|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
farokh Member
|
|
farokh Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916 |
It's my pleasure 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665 |
8 language documentation is pretty impressive. (English, Hungarian, Russian, Slovak, Japanese, Chinese, French, Persian) Thanks for all the volunteers for their work.  Anybody would like to volunteer to do German or Spanish translation? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,045
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,045 |
There is no any proves, that NATO attacks thru Romanian and Bulgarian aerospace...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665 |
There is no any proves, that NATO attacks thru Romanian and Bulgarian aerospace... F-117A regularly used Romanian airspace when they approached Belgrade from east. Vega-31 Dale Zelko come from Aviano - Slovenia - Hungary (refuel/Stealth up) - Romania that night, bombed South of Belgrade arriving from east, than turned back to north towards his tanker, waiting above Hungary... ... just listen his podcast. http://www.af.mil/shared/widgets/radio.asp?cid=129%26sid=8531
Last edited by Hpasp; 07/08/12 05:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,045
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,045 |
OK, Macedonia and Romania are out, one more left...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665 |
OK, Macedonia and Romania are out, one more left...
April 28, 1999 - Bulgaria and NATO conclude an Agreement on Transit through the Airspace of Bulgaria of NATO Aircraft within Operation Allied Force.
June 21, 1999 - Bulgaria and NATO conclude an Agreement regarding the Transit of NATO Personnel and Equipment within the framework of Operation Joint Guardian.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665 |
It has a PESA radar, IIRC.
Technically you really shouldn't 'have the chance' of facing B-2's in Serbia. Their ESM systems and mission profile should prevent them from ever flying into a SAM's detection range. Could you please describe, why do you stated that? During OAF, the 250th Brigade always had 3~4 different batteries on duty around Belgrade per night, from the available 8. The S-125M Neva (SA-3B) system (used by the 250th) has 25km range. By clever use of the IRZ (SAM Decoy), NATO never had a clear picture of what battery is on duty, and where... ... by hindsight, it pretty easy to tell, that each battery had a sector to defend. (250/3 were always NE from Belgrade) The attack planners had to draw a 50km diameter circle around Belgrade, anywhere a SAM could sit and wait for its chance...
Last edited by Hpasp; 07/09/12 02:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893
Hotshot
|
|
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893 |
The B-2 has a 'stealth management' system coupled to an ESM module. It basically means that (AFAIK, unlike the F-117) the B-2 crew tends to have a good picture of the electronic environment around them, and they're able to make real-time decisions regarding their flight path when it comes to evading SAMs. It's hard to know how all this works though and how effective it is - this sort of thing tends to be classified. To compound this, the B-2 can drop munitions from a fairly long distance depending on its flight profile. The GBU's it drops are essentially glide-bombs, and they will happily glide for a little while ... so there's a bit more stand-off capability than for the F-117. Publication Title Jane's Avionics
Publication date Apr 30, 2009
Section Airborne electronic warfare (EW) systems
TITLE : AN/APR-50 Defensive Management Suite (DMS)
TEXT : TypeAirborne Electronic Counter Measures (ECM), Electronic Support Measures(ESM) and Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) system.DescriptionAN/APR-50 Defensive Management System (DMS) is installed in USAF B-2aircraft. The system is classified and very few technical details havebeen released. It is believed that the system is designed to presentaircrew with intercepted emitter information overlaid on a pre-programmeddisplay of known emitter locations. The installation features a number ofantennas, distributed all around the airframe, feeding nine radiofrequency front ends, which detect and analyse a wide variety of signals.Each of these front ends may be tuned to a different part of the frequencyspectrum. Five receivers take the outputs of the front ends and pass themto the processor.There is considerable speculation that the AN/APR-50 utilises an ECMtechnique known as �active cancellation� - this stealth technique employsan array of antennas to transmit a signal which is out of phase withincoming radar emissions, thus effectively reducing the intensity of thereflected returns through interference. If the emitted interferencesignal, travelling in the same direction, is exactly matched in terms ofamplitude, period and phase, to the reflected radar signal, then thethreat radar would not be able to detect any return signal, thus failingto �see� the aircraft. This is called destructive interference. In termsof applying such ECM techniques to an airborne platform, incoming signalswill have many different characteristics of amplitude, period and phase,which, combined with the many different directions of reflection,resulting in phase/amplitude shift, will make true �cancellation�extremely difficult to achieve in the real world. It is more likely thatthe characteristics of the strongest incident signal would be selected bythe system processor for destructive interference.Operational statusThe Northrop Grumman Company designation of the system is ZSR-63. InJanuary 1993, Northrop Grumman was awarded a US$117 million contract tocontinue development of the AN/APR-50. Northrop Grumman was also awardedUS$53.9 million to carry on with ESM development, including extension ofthe frequency range. It is believed that this was originally for Band 2and the extension was to cover Band 4 from 500 MHz to 1 GHz. While it isbelieved that baseline versions of the system failed to meet operationalexpectations, software changes completed during the second quarter of 1998were incorporated to address these problems. AN/APR-50 systems installedin Block 30 aircraft are described as �fully capable in Bands 1 to 4�.Additional software upgrades were implemented during 2001-2002. Note that personally I think 'active cancellation' is mostly BS. I don't think anyone ever got it to work anywhere, on anything, except maybe in a lab. Not applicable to real world. On the other hand, when you have a stealth aircraft, the jammer's job should in theory be easier, regardless of the techniques it uses.
