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.

 

SU-57, F-35 comparisons and upgrade questions for my self evaluation

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
So its nothing more than a button? Meaning no new engine was put in place? Put this in layman terms for me.




posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: wewuzkangz

No one in the world has managed to build an air breathing hypersonic platform, larger than a missile that has flown longer than 8 or 9 minutes. Not in the white world. They're expensive as hell even on the small scale, and the materials science behind them is incredibly complex.


This is pretty much what I was getting at. Of course you can explain it better than I can. A lot of that is explained in the article he apparently didn't read.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: wewuzkangz

I put it in layman's terms for you several posts ago. But once again....

ADVENT is a new engine type. With the push of a button, a valve opens and redirects part of the airflow going into the engine into another bypass stream. That makes the engine more efficient.

Close the valve, and the airflow goes through the core of the engine again. That gives the engine more power again.

This engine is the only engine in the world that can improve efficiency without changing parts inside the engine, and just pushing a button in the cockpit.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58 Thank you and about the other statement

"No one in the world has managed to build an air breathing hypersonic platform, larger than a missile that has flown longer than 8 or 9 minutes. Not in the white world. They're expensive as hell even on the small scale, and the materials science behind them is incredibly complex. " Well considering space travel to the moon how do those people get the oxygen they need? No one in the world has built? That can be challenged from time to time I think they seem to be notorious for that. No one in the world has managed to build an operational aircraft using GaN MMICs or ROFAR technology but there were ways to make GaN cheap as well, or no one yet ever made a flight trip to Mars and back but some are still attempting to do so......We dont know for sure despite the difficult tasks thats why I never underestimate human evolution.


edit on 11-12-2017 by wewuzkangz because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-12-2017 by wewuzkangz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: wewuzkangz

Ok, so do you actually understand what you're reading or are you just being deliberately obtuse?



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Your saying no one has built a hyper sonic breathable aircraft. But no explanation is given of its possibility using costs as an excuse if that excuse its self is not plausible enough to still pursue the project because costs are unknown or can get lowered if they look expensive at 1st.........So back to your reference how expensive will it be for a single mig-41 to be operational as a hyper sonic aircraft despite hypothetical guesses which are not all that bad? I see not withdrawal as of yet

edit on 11-12-2017 by wewuzkangz because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-12-2017 by wewuzkangz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: wewuzkangz

No I didn't. I said no one has built an air breathing hypersonic craft larger than a missile. Learn the difference, it's huge.

The hypersonic aircraft (since we're being pedantic) that have been built and flown, regardless of size all have one thing in common. They suffered significant damage during the flight. In fact the recent test aircraft all suffered enough damage during the flight that they crashed because of it, which is why they were only scale model, unmanned aircraft.

Building one aircraft, unless it's a testbed is utterly stupid. It's going to break, and eventually it may crash. Then you're screwed. Not to mention that the more you build, the lower the costs go. So building one aircraft may cost $600M, where building 100 might cost $120M each.
edit on 12/11/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thank you this is the response I wanted. Also now I see why they want the Mig-41 unmanned despite the microwave guns being the excuse for that......So kinetic heat is another problem. Hate using spacecraft as an argument but the kinetic heat of the material use of mach 23 was not enough to be destroyed before sending astronauts to the moon....So it does not sound like a problem regarding material of withstanding heat. The aerodynamic design seems to be the problem. I hear talks of plasma coating and other # like that but what your saying is it will take highly advanced technology to do so along with a shoe string budget......This is the best response I have gotten on hyper-sonic aircraft thanks.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: wewuzkangz

Just stop. You're comparing apples and cars. Space vehicles are designed so that the portion that sees the most heat (the bottom) is protected. They're going at the speeds you're talking about for a few minutes on reentry. Aircraft are seeing heating over the entire airframe to various extents and would have to sustain that heat absorption for hours at a time. The two aren't even close to the same thing.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The spacecraft have a nice rounded, flat, blunt shape that takes the brunt of re-entry shielding the stuff protruding, like the vertical stab on the shuttle, from eroding form the heat.

Take a look at the X-15 after one of the later missions. Even though it had gone up over 300,000 feet altitude it had major damage as the heat eroded through the ablative coating.

(That was supposed to be a reply to wew)
edit on 11-12-2017 by Flipper35 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Flipper35

One of the more recent tests they actually "watched" chunks of skin come off until the computer couldn't keep the aircraft under control any longer.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
"The two aren't even close to the same thing. " Please read this part of my post thanks" The aerodynamic design seems to be the problem."



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: wewuzkangz

The aerodynamic design is NOT the problem. Flying in excess of Mach 1 results in large amounts of heat. The faster you go, the more heat is generated. At Mach 3, the SR-71 saw temperatures of 600-900 degrees on the airframe. That was one of the most efficient airframe designs for high speed.

It doesn't matter how you shape the airframe, the heat is going to happen. It's caused by friction as the airframe moves through the air.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Biggest problem is the SKIN material lasting for hours at a time...Thicker skins mean more weight,use more fuel,more fuel tonnage means more weight,bigger airframe,bigger engines..



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

And no matter what shape the airframe is that heat is going to occur. Unless they can come up with a way to slip through the air with zero friction, there's no way around it.



posted on Dec, 11 2017 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Have they......?........hmmmmmmm......



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Everything the public knows about is 30 year old technology...at a minimum....



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR
Touche



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

Hey blackfinger,

zaph does bring up a very valid point (as usual) about the degree of material science needed to pull off sustained hypersonic flight through the atmosphere. I personally believe russia is nowhere near close enough to that threshold to achieve that. So them claiming a mig capable of that to me seems highly suspect. Werent their migs that were capable of very brief mach three dashes basically near ruined after single attempts? I dont see them with their meager budgets getting too much further with tangible developments material science wise since then.

Second item of contention. Electromagnetic cannons. Err. Ok. Two immediate problems. Again material science wise. Russia is far behind the usa in that and even the usa had a hell of a time getting our rail guns to fire more than a few times before their magnets were shot and wrecked. How much better do folks really think with their flinsy budgets the russians are doing in that avenue? Seems to me more like a rail gun/electromagnetic cannon that would fire once, likely miss, and then malfunction and fail to fire again leaving the mig in deep doodoo when pissed off f22 and f35 pilots swing back around and punt the annoying migs back to where they came from.

Another problem. How on earth are they going to power their electromagnetic cannons. I figure that would take a chunk of power they cant currently produce inside their aircraft. What are they going to do hire Doc Brown to put lightning rods on all their migs then have them only operate in lightening storms hoping for a lucky zap so they can fire their rail guns.

Russia has great minds and ideas. They dont have the money to make almost any of them happen.

On a side note howd you guys do with the storms last week. I am seriously jealous of where you live. It really is close to being paradise.
edit on 12-12-2017 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2017 @ 07:48 AM
link   
We must wait what come next after the F-35 in the futur next generation air dominance, I don't think Russia will be near of something like the Mig 41 in a near futur.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join