces were operating in ways that could not be interdicted from the air without far heavier losses to aircrew; something that NATO leaders apparently found unacceptable. It's either that or the fact that the Serbs really managed to shoot down the dozens of aircraft they claimed to have. I know i can prove they shot down more than the west admits but i can't prove the 50-60 they claim as total destroyed. That being said i suspect that is a more logical explanation for the abject NATO failure to interdict Serbian forces and their shift to bombing water purification and electric generation facilities thus terror bombing the Serbs into submission; something the Serbs had no means to prevent NATO from doing.

So they didn't fly low to kill ground units. . . (Besides for effectiveness you need men to kill men and tanks to kill tanks) The mission was to get Milosovic to back off and he did.

Then why fly missions against those targets for so long only resorting to the terror campaign towards the end? Why not study this war in some more depth?

Libya is an example of a decently armed country being attacked by US aircraft. At the time it had 450 SAM launchers mostly SA-2's some SA-3's, 5's, and 6's. 200 SAM launchers defended Tripoli specifically.

That was a 'bolt from the blue' attack with EXTREMELY limited aims thus never exposing American fighters to any persistent threat. I fail to see how you so willing employ this type of events as 'evidence' to prove that the USAF numbers thousands of aircraft should not logically be expected to destroy such limited air defense forces? Do you realise the extent air defense deployments you could stage with the same resources it takes to deploy such a air force? Why not do some research on costs involved in each system and how long both are likely to stay operational in a nuclear war environment?

That's my whole frigin point. That is why the US is a superpower. That is why we can put hundreds of aircraft over any nation. Sure we lose aircraft--but the loses are miniscule in view of the big picture.

Agreed and there is nothing any of the nations the US have attacked, over the last half century, should have been able to yet they did providing us with interesting and conflicting material to study. Unless the US attacks a unified EU or SEA or Russia/USSR there were no powers that could match it in resources expenditure and hence no countries that should have been able to put up any kind of extended resistance... The fact that the US have fought non of these powers but managed to get 'bogged' down on numerous occasions should give us reason for pause as to the political ( which they were in my opinion) or military abilities... That is what i want you to consider without jumping to such unfounded conclusions...

Air defenses or Tor-M1's will shoot stuff down, but won't ever deter the US aircraft from attacking in the first place.

Not unless it attacks nations or alliances with the same general resources and technological ability. One can not argue that air defense does not work ( it worked for the Germans until they were overcome by united resource bases of their enemies) based on the pemise that insignificant third world countries did not have the economic potential to deploy the same resources in air defenses as the US deployed in air force infrastructure.

That is why N Korea and Iran are making nukes.

There is no credible evidence ( really any evidence at all) that Iran are attempting to build nuclear weapons. North Korea and such countries have nukes to ensure that their likely enemies will need their own nukes before being able to attack....

If the air wars in Iraq and Serbia provide any lessons to the world, it's that air defenses won't keep the US away if your on its sh** list.

In such numbers and dating from the late 60's it most certainly will not deter a country with such a massive conventional air force. Is this really the simplistic view you are trying to defend and how did you ever presume that i did not agree with something so obvious?

You should stop assuming strange motives for me as i am not interested in attacking truths or defending lies. There are numerous threads dealing with these topics and it should not be hard for you to discover what my motives are if you cared to give at least some chance!

Stellar


[edit on 6-1-2007 by StellarX]

Libya is an example of a decently armed country being attacked by US aircraft. At the time it had 450 SAM launchers mostly SA-2's some SA-3's, 5's, and 6's. 200 SAM launchers defended Tripoli specifically.

there was no sa-5 's with any nations except USSR in the 80's

in the 90's it was profilerated heavily

by stellarX
As i have said on numerous occasions the US could only launch a full scale attack on Russia as anything less would make their extensive ABM defenses even more effective and give them time to reload both their remaining ABM launchers ( which are almost all mobile) and their silo's/SSBN's and road mobile ICBM's..

even though im 100% positive you have me ignored since I destroyed you in the peak oil forums I will respond to this because I cannot let misinformation like this pass.

