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 are the advantages of "plasma stealth"???

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Russians will probably make their new fighters in "plasma stealth" technology.Do you know something more about the advantages or disadvantages of this technology against US technology??Which one is better??

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by John bull 1]




posted on May, 4 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   
plasma stealth is cool. stupid rushins will never get that because it is too cool for them. we americkans already have this plasma stealth stuff and use it all the time. you just don't see it

*

[Edited on 5/4/2004 by AlnilamOmega]



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   
well to tell you the truth i have no clue what plasma stealth is



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Theoretically, the advantage of plasma stealth technology is that you can take a conventional aircraft that would normally have a high radar cross section but use plasma to significantly reduce the RCS since plasma reflects radar energy much like a current stealth aircraft would. A plane using plasma could be built much like an F-15 or Su-27 for maximum performance while using less expensive materials and being easier to operate and maintain in the field. In other words, you could carry external weapons, wouldn't need radar-absorbant materials, could use standard maintenance procedures and equipment, etc.

Nevertheless, everything I've seen says that plasma stealth is a pipe dream, at least for now. It takes an awful lot of energy to create plasma, even over a relatively small portion of an aircraft The technology to build a power source capable of generating a plasma field yet small enough and light enough to carry on a fighter-sized aircraft is immature, at best.

Another problem is the effects of plasma on other operations of the aircraft. For one thing, communications systems rely on the same RF energies as radar. If you block enemy radar, you may also be blocking the ability of your aircraft to send and receive communications with friendly forces. There have also been attempts to use plasma on engine inlet ducts since these are one of the least stealthy regions on a plane. However, such attempts have created significant problems getting proper engine performance. Your average turbofan engine doesn't particularly like ingesting super-heated ionized gases.

For these reasons and more, I don't think plasma technology will be revolutionizing the aircraft industry anytime soon. External shaping and special treatments will remain the key to low detectability by radar for the foreseeable future.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   
thank you aerospaceweb, my next question is how is plasma created .



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
plasma stealth is cool. stupid rushins will never get that because it is too cool for them. we americkans already have this plasma stealth stuff and use it all the time. you just don't see it

*

[Edited on 5/4/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

These types of comments are not wanted, Bashing of any type of ethnicity or natinality is not welcome here, the Russians can have anything they want, it all depends if they want it or not.

The Russians I believe were the ones who began to go into extensive experimentation of plasma shields.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   
youre right. i need to watch my mouth before i start offending people with my simulated stupidity...

duhr... i mean... blast those commies! theyre angry cause we won the war!!!!

*
part of the time where I was acting like a total idiot. this post does not refelct the true motives and perspectives I have at heart

[Edited on 5/4/2004 by AlnilamOmega]



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 07:10 PM
link   
yea shatteredskies i agree but he was just trying to be funny. and i think he maybe drunk seriously.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 07:12 PM
link   
It does not matter, I respect the Russians, they are as powerful as the US in brute force, technological, I am nto so sure.

I respect them for their capability to be right behind the US in as many means of advances as possible.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by aerospaceweb
Theoretically, the advantage of plasma stealth technology is that you can take a conventional aircraft that would normally have a high radar cross section but use plasma to significantly reduce the RCS since plasma reflects radar energy much like a current stealth aircraft would. A plane using plasma could be built much like an F-15 or Su-27 for maximum performance while using less expensive materials and being easier to operate and maintain in the field. In other words, you could carry external weapons, wouldn't need radar-absorbant materials, could use standard maintenance procedures and equipment, etc.

Nevertheless, everything I've seen says that plasma stealth is a pipe dream, at least for now. It takes an awful lot of energy to create plasma, even over a relatively small portion of an aircraft The technology to build a power source capable of generating a plasma field yet small enough and light enough to carry on a fighter-sized aircraft is immature, at best.

