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.

 

There will be no dominance on F-22

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier

Ha, even if they did know the numbers (unlikely), what are they going to test these radars against? There are always absolutely tiny details that change a radar return.


Well they could test it against a re-work of the F-117A they salvaged in Kosovo..
Or they could test it against their own proposed 5th gen fighter.
Stealth requires a lot of investment; thats the only major hurdle; other than that
I don't think it is out of reach for the top aircraft makers around the world may they be from Russia or Europe.
China is a big Q?




posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Well they could test it against a re-work of the F-117A they salvaged in Kosovo..


Can you elaborate on this? They would have hard enough time replicating the RAM coating on the F-117 (first gen stealth mind you), let alone reengineering an entire F-117 to test their radars on.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

The F-15 has not been shot down as a result of air to air combat, however several Eagles have been downed as a result of ground fire, and no it's not a recent development.


Ahhhh... Clears that up then



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Can you elaborate on this? They would have hard enough time replicating the RAM coating on the F-117 (first gen stealth mind you), let alone reengineering an entire F-117 to test their radars on.



Is 1st (or maybe even 2nd) generation coatings not commerically available?

Considering the MiG-21 Bison is supposed to have RAM incorporated, as is the upcoming Su-35 Terminator and Su-34 - I'd say they have a fair idea of the materials problem.

Also, for shaping - how did the USA do the F-117 the Tacit/Have Blue progams = computer simulations. Shaping for RCS is similar to modelling acoustic propagation from a source - in terms of (modern) computing, it takes very little resources. Any of us could do it on our desktops without a problem - there are commerical codes (like SYSnoise) that can be modified to work with radar waves.



I would have no doubt the modern S-400 systems could render an F-117 force useless, the B-2 and F-22 I'm not so sure about.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Is 1st (or maybe even 2nd) generation coatings not commerically available?

Considering the MiG-21 Bison is supposed to have RAM incorporated, as is the upcoming Su-35 Terminator and Su-34 - I'd say they have a fair idea of the materials problem.


The materials (of older RAM) may not be secret, but the manufacture and applying systems/techniques still are, and from what I know, they are more difficult to reproduce. I'm not too familiar with the RAM elements on the Bison or Sukhoi but it has been a while since RAM was first applied and so it would not surprise me if others can produce it. Never said it was impossible...



Originally posted by kilcoo316
Also, for shaping...


I was talking about building, not computer simulations, however I suppose a small scale model for "lab testing" might suffice, even if it is not as realistic as having an air worthy airframe.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I was talking about building, not computer simulations, however I suppose a small scale model for "lab testing" might suffice, even if it is not as realistic as having an air worthy airframe.


But how do you think Raytheon etc design and build their radars?

You don't really think they switch out a few transistors and chips on an existing design and then take it to the test range to see how it does... do you?


Its all done through simulation - anyway, the basics are the same.

1. You want to improve antenna gain
2. You want to improve resolution at longer wavelengths
3. You want to improve transmitter power



The ability to pick out a target of X dB at Y range is determined by X's RCS variation dependant on wavelength, the transmitter power (3), and the antenna gain (1). The ability to localise it depends on 2. Also, the longer the wavelength, the higher the value of X.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
A couple points I've picked up while here on ATS. every 6 months or so russian has a break through with its 5th gen plane that has never flown (yet). I'm not saying it will never fly just that with everything incorpated in the project we wont see it for at least 2 years if they had the U.S. economy which they don't.
A small point on RAM. I dont think much of it would have been left over from the 117 in Kosovo as it very easy for it to cathc fire and quickly burned away. I remeber hearing they have to have special equitment on head for planes with 1st gen ram at least.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
You don't really think they switch out a few transistors and chips on an existing design and then take it to the test range to see how it does... do you?


And are you saying that after all the simulations there aren't live trials and test to certainty the radar and evaluate its capabilities? Or do you suppose they go straight from the computer screen into operational use?


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Its all done through simulation...


Initially, yes.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
Popular Mechanics : a truly reliable intelligence source. NOT


The F-117 that was shot down got hit by the dreaded golden BB. Triple AAA fire not by any radar guided missile. They broke a cardinal rule of modern combat tactics and followed the same flight path several times and the Serbs were waiting for them with a wall of missiles and AAA. They were like a hundred hunters waiting for a single goose. The cell phone story's a myth. If it was true the Russians would have fed the info to the Iraqi's to help them knock down US jets. The Russians want to sell their equipment just as badly as we want to sell ours.