IF the US were to ever attack russia one of the first things launched would be the AGM-129A STEALTH ACM, a weapon you constantly ignore here because it is the 1 weapon that would penetrate your mother russias super defenses, that is the first weapon along with cruise missiles to take out russian targets followed by ICBM's

Highly ranked based on which authorities? How much of it was deployed with the ground forces and how much was compromised by employing European technology which the NATO members understood so well?

so now thats the excuse? i thought it was because the people who operated them didn't know what they were doing, continue to deny reality.

'bogged' down on numerous occasions should give us reason for pause as to the political ( which they were in my opinion) or military abilities... That is what i want you to consider without jumping to such unfounded conclusions

i suggest you stop jumping to conclusions stellar, what makes you think the US would hold back in a war with russia or china and treat it like an iraq or afghanistan?? we would not. we would bomb the living hell out of everything and russias only resort would be to start launching nuclear weapons in which we all woud die. your foolishness and ignorance knows no bounds now does it? I suggest drinking a nice warm cup of common sense.

Not unless it attacks nations or alliances with the same general resources and technological ability. One can not argue that air defense does not work ( it worked for the Germans until they were overcome by united resource bases of their enemies) based on the pemise that insignificant third world countries did not have the economic potential to deploy the same resources in air defenses as the US deployed in air force infrastructure

HAHAHA, right WW2 is going on 70 years old now since the start, take a good look at th technology gap and the strategies used now to take our air defenses, no other nations have the ability to match the US navy and air force unless a MASS coalition forms against the US, one nation. Air defenses do work but will not hold back any powerfull force for long, especially a force like the US if they are not restraining themselves.

You should stop assuming strange motives for me as i am not interested in attacking truths or defending lies. There are numerous threads dealing with these topics and it should not be hard for you to discover what my motives are if you cared to give at least some chance!

actually you attack truths constantly and defend soviet lies as much as you can followed along by ' im only interested in educating '. I caught you twisting soviet facts about the sabre mig kill ratio, I caught you twisting facts about russian technology in WW2, you made it sound like they all of a sudden made some miracle come back against the nazis with mega tech while the US and UK were 'having troubles', they wouldn't even have the ammunition to fire a shot if it wasn't for the US lend lease yet alone the materials to transport goods and supplies to troops on the front line, you are a proven manipulator and you insult people who attempt to debate your opinion and in my case when I prove you wrong you ignore me, enough said.



i also noticed in conversation you have had here with other russian supporters when you talk about russia and russian pride etc you always say WE, well that would lead me to assume your a russian living in south africa, which is funny because I would think if someone is russian and so proud of russia they would be living in russia????? I wonder why based on my assumptions you dont live in russia??

[edit on 6-1-2007 by ape]

He probably is Russian, and probably lives in Russia as well, selling us that South Africa crap just to seem "objective". Probably the same individual as Leevi, since both seem to resort to personal attacks and threaten to get everyone they disagree with banned by the moderators...
Very suspicious. In any event both are clearly from the RU forums and websites. Russian Trolls, wishing for an empire long past...

ive stumbled on this discussion by chance and all i can say is wow! such heated debates..

First off i would like to say that i dont quite get all the flak some people have been giving the Tor-M1 (the main topic of this whole post if you still remember))) and heres why..
Now keep in mind, im in no way an expert on armaments (or much else for that matter) but after studying the available material, i came up with a few things id like to mention. This is just the way i see the picture from a logical standpoint so feel free to correct me.
It seems to me that this launcher really is a special little thing I mean its designed to operate in intense jamming environments against targets travelling at up to Mach 2. ANY given targets. Planes, choppers, UAVs, cruise missiles and even precision munitions are all fair game when they get withing its range. And the ones that dont are gonna have a pretty hard time getting the vehicle from above 6000 m (thats 20000 feet btw). It moves, remember? Not only that, but it can also fire while on the move! I have no idea whether this is standard practice for these types of launchers, but it seems pretty cool to me The guys who keep talking about saturation of air defences should consider the fact that it can track up to 48 targets at a time and fire upon a couple of those targets simultaneously.
For dessert: check out the KILL PROBABILITIES I know statistics in general is a lie, but i think what we should all agree on, is that whatever comes near this unit has a very good chance to never see the sky again. Throw em around the map wisely, add some longer range systems and youve got yourself an air defence. OK im simplifying things, but you get the point.
Someone here said that the effectiveness of this launcher best be judged by how many countries adopt it. Well, China bought them. So did Greece. As you read this, Venezuela is considering getting some. And Iran, which everyone on this board loves to talk about, just got the last of what they paid 700M for.


