Russian Stealth Jet - On par with American jet aircraft

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Is Russian stealth technology better than that of the US?

Probably not, since the Russians have nowhere near the funding available that US defense contractors have. And in the end, that's what really matters.

The public will never really know the true stealth capabilities of US military aircraft, since the US military keeps those capabilities a closely guarded secret.

The Russians will tend to brag about theirs being better than the Americans, but in all likelyhood they're not. And the guys in the Pentagon will just smile and shrug their shoulders whenever they're asked about it, because they know better.




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by riff_raff
 


Why would Russia waste money developing American-style stealth when they have much more cost effective anti-stealth weaponry/tactics?

Plus they are still going ahead with plasma stealth. Claims are that they test it over NORAD airspace in Northern Canada/Alaska regions, possibly on Tu-160 blackjacks.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
maybe it is just a CG imagination



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by Marrr
 


Maybe if you paid attention you would know that they have two built, one being an airframe for wind tunnel research and the other is a prototype apparently in "landing testing" stage. It's supposed to be introduced in November.


Reread your article please. There is no "landing testing" going on. It is "land testing". Landing testing would imply that the aircraft is flying which it is not. Land testing incorporates the stresses on a frame on the ground.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Man you make Russia sound like the mecca of military research and development and fiscal responsibility. When in truth Russia is still one of the most corrupt countries in the world. The military has all sorts of trouble, as witnessed in Georgia, especially in the higher ranks. I highly doubt, that they are testing any experimental top secret weapons project over a foreign country.

Problem with plasma, is it is easily seen at night. Literally lighting up like a beacon to be shot out of the air.

The US began studying it in 1956.

It has been suggested that B-2's and F-22's have some sort of plasma coatings...

Also plasma stealth would create radioactive waste, the kinda waste that supposedly dumped at groom lake.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by sickoking
Problem with plasma, is it is easily seen at night. Literally lighting up like a beacon to be shot out of the air.


With what? The idea of the plasma is to reduce radar cross section, which you would need to fire a longer-range missile against it. The alternative is an IR missile which is a short range option, necessitating that you approach the encroaching aircraft. That's a dicey proposition given that the other aircraft will be able to deploy its own weapons against any intercepting hostiles. The best option to take advantage of that property of plasma stealth is to utilize a missile capable of tracking via visible wavelengths of EM radiation, but currently there are none (save, perhaps, the Russian OLS systems which are allegedly capable of tracking via TV).



Also plasma stealth would create radioactive waste, the kinda waste that supposedly dumped at groom lake.


The radioactive material would be in a gas form or possibly even remain as plasma for a time, and would therefore disperse itself harmlessly at altitude. Such a mechanism would have no relation to the solid radioactive material that would come out of nuclear fission reactors and the like. That argument being laid out, it's worth pointing out that plasma stealth deals with gas converted to ions, and therefore does nothing that would cause any particles to become radioactive or otherwise unstable aside from a change in electrical charge.

Pr0



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I find it absolutely fooking hilarious that the US is getting buried by the Russians in the field of thrust vectoring for fighters. (both two and three dimensional). HILARIOUS.

Ofcourse, we live in a time when a lot of Eastern Europe enjoys more liberty than we do here in the US so.... Twilight Zone indeed.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by riff_raff
 


Why would Russia waste money developing American-style stealth when they have much more cost effective anti-stealth weaponry/tactics?

Plus they are still going ahead with plasma stealth. Claims are that they test it over NORAD airspace in Northern Canada/Alaska regions, possibly on Tu-160 blackjacks.


China has tried plasma stealth with some special equippment. But to be honest, the plasma stealth fighter is just "big dream" because we have no such stronge power to maintain its long time to work. I dont know how Russian to do, but I know it is very difficult!!! maybe it is fit for the future nuclear-bomber!



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Redhercules
 


Plasma is a waste of time for now low frequency radars will spot them every time. They might be invisible to a fighter but they'll be spotted by airport radar which uses a lower frequency. For stealth plasma is useless. Due to 5th generation fighters capability to reprogram radar frequencies on the fly it would be a joke. It also leaves an EM signature and a nice trail of plasma to follow.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
To phil1618:

I put 8 yrs in the navy aboard aircraft carriers. I'll tell you what we have the Russians do not have that is a Radar that can see over the horizon and long range missiles that can shoot down any other aircraft 50 miles away before it even reaches flight altitude.
What I am saying is,you are looking at the beauty of the outside without taking the inside into consideration. With our electronic hunter/killer avionics built into each aircraft, the other side regardless of who they are or what they fly or how fast it goes or how good a pilot they are, would not stand a chance. Multi-tasking computers can fire three or four missiles and down the other aircraft before they even detect our aircraft. I better stop before I say something classified..............KMG



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by kissmygrits
To phil1618:

I put 8 yrs in the navy aboard aircraft carriers. I'll tell you what we have the Russians do not have that is a Radar that can see over the horizon and long range missiles that can shoot down any other aircraft 50 miles away before it even reaches flight altitude.
What I am saying is,you are looking at the beauty of the outside without taking the inside into consideration. With our electronic hunter/killer avionics built into each aircraft, the other side regardless of who they are or what they fly or how fast it goes or how good a pilot they are, would not stand a chance. Multi-tasking computers can fire three or four missiles and down the other aircraft before they even detect our aircraft. I better stop before I say something classified..............KMG



Yeah! Like how none of our 117's got splashed by "outdated" Soviet AA in the Balkans!


