Which Aircraft Can Penetrate Russian S-400 To Help Ukrainian Troops In Mariupol? (WarGames 47) | DCS

[@grimreapers]

Vs S400 Series: Tossing Nukes vs S-400 IADS: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aqK7i5SOqJ6YiJo MLRS vs S-400: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bpiki3uDoaiBfNk USN ToT Strike vs S-400 IADS: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fqS1aKyknqlsi68 Kh-47M2 Kinzhal vs S-400 IADS: kzbin.info/www/bejne/epvGgqGoq7J7mKM Sweden & Star Wars vs S-400 IADS: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oWSTZISkobuipJI WWI, WWII & Stealth vs S-400 IADS: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pIrahoR9pLSGq5o USAF 4th Gen Strike vs S-400 IADS: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6C0aXxmZaqhmaM Different USAF Bombers vs S-400: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3TWk6KFfJWEi5Y Ukraine-Russia Series: Ukraine US HARMs vs Russian S-400: kzbin.info/www/bejne/m4TcdoKOqM-KpZo Patriot/NASAMS vs Supersonic Missiles: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n2LUaKh6ms6hd5Y Fulcrum/Flanker vs Foxbat/Super Flanker: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJm7l6uZbpl9d7c NASAMS vs Russian Cruise Missiles: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pnuskJVvas-tps0 Russian KH-47M2 vs Polish Air Force: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZ_Vh6ungZqkb9k Su-27 & Drone vs Snake Island: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ipDSg6KLZ6asnNE Su-25s vs Russian Convoy At Kyiv: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKq5Z2iYiq-tqNk NATO Eurofighters vs Crimean AWACS: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e5qtY5d8h81sa8k Patriot, Gepard & Gripen vs KH-65: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kJnblaWEn86aZ8k A-10s vs Russian Convoy At Kyiv: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eGHXi6KlZdp_npY USN Tomahawk Strike Kerch Bridge: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZqfTmmuud96ajJo USAF Stealth Strike Kerch Bridge: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3vFl2x4mN2hrZI Ukrainian Jets Strike Kerch Bridge: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f2mppqCrj7eYeJY F-22 Raptors vs Russian Fighters: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eaDQg5ajp9x9jc0 Raptor/Eagle vs Super Flanker: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oZbUiqCriKqiY5o USAF Bombers vs Mariupol Defenses: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3TWk6KFfJWEi5Y Ukraine Bombs Snake Island: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eImZammDgMmemJo Stealth Fighters vs Russian Bombers: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKrQamOgo7Z3qaM Sinking Of Moskva #3: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hHrNoKx_nsqCsLs Sinking Of Moskva #2: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZ_Nl5WglKqqjZY Sinking Of Moskva #1: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKnamWmDfLF9hMU Russia Nukes Britain: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKvOZWiIe7aqd5o Ukraine Uses Danish F-16s: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z2izmp6opZWEl7s Ukraine Uses Polish Mig-29s: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sHTMZad3ft-ohbc Russian-Britain Missile Attack: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sKiseJmXl9utfqM Ghost Of Kyiv: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j6PGpWuMadNkY7c Belgorod Raid: kzbin.info/www/bejne/o4LcnIeuqZuZqtk Eurofighter/Fulcrum vs Super Flanker: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4Hcepymes2aiJI US Strike vs Odessa kzbin.info/www/bejne/gZbMgHudr86WbLs Russian Helo Rocket Lob: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z2KbeJp9o7WSqa8 Russian Su-25 vs US Patriot SAM: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6TTZ2yQecSnhZI Understanding Russian SAMs: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iGXbhauCg7-Lmdk Ukrainian Jets Road Operations: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nnPTq4SentODmNk Russian 40 Mile Convoy: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKPCXmV8gcefeM0 Flanker vs Super Flanker: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jICkpoJ8ga96oZY

[@T-SUS]

There are some inaccuracies regarding the implementation of 40N6 missiles. 1) C400 has two modifications 40N6: 40N6 and 40N6M, what is the difference between the latter is unknown 2) The 40N6 has a target search mode outside the curvature of the earth's surface, it's not far clear how it works, but according to some other sources, the missile is launched into the target movement area and already when approaching the area, it turns on the active head and starts an autonomous search and capture targets beyond the horizon without the fate of the illumination and guidance radar 3) Judging by the information from the booklets, the maneuverability characteristics of 40N6 are higher than those of 48N6P-01 (E2) 48N6DM (E3). 4) The concept of this rocket was laid back in the days of the USSR, when designing a new modification of the S300. One of its qualities was the ability to implement a non-strategic anti-missile defense system, for example, the interception of detachable preshing 2nd warheads; for this, a special warhead was designed for the 40N6. What kind of part is unknown, but it weighs somewhat less than that of 48N6

[@playanddisplay3636]

If only you had a F-111 to give a run.

[@DeviousDumplin]

The deployed airbreaks on the B-2 probably compromised it's radar profile. That's why the S400 immediately got a lock. The B2 was just deploying several table sized radar reflectors

[@timallison8560]

100%, and then the open cockpit, and exposing the rear of the aircraft on the 117.

[@abc-eq9so]

@@timallison8560 Yeah it would be more stealth if it was parked in the garage :D

[@billcar6805]

Agreed....

[@grimreapers]

Yes, my bad guys! sorry

[@mpeugeot]

I used to work around the B-2, and all I can say is that I think that you got the RCS wrong by at least an order of magnitude.

[@grimreapers]

1) CORRECTION: I said "S-300PM2" at 0:45, I meant to say "S-300PM3". 2) This is NOT a tactical attempt at beating the S-400, it is experimentation to find which planes can be detected/shot at certain altitudes/speeds. We will follow up with a full tactical attempt.

[@Anarchy_420]

Tacit Blue would also be "another" ;) really cool Stealth Plane to add into DCS!😁✌

[@Vitaliy0001]

I posted this suggestion on a previous video - do you think it would be interesting to simulate one of the following scenarios?: 1. An attempted Russian air strike, on a moving target, deep behind Ukrainian lines, in a situation where Ukrainian S-300s, BUKs, etc. are cold (to avoid anti-radiation missiles) until NATO AWACS (e.g. flying in Poland) notifies the SAMs of a Russian aircraft within range? The Russian aircraft, starting from outside the range of the SAMs, would know approximate location (within 10 km radius) of, say a convoy, protected by those SAMs (i.e. the SAMs are positioned in the most advantageous position in order to protect the target), but would need to visually identify and strike it, while not knowing the position of the SAMs. Perhaps the strike aircraft (or wing man) could be armed with anti-radiation missiles to take out the SAMs as an opportunistic target. Also, with a scattering of MANPADs everywhere. Russian failure condition is loss of any aircraft even if target is destroyed. 2. Similar to above, except instead of a strike mission, a recon overflight lasting 5 minutes above the target, any altitude. This is in relation to interdicting NATO re-supply of Ukrainian forces.

