Russian Engineers Admit Using F-117 Wreckage for Tests

[Chrom]

Any asset can be shot down. But as of today, what systems does Russia have that is good as Vera, Nostradamus, JORN?

Russia produce its own variant of Vera. Besides, i DID NOT spoke about Vera. You DID NOT NEED such kind of system to detect stealth aircraft. Any long-wave radar will do. Stealth materials and shape simply dont work if wavelength is comparable to the size of plane.

and forward observors? you have forward observors at the B2's ingress height?

Again, should i point you to WW2? Back then peoples didnt have many radars or night vision devices , still they managed to shot down bombers at night. In 80x it was already much easer...

LOL. don't be infantile. I'm talking about a tactical planning event, if you don't understand that deep strike is part of a systems decapitation and dislocation event - then you're letting your own national pride get in the way of acknowledging how all deep strike missions are preceded. The russians are no different to the americans - or the israelis etc...

That is the point - B-2 was NOT capable of deep strike in defended territory. For the reasons i gave above.

and the network was killed by systems processes - what bit don't you understand?

I dont understand what unique role had B-2/F-117 in that killing? When F-15E and B-1 done exactly same job exactly as good?

ah yes, B1's and B2's have both succesfully launched deep strike weapons at 80kms, but IRST will pick the weapons up at 10km and be able to react against the aircraft as well as kill the payload. - good luck to that one.

B-2, as deep strike UNESCORTED platform, would have even less chances than F-117 to escape fighters what are guided by CGI.

what initial threat? educate me and tell me where F117's didn't fulfill their mission planning objectives?

Educate me, when F-117 last time flying against semi-capable WORKING AD system? And, while we at it, when the last time F-15 didnt fullfill they mission planned objectives?

and for goodnes sake, the first strike option belongs to weapons systems that are only 6-15 minutes away from launch to impact. NOT 10 hours at all. bombers are not first strike weapons.

So, B-2 is not for first strike. Good. What use are they then? If AD system is on alert, B-2 will not have many chances in deep strike.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Chrom]

The issue is that russian field and area commanders all over that ingress path were fired, dismissed and demoted.

This event was used more as excuse to decapitate soviet airforce high-command, than anything else. By the time army in general was opposed to Gorbachev "reforms" and he used every excuse to place "his" peoples in charge. There are enouth accounts now directly from peoples what was in service and witnessed Rust incedent from inside.

before you continue to take my comments as a slight on all things russian, my point is that you can have the best systems on the planet, but human error rules the day.

This goes both ways, you know? Not only russians do mistakes, and you cant count on it in any way in planning - or your pilots will have rude awakining.

the argument that bombers will be picked up inbound or outbound after strike is a specious argument as it ignores the fact that a strike against a competent power (like the soviet union and/or russia) would not involve bombers as the primary strike weapon.

Then what use they have ??? For such HUGE price? Each costing almost as much as CARRIER? And wasnt it your argument about "such aircraft was justified by such powerfull enemy"?

bombers were designed (esp the B2) to deal with fluid targetting data that the tier 1 strike elements may have mised - and for the USAF, once failsafe was passed, everyone was prepared for losses.

Again, what advantages may have several B-2 against dozens B-1? Realisticaly, i dont see any.

arguing therefore that crews would be killed, etc is an academic point because the bombers are not the coup de main - they never were (and the russians had the same philosophy except their focus was not intercontinental wrt fixed wing strike)

Given very low numbers of B-2 - losing each of them is a BIG hit to USAF capability. Moreover, i'm arguing what they are simply not capable doing anything what cant be done much cheaper by B-1 or F-15E.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This event was used more as excuse to decapitate soviet airforce high-command, than anything else. By the time army in general was opposed to Gorbachev "reforms" and he used every excuse to place "his" peoples in charge. There are enouth accounts now directly from peoples what was in service and witnessed Rust incedent from inside.
This goes both ways, you know? Not only russians do mistakes, and you cant count on it in any way in planning - or your pilots will have rude awakining.

I never implied that it was only the russians making mistakes. tactical conflict is also about management once human error kicks in.

Then what use they have ??? For such HUGE price? Each costing almost as much as CARRIER? And wasnt it your argument about "such aircraft was justified by such powerfull enemy"?

No, I said that the USAF identified that the B2 was relevant for some of their discretionary strike roles. Bombers are not primary strike weapons in total war.

Again, what advantages may have several B-2 against dozens B-1? Realisticaly, i dont see any.

Its an issue of identified targets. Its a target requirement and as such can be fluid.

Current tech means that B2's in theory are more than within the realm of being maritime strike weapons. Interestingly enough, the primary CAS weapon for USAF in afghanistan is the B1. Roles change with requirement.

Given very low numbers of B-2 - losing each of them is a BIG hit to USAF capability. Moreover, i'm arguing what they are simply not capable doing anything what cant be done much cheaper by B-1 or F-15E.

A B2 is an order of magnitude smaller in signature transmission than a B1 - that means its better at surviving penetrative long range strike. Striking that target is part of a systems response. you can't isolate the platform from the systems response - thats unrealistic.

If you look at some of the more junior members on here, they sometimes get hung up on platform capability and seem totally oblivious about tactical and system packages working symbiotically. I'm reinforcing that each discretionary response is tied into a package event. In the case of the USAF and B2's, B1's etc that may well include Compass "x" and Rivet "x" support.