[edit on 2-2-2007 by gone_wrong]

Originally posted by Hiphar
He probably is Russian, and probably lives in Russia as well, selling us that South Africa crap just to seem "objective".

Doubt there is any Russian 'blood' in me and i suspect one would have to go back many generations to find the links i may not be aware of. I do live in South-Africa and that should be relatively easy to establish if you know nearly as much as you pretend to.

I don't think the evidence is on the whole idea that a person can be 'objective' , and personally i don't even see how it's theoretically possible, but i do try and expect others to point out why they think objectivity matters when they have done so little to dispute the information i present in such large volumes. If you know someone is not objective that may serve as a aid to point out what you could or should investigate or be suspicious about but it is most certainly not some kind of proof that they must be wrong! Being 'objective' does not mean you will discover the truth either so lets drop the notion that the lack of objectivity disqualifies evidence or a certain point of view without actual evidence being presented.

Probably the same individual as Leevi, since both seem to resort to personal attacks and threaten to get everyone they disagree with banned by the moderators...

Moderators can only ban for the normal reasons and i only message them when i notice severe transgressions of the forum rules which is something one of my oldest detractors loves indulging in. I can most certainly not ask for someone to receive warnings without merit and can simply not ask for them to be banned as that is supposedly entirely dependent on their behaviour.

Very suspicious.

Why not present some actual proof towards these accusations as i have not noticed any actual evidence for these vapid accusations..

In any event both are clearly from the RU forums and websites. Russian Trolls, wishing for an empire long past...

I have never posted on any RU forums but i don't really see what is so wrong with it either as i have read some discussions that were quite interesting and some as vapid and stupid as so many threads and discussions on ATS.

Knowing what happens when people try to communicate in their second or third languages i can forgive a great deal of what i have seen on RU forums; why so many Americans have trouble communicating in their first language ( English is my second language) is obviously still a open question.

Stellar

welcome to stellarX's cutn'n'paste.

first of all you have not provided any fact, INFACT you never do. you have yet to adress old US stealth ACM's which can penetrate anything russia has. you always post references to .RU garbage, I even called you on it and you didn't know until I provided the links, makes me come to the conclusion you dont even know what you post.

the US is advancing in missile defense and are far more advanced than the russians. heh we have programs that display this technology to anyone who can get discovery or military channel, we are not hiding anything because we are advanced and we dont play those stupid communist games.

Originally posted by ape

first of all you have not provided any fact, INFACT you never do. you have yet to adress old US stealth ACM's which can penetrate anything russia has. you always post references to .RU garbage,

has agm-129a been used in combat against russia ...no
and there are only 460 agm-129a .. not even enough
and
----
The AGM-129 ACM (Advanced Cruise Missile) is a stealthy, nuclear-armed cruise missile used exclusively by B-52H Stratofortress strategic bombers. It was originally planned to completely replace the AGM-86 ALCM, but limited funding led to the procurment of less than 500 missiles.
www.designation-systems.net...
----
Other anti-stealth techniques could include the detection of aircraft or cruise missile-caused disturbances in the Earth's magnetic field (magnetic anomaly detection), networks of lowfrequency radio links to detect stealth aircraft by interruptions in transmission, the use of specially shaped RADAR pulses that resist absorption, and netted RADAR. Netted RADAR is the use of more than one receiver, and possibly more than one transmitter, in a network. Since stealth aircraft and missiles rely partly on deflecting RADAR pulses, receivers located off the line of pulse transmission might be able to detected deflected echoes. By illuminating a target area using multiple transmitters and linking multiple receivers into a coordinated network, it should be possible to greatly increase one's chances of detecting a stealthy target. No single receiver may record a strong or steady echo from any single transmitter, but the network as a whole might collect enough information to track a stealth target.
----
[edit on 7-2-2007 by vK_man]