[@randydavalos8920]

!!!aa! A !!a!!!a!!!a!!!!!!!!!!!a!!!!!!a!a!!!!!!!!aa!a!!!!!!!!!!!aaaa !! a !a!a

[@Vitaliy0001]

@@mrp6870 For sure, but if I recall correctly, the team managed to script some pretty complex SAM behaviour in an earlier video many months ago (I think it was about penetrating an integrated SAM system). I just thought the dynamics I described in my original post might be interesting to test here - especially as there are rumours that those tactics may actually be in use in real life.

[@hrvojehorvat2308]

I m interested in tactical attempt on s-400 with 6-8 dassault rafale 4,5 gen. planes....can you run that???

[@christophero55]

I think the B-2 deploying it's airbrakes may have increased its RCS enough for the SAM system to get a shot off on it.

[@grimreapers]

Yeh my bad guys

[@rerd6614]

Absolutely. I wonder if a Starfighter could do this going in very fast very low. It had a very low signiture. Also interesting how a Avro Vulcan would do going in high and or low while jamming and turning. Granted its subsonic but more agile than F-15s at 65000 feet and it comes with surprising low cross section.

[@gaussmanv2]

similarly, when he opened the cockpit is when the s400 could lock

[@scottsauritch3216]

Thats EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@mac2857]

RCS in DCS is static so no

[@superflyguy4488]

If this was planned in reality, i would imagine the Ops Box would be flooded with drones to both saturate the operators and systems and to drain the missiles.

[@lasskinn474]

Well the aa radars would be the first targets

[@davidorama6690]

I’d never thought of that but of course it’s obvious. New age chaff. LOLZ

[@normanmadden]

Drones with jammers and ECM, not to mention netrision of the Russian radar to send false target data, I suppose we could just let Russian planes think everything is Moscow and Ukrainian jets show as friendly while their Russian wingman shows hostile 🤣

[@oldmech619]

MQ-8 Fire Scout unmanned autonomous helicopter could come in low to carry supplies. No human loss

[@Tabacish]

ADM-160 MALD ....

[@kill3stdayz910]

"Would you shoot at a supersonic seagull?" I can't stop laughing from that one... thanks!

[@djzoodude]

I was yelling at my screen when Cap opened his cockpit in the F-117. I don't know if it's modeled in game, but doing that IRL would absolutely bork your RCS.

[@wolfbringer]

A lot of the B-1's systems and abilities where first seen or developed on the f-111. In fact, if you where a tech on the 111, and had enough time in on the line you could choose train into the B-1 as the systems where that similar

[@AccessAccess]

Don't know if the game models this but I believe radar detectability is also going to depend on the angles involved. If the stealthy aircraft is pointed directly at the radar or directly away from the radar, this is probably when it radar signature is at its lowest. But as you deviate from these angles, it likely gets higher.

[@bekeneel]

In reality it would probably never matter anyway, the SAM on the ground would be taken into consideration by stealth planes too and even if it gets some glimpe of it on the radar, it's very unlikely to ever get a lock on it. modernized S300 even fails to shoot down completely unstealthy F16 from Israel lol.

[@greatgandalf5233]

Guys, every time the missle need to change its solution, it burns airspeed. You constantly need to keep a wing 90 degrees to SAM.

[@StuartBoyer]

For Russian forces an excellent setting for their crème of the crop is probably more realistic to be set a level lower....

[@angelarch5352]

For more realism, DCS needs to have a vodka level setting for Russian assets... basically just not turned on, or the operator is out having a smoke, or AWOL looking for washing machines to steal.

[@peternystrom921]

@@angelarch5352 100% everything about Russian armed forces is just made up.

[@AlexBrazhnikovBFE]

@@angelarch5352 or toilets. Or left to rape infants ofc

[@johnhamilton9997]

They're a cream of the crop is in all that they were on that Is Russian cruiser they got sank. L.O.L

[@sebidotorg]

Since the values for radar cross-section sometimes differ in orders of magnitude, it‘s better to take the median of ten websites, not the average. Otherwise, one high guess might have way more influence on the final result than several low ones.

[@sebidotorg]

@Ukraine is Russia Russia obviously has a third world military, though, with ground troops full of war criminals suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome, pilots not getting proper simulator time, and all of it being led by a fascist dictator.

[@JackThelRipper]

I was able to see the F117 stealth in person at a Air show back in the 80’s after they declassified it. They had red velvet ropes around it and 4 armed soldiers standing at each point. I was a young kid then and it was so cool!! Edit: I asked my father what that was since it looked so different from the regular jets on display and flying around. he said it was a Stealth aircraft and me not knowing what that was then, I still remember that day very well. The F-14’s were super loud.

[@adamnoakes2550]

F117 was first shown in public in April 1990

[@simonbroberg969]

I still got the flight sim the F117 for my old Amiga still got the Amiga too.. might drag it out sometime and see if the 4" floppys are OK

[@cestall1]

I did too, right before Desert Storm I think. Same deal with ropes and guards.

[@sd906238]

I saw it at the Nellis airshow in 1997 and recall seeing armed guards around it or was it the B-2 that had the guards.

[@seadfacic2924]

F 117 was shot down over Serbia some 20y ago...With much less capable sistem then s 400.If i remember right it was the bomb bay door opening that coused Serbs to get a lock on their radar...Lovely plane but it has no chance against s 400.

[@warhappens-com4489]

I worked on the F-117 simulators and I saw several training missions. I can tell you they flew pretty low, and had some counter measures. They also seem to fly in swirling patterns to avoid detection. They did not fly into the radar but kind of around them and them pop up at last minute to fire. I also remember them using autopilots alot, they did very little hands on flying, it was somewhat unstable.

[@strambino1]

That was a very intricate sim, with all the radar cross section modifications and incorporation of older aircraft at high speed and altitude. It’s awesome how much viewer input is included in this channel for the making of new videos.

[@agentrabbit186]

Gezz

[@Bloodwhiner]

There is an excellent write-up on the design and testing of the F-117 in Ben Rich's autobiography - Skunk Works. When they first tested the static mockup, the radar operators said they could see it - turned out to be a bird sitting on the model. When it was chased away the radar signature disappeared. The book is a great read.

