It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian PAK-DA "stealth" bomber is serious slow mo

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Picture link.

Interesting pic, that. Looks kinda familiar. Chasing a rabbit there, Ivan?

Anyways...

KRET has sent the proposals for the avionics for the PAK-DA to Tupolev.

The Russians still claim they will have the first flight of the PAK-DA in 2019 and begin testing in 2021. The gap /could/ be they are going to build the airframes without the final avionics in place and then swap in the real ones. I'd speculate they could be doing so because their modsim capabilities are not great.

However, that'd be possible ONLY with a good economy and money flowing from oil. Oil prices I keep hearing are going to hit $30/barrel. If so, I do not see how the Russians could afford this unless they are going to get someone else to foot the bill (re: PAK FA and India).




posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha



Well it much cheaper to copy.... I gues we will know what it will really look like when its of the drawing Board and on the tarmack.

It looks much larger than the B2 i think?


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Those intakes look huge and how stealth can it be with exposed fans faces. 2019 seams extremely optimistic too.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
Picture link.

Interesting pic, that. Looks kinda familiar. Chasing a rabbit there, Ivan?

Anyways...

KRET has sent the proposals for the avionics for the PAK-DA to Tupolev.

The Russians still claim they will have the first flight of the PAK-DA in 2019 and begin testing in 2021. The gap /could/ be they are going to build the airframes without the final avionics in place and then swap in the real ones. I'd speculate they could be doing so because their modsim capabilities are not great.

However, that'd be possible ONLY with a good economy and money flowing from oil. Oil prices I keep hearing are going to hit $30/barrel. If so, I do not see how the Russians could afford this unless they are going to get someone else to foot the bill (re: PAK FA and India).



With Russia's decades of experience and design of stealth, one can be impressed with this. Oh, wait a minute, they have zero experience, where'd they get this???? Cough, cough.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha



It kinda reminds me of a plane I've seen elsewhere, just a little lighter in color and less stealthy.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: anzha



It kinda reminds me of a plane I've seen elsewhere, just a little lighter in color and less stealthy.


Is it really less stealthy to ground radar? I dont think so.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: anzha



It kinda reminds me of a plane I've seen elsewhere, just a little lighter in color and less stealthy.


Is it really less stealthy to ground radar? I dont think so.

You have the specs of this yet to be built plane to back that assessment up? I'll admit I was making an assumption with zero evidence to back it up other than the US invented stealth tech.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: anzha



It kinda reminds me of a plane I've seen elsewhere, just a little lighter in color and less stealthy.


Is it really less stealthy to ground radar? I dont think so.

You have the specs of this yet to be built plane to back that assessment up? I'll admit I was making an assumption with zero evidence to back it up other than the US invented stealth tech.


You are making two assessments... There are People who would argue if the US were the once who invented stealth.

The reason i say this is a stealth bomber when it comes to ground radar, is because of where the intakes are placed. And a ground radar sends it's radar signal from the ground and up. That means the intakes would be hidden from a ground radar signal. I hope i dont have to Draw a line on the image to show this to you?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: anzha



It kinda reminds me of a plane I've seen elsewhere, just a little lighter in color and less stealthy.


Is it really less stealthy to ground radar? I dont think so.

You have the specs of this yet to be built plane to back that assessment up? I'll admit I was making an assumption with zero evidence to back it up other than the US invented stealth tech.


You are making two assessments... There are People who would argue if the US were the once who invented stealth.

The reason i say this is a stealth bomber when it comes to ground radar, is because of where the intakes are placed. And a ground radar sends it's radar signal from the ground and up. That means the intakes would be hidden from a ground radar signal. I hope i dont have to Draw a line on the image to show this to you?

Who would argue it? Who else has had the tech since the 60's?

Also I can see where the intakes are on the artist's concept of the plane. You know there's a whole lot more than where the intakes are placed when it comes to stealth tech right?



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: anzha



It kinda reminds me of a plane I've seen elsewhere, just a little lighter in color and less stealthy.


Is it really less stealthy to ground radar? I dont think so.

You have the specs of this yet to be built plane to back that assessment up? I'll admit I was making an assumption with zero evidence to back it up other than the US invented stealth tech.


You are making two assessments... There are People who would argue if the US were the once who invented stealth.

The reason i say this is a stealth bomber when it comes to ground radar, is because of where the intakes are placed. And a ground radar sends it's radar signal from the ground and up. That means the intakes would be hidden from a ground radar signal. I hope i dont have to Draw a line on the image to show this to you?

Who would argue it? Who else has had the tech since the 60's?

Also I can see where the intakes are on the artist's concept of the plane. You know there's a whole lot more than where the intakes are placed when it comes to stealth tech right?


Having the Technology to build stealth has nothing to do With who was first to invent stealth....

I Guess we settled the argument about this being a stealth bomber.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Stealthy? Um no?

It's about as stealthy as the computer stack that created the Photoshop picture?

A serious lack of imagination here on Russia's part. I would have thought they would have come up with something a little more "darty" looking. Not a larger version of the yank tank?

Insert Russian accent:

"We build strong like bull yah?" "We rain terror from the skies, with bigger payloads, bigger than puny stealth bomber"



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: CaptainBeno

So a flying wing built by the US is stealthy, but the same design built by Russia isn't? How does that work? Flying wings are inherently stealthy to begin with. There is no reason this won't be as stealthy as any other flying wing.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

It seems they will use a militar version of his high bypass turbofan engines.
edit on 23-12-2015 by drwire because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

at first look the image of the "prototype" show almost double wingspan than B-2.


edit on 23-12-2015 by drwire because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
ya know that the further away ground based air defense radar can see sideways and not just upward from what i have heard.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: drwire

As of now it has a lighter maximum takeoff weight, at 264,000 pounds, as opposed to 376,000 pounds, and a shorter combat radius at 2,200 miles. That's not set in stone though.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
ya know that the further away ground based air defense radar can see sideways and not just upward from what i have heard.


True, since the Earth is round. It should be able to spot the intake at the horizon, that is when the intakes would be pointing stright at the radar Waves?

The US must have good radars
The bomber would be much smaller at long distances.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

it make no sense, bigger but with short legs and arms



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: yuppa
ya know that the further away ground based air defense radar can see sideways and not just upward from what i have heard.


True, since the Earth is round. It should be able to spot the intake at the horizon, that is when the intakes would be pointing stright at the radar Waves?

The US must have good radars
The bomber would be much smaller at long distances.



Exactly. Same for the b2 if someone is expecting it i am sure. And yeah further away smaller it looks,btu that bird moving over 100 mph kind of gives it away.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: yuppa
ya know that the further away ground based air defense radar can see sideways and not just upward from what i have heard.


True, since the Earth is round. It should be able to spot the intake at the horizon, that is when the intakes would be pointing stright at the radar Waves?

The US must have good radars
The bomber would be much smaller at long distances.



Exactly. Same for the b2 if someone is expecting it i am sure. And yeah further away smaller it looks,btu that bird moving over 100 mph kind of gives it away.


It would probably have to fly With it's nose up all the way



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join