Iran's SAM Coverage

[Hack-Hook]

That is one of the most misunderstood character about the F-117. The F-117 was not as maneuverable as the F-16, but it was more maneuverable than expected, after all, its flight controls system came from the F-16.

The fact that you guys focused on the F-117 is revealing of your limited view. That jet is retired, not because of the single loss in Yugoslavia, but because the F-22 was already in the runway readied to replace it. The F-22 and F-35 are much more capable platforms.

well honestly I don't care it was f-117 ,F-15 or F-22 each airplane eventually will face some defense more capable than itself ,it's not extraordinary . I asked that because i recall one member (Guess it was you or another member from USA that have served in US army) once said that if a missile lock on you you'll never try to outmaneuver it no matter how agile your aircraft is as the missile is more agile ,you release chaff and flare like there is no tomorrow and pray the missile go after them .and about f-117 retirement well there is no doubt that at the time F-22 was finishing its final test was become ready to be deployed but some may argue that it's not the case about f-35 and even today that airplane need a lot more refinement .

 

[Muhammed45]

Let me know when you are ready to debate like an adult.

When USA withdraws from middle east and shuts all of it's military bases on our neighborhoods.

 

[PeeD]

@gambit

The reality is that US SEAD/DEAD capability is probably the highest and most formidable in the world and still it is a difficult and very risky job.
The kill ratio is not highly in favor for the US in case of an advanced IADS but could become a real nightmare for both sides, far from an art.
The degradation of available assets in fighting an active, mobile, high performance IADS would be huge. Escort, jamming, increased distances, allocation to SEAD/DEAD, denial of use of assets such as the B-2, ect.
All these are effects that change the picture and greatly degrade the real force, sortie rate and firepower on the paper.
In a case of a conflict with the US, this is the task of the Iranian IADS, degrading the effective sorties to 1/4 and causing mission abortion. Whether 100 or 5000 US aircraft are shot down in this process is unimportant, important is that Irans own warfighting capability remains unharmed by US airpower for a certain amount of time.
At one point in the conflict, the physiological effect comes into play, at least when the exchange ratio of SAM vs. aircraft reaches 1:1. Then pilots will realize that something is very different to Iraq and Serbia and that their military industrial complex promised them something different.

In this context it becomes clear that Danis sole SAM site should not have shot down 3 US aircraft and less so a F-117. It becomes clear that in the context of American PR/propaganda something that should have been impossible happend. The NATO force was so numerically superior and the Serbs so small, ill-equipped and weak that no stealth asset should have been shot down. The impossible happend back then and for all the rest of the conflict the Americans could not take revenge from that ancient SAM site and it shot down more.

Iran has systems literally many decades more advanced. So how many more impossible things can we expect to happen?

Just expect a exchange which Americans have not experienced since a long time: A SEAD/DEAD campaign from a not totally-superior position, at best a tit for tat exchange with many dead on both sides... far from any art.

 

[AmirPatriot]

I bet every time these friends argue, Dani can still end it with "yeah but I shot you down".

Let me make you feel better!

This is a list of Air Defense weapons & equipment produce by Iran! They have invested in every layer of Air Defense Systems and radars!

Iran does indeed make great systems, now we need a great deployment of them.

Don't be surprised if Iran has not for example deployed many Sayyad-2 sites. Sayyad-2 was unveiled just less than 3 years ago. In that time they may have to continue some testing, they have to set up a production line, go through a possibly long winded procurement process, make enough of them, and finally deploy them.

And we do see examples of advanced systems proliferating. There is already what looks to be at least 1 deployed Sayyad-2 (Talash) site. I say at least 1 because I did not search for previously undocumented sites, and if I did wouldn't publish them. In the hours of looking over the locations in SOCs old analysis I also spotted a Matla ul Fajr radar (and due to how long it was stationed I think it was the Matla ul Fajr 1), which is one of those advanced Iranian radars that you listed.

Now knowing that and constantly being threatened by the U.S. do you think they'll just sit around and do nothing about it?

Saying "they probably did something about it" is not enough (though I do think they know what they are doing). So far there is no proof of a wide modernisation of deployed forces. However it is inevitable this will happen as Iran has all the technology and (importantly) will to undertake such a modernisation. Air defence is one of the areas Iran can compete with the best out there, completely domestically.

I know you had a different goal of this thread but i thought this can help as an indicator of Iranian radars' overall coverage.

That is indeed a much different and harder task. For example, however much I tried, I couldn't find stats for the old American Early Warning sites dotted around Iran.

