დანახვის მხრივ ანალოგიური სიტუაცია ექნება რუსულ ავიაციასაც
მაგრამ მე არ მგონია რომ 'მცირე დიამეტრის ბომბები' იყოს პვო ს წინააღმდეგ ძირითადი იარაღი.
HARM იყო მილიონი დოლარი ღირსო.
მაშინ ფ22 220 მილიონი ღირს და ცეცხლს გახსნის 50 კმ დან
ფ35 ჩანს მან კომპლექსი სთვის 63 კმ ზეო და 10 კვტ 'თეთრი ხმაური' ხარვეზის ფონზე შეუმჩნეველი მიუახლოვდება 10 ზეო
* * *
ამ ბომბზეა საუბარი:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Diameter_Bombდა კი, სხვა რამის მოძიებას ვაპირებდი რაც ადრე წამიკითხავს და მახსოვდა და ახლა წავაწყდი ქვემოდ მოყვანილ ტექსტს
ალბათ მართლა SDB ითვლება ოპტიმალურ იარაღად ასეთი ამოცანის შესასრულებლად.
74 კმ არის მინიმალური მანძილიო რაზეც თვითმფრინავი უახლოვდებაო
ხოდა ისიც საკითხავია ს400-ს ან ს300-ს აქტიურ-რადიოლოკაციურ თავაკიანი რაკეტა ჩაიჭერს ან ფ22-ს ან ფ35-ს?
Penetration of an Enemy IADS (3)
The future IADS of most non-western nation’s will largely be composed of the S-300 system. Currently, most developing world nations operate the S-200 and HAWK SAM systems. Operating and maintain a SAM system is much cheaper and less technically demanding than assembling an air force. Kopp challenges the F-35's effectiveness against SAM systems (especially the S-400).
Kopp's concerns are partially justified. The reason why the S-400 SAM system is a potential risk to the F-35 is due to its use of VHF radars. The physics behind the Raleigh scattering regime is very complicated. For the sake of brevity, the key ability of VHF radars is their improved capability to detect very low observable targets (e.g. stealth aircraft). Only very large stealth aircraft like the B-2 can effectively operate without risk of VHF array detection for sustained periods (Air Power Australia, 2012).
"Low band radars are not a panacea for the defeat of VLO (Very Low Observable) aircraft. Their angular accuracy has been until recently poor, and the required antenna size results in ungainly systems which are usually slow to deploy and stow, even if designed from the outset for mobility. The size and high power emissions of these radars, in types with limited mobility, makes them much easier to detect and destroy than typical mobile systems operating in the decimetric and centimetric bands, which can relocate rapidly after a missile shot." - Air Power Australia, 2012
The consensus among analysts is VHF radar has the potential to detect stealth aircraft but operationally it is less than practical On a best case scenario the VHF array's within the S-400 system would provide a type of early warning. In the worst case senario, VHF radars could be used to help the S-400 missiles home in on low observable targets with the use of a mid-course uplink system. However, the mid course uplink could be jammed fairly easily to reduce its effectiveness. If the mid course uplink system is jammed, the missile will have a much more difficult time finding the target or won't be able to find it at all.
Furthermore no nation aside from Russia has plans to acquire it (China has indicated it desires the S-400 but a deal is unlikely due to Russian concerns of intellectual property violation). The primary operator, Russia, does not field a large number of S-400 batteries. China might field a comparable system to the S-400 a decade from now. Only the very best equipped militaries (S-400 comparable standard or above) will pose any risk to the F-35. While Kopps argument concerning the risk of VHF radars is legitimate, his arguments concerning the F-35's low stealth performance in other radar bands is largely mistaken. The F-35 design is optimized to provide protection from the X and S bands which are the primary frequencies used by both fighter aircraft and SAM systems.