Since the beginning, though, it has been recognized that stealth is not invulnerable. Stealth relies not only on its ability not to be detected by radar, but also on its ability not to be detected by other means. This is why stealth aircraft typically do not use radar or send any radio communications while in combat. However, the engines, while cooled to minimize their infrared signatures, still emit more heat than ambient air, a vulnerability that permitted Russian-made SA-3 infrared air-to-air missiles to lock onto the aircraft shot down over Yugoslavia. In addition, stealth aircraft show up visually over a bright sky, making them usable only at night

and russians do deploy a large number of radars like clam shell low altitude detection radar ..
----

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
The Russian Tor-M1 can track 48 targets with Radar Cross Sections of greater than 0.1m squared engaging two at a time up to 6,000 meters altitude.
That is all US aircraft except the listed RCS for the F-22 and B-2 and SR-71. Of course not knowing all aspects some aspects of the F-22 may be able to be seen by this radar and with other support it may not matter.
So deployed does this pose a serious threat to the F-16 and F-18 etc?

straf_rus , tor-m1 is designed to be used against more on cruise missiles,low flying aircraft and UAV.... also this is one of the most silly topic of discussion that i can been think off. usa HAS 1 HUNDRED THOUSAND CONVENTIONAL CRUISE MISSILES(THOUGH MANY ARE 1970 DESIGN) .... THINK OF THOSE ... ITS OVERKILL those would overwhelm and saturate russian defences ,
----
STELLARX , WHY DO YOU CONTINUE POSTING HERE ...... THE only thing i see here is personal attacks and nonsensical conspiracy theories just like how neo-cons on pravda do ..... and yes small advice , do not continue with trying to prove that russia can or cannot win nuke war ... it only fuels ultra-nationalists like ape to make more nonsensical comments about you or others , who do not agree ...
as a matter of fact, only USSR was capable of such a feat NOT RUSSIA
though , i agree with your claim that russians severely understate their capabilites

[edit on 7-2-2007 by vK_man]

vK_man: finally, someone who makes some sense

I agree, stealth technology is waay overrated as nothing is undetectable. This was proven by the Yugoslavians when they took that f117 down with nothing but well trained men and outdated radar/missile systems. Hurts, doesnt it?
Funny how those stealth AGMs is the only argument hate peddlers like Ape can come up with. Maybe they should consider the C-400 Triumph (the C-300 successor) designed specifically against targets with low radar signatures. And this is just the beginning. Unfortunately, technology does not stand and wait till dusk when a nighthawk can come and bite it in its arse

[edit on 7-2-2007 by gone_wrong]

Originally posted by vK_man Netted RADAR is the use of more than one receiver, and possibly more than one transmitter, in a network. Since stealth aircraft and missiles rely partly on deflecting RADAR pulses, receivers located off the line of pulse transmission might be able to detected deflected echoes. By illuminating a target area using multiple transmitters and linking multiple receivers into a coordinated network, it should be possible to greatly increase one's chances of detecting a stealthy target. No single receiver may record a strong or steady echo from any single transmitter, but the network as a whole might collect enough information to track a stealth target.

I believe the Czech Vera system works somehow like that. Only theres no actual radar emissions, so no HARM will ever come its way
check out their PDF

Originally posted by vK_man usa HAS 1 HUNDRED THOUSAND CONVENTIONAL CRUISE MISSILES(THOUGH MANY ARE 1970 DESIGN) .... THINK OF THOSE ... ITS OVERKILL those would overwhelm and saturate russian defences

True (even though im not that sure about those numbers). However, in the event of nuclear war i doubt that America will just throw everything its got at Russia. After all, they dont call them "strategic" weapons for nothing.

Originally posted by vK_man as a matter of fact, only USSR was capable of such a feat NOT RUSSIA
though , i agree with your claim that russians severely understate their capabilites

And there you have it! Could not have said it better myself

The US did a test recently on a new minute-man missle...I believe the M3 don't quote me on the model. It traveled 4200mi in 20min. That is 12600MPH. To put this in our vehicle terms...ie(cars, trains, planes) that's 210mi in a minute. I'll try and find a link.

LGM III Minuteman
The other is on CNN, I can't find it....

oh so now the .ru people are telling me the agm-129a stealth ACM cannot penetrate russia? you use ' it was never tested on russia' as an example? alot of russian equipment has not been tested by US weaponry so what makes you come to your conclusions? oh thats right it's an opinion just like mine is. read some info about the 129a before discarding it and saying stealth tech is obsolete, the russians can't even upkeep their nuclear arsenal and triad.

you can cut'n'paste your arguments all you want vk you still dont know what you're talking about, saying russia would not have a problem is pure ignorance and bias.