You took one negative instance out of 30,000 positive ones and made an incredible extrapolation that our systems and tactics were 'insufficient'.

The point here is that a determined and smart enemy can defeat an opponent which is much better equipped... but most of the Yugoslavian military wasn't smart and determined.

Why did he not disseminate what he did to other sites ?

Simple dissemination is not enough, you need training. Which is hard when NATO is bombing the crap out of you.

Yes, out of 30,000 sorties. No matter how much you want to focus on these few, you cannot escape the statistics, which does not speak well for Dani.

Unfortunately for Yugoslavia, Dani wasn't responsible for all of Yugoslavian air defence.

So yes, it was 'spray and pray'.

Weren't there only 2 missiles fired against the F-117 that day? How is that "spray and pray"?

He survived the war unscathed

And so did his SAM battery, which is what you're meant to be keeping intact when the enemy is attempting SEAD/DEAD.

Fine, let us say we lose 100 aircrafts, from the F-22 to the Apaches

If a small war that wouldn't be too bad at all

 

[AmirPatriot]

I have friends at Nellis who works closely with the 507th. I will not say what the squadron have in terms of hardware, but I can say this: They can replicate what Iran has in terms of freqs employs and better air defense tactics than Iran can create.

You don't need to say anything. Do you mean these things?

Coordinates, if anyone wants to have a look.

 

[gambit]

well honestly I don't care it was f-117 ,F-15 or F-22 each airplane eventually will face some defense more capable than itself ,it's not extraordinary .

You should care.

The differences between the F-22/35 and the F-117 is like between the F-16 and the P-51.

The F-117 had no radar. It navigate by GPS assisted dead reckoning ( INS ). Its only defense, if we can call it that, is to hide in the electromagnetic ether. Whereas the F-22/35 have a list of technological advantages too long to list, in both offense and defense, that is the envy of even first tier air forces.

The major problem with 'anti-stealth' weapons is how can you -- the buyer -- verify what the seller claim ? You can verify what the 'stealth' seller claims just by pointing YOUR radar at his product. But for the 'anti-stealth' radar, simply pointing at a small test metal ball is not enough because that is pretty much all he can do.

The sphere is the body of choice for radar calibration...

http://www.centurymetalspinning.com/radar-calibration-spheres/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Calibration_Sphere_1

...And the final 'stealth' body.

But until he can fly a metal sphere in weather, against ground clutter, thru uneven terrain, and over water surface, there is no way he can claim that just because he can detect the very small STATIONARY sphere, he can detect a manned F-22/35 with full intention avoiding seeking radar signals with the world's best countermeasures on board.

Any claim of US 'stealth' fighter, you can take it to the bank and earn a good interest.

Any claim of 'anti-stealth', caveat emptor. But if you have face US 'stealth' fighters in real combat, it would be too late. You cannot return the product for a refund because he already spent your money.

 

[PeeD]

@gambit

Iran and more so Russians use simple physical laws as starting point for their counter-stealth systems.

Sorry no, professionals in that field don't believe in magic happening at Lockheed and so on. There is no magic. The software that created the F-117 was based un calculations of Soviet scientists.
There is RAM/absorption and shape/scattering, this is all there is. Already in UHF we can exclude RAM and the shaping features become weaker and weaker the smaller they get relative to wavelenght.

I personally don't expect any strong penalties against Irans VHF radar network for F-22/35. Only the B-2 could potentially pose a problem.

Then again: A ancient export standard P-18 was used by Dani for that task, with its performance greatly reduced due to jamming. How much do you believe US capability has grown from 1999, 18 years ago, to deal with radar system 40 years ahead of Danis radar?

There is just respect for the slow B-2 which loss would be devastating.

Stealth is a good tactical extra to have but far away from what US propaganda wants people to believe. Just imagine a world without the F-117 shotdown, Americans would shout stealth much louder.

The F-117 was the purest of the US stealth aircraft, no radar that emits (LPI or not) and not supersonic speed and agility requirements that could harm it's stealth. However this was also the reason for it's death: it was good against helpless countries such as Iraq and Serbia but now too fragile to survive in any fashion against near peer adversaries.

 

[VEVAK]

I bet every time these friends argue, Dani can still end it with "yeah but I shot you down".

Iran does indeed make great systems, now we need a great deployment of them.

Don't be surprised if Iran has not for example deployed many Sayyad-2 sites. Sayyad-2 was unveiled just less than 3 years ago. In that time they may have to continue some testing, they have to set up a production line, go through a possibly long winded procurement process, make enough of them, and finally deploy them.