Followed the same flight path? Did you know that USAF's one of principle rules, DO NOT FLY in same path as in previous mission in same headings and altitude. Popular Mechanics is very reliable enough when they can get any information to provide to us. Eventually, lot of people who are trying to figure out how the Nighthawk somehow tangled up with cellphone that exposed the location of the jet which caused bigger radar cross section to blip up and it got shot down by ground to air missile very easily.

[edit on 28-12-2006 by OneMyrmidon]



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Apparently they got overconfident and overlooked that crucial part of the planning, well, the Serbs caught on and gave it to us. Good thing too, better to have gotten a wake up call back then rather than in a REAL shooting war.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Whered emile go??? He cant back up his claims??



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
And are you saying that after all the simulations there aren't live trials and test to certainty the radar and evaluate its capabilities?


Nope - but your attaching very little credibility to simulation, when it should have errors of within 5% [thats normally the magic number for any engineering application, I'm not saying I know thats the case here].


What is the difference between me doing the CFD analysis of the lift curve slope of a wing in a week, and some guy doing the same in a windtunnel (costing 10+ times the price) over about a month.

I'm gonna produce results well within 5% of his (up until flow detachment - then error goes to around 5%). And RCS calcs are much easier as they use boundary element techniques, not finite volume.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Show me a source for that ".1 200KM" claim, also, lets wait until this very allusive yet often mentioned Russian 5th Gen fighter first flies (if), then, when (if) it gets produced we can talk. Until then enough with the baseless claims.



I agree, the Russians are very famous for not compleating stuff they start to work on.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Just need to mention some stuff related to some of the aobve posts.

RCS is always calculated using simulation on computers. RCS software can be made by anybody and is openly available to any research group or in other countries it can be purchased as add on packages for 3D design software like 3D studio max.

RCS is based on simple calcuations(for computers) and a computer could easily calculate the RCS of an aircraft from 99% to 99.9% accuracy and in some cases even 100% RCS accuracy as it would occur in real life test models once they are built and tested on the RCS range.

You can actully design a full stealth aircraft on a normal house hold computer. There is enough power in your house hold computer to calculate the RCS of any stealth aircraft that exists today event he B2 and F-22.

So why doesn't every body have a stealth aircraft?

First of all we don't actually know this. The whole purpose of a stealth aircraft is surprise hence we don't know who has what.

It's rediculus to assume the Russians cannot make something like a F-117a or anything similar. I'm sorry if that sounds rude to Americans or other nationalists but thats the reality. They could have a arcraft better then the F-117a in less then 3 years if they really wanted one.

Secondly RAM coating is not difficult either. Any country that can make skins for a ballistic missile or space vehicle re-entry system can make some sort or another form of RAM coating for aircraft. Obviously designing RAM coating is just like any other R&D the more time you spend with money the more advanced it will become but the fact is anybody can create RAM coating which is effective either with carbon based buffers or ferromagnetic based buffers.

Now onto the main point why havent other made stealth aircraft?

Ask your self how many countries can actually even make a basic aircraft?

-UK
-Russia
-China(Almost there one the J-10 and Super-7 are released)
-France
-USA

and that's pretty much it. Although other countries can repackage other aircraft and make them domesticly they cannot design and make there own aircraft from scratch. And there are other countries that work in collaberation with other to make aircraft like Spain, Germany etc.. but once again they don't make 100% of there own aircraft.

This mean's only these countries make them :

-UK
-Russia
-China(Almost there one the J-10 and Super-7 are released)
-France
-USA

Now think about it. These countries have the skills and knowlage to make aircrafts why can't they make stealth aircraft? Who say's they don;t have any? Just becuase they don't show the world it doesn't mean they don't exist.

Also another thing to consider is what is a stealth aircraft? Maybe these countries have stealth UAV's instead or have programs for stealth UAV's. We all know that China has plans for a stealth UAV they even have mock up models, The Euro's(France and Britain) have been making stealth UAV's or basis for them. All they will need once finsihed is a basic coat of RAM and they will be ready. The Russians are easily capable. I often hear they don;t have money or this or that but they seem to have enough money for the Topol-M and other weapons when it comes to critical weapons the Russians always have them.

Also consider not every country may be interested in RAM based stealth aircraft with curved/angled surfaces to deflect stealth. Other counties may be working on active cancellation or plasma based systems to make a lower RCS. Just because people have not gone the American way does not mean that they do not or cannot have stealth.