I wonder what you .ru folks will say when the tor-1 is taken out by the USAF or israel by other means instead of 129a's when iran finally gets hit.

bringing up kosovo to justify your opinion about stealth tech is just pathetic.


[edit on 7-2-2007 by ape]

Originally posted by vK_man


has agm-129a been used in combat against russia ...no
and there are only 460 agm-129a .. not even enough
and

And russia has not tested against the AGM 129
----

The AGM-129 ACM (Advanced Cruise Missile) is a stealthy, nuclear-armed cruise missile used exclusively by B-52H Stratofortress strategic bombers. It was originally planned to completely replace the AGM-86 ALCM, but limited funding led to the procurment of less than 500 missiles.
www.designation-systems.net...
----

hilarious really............. sure they may not have 460 but there are more than enough for decapiating strikes.

Other anti-stealth techniques could include the detection of aircraft or cruise missile-caused disturbances in the Earth's magnetic field (magnetic anomaly detection),

Already an ASW tool and a poor one at that since it can only do it while it's almost over the sub.

networks of lowfrequency radio links to detect stealth aircraft by interruptions in transmission,

Low frequnecy waves we ll know past a certain frequencies stealth desn't work but what frequency band doe sit start at and fire control still neds to be performed by X band radar or IR sensors

Netted RADAR is the use of more than one receiver, and possibly more than one transmitter, in a network. Since stealth aircraft and missiles rely partly on deflecting RADAR pulses, receivers located off the line of pulse transmission might be able to detected deflected echoes.

many problems with bistatic /PCl radar systems Lets start with PCL.
First we need to consider five limitations

1 coordination of pulses
2 power signals ofell phone/ AM/FM/TV broadcasts
3 how focused the energy is
4 accuracy
One ofthe biggest challenges is synchronization. Monostatic traditional radar is synchronized by direct conncection with the emitter and receiver. PCl is not.There is a professor working a tthe University of Wash that built his own PCL system based on GPS signals for time synchronization.he gets an accuracy of about 50nm using Fm broadcasts from Mount ranier.
The tech is evolving slowly. The more receievrs you sue the more complex the algorithms get.It's already quite difficult for short range small PCL networks.Celldar is only around heathrow and Silent sentry is around Anbdrews AFB.One bad thing about PCl is they're not designed for covering hig altitutde airspace and you have no control over the emitters whatsoever.They're focused low tot he earth to mximise their range and power.A cell phone tower puts out tens of watts of power and are not even focused ina pencil beam. while monostatic radars have power levels measured in megawatts and are focused in pencil beams.

However, bistatic radars, while simple in concept, have many fundamental technical and operational issues to overcome, according to John Shaeffer, RCS engineer at Marietta Scientific in Georgia. The receiver antenna beam must intercept its companion transmit beam and follow the transmit pulse which is moving at the speed of light. Unless the transmitter and receiver pulses are synchronized, distance measurement is impossible. Even a workable bistatic radar must then address the problem of how much volume of airspace it can scan at a given power setting in a given time. When the receiver, transmitter, and target are located on a straight line, the receiver can be overwhelmed by the transmitter pulse, which hides the target's radar return. As Shaeffer put it, "This is similar to looking into the Sun for light scattered from Venus."

www.afa.org...

Is cellphone -- based radar a true threat to national security? John Shaeffer, co-founder of stealth consultants Marietta Scientific and co-author of the standard textbook on radar detection, has doubts. "I'm not sure," he says, "that there's a real pony in there." Shaeffer points out that a bistatic radar system has the best chance of defeating stealth when the receiver is on the opposite side of the airplane from the transmitter, which means the airplane is already inside enemy territory before the radar has a chance of picking it up.

An even bigger question has to do with power. Conventional monostatic radars focus hundreds of kilowatts into a pencil beam, like a bright searchlight. Cellphone towers, by contrast, put out only tens of watts, and in all directions, more like a household lightbulb. Like ripples on a pond, the radio waves lose energy as they spread, and they scatter farther when they hit a target, so the signal at the receiver is weak. Although TV and FM radio signals are stronger than those from cellphones, they are still much weaker than those emitted by a focused radar transmitter.

www.popsci.com...