Another problem is the effects of plasma on other operations of the aircraft. For one thing, communications systems rely on the same RF energies as radar. If you block enemy radar, you may also be blocking the ability of your aircraft to send and receive communications with friendly forces. There have also been attempts to use plasma on engine inlet ducts since these are one of the least stealthy regions on a plane. However, such attempts have created significant problems getting proper engine performance. Your average turbofan engine doesn't particularly like ingesting super-heated ionized gases.

For these reasons and more, I don't think plasma technology will be revolutionizing the aircraft industry anytime soon. External shaping and special treatments will remain the key to low detectability by radar for the foreseeable future.



thanks aerospaceweb
),new russian fighters according to their sources will use plasma stealth technology (their fifth generation new fighter),but as I see it could be only russian dream about this technology.What do you think about it??I mean their su-47 and MIG MFI??

if they will not use this techology their new fighter won't be really good because it won't be stealth aircraft???

what do you think about their capabilities of making something that can be really dangerous for f-22???



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
well i asked this earlier but no one answered can someone explain how plasma is created.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by machinegunjordan
well i asked this earlier but no one answered can someone explain how plasma is created.



there is some info on www.aeronautics.ru as I remember



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Well, plasma is a random mess of molecules with no organization of electrons, so my guess is super heating...



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Here is the original article that was released in 1999 by the ITAR-TASS information agency proclaiming and heralding Russia's vaunted yet-to-be-seen Plasma Stealth technology:
Plasma Stealth Technology: Russian Low Observability Technologies Data Released

And here is an article helping to describe and explain it without having to read the overloaded aeronautics.ru site which has a serious habit of overhyping alot of information they give:
Explanation of what is Plasma Stealth Technology and how it works


Personally, there are some great theoretical implications with such an advancement, but with such an advancement, they would also have to counter the drawbacks....such as the amount of power that would be required and the simple fact that such a high power allocation would essentially make the aircraft utilizing Plasma Generated Stealth to be lite up like a huge flying lightbulb.....how stealthy would that be?




seekerof

[Edited on 4-5-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 06:12 AM
link   
wouldnt a plane that is traveling fast out run the plasma that it is creating? then plasma stealth isnt worth squat



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by machinegunjordan
thank you aerospaceweb, my next question is how is plasma created .


Plasma is defined as a highly ionized fluid. It is usually created under very high temperatures. When an atom reaches very high temperatures, its electrons are excited to a high energy state and escape the attraction of is nucleus. Since the electrical charges are no longer balanced, the substance becomes full of these ioized particles. It takes a great deal of energy to heat up a substance to the point that the electrons are stipped off to create these highly ionized particles. Some examples of processes that create plasma include the interior of the sun, the core of a nuclear weapon when it detonates, the air surrounding a spacecraft during atmospheric reentry, or the air in the immediate vicinity of a bolt of lightning.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by gattaca
thanks aerospaceweb
),new russian fighters according to their sources will use plasma stealth technology (their fifth generation new fighter),but as I see it could be only russian dream about this technology.What do you think about it??I mean their su-47 and MIG MFI??

if they will not use this techology their new fighter won't be really good because it won't be stealth aircraft???

what do you think about their capabilities of making something that can be really dangerous for f-22???


The Russians have made a lot of big claims about developing plasma stealth technology, but I don't put much stock in them. For one thing, if they had really made such a big breakthrough, why would they be advertising it? Such a development would be a significant advantage in achieving parity with the US, or maybe even superiority since we'd be unaware that they had the capability of reducing the radar cross section of a seemingly unstealthy aircraft by orders of magnitude. Reading through the links others have mentioned, these claims sound more like they're coming from snake oil salesman than legitimate scientists. I just don't see any hard science or credible technology that can support these unrealistic claims.

Another approach to reducing RCS that doesn't get very much attention is called active cancellation. Active cancellation is based on the concept that radar energy travels in waves, as all electrical, magnetic, and acoustic energies do. If you can generate a wave that is equal and opposite in frequency and amplitude and superimpose it onto the original wave, the two will destructively interfere and cancel each other out. A Japanese auto manufacturer developed an active noise cancellation system that used sound waves equal and opposite to those generated by the car engine and road noise to make the interior of the car nearly silent. It turns out that most drivers didn't like a perfectly quiet car, but this example illustrates the basic concept.