And we do see examples of advanced systems proliferating. There is already what looks to be at least 1 deployed Sayyad-2 (Talash) site. I say at least 1 because I did not search for previously undocumented sites, and if I did wouldn't publish them. In the hours of looking over the locations in SOCs old analysis I also spotted a Matla ul Fajr radar (and due to how long it was stationed I think it was the Matla ul Fajr 1), which is one of those advanced Iranian radars that you listed.



Saying "they probably did something about it" is not enough (though I do think they know what they are doing). So far there is no proof of a wide modernisation of deployed forces. However it is inevitable this will happen as Iran has all the technology and (importantly) will to undertake such a modernisation. Air defence is one of the areas Iran can compete with the best out there, completely domestically.

The problem for exporting your own system is that you have to come up with your own copyrighted design that means you can't take proven copyrighted designs & simply copy them & that's the "easy" part! The hardest part is that inside these missiles there are individual components like processors & data storage devices that are not produced by Iran & to use those components in a weapon & sell them even a defensive weapon will cause problems for the country because those are duel use devices vital to both the government and the people!


It's not me saying it, It's the head of Iran's Air Defense Force saying it! You just weren't listening!
If you pay close attention these are a few of the things he mentions(Some without going into detail)
1.Kicking out the practice of concentrating their Air Defense's around Air Bases!
2.The futile nature of having fixed Air Defense Bases installed by foreigners.
3.Making your SAM and Air Defense costly to take out (He doesn't go into detail as to how but it's clear how 1.You move your systems around 2.You hid your SAM as best you can 3.You put your SAM's in bunkers that require expensive & heaver payloads to take out.
Today Iran & US are competing for 3rd place in cement production! 1st China, 2nd India 3rd US & Iran competing for 3rd place! So in Iran bunkering you SAM is one of the cheapest ways of protection that forces your enemy to use more expensive & heavier ordinance just to take out one TEL
4.Increasing & spreading the number of Air Defense sites to cover every corner of the country. According to him (NOT ME) Iran has gone from 500 Air Defense Sites (When we had an Advanced Air Force) to over 3000 sites & plans to take that number to 5000 sites in the next decade
5.His mentioning of the use of Shoot & Scoot tactics is further proof of Iran's reliance on hiding & protecting their systems
6.Constantly being under threat and having to face a far superior Air Force forced Iran to become more innovative both in terms of tactics & equipment



So this is not me saying it! Plus I think Iran's collection of various U.S. UAV's is further proof of the capabilities of Iran's Air Defense Force

 

[Hack-Hook]

You should care.

The differences between the F-22/35 and the F-117 is like between the F-16 and the P-51.

The F-117 had no radar. It navigate by GPS assisted dead reckoning ( INS ). Its only defense, if we can call it that, is to hide in the electromagnetic ether. Whereas the F-22/35 have a list of technological advantages too long to list, in both offense and defense, that is the envy of even first tier air forces.

The major problem with 'anti-stealth' weapons is how can you -- the buyer -- verify what the seller claim ? You can verify what the 'stealth' seller claims just by pointing YOUR radar at his product. But for the 'anti-stealth' radar, simply pointing at a small test metal ball is not enough because that is pretty much all he can do.

The sphere is the body of choice for radar calibration...

http://www.centurymetalspinning.com/radar-calibration-spheres/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Calibration_Sphere_1

...And the final 'stealth' body.

But until he can fly a metal sphere in weather, against ground clutter, thru uneven terrain, and over water surface, there is no way he can claim that just because he can detect the very small STATIONARY sphere, he can detect a manned F-22/35 with full intention avoiding seeking radar signals with the world's best countermeasures on board.

Any claim of US 'stealth' fighter, you can take it to the bank and earn a good interest.

Any claim of 'anti-stealth', caveat emptor. But if you have face US 'stealth' fighters in real combat, it would be too late. You cannot return the product for a refund because he already spent your money.

well it made the situation worse if f117 did not have radar how it manage to find its being targeted by missiles to dodge them
and as far as I'm aware the missiles are not actively guided and use radio command guidance so f117 could not be aware of its presence by detecting its homing radar . so the question remain how the pilot dodged several missile?

and still it was not answered is an subsonic airplane even if it was the agile f-16 not planes like F-117 with reduced agility had any chance outmaneuvering a missile like 5V27 which claimed is capable of engaging targets that can pull 9g under 1000m altitude and 5-7g above 5000m and don't forgot that f-117 had no countermeasure against radio guided missiles except being stealth

 

[gambit]

well it made the situation worse if f117 did not have radar how it manage to find its being targeted by missiles to dodge them
and as far as I'm aware the missiles are not actively guided and use radio command guidance so f117 could not be aware of its presence by detecting its homing radar . so the question remain how the pilot dodged several missile?