Oh wait....



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 21cdb

Originally posted by kissmygrits
To phil1618:

I put 8 yrs in the navy aboard aircraft carriers. I'll tell you what we have the Russians do not have that is a Radar that can see over the horizon and long range missiles that can shoot down any other aircraft 50 miles away before it even reaches flight altitude.
What I am saying is,you are looking at the beauty of the outside without taking the inside into consideration. With our electronic hunter/killer avionics built into each aircraft, the other side regardless of who they are or what they fly or how fast it goes or how good a pilot they are, would not stand a chance. Multi-tasking computers can fire three or four missiles and down the other aircraft before they even detect our aircraft. I better stop before I say something classified..............KMG



Yeah! Like how none of our 117's got splashed by "outdated" Soviet AA in the Balkans!


Oh wait....


Comparing a f117 to a 5th generation fighter is like comparing a slingshot to a rifle. And it wasn't lack of stealth that got it shot down it was lack of speed. It was tracked visually with spotters not by radar. The f117 didn't even have missile threat alert systems it was 1970s tech.Even with that there was only one ever shot down and quite frankly that was luck because the pilot panicked and ejected turns out the missile missed the plane it just tends not to fly so well without a pilot. The wreckage is still in Belgrade if your interested.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by 21cdb
I find it absolutely fooking hilarious that the US is getting buried by the Russians in the field of thrust vectoring for fighters. (both two and three dimensional). HILARIOUS.

Ofcourse, we live in a time when a lot of Eastern Europe enjoys more liberty than we do here in the US so.... Twilight Zone indeed.



www.youtube.com... - don't pay attention to the idiotic guy commenting in the background

www.youtube.com...

Thrust vectoring is great, but its resources compared to the maneuvaribility attained through advanced computer avionics is nil.

Also, the current focus of fifth generation fighters is low radar cross sections with undetectable long range striking capabilities. BVR abilities now reign supreme in who controls the skies. The low radar cross sections allow for an aircraft like the raptor to strike a non-stealthy aircraft before the non-stealthy aircraft realizes it is being hit. The goal isn't to make an aircraft "invisible". It is simply to give range advantages.

As you can plainly tell from the videos the advanced avionics systems of the raptor makes up for lack of 3d thrust vectoring.

Note: Stating Russian stealth tech will be on par with that of the USA is wishful and ignorant. The United States has now deployed 4 stealth aircraft and have numerous other stealth bed technology tests (F-23, UAVs). The F-117 had its first flight in 1981. Russia has yet to show the world a stealth aircraft. Experience in tech is key.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Bugman82]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Hi
I just posted this on another thread .

USA sixty s style

Originally posted by ocker
Subject: Bye-bye Blackbird read the story as well as photos !!!!!

I got this as a email. it goes to show the advanced technology we had in the 60 s for surveillance in our own atmosphere.

CHECK THIS OUT well worth reading AS WELL AS the photos
amasing story
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Bye-bye Blackbird

One of these is on display at the AF museum in Dayton and another at Pima Air Museum in Tucson .


This was once a highly sensitive program at Norton AFB.
SR-71 Blackbird




In April 1986, following an attack on American
soldiers in a Berlin disco, President Reagan
ordered the bombing of Muammar Qaddafi's
terrorist camps in Libya . My duty was to fly
over Libya and take photos recording the
damage our F-111's had inflicted.. Qaddafi
had established a 'line of death,' a territorial
marking across the Gulf of Sidra , swearing
to shoot down any intruder that crossed the
boundary. On the morning of April 15,
I rocketed past the line at 2,125 mph.


I was piloting the SR-71 spy plane, the world's
fastest jet, accompanied by a Marine Major (Walt),
the aircraft's reconnaissance systems officer (RSO).
We had crossed into Libya and were approaching
our final turn over the bleak desert landscape when
Walt informed me that he was receiving missile
launch signals. I quickly increased our speed,
calculating the time it would take for the
weapons-most likely SA-2 and SA-4 surface-to-air
missiles capable of Mach 5 - to reach our altitude.
I estimated that we could beat the rocket-powered
missiles to the turn and stayed our course, betting
our lives on the plane's performance.