By illuminating a target area using multiple transmitters and linking multiple receivers into a coordinated network, it should be possible to greatly increase one's chances of detecting a stealthy target. No single receiver may record a strong or steady echo from any single transmitter, but the network as a whole might collect enough information to track a stealth target.

The idea isn't new but in order to look at the proper target it must first be put in a general location. Low frequency radars that have low eneough frequencies to detect stealth aircraft can do this but they are highly immobile and are tempting targets.That one place whrre are the signals are put to together don't just make the stealth aircraft more visible it makes the clutter and actual targets(bombers etc) reurns stronger. Not to mention that single palce where all the signals get combined would need massive computing power.
remeber your receievrs and transmitters are seperated and accuracy isn't all that high. not to mention you should be considering you'll be operating in a HEAVY ecm environment so your comm linkd may need fiberoptics which are cost prohibitive and wires have their own limitations.

I get some of this info from people who work with radars,computers,chips etc.they're not on ATS though so register at worldaffairsboard to talk to them.Read some more on the histpry of stealth with subs and how so many anti sub technologies we're proposed but the sub is still a very useful tool todays. People were predicting it's death since WW2 but we know that's a laod of BS now.

3 how focused the energy is
4 accuracy

the problem is th accuracy.... that could be partially
solved (in case radrs are longe wave) by use of neutron or nuclear SAM's ,though its dangerous and a short term fix solution ...

the long term solution , could be use of microwave towers in roaming mode or passive radars

Already an ASW tool and a poor one at that since it can only do it while it's almost over the sub.

we are not talking subs ....
anyways, there is a book that is about the cold war and russian captians say something else , i recommend you read and it may change your belief on MAD ,
www.amazon.com...

on passive radars:

When the newly independent Ukraine that had only just survived a severe economic crisis, developed an advanced passive radiolocation complex, it was a severe blow to the Americans, who were so sure of their domination in the air thanks to their stealth planes. On the one hand, the advantages of the attacker’s “invisibility” were reduced to zero. On the other, passive radiolocation, i.e., the absence of the radar’s own radiation, radically reduced the disadvantage of insufficient secrecy. Besides, an attacking object detected by a passive radar is never aware of its detection and so has no reasons to activate its own defenses. It means that the most important advantage is now in the hands of the air defense, especially considering the impression produced on experts by the latest Kolchuga modification.

- A complex consisting of three Kolchuga radar stations makes it possible to spot ground and surface targets and trace their movement within a radius of 600 km (air targets at the 10 km altitude - up to 800 km), which makes an effective early warning air defense system;

- The Kolchuga station is equipped with five meter-, decimeter-, and centimeter-range aerials, which provide for high radio sensitivity within a 110dB/W - 155 dB/W swath, depending on the frequency;

- A parallel 36-channel preset receiver makes it possible to spot instantly, identify, and classify signals from any source with unlimited input density within the entire frequency range from 130MHz to 18,000MHz;

- All radio objects are spotted and identified automatically, a powerful computer digitizing and identifying targets by comparing their parameters with the available databank, results being shown on a field display;

- Special inhibitory sorters omit up to 24 interfering signals, and tracking sorters make it possible to synchronously sort out and track signals from 32 targets;

- All normal operations require only one operator (two other operators work on a shift basis for 24-hour duty), who controls the station through dialog with a PC.

Since the whole U.S. non-nuclear military power hinges on stealth technologies, the prospect of worldwide proliferation of the unique Ukrainian radar systems definitely runs counter to U.S. interests. They were first demonstrated at the SOFEX-2000 arms expo in Jordan. That is, probably, why such close interest, especially from the United States, catalyzed the notorious “Kolchuga scandal”.