Zelko said he saw the missiles' tracks.

I know you guys are desperate to cast as much doubts about Americans' accounts as possible, but there are things that are beyond your experience.

First...You do not launch a missile at the target but at a spatial location an estimated point that you believe the target is going to be. It does not matter if the missile is actively guided by you or by your radar's signals. Zelko said he saw the missiles' launch tracks and believed ( correctly ) that they were heading for him.

This is not new...

http://www.businessinsider.com/f-16-dodging-6-missiles-2015-1

Training for SAM launches up to this point had been more or less book learning, recommending a pull to an orthogonal flight path 4 seconds prior to missile impact to overshoot the missile and create sufficient miss distance to negate the effects of the detonating warhead. Well, it works. The hard part though, is to see the missile early enough to make all the mental calculations.

https://defenseissues.net/2013/08/17/evading-air-to-air-missile/

Evasion is made easier in some situations by the fact that missile always attempts to lead the target.

Against a moving target, you lead the target. You estimate where he is going to be and you shoot/launch for that point.

Somehow, I do not expect you to focus and try to understand these technical points.

@gambit

The software that created the F-117 was based un calculations of Soviet scientists.

That is NOT true. I have Ufimtsev's work in my home library.

When Ufimtsev created his math, he did not have combat radars in mind. What he did was mathematically formalized the behaviors of waves on various surfaces, including the edge which is a surface.

Ufimtsev submitted his paper for publication. The Soviet government reviewed it and found the math had no military value and allowed him to publish internationally. Lockheed engineer Denys Overholser found it and applied it.

The US, particularly Lockheed, deserves the rightful credit for creating the world's first 'stealth' aircraft.

There is RAM/absorption and shape/scattering, this is all there is. Already in UHF we can exclude RAM and the shaping features become weaker and weaker the smaller they get relative to wavelenght.

I understand radar principles better than you do. This was presented to this forum -- by me -- yrs ago.

The problem with long wavelengths is that they are more detectable before they can detect the 'stealth' attacker, in other words, I can see you before you can see me, allowing me to evade your long 'wavelengths' signals. This is a tactic you cannot avoid.

How much do you believe US capability has grown from 1999, 18 years ago, to deal with radar system 40 years ahead of Danis radar?

Grown plenty. You talk as if we did not study what happened over Yugoslavia.

Stealth is a good tactical extra to have but far away from what US propaganda wants people to believe. Just imagine a world without the F-117 shotdown, Americans would shout stealth much louder.

Iran can shout that single F-117 shootdown as loud as you want. See how many people will believe you.

The F-117 was the purest of the US stealth aircraft,...

No, it was not. This is nothing but pure hype by you in order to convince yourself that Iran have a chance.

The F-117 used the 'angled faceting' method to achieve low radar observability. The B-2 and F-22/35 uses angled faceting and curvatures. Mathematically, if we use today's supercomputers, the F-117 would be mathematically easier to model.

I say this kindly -- you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[haman10]

I say this kindly -- you do not know what you are talking about.

Scary stuff bro.

We've got no idea what we're talking about but we're actually the ones who HACKED down your most stealthy plane.

Another question: where do your planes want to take off from to launch an attack on Iran? the same question applies to our Israeli brothers as well. where do these planes are going to take off from? a stealthy airport? if not, there would be no place for these invincible planes to land when they come back.

sad indeed

 

[PeeD]

@gambit

I feel a kind of f16.net arrogance of I know it better because you are nobody. I respect your claim to have been a pilot, at least don't classify me as I have said nothing about my background.

That is NOT true. I have Ufimtsev's work in my home library.

When Ufimtsev created his math, he did not have combat radars in mind. What he did was mathematically formalized the behaviors of waves on various surfaces, including the edge which is a surface.

Ufimtsev submitted his paper for publication. The Soviet government reviewed it and found the math had no military value and allowed him to publish internationally. Lockheed engineer Denys Overholser found it and applied it.

The US, particularly Lockheed, deserves the rightful credit for creating the world's first 'stealth' aircraft.