After several agonizingly long seconds, we made
the turn and blasted toward the Mediterranean .
'You might want to pull it back,' Walt suggested.
It was then that I noticed I still had the throttles
full forward. The plane was flying a mile every 1.6
seconds, well above our Mach 3.2 limit. It was
the fastest we would ever fly. I pulled the throttles
to idle just south of Sicily , but we still overran
the refueling tanker awaiting us over Gibraltar .


Scores of significant aircraft have been produced
in the 100 years of flight, following the achievements
of the Wright brothers, which we celebrate in
December. Aircraft such as the Boeing 707,
the F-86 Sabre Jet, and the P-51 Mustang are
among the important machines that have flown
our skies. But the SR-71, also known as the
Blackbird, stands alone as a significant contributor
to Cold War victory and as the fastest plane
ever-and only 93 Air Force pilots ever steered
the 'sled,' as we called our aircraft.



The SR-71 was the brainchild of Kelly Johnson,
the famed Lockheed designer who created the
P-38, the F-104 Starfighter, and the U-2. After
the Soviets shot down Gary Powers' U-2 in 1960,
Johnson began to develop an aircraft that would
fly three miles higher and five times faster than
the spy plane-and still be capable of photographing
your license plate. However, flying at 2,000 mph
would create intense heat on the aircraft's skin.
Lockheed engineers used a titanium alloy to
construct more than 90 percent of the SR-71,
creating special tools and manufacturing
procedures to hand-build each of the 40 planes.
Special heat-resistant fuel, oil, and hydraulic
fluids that would function at 85,000 feet and
higher also had to be developed.


In 1962, the first Blackbird successfully flew, and
in 1966, the same year I graduated from high school,
the Air Force began flying operational SR-71 missions.
I came to the program in 1983 with a sterling record
and a recommendation from my commander,
completing the weeklong interview and meeting
Walt, my partner for the next four years He would
ride four feet behind me, working all the cameras,
radios, and electronic jamming equipment. I joked
that if we were ever captured, he was the spy and
I was just the driver. He told me to keep the pointy
end forward.

We trained for a year, flying out of Beale AFB in
California , Kadena Airbase in Okinawa , and RAF
Mildenhall in England . On a typical training mission,
we would take off near Sacramento , refuel over
Nevada , accelerate into Montana , obtain high Mach
over Colorado , turn right over New Mexico , speed
across the Los Angeles Basin , run up the West Coast,
turn right at Seattle , then return to Beale. Total flight
time: two hours and 40 minutes.

One day, high above Arizona , we were monitoring
the radio traffic of all the mortal airplanes below us.
First, a Cessna pilot asked the air traffic controllers
to check his ground speed. 'Ninety knots,' ATC replied.
A Bonanza soon made the same request.
'One-twenty on the ground,' was the reply. To our
surprise, a navy F-18 came over the radio with a
ground speed check. I knew exactly what he was
doing. Of course, he had a ground speed indicator
in his cockpit, but he wanted to let all the
bug-smashers in the valley know what real speed
was 'Dusty 52, we show you at 620 on the ground,'
ATC responded.

The situation was too ripe. I heard
the click of Walt's mike button in the rear seat.
In his most innocent voice, Walt startled the
controller by asking for a ground speed check
from 81,000 feet, clearly above controlled airspace.
In a cool, professional voice, the controller replied,
' Aspen 20, I show you at 1,982 knots on the ground.'
We did not hear another transmission on that
frequency all the way to the coast.

< /SPAN>
The Blackbird always showed us something new,
each aircraft possessing its own unique personality.
In time, we realized we were flying a national
treasure. When we taxied out of our revetments
for takeoff, people took notice. Traffic congregated
near the airfield fences, because everyone wanted
to see and hear the mighty SR-71 You could not be
a part of this program and not come to love the
airplane. Slowly, she revealed her secrets to us as
we earned her trust.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ocker

One moonless night, while flying a routine training
mission over the Pacific, I wondered what the sky
would look like from 84,000 feet if the cockpit lighting
were dark. While heading home on a straight course,
I slowly turned down all of the lighting, reducing the
glare and revealing the night sky.

Within seconds, I turned the lights back up, fearful that the jet would
know and somehow punish me. But my desire to see
the sky overruled my caution, I dimmed the lighting
again. To my amazement, I saw a bright light outside
my _ As my eyes adjusted to the view, I
realized that the brilliance was the broad expanse
of the Milky Way, now a gleaming stripe across the
sky.

Where dark spaces in the sky had usually
existed, there were now dense clusters of sparkling
stars. Shooting stars flashed across the canvas every
few seconds. It was like a fireworks display with no
sound.

