What's the Radar?

[sicsok]

To Bone: Yes, the F-117 can be seen on radar, the only problem is that: by the time he is close enough to be seen on common radars, the bombs are away. The reflection area equivalence is indeed impressive if one compares a few aircrafts from the B-52 125 throught the B-1 1(!) while a common bicycle is 2 on that scale.
But a factor has not been mentioned yet: the ca.002 of the F-117 is only true if a single radar from below and from the front irradiates it. Way before the Soviets let the Stealth-concept man go to the US, Dr. Kapitsa and his collegues at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow already had a radar-crossbeam detection for this and other incomings. Since the stealth does soak (not reflect) the radar-beam, a secondary radar constantly scanning the primary radar's beam will detect and define the place of the radar-shadow.
Ain't it wonderful? These are for the birds, while the sonars are for the whales to kill themselves in deafness. And whom do all these protects from what? The countries are anyway at each others' mercy, be it called war or peace.

[The Bone]

Well said,,,,,, all points well made true and just,


And thank you for pointing out the stealth aspects of the B-1B while not as slick as the F-117 and nothing near the B-2 or F-22 the B-1 was americas first Stealth (while not true to point but very close) bomber

[Carlo]

B-1 is not stealth, though the B-1B has a quite reduced RCS. Same with Tu-160. By the way, Russian engineers claim that Tu-160 RCS is smaller than B-1, even though Tu-160 is bigger.

[The Bone]

Originally Posted by Carlo

B-1 is not stealth, though the B-1B has a quite reduced RCS. Same with Tu-160. By the way, Russian engineers claim that Tu-160 RCS is smaller than B-1, even though Tu-160 is bigger.

i bealive i already said the B-1B is NOT stealth,,,,, but anyhow, the tu-160 (first flight DEC 1981) is at minimum 5 years newer than the B-1B (first flight DEC 1974) thats from a development standpiont in a production stand point its more like 10 years older and pretty much produced off of B-1B technoligy, Argue or not it has been admited by Tupolev engineers that the B-1 was the benchmark both in design and performance for the TU-160,



but yeah the B-1 is not stealth i never said it was but for its age it had a very insignifigant RCS and was the precursor to modern american stealth aircraft (that for the record make the new gen Flankers look like flying BRICKS) I think you are unnessaraly Biased towards Russian built aircraft (as well designed and GOOD as they ARE) Carlo and need to give the american aircraft the credit they deserve, I will freely admit the TU-160 is a Beast in its own and will not take anything away from it.

If you look at the Tu-160 and the B-1B in comparison we are tlking about aircraft that are 8-10 years apart in design and have similar capabilities and without question the B-1B STILL has a undeniable advantage in avionics and all out weapons delivery capability. Not to mention that the B-1B STILL holds 10 world records for SPEED, TIME TO HEIGHT WITH PAYLOAD, and DISATANCE WITH PAYLOAD, In its time it set 47 World Records!!!! Some broke by the TU-160!!!


Give the Bone a break Carlo, Give it its credit!!!!!!!!

[Carlo]

I was not understating the B-1. I just said what Russian engineers claim (and see the very neutral word "claim", because it was never confirmed by 3rd parties) that the Tu-160 has a smaller RCS. I fully understand the B-1 is older, came earlier, was a breakthrough in its time, and is still a fearful strategic bomber even for the most modern air defense systems. And I think Boeing proposal of the B-1R, to turn it into a big interceptor, is really cool.

[The Bone]

Were on the same page, i will go one further Carlo and say that with proper funding the TU-160 would far surpass the abilities of the current B-1B! I should note that even our B-1's do not recieve the newest cooleswt electronics, and it is rether embarrasing that the current block F-15E's have a very comparable electronics suite to our B-1B's. I have always admired the Tu-160 it has had a similar history when compared to the B-1, both were money suckers and both goverments cancelled the projects only to reactivate them when time saw fit. The Tu-160 does have have a smaller signature than the B-1 not much but it is smaller, (i know this first hand). Both aircraft are truly amazing in there own rights and stand to be in service for another 40 years atleast, we are funded with our B-1B's with block upgrades till 2025.



to wrap up my rant i will say that the current block B-1 is orrientated towards low level intradiction roles with combat survivability in mind, the tu-160 still to the best of my knowlage orrientates itself twords stratigic bombing, We pride our selfs at being the BEST LOW LEVEL PENETRATORS in the world, with the payload the Bone brings i challenge anyone to develop a aircraft that can penatrate hostile airspace do its thing and get out, better, faster or further than the current block B-1B's