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.

 

Russian Stealth Jet - On par with American jet aircraft

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
The JSF is a fighter/bomber and not an air superiority fighter. It would need to be escorted by f-22's if it were to encounter an f-22 counterpart. Thus saying the JSF is superior in air-to-air fighting to the f-22 is not correct. Plus from what I have seen, the JSF is having trouble in development and costs are spiraling out of control. Compared to slightly inferior russian and european fighters being designed, the cost benefit ratio is not great. So some countries are opting out of the American hardware because they can do the same job for a much smaller price with russian equipment.


Don't think that Russia isn't serious about upgrading and modernizing an already (perhaps intentionally) underrated military, and quickly. Georgia's US equipped military (now 18 % of GDP-wikipedia) was crushed faster than the inferior ragtag iraqis.

I've seen the su-47 prototype and it is one cool piece of machinery.






posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Indeed, Russia should produce a squad of Berkuts just to fly over its enemies before they attack. Maybe even add Stuka siren technology, any soldier would crap themselves at the sight of this formation



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Yeah and the Japanese could never have dreamed of producing a better built automobile? I guess the Japanese could never dream of building a better built camcorder, dvd player, cell phone or anything else right? LMAO! You're naive. If other countries bent their citizens over and taxed them like our government does and they had multibillion dollar defense budgets the technological gap would have been closed decades ago. It has nothing to do with us being a superior intellectually capable adversary and everything to do with money. You throw enough money at something and eventually you'll outpace the other guy. Plain and simple. Russia is catching up. They have an an endless amount of natural resources to grow their economy. The USA can't even fund social security in the coming decades. Our country is imploding and people like you are still holding on to these outdated cold war era stereotypes of "America f'k yeah" we are the best no matter what.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
There is no proof of this airplane. Since about 2003 we have heard this rumor and nothing new has came out. US has 2 fifth gen fighters, one in full production since 2005 and the other being tested. We have pics and vids of the American jets, nothing from Russia. And the plasma stealth rumor has no proof. And by the way US spent $515 billion for defense and Russia spent $50 billion, that says something.


[edit on 17-8-2009 by walsbg22]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
c'mon no matter what the cost this thing is bad ass!!!


[edit on 17-8-2009 by middleclasssoldier]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by walsbg22
There is no proof of this airplane. Since about 2003 we have heard this rumor and nothing new has came out. US has 2 fifth gen fighters, one in full production since 2005 and the other being tested. We have pics and vids of the American jets, nothing from Russia. And the plasma stealth rumor has no proof.
[edit on 17-8-2009 by walsbg22]


And that's the exact reaction that is predicted. Has it ever occured to you that Russia parades half of its new military tech around and keeps the other half secret? They have black projects just like the US does, and some of the projects will probably never be seen by the world public.

Russia also uses common sense when developing their weapons economically. There's many PAKFA designs over the years, this is because Russia believes in developing an effective design and then only mass producing it when they actually need it. The US, with its only main industry being the military industry, mass produces weapons in some Cold War-style.

Mass producing new models means that the enemy can easily analyze their weaknesses and exploit them with their own designs; this is what Russia specializes in. Look at every "invincible" American weapon and look at Russian weapons, they parallel quite nicely. The first weapon becomes the first to be obselete.


And by the way US spent $515 billion for defense and Russia spent $50 billion, that says something.


That says a lot about how the US wastes its money on obselete technology, mercinaries to fight wars of aggression and an extensive and intrusive intelligence program. Russia buys what it needs and whatever else is needed comes straight from inferior weapons sales.

Money is taken for granted anyways, but that's unAmerican talk



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by phi1618
 


You wouldbe surprised if you saw some of the stuff they havn't revealed yet. The world would shake in terror if they unveilved it.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I have nothing against the USA but those trashing other countries because of their artist interpretations of their future technological advancement, is just atrocious.

Russia always had better things that the USA before their government came to an halt, the reason why the USA had to go nuclear in a lot of things was simply to compete with Russia.