The Ukrainian scientific, engineering, and design solutions in the field of passive radiolocation, embodied in the Kolchuga complex, are what is eating U.S. designers and government functionaries, who are responsible for stealth technologies in modern armaments. Such technologies are meant to fulfill every general’s dream: to make his aircraft, ships, tanks, and other hardware invisible to enemies. The geometrical shape may be changed (like in the F-117 or B-2) to disperse a reflected signal from active radars, or there may be various wave-absorbing coatings to transform active signals into heat energy. But no modern military aircraft, tank, or ship can exist without its own radar. Without a radiating aerial it is simply “blind”.

continued.....
------------------
The 800-km detection range has been achieved only by the Ukrainian Kolchuga. The best the U.S. AWACS can do is 600 km, while the ground-based complexes Vera (Czech Republic) and Vega (Russia) can reach out up to 400 km - half what the Ukrainian complex can reach. The Kolchuga�s lower limit of the working frequency range is 130MHz and is the lowest of all analogs. For the AWACS it is 2,000 MHz, for the Vera it is 850MHz, for the Vega it is 200MHz.

But where the Kolchuga has the greatest advantages is its ability to identify accurately radio objects thanks to unique algorithms and hi-tech equipment. In particular, the mean square deviation in frequency measurement - the most informative parameters for identifying types of spotted radio objects - is 0.4MHz in the Kolchuga. It is 0.5MHz - 1.0MHz in the Russian Vega, 1.0MHz in the U.S. AWACS, and as much as 3.6MHz - 21.0MHz in the Czech Vera. The maximal duration of detected impulses, measured by the Kolchuga, is 999.0 microseconds, versus 99.9 microseconds for the AWACS and 200 microseconds for the Vera. And the impulse repetition period can be measured by the Kolchuga up to the maximum of 79,999 microseconds, while no analogs can perform such measurements longer than 10,000 microseconds. As a result, the number of detected radio objects that the Kolchuga can classify is practically unlimited, which can not be said about any known analogs. The Ukrainian station has advanced algorithms and software programs for analyzing, systematizing, generalizing, and storing information about all radio objects and parameters of their signals. And the data already collected in the database can be used to identify newly detected radio objects and can be correlated with data obtained from other reconnaissance sources.



Several contracts for exporting Kolchuga complexes have been fulfilled, but that is well below the export potential of this product, which already has numerous prospective buyers.
--------------------------------------

Passive radar detects the target thermal EMMISION. It doesnot need "back scattering" simply because it doesn't uses active illumination of the target the ordinary radiolocators do. Hence a passive radar is well protected and the target don have any way to know it is tracket.
Another aproach invented by the Chinese and indians is to track the ABSORBTION of network of ordinary cellphone towers.

The US "stealts" technology relies on absorbtion and scatering if the incoming radar wave, so the back scatering is minimized and the receiver don't see the target.

Due to physics principle a body which absorbs well also emmits best.

Hence the US stealth technology is vulnerable to to KOLCHUGA type passive triangulation or micro wave towers. or even partially to netted radars and MAD

Read some more on the histpry of stealth with subs and how so many anti sub technologies we're proposed but the sub is still a very useful tool todays. People were predicting it's death since WW2 but we know that's a laod of BS now.

again , i repeat we are not talking subs

first of all, the nature of stealth has always changed , initially in ww1 and ww2 , trenches were used ,but precision artillery , rendered it useless ...

bombers were used were undetectable at night , but when radiolocators (radars) came in ,bombers could be intercepted.....

the battlefield evolves , everything changes

Originally posted by ape
you use ' it was never tested on russia' as an example? alot of russian equipment has not been tested by US weaponry so what makes you come to your conclusions? oh thats right it's an opinion just like mine is. read some info about the 129a before discarding it and saying stealth tech is obsolete, the russians can't even upkeep their nuclear arsenal and triad.






[edit on 7-2-2007 by ape]

oh so now the .ru people are telling me the agm-129a stealth ACM cannot penetrate russia?

moron , did i claim that , i said that that agm-129a ccan be stopped , opposing your claim that its un-stoppable or cannot be detected,

by the way ,USA has 100000 cruise missiles that would saturate russian defences like hell ,

you can cut'n'paste your arguments all you want vk you still dont know what you're talking about, saying russia would not have a problem is pure ignorance and bias.

go rest and sleep , i already have said that russia cannot win a nuclear war (what stellar claims is ryussia can win nuke war ) ..... and yes , i never claimed that russia is invincible or is a global superpower ,
you are ignorant yourself and stop with your silly nationalist yourself

[edit on 8-2-2007 by vK_man]