Probably the world's leader in this research, as it relates to stealth aircraft, has been France. France has done a lot of work in this field and may have incorporated active cancellation techniques into the Rafale. If so, the system must somehow detect the waveform of an incoming radar signal and generate an opposite wave to cancel it out. This isn't an easy problem to solve by any stretch of the imagination because many modern radars continuously vary the structure of the transmitted radar wave from pulse to pulse or even within a single pulse. In addition, radar signals reflect off a plane from many different locations, and every one of those reflected signals will have a different wave structure. As a result, it becomes a very complex problem to generate an opposite wave to cancel out each of these reflections.

Nevertheless, the French have been very secretive about this technology, and I believe there's a lot more credible science behind it than the plasma stealth claims of the Russians.

www.geocities.com...



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I think theoretically there is some basic merit to the Russian plasma stealth technology but to think that it is better, more effective, on par or anywhere close to stealth via design shape management is sheer fantasy at the current state of development.

Someone may have already linked to this information, but I understand the Russians are selling India on the idea of plasma stealth and claiming that in trials with Indian witnesses a Mig outfitted with plasma stealth had a 10 fold reduction in RCS. (I'm trying to find link... I really should bookmark this stuff when I find it)

Many Russian aerospace fans adamantly claim that the incident where Russian fighters overflew the USS Kitty Hawk in October 2000 was proof that the Russians plasma stealth works and works well. LINK
But there has been no public claim from Russia that stealth had anything to do with this incident.

Also there is certainly valid science behind plasma and it's contribution to reducing RCS - it is no secret that plasma can reduce the reflectivity of microwaves as well as act as a shield or even be used essentially as a mirror for electromagnetic radiation as well as laser depending on frequency.
LINK

The problem with this is as one other post indicated, heat, light and the ability to track the energy footprint. An alternative could of course be Cold plasma.

Many publications credit Russian scientist Anatoly Klimov on discovering that plasma reduces the RCS of an aerial vehicle in the late 1970's - However, it seems this phenomenon was first researched back in 1968 by US aircraft manufacturer Northrop, evidenced by a paper Northrop presented to the AIAA entitled "ElectroAerodynamics in Supersonic Flow".

This paper was alledged to have been pulled shortly after being published due to the radar cross section reducing information present in it.
(Aerospaceweb may have more info on this or may be able to confirm or debunk that this indeed happened).
However, there are other papers available on the internet now that cover this subject and seem to outline what the original Northrop paper said. LINK

Since even before that 1968 paper came out, US aerospace companies had researched this extensively - and you can bet every so often they have revisited this technology to check it's viability with the current state of science.

Are the Russians onto something? Sure...there is great potential in what they are working on but it is not on par or a leap beyond the current state of stealth in the US. IMHO.





[Edited on 6-5-2004 by intelgurl]



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I think everyone is missing an important thing here. Enen if a plane could produce a cloud of gas around the plane, it would simply outrun the creation. Plasma does not stick to a plane, and if it did the plane would fall out of the sky as it would stall.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Roniii,
The plasma is apparently being generated in front of the aircraft...
Current experiments covering this science in Russia seem to be using a device that may include a tesla coil to generate little streamers of lightning that propagate ahead of the aircraft, the remnants are blown back past the aircraft in the airflow. It is this "shroud" that not only gives the Russians their claimed stealth but also holds promise for reducing the friction in the atmosphere for hypersonic vehicles in the future.

There is actually extensive research going on in the US on this as well, Princeton University & Arnold Air Force Base in Tennessee come to mind immediately.
However the plasma research in the US seems to be focusing more on hypersonics rather than stealth.







[Edited on 7-5-2004 by intelgurl]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join