Although they do not have the funds necessary to accomplish all their goals, there are a few things that they will be able to get done and the slick looking A/C they have as just a painting right now, will be a reality and a wake up call to others.

Just because you live in the USA don't think you are the one and only with toys.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Has it ever occurred to you that Russia parades half of its new military tech around and keeps the other half secret? They have black projects just like the US does, and some of the projects will probably never be seen by the world public.


Same for US, so if US has more advanced public weapons it will have more advanced black weapons by that logic.



Russia believes in developing an effective design and then only mass producing it when they actually need it. The US, with its only main industry being the military industry, mass produces weapons in some Cold War-style.


Couldn't that make Russia highly susceptible to surprise attack by US? US will have almost as good weapons as Russia but have them already built. The US will overwhelm Russia while Russia just starts up the factories. Also, with anything, especially fifth gen fighters, without it working in the real world unforeseen problems will occur. It happened with the F-22 at first and will happen to Russia. But when Russia needs them they will need fixing but the US will have theirs working.



Look at every "invincible" American weapon and look at Russian weapons, they parallel quite nicely.


There is no F-22 or F-35 parallel we can see.



That says a lot about how the US wastes its money on obsolete technology,


I do agree the US wastes a lot of money, but what obsolete technology are we spending money on.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
The USA imo overspends for defense. Alot of what we would need defending from is caused by us in the first place.

THe bottom line it seems is that alot of nations have some pretty spiffy toys, and in the end the USA is going to be the one caught with it pants down if they ignore this.

Look at nazi germany



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by phi1618
The USA imo overspends for defense.


Not overspending, more like wasteful spending.



The bottom line it seems is that a lot of nations have some pretty spiffy toys, and in the end the USA is going to be the one caught with it pants down if they ignore this.


Not now but in fifty years it is possible, maybe sooner, imo, if we keep wasting and keep F-22 and F-35 way too long, each new US aircraft has been kept longer than last. US weapons are always being upgraded though. I think if the US had great economic policies (kept economy strong), and stopped wasteful DoD spending our military could be 50 years more advanced than anyone else.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Couldn't that make Russia highly susceptible to surprise attack by US? US will have almost as good weapons as Russia but have them already built. The US will overwhelm Russia while Russia just starts up the factories. Also, with anything, especially fifth gen fighters, without it working in the real world unforeseen problems will occur. It happened with the F-22 at first and will happen to Russia. But when Russia needs them they will need fixing but the US will have theirs working.


Russia is much to large to avoid an invasion by the US if conflict came to be. However, that does not mean that Russia would not have the capability to successfully defend its homeland while at the same time conducting overseas action.

As for the factories comment, well, yes that's exactly right. When the Nazis invaded Russia during WWII, Russian factories were producing new T-34 tanks at an alarming rate and as soon as they were built they left the factory doors with guns blazing (example Stalingrad). The T-34s were a total shock to the Nazis who thought they had invincible tanks, T-34s pretty much swarmed and overtook Panzer divisions in battles like Kursk and all Hitler could do was crap himself as the T-34s rolled into Berlin.

Then when the US, UK and the USSR all met up in Berlin, they decided to have a parade to show off their newest equipment. New UK tanks like the Comet were already rendered obsolete when the IS-3 made its appearance. That thing was a monster and the Germans should appreciate the fact that it came out too late to be used against them.

Every self-obsessed country that attacked Russia in the past learned the hard way that Russians are not a force to underestimate or screw around with, especially when that winter hits. I use WWII as a good example because Russia does not have a problem learning and evolving from her mistakes and victories.


There is no F-22 or F-35 parallel we can see.


F-22 equivalent is PAKFA, and it is not meant to be seen yet. F-22 was produced as some kind of celebrity aircraft or something, foolishly portrayed all over the public simply because the American government thinks they are the only country with stealth technology. Fighters like the F-15 and Su-27 were developed in the '70s but were not seen by the public until the '80s.