[@lowtdave]

I know the SR-71 is the favorite of all time for looks but man, the B-1 just looks so damn amazing to me. The TU-160M is absolutely beautiful too. I was lucky enough to have been TDY to Kadena for a week a few years ago when the F-22s were being used to show US might in the area. They look and sound like death is coming. Hard to explain but they're scary. Now I'm babbling but in 2003 when I was getting set to go to Iraq I was down at FT Bliss in Texas. I had an old F-117 fly low and slow over me and I realized what many UFO sightings were reporting. The thing looked out of this world. So cool. You know...I like flying vehicles. They're all cool. Each one has its own merits.

[@robertschultz6922]

I like the looks of the b2 more than the b1

[@5Andysalive]

Shame it didn't work out for the SR-71. Would be great seeing it fly again....

[@cakeshoe]

Just a noobie question here: when you guys got within a couple of miles, you often maneuvered a little in order to line up on your target. As you did this, your aircraft usually showed it's underside (if you will, its largest cross section) directly towards the SAM site. Would this actually make a difference and make it easier for the radar to see the aircraft, whether in real life or in the game? The reason I ask is because it seemed that the site would get a lock during one of these maneuvers.

[@formallyknownasj.a.2074]

I noticed the same thing.

[@benmodel5745]

Essentially, what you are asking is if the radar cross section is the same for all angles around the plane. The answer is that it isn't constant in real life, but I don't believe DCS models this. These videos are good fun, but do not think they are accurate simulations or representative of a real combat scenario. If anyone truly has answers to these questions, don't expect them to be able to talk about it for a long long time

[@grimreapers]

In real life YES, in game I have no idea TBH.

[@BoraHorzaGobuchul]

In the old sims - I'm talking microprose f-19 and f-117 - rolling the aircraft, climbing, or going down altered the RCS substantially. Not to mention opening the bat doors. The airbrake wasn't modeled, same as opening the cockpit (opening which would obviously ruin your day IRL in so many ways, RCS penalty being just one of them).

[@supermilo]

Not noobie at all, I'd say that an advanced physics question :) In the F-117, a timely notch definitely cause a loss of lock, at least according to my RWR. Its likely that the aircraft aspect relative to the radar emitter is not modeled , but it's velocity relative to the radar emitter is. My guess is that RCS is a standard factor, along with a few other numbers (radar power, range to target would certainly be two), plus a randomiser, that makes a calculation of the probability of detection. So in other words, DCS probably does not model stealth as such, and these mods just apply an absurdly low RCS factor to simulate it.

[@Relkond]

The SR71’s big thing wasn’t actually it’s speed - it was it’s ability to accelerate silly amounts in a short timeframe - to be where the missile isn’t headed when the missile gets there - imagine gaining half a mach in speed between when the anti-air missile is launched, and when it reaches you.

[@juliusfucik4011]

That too, but they would already be going Mach 3,2ish... Another big issue for missiles countering SR71 was that it only takes a few degrees of "turning" for the SR71 to end up where the missile is no longer effective (I.e. too slow to catch up).

[@willmac1748]

It just outran missiles. They knew the plane was coming and the crew wd watch them come up. SR-71 was only damaged once by a missile

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@bradcampbell7253]

And don't forget if you add just a degree or two of directional change away from the missile as it launches by the time the missile gets to where it thinks you're going to be you ain't going to be anywhere near where it can hit you

[@christophersteele4902]

ABSOLUTELY. The SR-71 wasn't Mach 3 out the gate. it would cruise and when the Radar would detect it, it would and or could Accelerate through the intercept solution and throw it all out of Wack.

[@Lord_Legolas_Greenleaf]

"Cross section" numbers you have are Directly Into the plane from the front. Once you deviate from it - as shown by both video segments (29:55 Hard Bank Right & 33:15 Finished banking left) that the moment you turn - that cross section you think you have is gone and you're making a bigger target for the sams. That continued when y'all continued evasives after sam's launched. 117 does fly low.

[@iankphone]

So at mach 3+ from 85k do you need to be over the target? Guided canisters with chutes could be lobbed from far away and coast.

[@friedtomatoes4946]

I wonder if the Sam's or a Tunguska could take out the falling canisters

[@Blackout5871]

I hope the mods also take into account any radar absorbent paints the aircraft would be coated in when encountering that radar site. When they were testing the F-117 stealth abilities, they put one on a post and shot radar at it from about 100 yards for 30 minutes. The radar saw nothing until a bird landed on it.

[@BoraHorzaGobuchul]

The band of the radar is also of importance. In different wavelengths, the RCS of the same aircraft will obviously be quite different.

[@kill3stdayz910]

I would have been happy just seeing the SR71s... Thanks for another great video, Cap and friends!

[@greatgandalf5233]

That's right... don't even bring up the A6E Intruder with its DIANE weapon system. We always out bombed the before mentioned ac... yes the A6E is ugly, but still the best bomber out there. SERIOUSLY the A6E could loft the bombs from miles away, never need to over fly the target. 28 MK82 landing all around you will make you retire early!

[@therealanonymousraccoon]

Regarding the F-117 flight especially, use rudder more than banking to turn into target. Take your time to set your run before entering max detection range, and simply ghost in and out without ever having to move the stick. (Ideally) Check the math but, correlative, you guys got spiked whenever you banked, which, if modelled correctly, would make sense. You are enlarging your radar cross section every time you show more than your thinnest profile. A. Raccoon,

[@grimreapers]

Oh I thought F-117 has auto rudder?

[@therealanonymousraccoon]

@@grimreapers apologies for wrong terminology, thank you for your time replying. Perhaps that was a computer controlled component, the F-117 was most definitely a computer controlled flight system. From our information gathered it was too unstable to even fly without computer micromanagement of ailerons/rudders/elevators etc... Please, take no criticism or offence, we are happy to be wrong, and just contributing our ten cents, even as a new GR subscriber. Amazing channel, looking forward to next release. A. Raccoon EDIT: How DO you perform a pure yaw turn, with no roll, with a F-117 in your DCS package?

[@skyhorseprice6591]

Every time you bank or course correct, you move control surfaces. As soon as ailerons, elevons, etc, are deflected, your stealth profile is compromised. The best thing really is to course correct with rudders, because they are at a more difficult to compute angle to ground radars than other control surfaces, therefore making the deflection harder to see.

[@therealanonymousraccoon]

@@skyhorseprice6591 This makes sense to us. It is relatively common knowledge that opening internally stored weapon bay doors increase cross section. Why shouldn't RCS deviant flight control surfaces also affect the detection distances?

