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.

 

What about Russia's Stealth?!?! What about the others?!?!

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quicksilver
Also i wouldnt be suprised if the russians had stealth but i think if they did they either have a working prototypes or a very smalll fleet and they could not contend withthe new generation of upcomming US stealth technology.


*sigh* the russians invented stealth, but there is not so much need for stealth with now days radars anyways, only if your against nk or iraq then it helps




posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 01:36 PM
link   
As to the original question....
Russian "stealth" technology is a different concept than US philosophies. The Russians have been studying and partially applying thier version of "stealth" via "plasma stealth generators/technologies." They have one or two prototypes of US version style "stealth" aircraft but none in full or partial production.

Plasma "stealth" technology is also being tested and further refined in a few countries. There are inherent problems with plasma being used for stealth....aka: power requirements and the "light bulb" effect.

India, Britain, and a couple more are working on shape and form "stealth." Russia is mainly spending funds to 'counter such stealth" technologies.

Note: in respect to "shape and form stealth" technologies....any plane claimed to be stealth and has exterior hardpoints for weapons, etc. is not stealth or nullifies such stealth properties.

regards
seekerof



posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by $tranger

Originally posted by Quicksilver
Also i wouldnt be suprised if the russians had stealth but i think if they did they either have a working prototypes or a very smalll fleet and they could not contend withthe new generation of upcomming US stealth technology.


*sigh* the russians invented stealth, but there is not so much need for stealth with now days radars anyways, only if your against nk or iraq then it helps


Wrong answer $tranger..........
Both are currently developing their own versions of stealth and they are completely different.

regards
seekerof



posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Btw.......the Germans invented early-stealth or the concept of.

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 26-7-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Germany was untill recently (2 years) still doing some advanced stealth research.
It stopped when the US made a "polite request" to do so.



posted on Aug, 4 2003 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by $tranger*sigh* the russians invented stealth, but there is not so much need for stealth with now days radars anyways, only if your against nk or iraq then it helps

My guess is that we do not use true "stealth" aircraft (although considerable efforts went into reduction of effective radar crossections of our combat aircraft) is that they are not as stealth as one may think. We possess the radar systems that can detect existing stealth aircraft. Also our scientists have developed the methods that can be used to effectively detect such aircraft and the existing equipment can be upgraded to employ these methods. In short, your radar shouldn't look for the direct reflections off the target, but rather for a "disturbance" it makes in a radar picture. As a simple example, imagine a 100% radar absorbing object put against a mountainside. A Doppler radar that can "see" moving objects against the Earth surface will not show you anything, as there's no radar return from a moving target. OTOH a simplest radar will show you a radar picture of ground clutter with a black spot where the "stealth" target is, because it absorbs not only the direct EM radiation, but also the reflections from the Earth surface. To be truly stealth the target should have the ability to transfer the EM radiation from it's one side to another, but that is not a case with the current "stealth" technology. So I think that our experts have considered that these pseudo stealth aircraft ain't worth the investment.

PS: IMO the plasma stealth thing is a complete BS. As anyone who studied physics knows, plasma conducts electrical current quite well. Metals conduct current too. So putting a plasma cloud into the sky is almost the same as putting a large chunk of metal there. It will retransmit (or "reflect" in more common terms) the EM waves nicely. BTW ionosphere that makes long-range radio transmissions possible consists of plasma and it does just the same, reflects radio waves.

[Edited on 4-8-2003 by Russky]



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 06:04 PM
link   
newsflash kiddies, russia, china, and the rest of the 1st world has the tech to build a stealth fighter, but unlike the U.S they dont' see a need for it as there is no urgency, i mean, would you buy a million guns if your not going to war? and also to add, why spend billions researching and F-22 only to get a flying billion dollar ferrari when u can design a missile system for less than half the price with a 6 figure missile to even the score? lets say a battery of s-400 vs 200 f-22's, your looking at atleast 80 downed f-22's before you even launch your own fighters, i think thats a sweet alternative. wouldn't you agree?



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 06:23 PM
link   


There are soo cheap because there are soo many of them that have been produced. Yea they may be more powerful but the US counterparts are far more accurate and advanced, Far less jams and malfunctions.


the M16/AR-15 design will jam in very little time (2000-4000 shots or so) in a desert enviroment while the AK is virtually unaffected...

That's why Israel developed the Galil...



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   
that energy problem with plasma technology has finally been solved, the AJAX will produce 100 MEgaWatts of energy when it flies, i'm not quite sure how it does this, have to read the websites more carefully, well anyways, thats anough to power a small town, plasma stealth technology will also make the aircraft fatser compared to convential stealth RAM and coat paintings, because RAM is heavy, it will hinder the speed of the aircraft, but plsama does give off a large IR signature, thats why the russkies are now working on cold plasma, they have already fitted a Su-35 with a plasma wall in front of it while flying, they said it was a success



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Dima
they have already fitted a Su-35 with a plasma wall in front of it while flying, they said it was a success

Of course there going to say it was a sucess.
wether it was or not

Any links or sources? Because I doubt what you say.