This is what Lockheed said. Ufimetsevs work was one of a collection on a topic including radars. It was just the most civil-rated work that was allowed to be published. It's a strange kind of arrogance to believe that such basic work on wave scattering would have been somehow missed by Soviet "stupids". No, they had more advanced calculation models and released this one and Lockheed skunkworks was clever enough to pick it up.
Good for you and you applied this for tactical use at a high pricetag. But this tactical extra on which the F-117 was designed made it otherwise so low performing (speed, agility, range) that it soon became unsurvivable on todays battlefield.
Soviets were fully aware of it, but not ready to sacrifice enough performance parameters for it. Just now they apply it to some extend on the PAK-FA and there they are not stupid enough to go for an all-aspect application. Americans have the money and faith to their stealth, good for them.

I understand radar principles better than you do. This was presented to this forum -- by me -- yrs ago.

The problem with long wavelengths is that they are more detectable before they can detect the 'stealth' attacker, in other words, I can see you before you can see me, allowing me to evade your long 'wavelengths' signals. This is a tactic you cannot avoid.

Good for you that you presented what I wrote already years ago (does not mean you know better than me, you may or may not).

Well good, you can detect Iranian VHF-radars on long range, what you want to do now? This are high power systems rated at 500km+, with magnitudes higher jamming resistance than Danis export P-18.
Because you want to be professional, let me be professional too:
If the MuF-2 radar is rated at 500km against a 15m² supersonic bomber target it will have a range of 188km against a ~0,3m² F-22/-35 (no RAM effects, due to VHF-band, head-on).
This are the numbers with which we non-Americans work who just consider physics, no one takes Lockmart statements like of "size of a pea" seriously. Due to the jamming resistance and high range no stand-off jammer degradation is considered.
So we have a radar coverage circle of 2x~200km=400km of a radar of which dozens are in service and the numbers is increasing at fast pace. Iran is a large country but how many 2-time redundant mobile MuF-2 radars teams do you think Iran needs to give full coverage of the whole airspace?
Yes you detect them (if they go online) at longer range but in the end the system density counts.
Comparing this to Danis, non-stand-off export P-18 that had hardly a range of 25km due to heavy jamming, one realizes in what bad situation he was (and that P-18 was not taken out...).

No, it was not. This is nothing but pure hype by you in order to convince yourself that Iran have a chance.

The F-117 used the 'angled faceting' method to achieve low radar observability. The B-2 and F-22/35 uses angled faceting and curvatures. Mathematically, if we use today's supercomputers, the F-117 would be mathematically easier to model.

I say this kindly -- you do not know what you are talking about.

You want to have a professional talk, then realize that by pure I mean it has no active emitters like MTI and SAR radar such as the also quite pure B-2 (LPI or not). Its facet stealth shaping was more primitive than never "round" designs, but it degrades the aerodynamic performance, to stealth shaping performance should be at least as good as F-22/-35.

Irans chances against US stealth are quite high because Irans concentrates on a ground based IADS and it's performance is increasing at very fast pace. Let's say Americans have never faced a IADS of even a friction of power and lets hope they h´never have to do.

 

[Blue In Green]

@gambit

I feel a kind of f16.net arrogance of I know it better because you are nobody. I respect your claim to have been a pilot, at least don't classify me as I have said nothing about my background.



This is what Lockheed said. Ufimetsevs work was one of a collection on a topic including radars. It was just the most civil-rated work that was allowed to be published. It's a strange kind of arrogance to believe that such basic work on wave scattering would have been somehow missed by Soviet "stupids". No, they had more advanced calculation models and released this one and Lockheed skunkworks was clever enough to pick it up.
Good for you and you applied this for tactical use at a high pricetag. But this tactical extra on which the F-117 was designed made it otherwise so low performing (speed, agility, range) that it soon became unsurvivable on todays battlefield.
Soviets were fully aware of it, but not ready to sacrifice enough performance parameters for it. Just now they apply it to some extend on the PAK-FA and there they are not stupid enough to go for an all-aspect application. Americans have the money and faith to their stealth, good for them.



Good for you that you presented what I wrote already years ago (does not mean you know better than me, you may or may not).