After looking around, I see that the SU-27 was developed specifically to counter the F-15 with the early disignation "PFI" (with the MiG-29 being an offshoot of the program). SU-27's first flight came five years after F-15's, and look at the SU-27 program today (probably the best in the world, IMO).



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
and all of you though that the russians are using cold war tech still? WAKE UP,you didnt knew about this until now,they frikkin dominate in warfare,90% of the peoples money in russia go to wartech. russian military,techs and land domination is quite scary



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
A quick Wikipedia check reveals an estimated cost for the Pak-Fa of "US$200-265 million depending on model." This will be Russia's response to the F-22, a costly program that probably only continues to survive because too much money has already been sunk into it to consider canceling it completely.

The U.S. is making a switchover to unmanned vehicles. Another Wiki check shows that the cost for an MQ-9 Reaper is "USD 10.5 million for one aircraft with sensors." So for every Pak-Fa Russia can put in the sky, the U.S. could deploy 20 unmanned vehicles. The less advanced Predator drones cost less than half as much.

The U.S. Air Force has stated that the F-22 and F-35 will be the last manned fighters they produce. The Reaper is just one example out of many UAVs in service now. A Pak-Fa would easily wipe the floor with one of these unmanned craft, and so far UAVs have only been designed to carry small payloads.

However, how would the Pak-Fa handle wave, after wave, after wave of unmanned, fearless, low-cost UAVs that probably cost less money than the missiles being used to shoot them down? How would anything deal with that?

Russia may be pulling out a bigger peepee in the eternal dong-waving contest between itself and the U.S., but the U.S.'s future plans are to stop waving dongs and start kicking people in the nuts.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by phi1618
 


Russia have been threatening to build a fifth generation aircraft for some time. They have even announced that it is being built. Or is it a prototype, or perhaps a model. Chances are it will be a current design with a few bits attached to make it look "stealthy" - and the Su-30 has been often mentioned as the template.

There is no evidence that what comes out of the hanger will be anything "new" or look anything like the artist impressions.

Regards



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
"U.S. Military Officers Warn: Russia and China Lead in Superweapons"

The radar refractive principles of stealth were derived from a Russian scientist, Pyotr Ufimtsev who developed equations for predicting the reflection of electromagnetic waves from two dimensional shapes.

Stealth based on the principles of radar refraction/absorption can be defeated by using different types of radar or energy. Do you really think that the Russians don't already know this ?

For example in the UK a system was discovered that could readily detect stealth aircraft. The system uses a traditional mobile phone network to detect stealth aircraft as they pass silently through the ether. Although the aircraft have advanced coatings which absorb conventional radar signals, they apparently still reflect back enough radiation emitted from mobile phone masts to be detected by special ground receivers.

The receivers are linked to a central computer which - in sync with a GPS satellite - is able to position the aircraft to within 10 metres.

This is where the principles of plasma based stealth as the Russians utilize which absorbs all energy , regardless of type/frequency is advantageous.

As far as the wave upon wave of unmanned vehicles....
Russians also have an advantage in directional EMP weaponry which essentially renders ALL electronic circuitry into flaming scrap metal whether its on or not. Imagine pouring a gallon of water on your TV, while it's on.

Western scientists including Americans never accepted the evolution of the principles of electromagnetism from those established by Maxwells Equations in the mid 1800s and as a result are now lagging in the field of directional EMP weaponry.
IN contrast, The US version of EMP weaponry derived from the concepts of EMP generated by nuclear blasts is non directional and due to this wasn't used in Iraq for fear of damaging US equipment as well as the Iraqis.

as Lt. Col. Thomas Bearden put it, and Col. Byron Weeks concluded that "America will burn because we do not have the most powerful weapons on earth."

archive.newsmax.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Modern U.S. equipment is built with EMP weapons in mind, and shielded accordingly. In addition, the U.S. has its own EMP weapons at its disposal to take out cell phone towers and radar stations alike. Russia might be making claims that it has better EMP weapons, but they claim all their weapons are superior. However, history, experience, and actual combat use have shown the errors of "stats on paper" time and time again.