Also, I'm not sure why gun talk is with a stealth topic...But...FYI the Army wants to ditch the aging M-16, they will replace it with the M-8 (refered to as the XM8 because its still experimental).




posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   
stealth is not an complicated technology, even the germans designed and built an stealth fighter in the 80s, but the proyect was canceled by USA pressure



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 10:57 PM
link   
let me go ask my friends where they got the link, i'll respond tomorrow maybe about the Su-35 and the plasma screen

oh, n/m, i found a few sites

home.iae.nl...
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread89869/pg2
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread89869/pg1

thats all i can find for now, look for some more tomorrow



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by $tranger

Originally posted by $tranger

They might be able to build an F-117 type plane ( as the technology has been around for 20 years ).


do you even know where you got this technology?



thats right! Soviet scientist Ufimtsev!!


F-117s and B-2s are very costly, and require special maintance and special airstrips, russian stealth is way different.

[Edited on 26-5-2003 by $tranger]


Actually, all Ufimtsev did was SIMPLIFY a GERMAN idea on radar return signals. And it was AMERICA that took this theory and actually made it work. The fact that Russia even let it be published should tell you that they either did not think it possable to make a stealth aircraft, or they were too stupid to keep it secret. Pick your poison...



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 01:16 AM
link   
I don't think Russia is too far behind in term of prototypes, they just don't have enough money to build any of them in large numbers. I would be surprised if they weren't trying to keep their tech up to date for when they can build them in large numbers again.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 02:49 AM
link   
What german stealth plane do you guys mean? The Mako?

www.flug-revue.rotor.com...

[edit on 10/12/04 by tsuribito]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Possibaly, the Russians keep secrets just like we do. It might not be on the same level as our, but why not? They do have the Saratove air base that is very similar to Groom Lake/ Area 51

Tim


Well, I think the Russians may actually be better at keeping secrets than the US. Could someone please remind me how many times security at Los Alamos (the US's primary nuclear weapons research facility, and supposedly one of the most secure facilities in the world) has been breached, including the designs for a new battlefield, tactical nuke that went to the Chinese? Laptops going missing, hard disks, the list goes on.

Do I even have to mention the intelligence failings prior to Sept 11th?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmikduster
newsflash kiddies, russia, china, and the rest of the 1st world has the tech to build a stealth fighter, but unlike the U.S they dont' see a need for it as there is no urgency, i mean, would you buy a million guns if your not going to war? and also to add, why spend billions researching and F-22 only to get a flying billion dollar ferrari when u can design a missile system for less than half the price with a 6 figure missile to even the score? lets say a battery of s-400 vs 200 f-22's, your looking at atleast 80 downed f-22's before you even launch your own fighters, i think thats a sweet alternative. wouldn't you agree?


No, they do not have the money in the first place to build the tech, which is why Russia cancelled its only stealth air craft project not too long ago (though now they are in revival). Your statement is contradictory, a million guns? How bout several hundred nukes, hundreds of SAM systems, and yes Russia, China, and US probably have more than a million guns in their military stockade (most of those weapons were amassed over the thought of going to war). I suppose if that many F-22's were flying within that close a proximity to each other, they might be very easily detected, but since they don't do that, the missile will not even be able to lock on to the jF-22 even if it made visual. No, I think it would be sweeter if I could bomb the crap out of your SAM and other air defense systems without you ever knowing what came.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Neither does America have the money, it would be more accurate to say that the other countries don't want to run up the debt.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
No, they do not have the money in the first place to build the tech, which is why Russia cancelled its only stealth air craft project not too long ago (though now they are in revival). Your statement is contradictory, a million guns? How bout several hundred nukes, hundreds of SAM systems, and yes Russia, China, and US probably have more than a million guns in their military stockade (most of those weapons were amassed over the thought of going to war). I suppose if that many F-22's were flying within that close a proximity to each other, they might be very easily detected, but since they don't do that, the missile will not even be able to lock on to the jF-22 even if it made visual. No, I think it would be sweeter if I could bomb the crap out of your SAM and other air defense systems without you ever knowing what came.


they never cancelled their stealth projects, they were rumored to be cancelled because many people didn't know tha staues of the development, u don't know much about the S-400 Triumf, it was designed to take out stealth aircraft, it has the capability of destroying stealth aircraft, and SAM system missiles have longer range than any AGM the F-22 will use, and they WILL detect it, the F-22 is very vulnerable in the back and on its underside, ask one of the engineers



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Who really cares if the Russian SAM's can detect a F-22? I hate to tell you, but by the time a F-22 flies over Russia the best Russian air defenses would be gone.

I also doubt the capability of the new Russian SAM's. Don't they just use low frequency signals? The F-22 has been designed to absorb all frequencies except very specific frequencies which it uses itself.

The confidence is unfounded either way. Russia really doesn't have any reliable way of testing this new SAM technology against a stealth bomber like the B-2, now does it?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join