Kopp does not believe the F-35 low observability characteristics are sufficient for it to penetrate the defenses of S-300 guarded airspace. The size of the rear aspect determines how far the stealth aircraft can fly into enemy airspace and leave safely. The rear aspect of a stealth aircraft is almost always larger than its front aspect. A reasonable estimation of the F-35's rear rcs is .01m^2 (Air Power Australia, 2012). Furthermore, in his scenario depicted below, the F-35 utilizes the comparability short range SDB instead of the AGM-154 JSOW (Joint Standoff Weapon). The use of the SDB is inaccurate as one always prefers to minimize the time a SAM radar can track the aircraft (e.g. stay farther away). Furthermore, Canada has yet to acquire the SDB system (unlike the JSOW).
In Kopp's graphic, the F-35 gets destroyed even in the best case scenario while using an SDB II against the S-300 site. Once again, the use of the SDB II is the reason why the F-35 is intercepted. The AGM-154 JSOW has a standoff range of approximately 70 nautical miles (Raytheon, 2013) vs the APA cited 40 nautical mile SDB II range (SDB I has 60 nautical miles range). The image below shows the detection ranges of the various X band based radars in the S-300 system in addition to some PLA array designs. One of the most capable X band arrays used in the S-300 system is the 30N61E1 "Tomb Stone" engagement radar. (Note: The NATO reporting name SA-20 denotes S-300, SA-21 indicates the S-400 system)
Even the high power Tomb stone and the improved 92N61 used in the S-400 system cannot detect the rear aspect of the F-35 at the 70 nautical mile stand off range. Along the X axis, it is clear that at point .01m^2, the F-35 is undetectable. The JSOW allows the F-35 to comfortably destroy the S-300 and S-400 (X band) arrays with a safe zone approximately between 45-70 nautical miles. The F-35 can even use the SDB I to destroy the array provided the cited Boeing figures are accurate.
Image 18: The AGM-154 JSOW is a long range GPS guided glide bomb. The F-35 can accommodate two AGM-154 bombs internally in addition to two air to air missiles. In a mission to disable enemy air defenses, some F-35's would carry the JSOW while others would provide escort with a full load of air to air missiles.
The F-35 provides the highest degree of survivability of any export fighter on the market today. Any possible 4.5 generation alternative to the F-35 (e.g. JAS 39 Gripen, F/A-18E, Eurofighter, etc.) would stand a demonstrably lower chance of penetrating an advanced IADS when compared to the F-35. Even with both the following factors: lower stealth characteristics due to export variant and lingering stealth performance concerns considered, the F-35 would have an rcs that is an entire order of magnitude smaller than its 4.5 generation counterparts. Despite the inclusion of a reduced radar cross sections and electronic counter measure pods into many 4.5 generation designs, upgraded derivatives of the S-300 will easily track and intercept a force of non-stealth targets. The inclusion of wing mounted weapons will eliminate much of the advantage gained from a reduced radar cross section. Hence the use of internal bays on true stealth aircraft. For example, if a Eurofighter was sent to destroy a S-400 site (frontal rcs of 1m^2) it would have to: dart from ~130-70 nautical miles, release its payload, and then fly the gauntlet of 70-130+ nautical miles again (rear rcs is larger) to return home. Even with the usage of dedicated SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) aircraft, 4.5 generation fighters will not have a high chance of returning home in a S-300 and S-400 guarded airspace.
If an adversary operates a VHF equipped S-400 or comparable system, stealthier American assistance in the form of B-2’s, F-22’s, and the next generation bomber will be provided to destroy the S-400 or S-500 missile sites. Canada can rest assured knowing it will receive American aid in a time of war. In summary,the export F-35 can deal with the S-200, S-300, and elements of the S-400. Usage of an on-board jamming system can potentially deny the usage of a mid-course uplink system. This will further increase the F-35s survivability against the S-400 system. The few S-400 and S-500 sites will likely be targeted by American forces.
This post has been edited by SosoChik on 18 Dec 2016, 03:31 
· 
საჰაერო თავდაცვა, XIII
