Russia unveils pilotless 'stealth' bomber

their religion is muslim, as far as I'm concerned is a religion the US should ban. Muslim is religion gone bad.

Maybe you should learn to tell the difference between a religion and a group of murderous nutters. They are not one and the same. Unless you think that Catholicism should also be banned after the IRA bombings we suffered for decades before you guys knew what a 'war on terror' was?

I am the least religious person, possibly, on the planet. But statements as ignorant as that really make me angry Murcielago, and I know we have had some great discussions in the past so I'm not suddenly going to demonise you but you should practice a little of what you preach and maybe actually get to know some Muslims before you condemn them all.

There are Christian nutters who are just as evil as our current Bogeymen. Its not their faith that is to blame, it is their own warped perceptions of it. I've seen some American bible bashers who scare the crap out me with the way they have twisted Christianity into something unrecognisable from what it should be. Just learn to tell the difference is all I ask.


Dammit! Theres nothing about a Russian Stealth bomber in my post, I hate it when that happens.

[edit on 26-8-2007 by waynos]

reply to post by C0bzz


I suggest that any responses related to US weapons being used by insurgents be moved HERE as it might or might not prove something and certainly do not belong in the original discussion.

Stellar

reply to post by Murcielago


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Stellar

reply to post by Murcielago


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Stellar

reply to post by ShatteredSkies


www.abovetopsecret.com...

How is posting that link going to make me care about 190,000 guns missing? The US ships thousands upon thousands of tonnes worth of weapons each year.

Now sure 190,000 is a large number albeit, but hey I'm not pointing any fingers because a gun is a gun and it doesn't really matter with what gun their using, the enemy we're fighting will always find a means to which to fight us with.

So I guess I just don't care about where they get their weapons because if our weapons had been checked better, they would have found other weapons to fight us with and our soldiers would STILL be dying.

Death is death and a gun is a gun no matter what you label it as or what manufacturer or supplier you put smack on it.

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by ShatteredSkies


I responded to your posts in this thread on the thread i linked you to. Before you point fingers it's always best to at least read the thread if not a few thousands books.

Thanks.

Stellar

What ever happened to the Russian stealth UCAV.

There was a funky stealth copter-thingie model in that MAKS 07 thread too.

Originally posted by Daedalus3

What ever happened to the Russian stealth UCAV.

I think it got a thick layer of 'RAM' (off topic BS).

Hey it was only a mockup, anyway!

The Winged Wombat

What was the relevance of that thread to Russia's pilotless stealth bomber again?

And I never said anything about bad luck, you made a lot of assumptions in your response to me.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
What was the relevance of that thread to Russia's pilotless stealth bomber again?

I made the responses there because the issues were more related to missing weapons than it did Russia's new 'stealth' bomber.

And I never said anything about bad luck, you made a lot of assumptions in your response to me.

Shattered OUT...

Everyone makes assumptions and you actually have to claim that they are wrong before you will get more attention from me.

Stellar

I won't because I don't necessarily want your attention at any of my posts. But here I am going off topic again...

Shattered OUT...

Did anyone mention that MiG are building this as both a manned and unmanned aircraft, or am I talking about something completely different?

Good god this thread got out of control!

It will be interesting if this UCAV will ever fly.

Also if the Russians are advanced enough to pilot the UCAV remotely from halfway around the world like the USA has been doing for quite some time now.

Do they currently have the technology in orbit to control a UCAV?

I've always wondered if a way to block the navigation signals exists short of an EMP blast. Preventing the control of UCAVs would just fill up the hangar bays with useless equipment.

I'm sure the Russians can fly model aircraft just as well as anyone else and the technology need to do that beyond line-of-sight is probably no more than is involved in a satellite broadband connection, albeit with one end of the connection moving along at a handy pace.

The ultimate goal with UCAVs is to make them as autonomous as possible, otherwise they are simply 'radio controlled model aircraft'.

It's kinda like Chess Masters playing against Chess Computers. The computer can recognize situations and initiate pre-programmed actions (or indeed choose between options and put itself in an advantageous situation), and just like the chess situation, as computers get faster and more powerful, more and more solutions can be programmed into them making it more and more difficult for the human brain to keep up with the changing situation. In that situation it would be just as difficult to target the on-board computer as it would be to target the UCAV itself.