[@skyhorseprice6591]

@@therealanonymousraccoon Yes. I think it has to have such an effect. It would be interesting to talk to a pilot who has flown a stealth aircraft and ask them about aircraft handling, during stealth missions, regarding how much deflection of flat cross section--meaning ailerons, flaps, elevons, canards, LERX (Leading Edge Retractable Extensions), basically all flight control surfaces that are parallel to the ground in level flight--control surfaces can be applied before stealth is compromised. Based upon the results that GR obtained from this simulation, I'd say the answer is, 'None.'

[@eduardodecastro4829]

Fun fact: In reality, the Ukranian fighters in the Mariupol were re-supplied using big fat cargo helicopters. So no stealth, no speed, no fancy maneuvers, no nothing; just balls of steel. And yes; this does mean that, like anything else Russian, the S-400 is shit on a stick that cant even fight cargo helicopters.

[@j4s0n39]

The SR-71 engine is so powerful, that Francis' port afterburner kept going even after the missile blew both engines off.

[@jansenart0]

SPOILER ALERT! Dang!

[@j4s0n39]

@@jansenart0 Oops! Sorry about that. At least I didn't spoil the fact that Darth Vader is really Simba's father. ...actually that's sorta true...

[@jhonbus]

@@j4s0n39 It is, but he was never here. That torpedo did not self-destuct, I heard it hit the hull.

[@grimreapers]

wow

[@hoghogwild]

@@jhonbus "One ping Vasily, one ping only."

[@BCSchmerker]

+GrimReapersAtomic *The S-400 Tube-Launch Intercept Missile Complex consists of a 30K6E command truck, 91N6E panoramic guidance radar system, 96L6 height finder,* and 5P85TE launcher system. The 40N6E active/passive radar missile (ASIC: SA-21 Growler-B), rated for 250km max range and ~3.5 Mach, basically approaches the seeker assembly of the HESA (IRN) Fakour-90, an evolution of the Hughes (USA) AIM-54 air-launched bomber-intercept missile, in principle. The 48N6E3 semi-active missile (ASIC: SA-21 Growler-C), rated for 250 km and ~6.0 Mach, has a higher climb distance than the 40N6E. The ones to beware are the 9M96E active radar missiles (ASIC: SA-21 Growler-E), which are rated for 40 km range and 20 km MSL and can pull 20G at 2.6 Mach. *Addition:* In the test-target F-15 Charlie, I'd pop salvoes of chaff at specific points of a zigzag maneuver starting Time 10:40. Red Crown will need to see how close to the SAMs I _can_ get before falling to one.

[@Milvus_In_Excelsis]

S400 can detect a 0.5 square meter RCS at 400 km. The B2 when in stealth mode has a much lower RCS than that. F35 and F22 are defeating the S400 in Syria daily.

[@taraswertelecki3786]

Unlikely, unless Russia STILL has forces in the country. They are not arming Syria with them.

[@Idontwantahandle6669]

They aren’t defeating it on Syria, Russia isn’t shooting them down because that means WWIII. Real life isn’t a video game.

[@kamov52510]

@@Idontwantahandle6669 let him believe him in his dreams

[@azchris1979]

They have shot down many. They killed a pilot over cuba 90 miles from the us shores. No ww3.

[@Milvus_In_Excelsis]

@@Idontwantahandle6669 Russians and Syrians fried over 100 SAM'S at Israeli jets. All missed. Remember when Turkey shot down a Russian Su25? Israeli F35 penetrate Iranian Airspace on the regular. Turkey had the S400 and already complained about its effectiveness.

[@juliusfucik4011]

I am pretty sure DCS implements stealth as a reduced radar derection range, but does not actually simulate radar cross sections. Also, there is no way a radar could deal with ground clutter this well. Flying practically on the ground will surely hide you from any radar system. These systems need a realism overhaul.

[@Vermiliontea]

Oh, it goes without saying that DCS doesn't mirror reality exactly. Of course! It goes without saying. This doesn't matter: The tactics and combat contests are still "real" for the users, as an experience. There is a general trend in all simulators to be somewhat generous towards Soviet/Russian, WW2 German and Japanese units. This is partly to even things up, but also because it has been noted that this is what customers demand. Another reason is that the designers don't have exact information. They are forced to guess and extrapolate according to simplified physics. I haven't flown a PC simulator in years, but modeled combat aircraft never used to have the various special limitations that real aircraft did. The simulator likely also implements some disinformation, because that is already in their sources. Finally, it may contain intentional disinformation, which someone has asked them to put in.

[@benmodel5745]

I wouldn't underestimate modern DSP. For western systems, at least.

[@benmodel5745]

But also, I would never expect DCS to be able to accurately model what are highly complex interactions between physical objects and EM waves. Not to mention the details of all which are extremely classified.

[@pharezknights5467]

It depends, air radar won't see but ground radar would, eg boats sail on the sea so air radar won't detect them, but ships can detect planes and boats, also you can see it from space

[@gandalfgreyhame3425]

I don't know if your sim can run SEAD missions, but launching a bunch of AARGM-ER anti-radar missiles at those radars would be the first thing that anybody trying to attack would need to do. You could theoretically mount these on Reaper drones, flying in low to get within the 300km range of these missiles and blasting the radar systems. There's also EW jamming that isn't factored into this sim.

[@BCSchmerker]

+{UCbqOuhMB58NNS1mxT98rb7g} *I'll factor the requirements into the first mission for my tandem 'pit, once it's built.* Although not executed in real life, the Cat's fully capable of a mission electronics package for alpha-strike command. A flight-officer DCAG could direct the HARMs at the SAM radars, blowing holes in the radar coverage for the strike package.

[@gandalfgreyhame3425]

@@BCSchmerker Your first sim is not very realistic in terms of how a real strike would be conducted. Dive bombing or glide bombing right into a target to drop a dumb bomb is not really done anymore, at least not by the US. I would use the Navy's AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER Harpoon missile update, which has a range of 270 km. At 1,598 lbs each, a Reaper drone could almost carry two of these (Reapers have a 3,800 lb payload, with the wing pylons rated for a 3,000 lb total payload) So, what I would do is fly into the target site, launch the HARMS as soon as the radar locks are detected, and then turn the Reaper drones away (shoot and scoot) and fly back as low as possible to escape while dispensing chaff, flares, spoofing drones, whatever (there are pods that can do all of that). I would keep doing this with more SEAD strike packages until the incoming Reapers don't get painted anymore with the missile lock radars. Then I'd come back with another package of both HARM and Harpoon missiles and launch them together, since it is possible that they are saving a few radars anticipating something more lethal like the Harpoon coming their way. Not sure how much the AARGM-ER missiles weigh, the original AGM-88 weighed 783 lbs. If the weight doubled, each Reaper might be able to carry two of them. The ultimate way to defeat this site would be to use the AGM-158C LRASM with its 925 km range. The B-1s could drop them from a long standoff distance beyond the range of the S-400s. The radars might not even see these things coming.