I believe there's a thread here on ATS somewhere that talks about how the U.S. can essentially use cyber attacks to take out enemy radar. If this is true, then "who has the best fighter jet" and "who can detect what kinds of stealth" are archaic debates best left set aside. A fighter can't be superior to anything if it doesn't even know where to fly to. Stealth-detecting radar is meaningless if the enemy can cause it to break down at will.

Check out these links:

en.wikipedia.org...

The flight performance of the Growler is similar to that of the F/A-18. This attribute enables the Growler to perform escort jamming as well as the traditional standoff jamming mission. Growlers will be able to accompany F/A-18s during all phases of an attack mission.[19]

The Growler has more than 90% in common with the standard Super Hornet, sharing airframe, AESA radar and weapon systems such as the AN/AYK-22 Stores Management System. Most of the dedicated airborne electronic attack equipment is mounted in the space that used to house the internal 20 mm cannon and on the wingtips. Nine weapons stations remain free to provide for additional weapons or jamming pods.[20] The added electronics include AN/ALQ-218 wideband receivers on the wingtips, and ALQ-99 high and low-band tactical jamming pods. The ALQ-218 combined with the ALQ-99 form a full spectrum electronic warfare suite that is able to provide detection and jamming against all known surface-to-air threats.[19]

The EA-18G can be fitted with up to five ALQ-99 jamming pods and will typically add two AIM-120 self-defense missiles and two AGM-88 High Speed Anti-Radiation (HARM) missiles.[21] The EA-18G will also use the INCANS Interference Cancellation system that will allow voice communication while jamming enemy communications, a capability not available on the EA-6B.[22]

In addition to the radar warning and jamming equipment the Growler possesses a communications receiver and jamming system that will provide suppression and electronic attack against airborne communication threats.[20]

Boeing is looking into other potential upgrades; the ALQ-99 radar jamming pod may be replaced in the future, and the company is looking into adding weapons and replacing the satellite communications receiver. The Growler is the initial platform for the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) which uses Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) technology to focus jamming power exactly where needed. The NGJ will also be implemented on the F-35.[23]


I know that was a long quote, but all of it was important. Notice that it's stated that the F-35 will be equipped with the NGJ... if that's the case, then its "stealth" capabilities are merely a second line of defense. Also of note is that, "The ALQ-218 combined with the ALQ-99 form a full spectrum electronic warfare suite that is able to provide detection and jamming against all known surface-to-air threats."

I honestly believe that the F-22, with all it's fifth-generation toys and massive publicity, was a ploy to get Russia and China to focus their money and efforts on strategies to counter the wrong technology.

 


The next link to check out:

www.dodbuzz.com...

Now that cyber command has been approved and it’s grown increasingly clear that the US will deploy offensive capabilities, I thought it was time to revisit recent comments by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz who said the US can kill advanced surface to air missiles without F-22s, F-35s or any other kinetic capability. In fact, Schwartz may have let some of the cat out of the bag when he told a Brookings Institution audience that the US possesses “the nascent capability” of taking down surface to air missile sites using offensive cyber methods.


This reinforces the idea that the U.S.'s stealth technology is merely second fiddle to their own active radar defeating systems. The stealth will serve to protect against small threats. The big threat, SAM's, will be defeated the moment their radar gets turned on.

 


People like to talk about "plasma stealth" in these debates. Sure, you can surround a plane with "plasma" (if you have a nuclear generator on board to produce the ridiculous power output you'd need for such a thing) and yeah, that might block radar systems. However, plasma emits detectable electromagnetic energy of its own. It's also hot, so for all the defense you get against radar you'd be opening yourself up to infrared. You might as well try and declare "Russia can defeat U.S. radar by setting their own planes on fire! Ironically, one thing is true... if Russia finds a way to cover an aircraft with plasma, we'll probably never see it coming. ;-)

And if the plane flies at any combat-useful speed, air moving across the surface of the plane will strip away any plasma fields faster than they can be produced.