Just remember how long was it until the F-117a story came out in the open. Other's too have weapons that you might never hear about. Remeber only 5 countries can actually make advanced fighter jets from scrath.

By the way here just one of the types of software for RCS :
lucernhammer.tripointindustries.com...



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Oh yeah i forget to mention another few things.

You can physically simulate low RCS in real life situations. You make small drones which have the RCS of what you expect the enemy to have for example you can actually make Drones which have a RCS of 0.01m/s and then test your radars and different distances to tune the radars to pick up small aircraft signitures.

Why isn't everybody doing this?

Thats becuase once again there are only a few limited countries that can make a SAM system that could even possibly have the range to take out a possible stealth aircraft and that is Russia and America. Those are the only 2 countries right now that can even make an advanced SAM system like the S-300/400 and the Patriot. I'm not saying the Patriots are Anti-Stealth just that they could be modifyed with a new radar and software to engage smaller RCS targets.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
RCS is based on simple calcuations(for computers) and a computer could easily calculate the RCS of an aircraft from 99% to 99.9% accuracy and in some cases even 100%b RCS accuracy as it would occur in real life test models once they are built and tested on the RCS range.



How is it possible to simulate anything with an accuracy of exactly 100 %, as I see it it's totally impossible. When we count something we have to use numbers, such as weight and force etc. etc. But there are all non-exact. They can be very close to the truth but hardly 100 % exact. Why? If we count something with the weight 54.453657 kg the last number, in this case the 7 is wrong. So if this is true, how can we possible get an accuracy of exactly 100 % care to explain? I'am sure you know what you are writing, I'am just stupid.


And in your list of countries that can build aircrafts you somehow forgot to mention the father of the JAS Gripen? Sweden?



[edit on 30-12-2006 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
How is it possible to simulate anything with an accuracy of exactly 100 %, as I see it it's totally impossible. When we count something we have to use numbers, such as weight and force etc. etc. But there are all non-exact. They can be very close to the truth but hardly 100 % exact. Why? If we count something with the weight 54.453657 kg the last number, in this case the 7 is wrong. So if this is true, how can we possible get an accuracy of exactly 100 % care to explain? I'am sure you know what you are writing, I'am just stupid.



It would depend on surfaces. For example there are area's of a plane where there are no inlets to the engine. For example the top of the aircraft where there are just fins and edges the calculations will be exact. But in other area's just as air inlets becuase the fan blades and engine placing play an important role in radar return the calculation will not be 100% but will be 99% accurate according to the simulations.

On plane surfaces like the top part of the aircraft and even side area's of the fins top surface, under wing etc.. will all be 99.9% to 100% accurate to what they would be in real life.

The way the system works is you simulate the size of the actual aircraft as in how big it will be in real life and then you give it properties like how much energy degrades of the surface. Then the "radar" is given frequency and energy and is given a set distance away from the aircraft and "radar" is bounced of the surface similar to how light or sound would be bouced of surfaces in a 3D simulation. The "light/sound/radar" is given mathmatical properties based on RCS calculation and the same with the aircraft. These tell the radar waves how to behave and the returned radar waves to the source equals the RCS. And thts how RCS is calculated in sumulations. There will obviously be variations between software as in how these are implemented but the basics are the same.





Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
And in your list of countries that can build aircrafts you somehow forgot to mention the father of the JAS Gripen? Sweden?
[edit on 30-12-2006 by Figher Master FIN]


true i forgot about them but even if i did remember i wouldnt have put them on the list on purpose. This is mainly becuase there ambitions are not of a superpower or even minor super power like the above countries i mentioned. They would not need to have a stealth aircraft becuase they don't even have nukes, ICBM, Nuke Subs, Long range bombers etc..

They are not in super power mode like the other countries.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Can you source a few links on that?
The Irbis AESA was meant for the the Su-30 MKIs post 2010


The Irbis is actually confirmed to be PESA and not AESA. The only operational AESA radar from Russia is the Eupalet.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
The computing power of creating the RCS is DARPA and Pentagon's secrets in order to build the effective technique to create the low cross section. Enough said.

[edit on 1-1-2007 by OneMyrmidon]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Can you source a few links on that?
The Irbis AESA was meant for the the Su-30 MKIs post 2010


The Irbis is actually confirmed to be PESA and not AESA. The only operational AESA radar from Russia is the Eupalet.


Yeah.... thats what I'd thought!! Epaulet..




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join