[@grimreapers]

Will be doing this next week.

[@erniebrown6196]

The b2 had its airbrakes deployed then it was detected that would give it a much bigger radar cross section or no?

[@seancarroll9849]

In reference to the F-117: IR missiles will only be able to detect the aircraft up close thanks to the unique platypus design of its exhaust, and only from the rear. Optically tracked missiles, though...Black in the daylight is not exactly a good thing. It cannot go supersonic either. B-2: The B-2 suffers from a similar visibility problem in operations; black on light blue is not fashionable. The bomber, also, cannot go above 630, so the simulation itself doomed the craft for radar detection I'm afraid. Air brakes are big. I also think the B-2 uses a similar exhaust profile? Someone fact check that one... The F-35 and F-22: IR missiles will likely only detect you from astern as well. You wouldn't want to be in range of the radar missiles for long without launching HARM anyway. Optical missiles will have a harder time in the daylight against these two aircraft. The moment you fly over the SAM sites, the IR missiles will have a solid lock. I am in agreement that the simulation SAM vehicle could stand some reliability tweaking, though, if as close to realism as possible is the goal.

[@robvelor]

As for IR missiles, if you are already in this range you can forget about stealth, new all aspect missiles would have no problem hitting any of these aircraft.

[@OccupyMyPants]

When Cap zoomed out on Violet 2ft over the sea O_O Impressive

[@JosiahW19]

I highly enjoy the videos on this channel! Very entertaining!

[@armoredpriapism]

Love the channel. Wondering why you set the b-2 rcs to super hornet/su57 range? When I google I cant find anything that high for it. Could you do a video with different rcs possibilities for the b-2, perhaps with jamming? Thanks.

[@grimreapers]

I found 0.00001 up to 0.75 in my searches for B2. It's just in the texts that I found.

[@grimreapers]

We did not use Jamming.

[@BoraHorzaGobuchul]

"Up to" value is probably flaps and gear out, bays open, and canopy off :)

[@MrScrofulous]

Honestly, a couple of Ukrainian farmer tractors would probably do the trick at this point.

[@MuffinMammoth]

Does the game simulate increased radar returns based on different angles? Or is it just one flat return?

[@WhiskyCardinalWes]

Had an 'opportunity' to use the B-1's bomb delivery in Afghanistan. We had an Air Force liaison attached to our company when we did convoy escorts. On one sunny summer day we took some fire from a fairly robust concrete dwelling. We were outside the range of tube and rocket arty so the liaison called on an orbiting 'bomb truck.' He did his magic wand and voodoo arts thing and let me know that it would be about 8 minutes before the B-1 could be close enough for weapon deployment. About eight minutes later the building simply disappeared in a very satisfying Boom-Boom-Boom.

[@formallyknownasj.a.2074]

Wes Smith… I bet that was a hell of a sight to see.

[@robvelor]

Nice imagination bud.

[@crystalseth97]

Very nice. It's a pleasure to watch your videos. Few days ago I made a similar mission:) most effective strategy is to fly 5-15 meters AGL, then release passive radar AG missile at it's minimum range. If track radar is down then you can chillax and carpet bomb entire area. My plane of choice is su-25T. Idk if russians sold that plane to any NATO ally.

[@billisaacs702]

Suggestion: Those smoke stacks and other high metal structures at the steel plant might provide a wonderful radar shadow for a low flying stealth if it were approached from a more westerly direction...

[@ebenitez2011]

I was thinking the same thing, a different approach may have netted a closer approach

[@allanlarmour7460]

Didn't help tthe numerous Helicopters the Russians have shot down in that area.

[@jugganaut33]

@@allanlarmour7460: they were shot down by manpads/Strela/Tor(?) basically in Mariupol. Because the pilots were flying at 2m over the water. The S400’s/S500’s in Russia and in Crimea didn’t detect them or if they did, didn’t fire. It would be interesting to see the stealth Blackhawk at night.

[@allanlarmour7460]

@@jugganaut33 Right, I think the troops around that plant could probably hear them as the flew in. Sound travels at night when everyone else is asleep. There's a lot of helicopter, police and military activitie around where I live, depending on time of day and direction of travel I can hear those things from miles away. It's very difficult to know what the Russians can or cannot see with all the tech they have focused on that area. They are going to put eyes on any technical " blind spots" I am sure they can see those towers and overhead powerlines and have them covered. They seem to be able to take out targets with impunity. Hopefully this will be over very shortly, without anymore killing.

[@PvtPartzz]

In DCS, would the ‘expert’ level SAM AI’s launch missiles that are extremely likely to be evaded or would it hold fire until a kill was more likely? In essence, what does the AI prioritize? Firing at the target at the earliest opportunity or ensuring a kill? If it’s the former, then it would seem like a poor model for what realistic soldiers would be trained to do (I’m assuming) because just a couple aircraft could play peak-a-boo with the SAM sites over mountain ranges and persuade them to fire every missile they had, costing them millions and making the airspace safer for allied aircraft. I wonder why more SEAD missions don’t revolve around this idea of coaxing the enemy to launch missiles at drones or other aircraft that have avenues of quick escape in order to deplete their munitions.

[@johnhermann7498]

Point of contention: The SR-71 was absolutely designed to be "stealthy" before "Stealth" was even a "Thing"... It was one of the first, if not *THE* first, aircraft to incorporate "RAM" (Radar Absorbing Material) into it's design... Not hatin'... Just sayin'.

[@grimreapers]

Thanks John. I get different answers depending who I ask...

[@johnhermann7498]

@@grimreapers - No worries, Bro... A lot of people feel like they "own" the term "Stealth" and hate to let anyone else use the term... Love your videos and, one of these days, I look forward to joining you guys (and gals) in the virtual skies!

[@jameslanning8405]

Everyone knows the SR71 was NOT a stealth aircraft. It was designed to fly at extreme altitudes and speeds that they could outrun a missile from the ground. It was built of titanium, because that was the only material that would not melt, with the friction of the air and high speeds. When the missile is fired, there is a booster stage, to get the missile up and up to speed. But the missile can continued to be powered by the normal engine it has, after the booster is done. Many have external boosters, that are afterwards spent, are jettisoned, allowing the missile to continue on. It would have seemed to me, that the better approach to your target, would have been NOTE low, from the East, staying out of the radar range of the missile system.