Last edited by GrayGhost; 07/09/12 02:49 PM.
--
44th VFW
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665 |
To compound this, the B-2 can drop munitions from a fairly long distance depending on its flight profile. The GBU's it drops are essentially glide-bombs, and they will happily glide for a little while ... so there's a bit more stand-off capability than for the F-117.
Big problem was during OAF/ONA that nobody known where those batteries were. Just remember, that they switched on only for maximum 21second during an engagement. (there were batteries operating longer, an suffered HARM hit) JDAM's had shorter glide range than 25km, so B-2A had to fly into hot territory anyway... Just imagine, your targets are in downtown Novi Belgrade...  What would your flightpath? (Stealth planes prefer to fly straight over hot areas...)
Last edited by Hpasp; 07/09/12 02:58 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893
Hotshot
|
|
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893 |
I would fly the least exposed flight path - meaning, the one that would get me in and out the fastest. In any case, the B-2's pulled this off without any losses (possibly without ever being detected)
25km is a long way; think about that ... it shrinks the danger zone significantly. Stand-off weapons are a big deal.
Last edited by GrayGhost; 07/09/12 03:27 PM.
--
44th VFW
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203 |
To compound this, the B-2 can drop munitions from a fairly long distance depending on its flight profile. The GBU's it drops are essentially glide-bombs, and they will happily glide for a little while ... so there's a bit more stand-off capability than for the F-117.
Did they used JSOW? Because JDAM's "glide" capability is not much different from that of ordinary iron bomb.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665 |
To compound this, the B-2 can drop munitions from a fairly long distance depending on its flight profile. The GBU's it drops are essentially glide-bombs, and they will happily glide for a little while ... so there's a bit more stand-off capability than for the F-117.
Did they used JSOW? Because JDAM's "glide" capability is not much different from that of ordinary iron bomb. They used (calculations based on the receiving side...)  2000lbs (907kg) 609 GBU-31/1 Mk-84 43 GBU-31/3 BLU-109 4700lbs (2130kg) 4 GBU-37/B All-together 656 weapons during 45 sorties with 87% of hit rate.
Last edited by Hpasp; 07/09/12 04:29 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893
Hotshot
|
|
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893 |
It's quite different, actually. While the glide ratio undoubtedly sucks, you're not going to 'glide' an iron bomb onto a target from 10nm. You might hit, sure, but with the JDAM you will hit. Those little strakes turn a bullet into a lifting body. It makes some difference. Did they used JSOW? Because JDAM's "glide" capability is not much different from that of ordinary iron bomb.
--
44th VFW
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665 |
It's quite different, actually. While the glide ratio undoubtedly sucks, you're not going to 'glide' an iron bomb onto a target from 10nm. You might hit, sure, but with the JDAM you will hit. Those little strakes turn a bullet into a lifting body. It makes some difference.
Problem is that the SAM's were could be pop up unexpectedly bit more than ~15nm before the target in your path, with 14nm range, so you need to cross their destruction zone (alltogether ~30nm,from 60 feet till 60'000 feet in altitude), anyway...
Last edited by Hpasp; 07/09/12 05:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893
Hotshot
|
|
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893 |
My mistake anyway, the B-2's back then used GAMs, not JDAM's. GAMs don't seem to have a lifting body kit installed, so the drop range would be shorter.
And yes, I understand about positioning of the SAM ... but it seems they had no effect on B-2 flights. I would guess they were busy with other things.
--
44th VFW
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 62
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 62 |
I think that someone posted here interview with Zelko where he says that there were some 60+ unsuccessfil fireings at B2's. Serbian pvo know about b2s but didnt have means to shot it down
By reading this post you agree that i'm not responsible for any of your reckless actions
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893
Hotshot
|
|
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893 |
Zoltan did not even know he had shot at an F-117. How the heck would others know that they were shooting at B-2's?
--
44th VFW
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 62
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 62 |
I said Zelko(F117 pilot) not Zoltan. And he was referring that stelth doesn't mean invisibility but rather low observability
Last edited by Zoky; 07/09/12 08:28 PM.
By reading this post you agree that i'm not responsible for any of your reckless actions
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,361
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,361 |
Mind you NATO seems to have a blind spot where guidance signals = firing, which just isn't true for most of these...
They did it during Linebacker, the A12 missions some years previously, and seem to be making the same error here. 'Searching' with the FCR for an elusive target visible on a longer wavelength radar and not finding it is not exactly the same as an 'unsuccessful firing', neither is locking a target 'firing' a missile, no matter how strident the ECM gear is about it. Only where a weapon leaves the rail can you talk about a fired missile.
At best the remainder are "unsuccessful engagements", or "acquisitions with no engagement", or "incomplete acquisitions".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893
Hotshot
|
|
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,893 |
'Everyone' knows that stealth means 'significant reduction in detection range' and not invisible. How would he know what the Serbs knew? I said Zelko(F117 pilot) not Zoltan. And he was referring that stelth doesn't mean invisibility but rather low observability
Last edited by GrayGhost; 07/10/12 01:15 AM.
--
44th VFW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOA's
by Terl9999 - 09/18/26 04:12 AM
|
Football
by Terl9999 - 09/18/26 02:42 AM
|
Flags
by Terl9999 - 09/15/26 10:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