But we are not yet in a situation where a UCAV can carry the defensive sensors and the computer power (or indeed that we fully comprehend the programming of the evasive or offensive maneuvers required), of, for instance a B-1 or an F-22. In this situation, there has to be two-way comms with the 'drone' so that it can be 'flown' remotely - and that infers a defense of interrupting the signal (if you know it's frequency, etc) or eliminating the relay system utilized (satellite or relay aircraft, etc)

To reach the ultimate potential of UCAVs (including the G forces that they could employ - with no humans aboard), requires two separate achievements. Firstly the accumulation of sets of control movements matching particular maneuvers (this can be recorded from training flights 'flown' by a remote pilot and stored for later use by the computer - comparatively easy) and secondly the computer programming to decide just when and in what situation to carry out the maneuvers (and that's the really hard part!). See why computer programmers take those chess battles so seriously - and they are only fought in TWO dimensions?

The obvious defense against such UCAVs would be computer aimed particle weapons (which by their nature require no significant prediction of target movement - ie:- no lead, and which are not subject to error due to 'G' loading). But, of course, first you have to be able to 'see' it - therefore the emphasis on stealth with UCAVs.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 29/8/07 by The Winged Wombat]

reply to post by The Winged Wombat


I'm thinking that control of a UCAV is just a wee bit more involved than piloting a model aircraft....

Perhaps some people would like to take some time and read about the test flight og the unmanned "Buran" and how accurate the landing was.

reply to post by RedBaron



Now that is interesting. Thanks for the heads up. I had no idea that the Buran flew unmanned. I'll try and find something on that tonight unless you already have a link.

There is a lesson here if you wish to see......

Never, EVER, underestimate your opponent's capabilities, or believe that he is stupid - it's an absolutely sure way of getting your ass kicked!

If you believe that you can defeat an enemy, even though he has the same capabilities as you do, then you can plan for victory. If it turns out that he doesn't have that capability, then you still win. Believing that your enemy lacks credibility will inevitably lead to unpleasant surprises and probable defeat.

Actually, if you break down the tasks required to 'pilot' a UCAV (either remotely or by an on-board computer), the steps are exactly the same as flying a model aircraft, or indeed a real aircraft.

1. Understanding the control inputs to achieve the desired maneuver.
2. Getting the input from the 'pilot' to the control surfaces.
3. Obtaining feedback about the real-world situation of the vehicle (everything from weather to interception threats)
4. Deciding on appropriate responses to the feedback (which has always been the deciding factor in any engagement and the most difficult to 'teach' a computer - or a man).
5. Translating those responses into control inputs fast enough to influence the situation.

Given that a UCAV must obey the laws of physics (in this universe at least) then in spite of all the complexities involved in translating those steps for a computer the UCAV can still only do what any other aircraft can do, except that it has three major tactical advantages.

1. Without a person on-board it can be simpler and lighter than a manned aircraft (no life support system - but weighed against the size and weight of the electronics required) and can carry out maneuvers that would incapacitate or disorient a human pilot. (This is only an advantage against a manned aircraft, not against another UCAV, however the problems of defensive solutions will probably see offensive UCAVs in service well before defensive systems - does anyone know of a defensive UCAV system under development?)

2. It reduces the huge cost of training, in that the size of a particular force is limited only by what the operator can afford to build, rather than a pool of recruited and trained pilots, and the standard of 'training' is uniform across the fleet without continuation exercises. Any updating of tactics can be 'learned' simply by updating the software fleet-wide. And your 'pilots' don't get fat and lazy, or leave for a well paying airline job, however the expression 'The pilot's a little rusty' might become much more literal

3. It reduces blue force casualties and therefore takes the media, and the 'emotional opposition' out of the equation. Without meaning to sound cold hearted, on a military planning level if a target is of such importance that to destroy it would result in the loss of, say, 20% of the attacking force, then that might well be acceptable - and the cost of those losses, again militarily, might well be greater in lost hardware than in lost lives - but the media does not see the world in that light and has become, for better or worse, a factor in military planning.

Other than that, you could say that all air vehicles (including SAMs, cruise missiles and 'conventional' aircraft) are model aircraft, only some of which are controlled by a human pilot (with all his/her faults and limitations) sitting on-board.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 29/8/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Thank you to pilot.strizhi.info for these pictures