[@hoghogwild]

There were RCS considerations with the original CIA A-12.

[@georgecolthurst4216]

Looking forward to seeing Kortana incorporate this into her SAM site of doom.

[@KortanaDCS]

Already working with the more realistic version :) . Soon... 😈

[@grimreapers]

Please no... :)

[@MaxIsStrange1]

@@KortanaDCS It’s really impressive that you have the knowledge to set up those SAM sites so realistically. When I grow up I’d like to be a Kortana XD

[@KortanaDCS]

@@MaxIsStrange1 Lol, what is crazy is that it is all just stuff I have picked up and learned about because I started mission making in DCS.

[@msanchez7317]

B-2 - I wonder if having the airbrakes out caused the early launch? Seems like that would significantly impact radar cross section to me, but I don't know THAT much about radar.

[@patricktracy4371]

Thank you guys and gals, I just can't shake the idea that the simulation works far better than true russian equipment/personnel.

[@cassius_eu5970]

I think it probably works better in real life because DCS doesn't really model several features that modern missiles have.

[@aztec0112]

I think if they wanted to make it totally realistic, they would have to include Ukrainian farm tractors.

[@patricktracy4371]

@@cassius_eu5970 Fair enough, but we are seeing real world results right now, not impressed with the russian super soldier.

[@bussolini6307]

russian air defenses are pretty good, how do i know? russia couldn't even establish air superiority in ukraine, and the UAF uses soviet air defense systems.

[@grimreapers]

Yes it simulates everything "in a perfect world".

[@David-nu6kw]

Pleasure watching this.

[@scotland-bi3cy]

Hi from Bonnie Scotland 👍😊

[@gseifers1]

I have had the pleasure of seeing an SR-71 in person, spectacular plane...even sitting still in a hanger!

[@protonneutron9046]

It's not at all difficult. The USAF has standard procedures to quickly defeat air defense systems like the S-400 WITHOUT stealth air craft. Having stealth aircraft just greatly speeds up the process.

[@patewing5808]

That is ultimate BS. US never faced real AD even Vietnam was not real integrated AD and result was 10.000 lost planes

[@Vexas345]

@@patewing5808 Pretty sure I could beat the S-400 in a P-51 armed with some firecrackers

[@patewing5808]

@@Vexas345 better start mastering LEGO

[@oldfashionedwrx3574]

S400 over rated anyway. It's Russian after all

[@protonneutron9046]

@@patewing5808 LMAO at extreme stoopidity. Ok genius, how are they going to get US aircraft with no aerostats linked to the S400 system? Answer or admit you are just a m0r0nic Russian troll.

[@ROTNReaper]

Opening the nighthawk canopy probably gave you away, if that's modeled

[@btbarr16]

Seeing a stealth aircraft is one thing, getting a strong enough radar track to guide the missile there is where stealth becomes a problem. Does the B-2 AI fly with its radar on?

[@patewing5808]

LOL Technology from 60 's proved you wrong SA-3 Neva was able to track and guide missile . Stealth is more PR

[@gaiofattos2]

@@patewing5808 On a B-2 ?

[@btbarr16]

@@patewing5808 at what range? Stealth doesn't make any aircraft invisible. It decreases the effective range of the radar. If you weren't an idiot you'd realize that no one else would be building stealth aircraft if it was just PR. Oh wait everyone is building stealth into their next-gen aircraft. I'm sure they're wasting money on that for PR, right? Russia, China, Japan, the EU. If Hussein was still alive he'd probably disagree with you too considering F-117 slipped through Baghdad's radar nets in 1990.

[@btbarr16]

@@joshferrera glad I'm not the only one that realizes he's an idiot.

[@patewing5808]

@@gaiofattos2 1999 May 20th two missiles were fired at B2 . USAF came to Serbia 2003 every single officer involved in B2 detection had to fill up questionary . It is big mistery what happen . Two years ago USAF admitted one more F117 was lost

[@jesseewinberry]

I was an armament systems tech on the B1 Lancer while in the Air Force. Such a beautiful aircraft and one hell of a beast.

[@robertwolfe2971]

Wouldn't it be more feasible to use hyphyper sonic missiles to drop bombs in a cross bow type operation around the steal mill.then drop the load.

[@petestripes0920]

Can i ask a maybe stupid question.... do sonic booms get louder the faster you go or stay the same?

[@grimreapers]

Great question. My understanding is that the boom can not exceed mach 1 and will not propogate with extra aircraft speed, but as ever I am happy to be corrected.

[@jaidenheger20005]

i love how at least someone mentioned that a Swedish Jaktviggen, locked an SR-71 and im still amazed by how it was done.

[@markuskoivisto]

Predictable route and good intercept course.

[@jaidenheger20005]

@@markuskoivisto yip

[@jakeford7688]

They knew where it is was gonna be the only way they could have done it

[@jaidenheger20005]

@@jakeford7688 i might be tired or trippin or something rn but that looks like broken english sorry bc i cant understand

[@jakeford7688]

@@jaidenheger20005 the sweds new the flight path so they able to preposition there aircraft for the intercept

[@ZoonCrypticon]

Why don´t they use cheaper cruise missiles ( 2 Mio USD each) , or cheap drone swarms instead of planes (100 to 500 Mio USD each) to use up the S400 rockets ("One system comprising up to eight divizion (battalions) can control up to 72 launchers, with a maximum of 384 missiles", price"Unit cost: $300 million per System"), or to get through and attack the position determined via the attack?

[@dmacpher]

Are we still doing phrasing ?

[@cestall1]

Geez Louise! SR-71 going over 100k, missile still tracking....I think technically that's a "space battle." LOL

[@eribertoacedo9505]

I subscribed to this channel I found it most interesting after viewing a little more I’ll have comments future technology thank you for your channel!

[@Mobius118]

You guys would obviously know this, but all of the stealth isn't entrusted to the airframe, a great deal of it comes down to the mission planning as well. Those F-117 Nighthawks would have skirted in between defense system radars to avoid being detected. The airframe stealth design minimizes the engagement ring but doesn't completely do away with it, hence there is still some threat radius (albeit a *much* smaller one). As you approached the SAM the system got a lock on you at a certain distance, so ideally you would never breach that radius around the system. It's rather cool how stealth is a multi-faceted endeavor (much like the sexy Nighthawk is a multi-faceted plane lol)

[@grimreapers]

Yes fair points. I think this was more of a science vid to see which planes could be detected. Will make a more tactical fight.

