also this
the weapon with the number “180” is izdeliye 180, the r77m/e
the one with “170-1” is r77-1
the one with 760 is i believe a modern variant of r73
the weapon with the number “180” is izdeliye 180, the r77m/e
the one with “170-1” is r77-1
the one with 760 is i believe a modern variant of r73
To add to this, I was looking for an old article when I stumbled accross a report from the CIA where they basically admit that the US does a load of propaganda to intentionally hide their RCS numbers from the public.
This is from 1988, two years before the ATF’s prototypes would fly. ATB would be the B-2 program, though, which was already flying.
At the end of the report, they give a list of info seen on the ‘common’ press through 1975-88:
We can also see that the range and speed ‘predictions’ were somewhat in line with the ATF requirements, and the RCS values there are much more in line with what we see in simulations for an overall average value (also kinda falls in line with Davidenko’s 0.3-0.4m2 average). 0.000001-5m2 on the B-2, though, lmao.
5 Likes
too bad some f22 fanboys are gonna take it that f22 rcs is even smaller than 0.0001m2
good find tho
2 Likes
where did you get this tho?
1 Like
I honestly feel like stealth in wt will only ever come into play at ranges exceeding 60km, maybe even 100.
Which is to say, with current weapons they wouldn’t play much differently than the average 120 slinger.
Once aim120d/meteor/r37/pl15 come into play stealth will be important, because engagement ranges become much bigger.
one thing that is often forgotten about stealth is the missile’s seeker.
That’s in part why there’s more and more missiles with AESA seeker around in the 2020s
Story is I was reading the book “Stealth” (1989) by Doug Richardson (very good book, I recommend checking it, the section on RAM/RAS is especially good).
There I read an indirect citation (p. 127) that said that, in the May 1986 edition of the “International Defense Review”, the USAF Aeronatuical System Division commander said the ATF would be “one or two orders of magnitude less detectable” than the F-15. So I went looking for the 1986 periodic, and that’s basically how I found the pdf: clicking stuff on search engines. I saved it just in case (it’s called “US Stealth Programs and Technologies: Soviet Exploitation on the Western Press”, dated 1st August 1988), it’s not secret anymore – it’s been “sanitized for release”, and I also found the 1986 periodic (at least I think I did, it might be Jane’s IDR, but there’s also Bill Sweetman’s IDR, which is what I’m looking at rn), though I have only skimmed it so far.
1 Like
Making statements vague≠over stating(propaganda)
Did it cause western magazines to make propaganda for it. Sure yeah. But the goal was to make an obscure vague number to make finding reliable information about the aircraft more difficult.
Yeah the RCS signature is somewhere within 0.000001 to less than 5.0. That is a vague statement. This will create some false rumors articles that look somewhat believable making it harder to find accurate information by the sheer volume of trash information.
Sure, except not even small profile missiles and stealth drones we see in simulations are near an effective RCS of 0.000001m2, in fact, there’s a RCS simulation out there of a BEE, and it doesn’t even achieve -20db as its minimum (while the average is closer to -5), so when they admit to “leaking” false info, and among those “leaked” numbers is some lulz -60db RCS that not even insects have – plus all the marble/peanut/atom comparisons we see out there from LM --, then that points to overstating a capacity, which btw is repeated ad nauseum in all websites we look, thus, it is propaganda.
2 Likes
Vague doesn’t necessarily mean false.
Reflect on this:
If it is not propaganda, why are 99% of mediums out there parroting the 0.00000000000000001m2 (which was “leaked” for the public) average number for those aircraft instead of more believable 0.5, 0.1, 5.0m2? Maybe a 0.01m2 frontal arc? When you try to argue that the number is too low to be real (or, at least real in the sense of being useful in real conditions, i.e., not cherry picked), most of the time you’re a shill for whoever they don’t like (even if you do actually like US aircraft, like I do)? If the info being put forward is making everyone believe the absurdly low number and not the others, then I guess it’s safe to call it propaganda.
I’ll stop this derailing here and go back to reading, but think about it.
1 Like
Lol because that is the goal. Make armchair experts speculate the RCS to flood the public sources with trash information to obscure any possible leak of real information.