Well good, you can detect Iranian VHF-radars on long range, what you want to do now? This are high power systems rated at 500km+, with magnitudes higher jamming resistance than Danis export P-18.
Because you want to be professional, let me be professional too:
If the MuF-2 radar is rated at 500km against a 15m² supersonic bomber target it will have a range of 188km against a ~0,3m² F-22/-35 (no RAM effects, due to VHF-band, head-on).
This are the numbers with which we non-Americans work who just consider physics, no one takes Lockmart statements like of "size of a pea" seriously. Due to the jamming resistance and high range no stand-off jammer degradation is considered.
So we have a radar coverage circle of 2x~200km=400km of a radar of which dozens are in service and the numbers is increasing at fast pace. Iran is a large country but how many 2-time redundant mobile MuF-2 radars teams do you think Iran needs to give full coverage of the whole airspace?
Yes you detect them (if they go online) at longer range but in the end the system density counts.
Comparing this to Danis, non-stand-off export P-18 that had hardly a range of 25km due to heavy jamming, one realizes in what bad situation he was (and that P-18 was not taken out...).



You want to have a professional talk, then realize that by pure I mean it has no active emitters like MTI and SAR radar such as the also quite pure B-2 (LPI or not). Its facet stealth shaping was more primitive than never "round" designs, but it degrades the aerodynamic performance, to stealth shaping performance should be at least as good as F-22/-35.

Irans chances against US stealth are quite high because Irans concentrates on a ground based IADS and it's performance is increasing at very fast pace. Let's say Americans have never faced a IADS of even a friction of power and lets hope they h´never have to do.

I don't mean to be rude but can you explain some the acronyms you were using?

I'm not well versed in this sort of lingo.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Excellent post PeeD

I feel a kind of f16.net arrogance of I know it better because you are nobody. I respect your claim to have been a pilot, at least don't classify me as I have said nothing about my background.

This is unfortunately what one has to deal with when talking to gambit.

If the MuF-2 radar is rated at 500km against a 15m² supersonic bomber target it will have a range of 188km against a ~0,3m² F-22/-35 (no RAM effects, due to VHF-band, head-on).

Can you explain why VHF discounts RAM please? Thank you.

 

[PeeD]

@AmirPatriot

In fact I have no means to know whether he is a real ex-pilot or just a F16.net fanboy. But for me its not of importance, I just consider the content of his post and don't talk about myself.

Can you explain why VHF discounts RAM please? Thank you.

First and foremost its the depth that creates the problems. The wavelength of the MuF-2 is ~180cm. Now there used to be a rule of tumb which said the RAM/RAS thickness must be ~50% of the wavelength (90cm). New advanced in RAM have changes this but in any case 25% is the state of the art limit = 45cm. The only aircraft that could possess 45cm RAS/RAM would be the B-2 and that's a ideal model, more than 20cm RAS/RAM thickness are very unlikely. Even with 20cm and best state of the art materials the degradation against a wavelength of 180cm would be very small. In fact multi-band RAM/RAS is not even preferred/used, all available thickness is invested to absorb X-band to its best effect. For F-22/-35, thickness is max. in magnitude of few cm...
So we don't consider any effect of RAM/RAS in F-22/-35/-117 and at best a minimal one for the B-2.

I was kind enough to calculate 188km detection range of a MuF-2 against a F-22/35 which would be a very adverse condition with a shaping-only RCS of 0,3m² in VHF-band. The 0,3m² number used for the calculation discounts the VHF- vs. X-Band effect in range of 10 DBSM.
This means nothing else than what Russians would tell you: "Our Nebo-M sees a F-22/-35 like as if it is a non-stealth aircraft at extended ranges". This is in fact true for non-RAM, shaping-only RCS for F-22/-35 is estimated at ~0,3m in X-band by Russian scientists. In VHF-band this RCS grows by 10 DBSM to 3m² or in other words: effective a normal fighter jet without the fancy stealth in front.

There is even a declassified Northrop datasheet from the 80's showing this at least 10 DBSM degradation of stealth designs in VHF-band compared to X.

Stealth becomes really tactical useful in X-band, where RAM comes into effect and no >10 DBSM loss in shaping due to VHF-band occurs.

Having said all this, it means nothing else than the estimated effective detection range of the MuF-2 against a F-22/-35 is 334km or a 668km circle (the 0,3m² for X-band has become 3m² in VHF). I just took adverse conditions and neglected the VFH effect to show that even then this capability is magnitudes different than what NATO faced in 99.

Now consider also that Iranians know what they talk about, not just estimates and simulations as a RQ-170 of the skunkworks is at hand. I wonder if gambit like the f-16.net will say this it's just a low tech expandable system without the real stealth....


@BlueInGreen2

What exactly do you want to know? MuF-2 e.g stands for Matla-ul-Fajr-2.