[@Mobius118]

@@grimreapers Excellent! That being said, you guys know much more than I do on this subject! I'm just happy to watch :)

[@simonmoorcroft1417]

Sierra Hotel flying Reapers 😀 You validated the Ukrainian attack on Snake Island by showing that a 4th gen fighter like SU-27 can operate in the S400 envelope as long as it stays low. Snake Island should be in the envelope of S400 sites on Crimea. In reality you do not have to overfly the Azovstal factory in Mariupol to resupply it from the air. Check out "Logistic Gliders" and "Silent Arrow" on the youtube. In theory this has similar range to a gliding muntion like MALD or Stormbreaker. A B-2 could drop a large number of disposable cargo gliders from a safer standoff range. I'm interested to see your MALD video. If some of the MALDs make it over the factory you've validated the logistics glider delivery method. Logistics gliders may be somewhat stealthy since they are mainly wood and cardboard. So way cheaper to risk inside the SAM envelope.

[@briant5685]

maybe you should know s-400 recently intercepted ukrainian su-27 in kyiv from a distance of over 150km,snake island is not covered by the systems but russia has now placed air defence system there but not s-400

[@simonmoorcroft1417]

@@briant5685 I am aware if the shoot down over kyiv but the Flanker was above 1000ft when it was struck. Ukrainian aircraft have been filmed in operation over Donbas. That is within the range of S400 systems in Western Russia. If they stay at low altitude, they can hide below the radar horizon and in the ground clutter.

[@jeansansterre6908]

The 2 Su27 where shot down

[@jeansansterre6908]

@@simonmoorcroft1417 the S400 in Belgorod can't reach donetks

[@scottsauritch3216]

When B-2 Airbrakes deploy, it's no longer anywhere near .015 RCS and close to quadruple RCS...

[@bigfootape]

"The Pantsyr is not working yet." Going by combat reports, sounds accurate.

[@robertschultz6922]

😂😂😂

[@grimreapers]

eek

[@Tesla34000]

Actually your statement is not correct.. I don't blame you cuz propaganda thing right now works fantastic..

[@bigfootape]

@@Tesla34000 Obviously Russian state media is completely unbiased and truthful. Russian made air defense assets, most notably the Pantsir, have been underperforming significantly in combat. Not just in Ukraine, but in Libya and the Karabakh. You may argue the cause but not the result.

[@Tesla34000]

@@bigfootape According to which statements? If you use system as it was meant to be used, it will work no problem. It can detect Grad missiles build of composite materials at least 10km away let alone drones or aircrafts.. If you are talking about some of destroyed ones in Lybia, Ukraine and Syria these systems were either not operational during strikes or were not deployed correctly. With trained crew that knows a lot about anti-air combat, Pantsir is dangerous system for all air targets..

[@williamshaneblyth]

There's always a way to beat systems I mean look at those drones who would of thought. Then the single man sneaking about with a manpad .

[@canadianbakin1304]

that b2 opening its airbrakes is probably what got it caught might be better to get it to start without that didnt seem like a practical thing to do within range of the s400

[@sullivan-pureirish1794]

im wondering.. with the b-2... when your making flight corrections (flaps, rudders, ailerons) does that increase the cross section momentarily?? Im just wondering... bc the b-2 should of done better than that.. and even when its being refueled.... the fuel door rotates and closes when its done... I bet if you would of just kept same heading, altitude and didnt make any course corrections... it would of made if closer.... just my opinion... I was just a Ranger on the ground in real life.

[@aldonabagusauskas4956]

I think this is another Russian weapon that is so good that it is literally unbelievable!

[@briant5685]

maybe people should know russian s-400 radars were giving iran real time intel of f-22s and f-35s that were roaming near their borders when iran and usa had tensions in early 2020,these stealth planes are detectable

[@theboothy91]

Yea I doubt that

[@notsureyou]

I did a quick google search, And for the B2 I have seen figures quoting "the same as an F22" to as much as 0.1 m2 But from memory the B2 was the first one designed with the aid of a computer (for the stealth calculations) The computing power didn't exist when the F117 was being designed, and from the little I have read, it is more stealthy than the F117

[@tomriley5790]

Computing power did exist when the F117 was designed - just not as good therefore they couldn't model so many planes (as in flat surfaces) hence why it's so angular...

[@notsureyou]

@@tomriley5790 I was close, do I still get a cigar?

[@jugganaut33]

Cap, In 2017 RAF RC-135W and 2x F35B’s did a EW patrol of the Syrian coast between Cyprus and Tartus as a ‘show of force/intimidation’. At ranges between 50-75NM and all three were painted by Russian radars. We’d all love to believe the F35 is some wonderweapon. But even German 4G masts in 2018 (I believe) can detect and track F35’s with the right software at ranges to 7NM.

[@nedbainbridge308]

I think if the US was gonna do something like this they could send some F-35s in on SEAD to destroy the S-400s then send in something like the B-1 to deliver the payload but overall great video

[@augustinemuthini4972]

may need more than 50 f_35s and with support of like 20aligetor helicopters or ur make of choice but with tht similar attacking capability or more. otherwise you are dreaming of impossible plane suicide.air defence system is the game for airbase.

[@MrMaxStalsky]

@@augustinemuthini4972 i would say you need some Anti radioactive diapers for all US and NATO allies citizens. Cuz this will be the dawn of the WWII if suck command is given... Hope that there is no idiots in US command to give such an order. I really hope.

[@ndrew3779]

Violet Moon is your best pilot.

[@jakelibbey4631]

I'm intrigued by the GR v Growling Sidewinder beef

[@boostedbadboyzx12r31]

Beef? Do tell...lol

[@711liljay]

Do defenders usually not have many 20mm AA?

[@photodan24]

Sadly, "no buildings, no trees, nothing" actually is an accurate model of Mariupol. :-(

[@grimreapers]

oooOOO

[@Slavic_Goblin]

It's not quite that bad. I mean, it is bad, but not quite to that extent.

[@dirkkarmel5209]

Over all, very well done. Have you shared this with Moscow ? Several factors, are not included, which is common for simulations. -- Greatest missing factor, is the water ! ********* >> The curvature of the Esrth (Horizon) has several methods of detecting beyond it. (Especially over water !) -- The reported designs of this system, are not fully inclusive. -- Still, fly fairly low. -- Beware of low altitude *mines" ! ********* The supersonic signiture of a craft, points straight to craft & identifies craft. -- Fly slow (sub sonic) Water foot print, is fairly easy to detect as a sub with negative depth. This is meant for boats and subs, but will detect low flying aircraft !

[@mohawksniper79]

I think all those planes in real life could make it no problem

[@Dinnye01]

And you would be very wrong.