 


It's important to note that a war involving any of the two countries between Russia, China, and the United States would almost certainly go nuclear at some point. Any one of those countries could end life on the planet by itself, so a head-to-head confrontation is highly unlikely. So in addition to what I've already mentioned, you should be taking into account the fact that most real battles will be between the equipment that the U.S. produces for itself, and the equipment that Russia and China produce for export.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by mattifikation]

[edit on 18-8-2009 by mattifikation]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
The U.S. Air Force has stated that the F-22 and F-35 will be the last manned fighters they produce. The Reaper is just one example out of many UAVs in service now. A Pak-Fa would easily wipe the floor with one of these unmanned craft, and so far UAVs have only been designed to carry small payloads.

However, how would the Pak-Fa handle wave, after wave, after wave of unmanned, fearless, low-cost UAVs that probably cost less money than the missiles being used to shoot them down? How would anything deal with that?


hahaha, UAVs are nowhere near being able to combat manned fighters at this time, at least not Reapers that are designed for long recon missions and the occasional air to ground strike. Drones are nothing more than targets for humans with missiles. I'm sure there's drone projects where they are being designed to be highly maneuverable and possibly able to dogfight, but they will never measure up to a fighter.

The more drones the US sends at PAKFA T-50, the more experience T-50 will have killing drones. They might be considered cheap but it's not easy to keep resupplying them, especially when the US operates hundreds of them a day all over the globe anyways.

Btw, I am highly suspicious of the PAKFA costing $200million+ per production model. Russia believes in cost efficiency, especially since in terms of cost efficiency Russia can send at least three very capable Su-30s to fight a single F-22. The prototype probably costs $200million to produce because it is the first.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Did you read everything I said, and consider everything together? Or did you only read that one paragraph and take issue with it? Or maybe you took it out of context of everything else I said intentionally, to try and make your Russian idols look good?

If you had comprehension skills of any sort, you'd see how I pointed out that a fighter can't shoot down a drone when the enemy is deprived of the ability to operate its radar.

Do you think I'm not aware that a Reaper isn't designed for, or capable of air-to-air combat? How is that possible, considering I acknowledged that fact in the very paragraph you quoted? Again with the poor reading comprehension!

I've read several threads that you've been present in, and you've done nothing but spew Pro-Russian and Anti-US bull crap since you came to ATS. Try to be a little less predictable, will you, Dimitri?

Oh, and "Ha ha ha," yourself.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


Sorry dude, you posted your other post when I was in the process of replying to your post before that. I did not even notice until today. Please do not make me out to be ignorant because I only call things as I see them; I can be fair if I want to.


I believe there's a thread here on ATS somewhere that talks about how the U.S. can essentially use cyber attacks to take out enemy radar. If this is true, then "who has the best fighter jet" and "who can detect what kinds of stealth" are archaic debates best left set aside. A fighter can't be superior to anything if it doesn't even know where to fly to. Stealth-detecting radar is meaningless if the enemy can cause it to break down at will.


Actual combat will always be unpredictable due to the overwhelming number of known and unknown factors that influence battle. The best philosophy is to make simple weapons and to simply fight with one priority in mind, as opposed to trying to complete a pre-determined complex strategy that won't mean anything as soon as the guns start blazing.

The best soldiers, usually designated special forces, are independent from being part of a major system because once that system becomes corrupted then the whole system fails. I think the US is so focused on fighting inferior enemies because they are trying to refine their military system of communication and control so they can develop more security when they take on an actually capable military force that can directly/indirectly target the "system".

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you here, I am just stating the way that I see the next generation of warfare. Now it is conventional vs unconventional, but next we will start to see independent vs system. In my opinion, independent will always be superior because a system of that caliber just cannot be mastered by humans alone (AI will need to be implemented).

Wow, this all sounds like the storyline for Metal Gear Solid



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join