[@n8spL8]

radar doesn't bend, the wavelength peaks and valleys dip far enough and reflect in the same fashion.

[@artonline01]

I am so happy you got Bass Ruten as a wingman

[@artonline01]

thank you whomever got that joke

[@Mater585]

F117 is my favorite plane. Got to see a 4 man take off in formation from the runway at Alamogordo. Super cool plane to climb into the cockpit of.

[@5Andysalive]

They do this renaming thing quite a bit, do they? I remember the rather sarcastic Armor Cast video on the T90 making this point. Making it long before the War btw. It has aged a lot better than most other videos on the T90+other Russian tanks.

[@BoraHorzaGobuchul]

So that's where the USB IF got their love for renaming previous standards with all this USB 3.1 gen 2 stuff and the like...

[@philippk2]

For more realism they should compute in the "Russian Super Weapon Hype Factor" aka "Not even closely as good as advertised"...

[@ghjklz7587]

Since the Drone Battles are straight out of Dale Browns Hammerhead It has to be The Old Dog the attaches Russia

[@ivanwigmore]

Best Writer any pilot would enjoy, fast & technical air battles with new tech used in his books was at least on the drawing board at Dreamland 😎 Cruise missile was a momma that let her babies out over target, & if needed momma would go in & finish the job 😃 Must read Dale Browns books in order as there an on going story Book over Spratley islands (spelling ?) against China So real to read & still would fit like it’s happening today Love the way he starts each book off with real news articles & then runs with his story Blows Clancy for accuracy towards real as possible, technical scenarios 😎 Just Awesome Might go reread whole series now have time >> being retired now & just beginning summer Only problem u zone out for 3-4 days as can’t put his books down once u start He introduced so much in his books ahead of real time Best writer for sure, even though writing with co-writers now :) But from book 1 on, priceless 😎 Oh yes, the Mighty Old Dog, Super B-52 with extras She definitely bites back Lol 🇨🇦

[@KPX-nl4nt]

27:15 The F-117 was not the first “fighter” designed using digital computers. That design milestone goes to the original General Dynamics F-16 Viper. The F-16 was designed and rendered from the ground up using digital computer software. However, the F-117 was one of the earliest.

[@JohnDoe_Poland]

I see Grim Reapers uploaded a new video. I click like and then I watch

[@grimreapers]

Valued Viewer ^^

[@st3althyone]

You all are giving these Russian weapons way too much fucking credit. If they haven't been able to lock down the Ukrainian airspace when they're flying identical airframes as Russia, what fucking chance would they have against the US? IMHO, these Russian weapon systems are way overrated. It's still a great watch, though.

[@afoxyjim6625]

Cruise missile would be the better choice and much less risk .

[@Dinnye01]

That was not the point of the simulation. If you look at it, they weren't even shooting at the S400. The simulation was made to determine if stealth alone is enough to fool the systems.

[@PraetorUA]

I know you guys were hesitant at first to cover the current conflict but i think you made the right decision. You're raising awareness at the very least. Bravo.

[@40cal2]

Another great vid grim keep them going!!

[@williamrooth]

A Cessna 172 from Germany flew unmolested to Red Square in Moskow by a student pilot in the 1980's or 90's as i recall! Much less expensive than a stealth aircraft!

[@leeumney7675]

What about a F-117 low and slow? Or even a Comanche hugging the ground?

[@jonshellmusic]

Great video! Nice flying! But I’ll tell ya, I don’t think that averaging all the various radar cross sections you find listed for a given plane and average them. You should disregard outliers-ignore the numbers that are completely outside the pack. I think you will get a more realistic number that way. I also thought it was worth mentioning that every plane will have different cross sections when viewed from various angles. Cheers!

[@rodbey9318]

Send in a "SNL" landshark

[@williamescolantejr5871]

try ww1 biplanes.the idea is they will be laughing so hard you get 1 good shot in

[@tomriley5790]

One story from the development of the F117 makes me think that those figures are incorrect. RCS testing was done by putting a model on a pole and then measuring the RCS from that. To start with the problem they had was that the pole itself was giving a larger RCS than the F117. After they had redesigned the pole (largely with radar translucent materials) they put the F117 back on it and had a US Army Hawk radar operator (then their best SAM system) look for it - "is it there yet?".. a bird then landed on the model.. "oh no it's okay I've got it!"... The reason it has so many straight sides etc was because the computers at the time couldn't process the RCS from too many different planes so it had to be straight.

[@Anarchy_420]

"To minimize its chances of being detected in enemy airspace, the SR-71 incorporated one of the first uses of stealth technology, including radar-absorbing composites for the leading edges and tail fins, and black paint impregnated with ferrite particles that soaked up radar energy. The aircraft's distinctive shape, featuring blended fuselage and wings, and sharp-edged projections along the sides, was also chosen to minimize radar reflection."

[@Anarchy_420]

Multiple sources. Lol sorry Cap, have to disagree😁✌

[@doemacmonkey]

Hmmm yeah it may say that, but the paint was added later, I dont know at what point the composites were included in the design process, and So I can’t help but agree with cap that the planes shape was initially chosen with aerodynamics, and heat dissipation in mind and that stealth was coincidental. Their doctrine always seemed to be “they can see me but they can’t do anything about me”. I guess only those in the know actually know…so I dont know! Edit for typos.

[@Anarchy_420]

@@doemacmonkey idk man same info for The A-12, it's predecessor... "The A-12 represented Lockheed's initial efforts at developing a spy plane capable of evading enemy detection and anti-aircraft fire. It was the first attempt at a "stealth" aircraft through the exterior design, minimizing it's radar cross-section (RCS). The black paint helped increase the emission of internal heat and paint was used with little balls of iron to further escalate the very beginning of Stealth." "New Radar-absorbing Composite materials were added to The A-12, replacing the fillets. Made from Iron ferrite, silicone laminate, both combined with asbestos to absorb radar returns and make the aircraft more stealthy." Again the forerunner of The SR-71 ;) Edit bc A LOT to transcribe😆

[@92HazelMocha]

I mean cap did an interview with the guy iirc, should still be up on the channel somewhere. I trust actual pilots over Wikipedia info any day of the week.

[@Anarchy_420]

@@92HazelMocha lol it's not Wikipedia but that's okay

[@Screewup69]

Food, ammo, and playboy magazine is all I need to hold out.

[@dreamweb69]

So what if we just release a bunch of large birds to clutter up the radar? :)

[@Angl0sax0nknight]

Question, wouldn’t a growler (ECM) or equivalent be used to blind radar for the any ground attack?