I knew I had to get my eyes back on the
instruments, and reluctantly I brought my attention
back inside. To my surprise, with the cockpit lighting
still off, I could see every gauge, lit by starlight. In
the plane's mirrors, I could see the eerie shine of
my gold spacesuit incandescently illuminated in a
celestial glow. I stole one last glance out the _
Despite our speed, we seemed still before the
heavens, humbled in the radiance of a much greater
power. For those few moments, I felt a part of
something far more significant than anything we
were doing in the plane. The sharp sound of Walt's
voice on the radio brought me back to the tasks at
hand as I prepared for our descent.


San Diego Aerospace Museum
The SR-71 was an expensive aircraft to operate.
The most significant cost was tanker support, and
in 1990, confronted with budget cutbacks, the Air
Force retired the SR-71.

The SR-71 served six presidents, protecting America
for a quarter of a century. Unbeknownst to most
of the country, the plane flew over North Vietnam ,
Red China , North Korea , the Middle East , South
Africa , Cuba , Nicaragua , Iran , Libya , and the
Falkland Islands . On a weekly basis, the SR-71
kept watch over every Soviet nuclear submarine
and mobile missile site, and all of their troop
movements. It was a key factor in winning the
Cold War.

I am proud to say I flew about 500 hours in this
aircraft. I knew her well. She gave way to no plane,
proudly dragging her sonic boom through enemy
backyards with great impunity. She defeated every
missile, outran every MiG, and always brought us
home. In the first 100 years of manned flight, no
aircraft was more remarkable.

The Blackbird had outrun nearly 4,000 missiles,
not once taking a scratch from enemy fire.

On her final flight, the Blackbird , destined for
the Smithsonian National Air and Space
Museum, sped from Los Angeles to Washington
in 64 minutes, averaging 2,145 mph and
setting four speed records.


Thanks

Ocker



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bugman82 BVR abilities now reign supreme in who controls the skies.


Theoretically, according to the American companies and beurocrats producing and selling these expensive and stealthy BVR fighters. When have they ever engaged in combat against a fair opponent?

That's the beauty of expensive weapons. They can be destroyed by creative tactics. There's this one American quote I know "we will always be 100% prepared for the last war". What it means is that by the time a new war comes around, tactics change and combat evolves.


Russia has yet to show the world a stealth aircraft. Experience in tech is key.


Indeed, because if Russia showed the world its stealth craft then they wouldn't really be stealthy


Make no mistake, each of the major world powers have military equipment that we as civilians could not even dream of. Half of everything we know of war is false because the biggest factor of war is power and deception is the modern key to power.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Bugman82 BVR abilities now reign supreme in who controls the skies.


Theoretically, according to the American companies and beurocrats producing and selling these expensive and stealthy BVR fighters. When have they ever engaged in combat against a fair opponent?

That's the beauty of expensive weapons. They can be destroyed by creative tactics. There's this one American quote I know "we will always be 100% prepared for the last war". What it means is that by the time a new war comes around, tactics change and combat evolves.


Why would Russia be investing so much into their new aircraft if this wasn't the case? The United States has set the stage for future combat systems and what war will look like.


Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Bugman82 Russia has yet to show the world a stealth aircraft. Experience in tech is key.


Indeed, because if Russia showed the world its stealth craft then they wouldn't really be stealthy


Make no mistake, each of the major world powers have military equipment that we as civilians could not even dream of. Half of everything we know of war is false because the biggest factor of war is power and deception is the modern key to power.


Indeed, percepction of tech from the general public is behind what the military is producing. However, perception is also usually quite close to reality. Besides nuclear weaponry has there ever been a game changing weapon system produced that has significantly moved a military power in their position of power? I seriously doubt "world powers have military equipment that we as civilians could not even dream of". Tech is very finite at this point, and the fact that the USA does 41% of the world's military spending and triples the R&D spending of any other country we can once again see who sets the bar.

The bar for air supremecy is BVR and that is why Russia is now developing their first stealth fighter.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Plus they are still going ahead with plasma stealth. Claims are that they test it over NORAD airspace in Northern Canada/Alaska regions, possibly on Tu-160 blackjacks.

Plasma stealth refers to a 'film' of plasma being used in front of the radar dish to cover up the reflections that mechanical radars inevitably bring. With ESA radars this is typically not needed unless it is on a gimball, and the catch is, the radar cannot be operated at the same time as the plasma. There is a reason it is not on the Su-35BM - it doesn't need it. Plasma stealth claims have also been heard every year for over a decade, so take it with a grain of salt.

All new aircraft are being designed with some form of signature reduction, and even older aircraft have had it retrofitted (like the F-16 and Su-27). The PAKFA is supposed to be stealthy. It's because stealth, even if it can be flawed, or worked around in some ways, works.

[edit on 25/9/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
Plasma stealth refers to a 'film' of plasma being used in front of the radar dish to cover up the reflections that mechanical radars inevitably bring. With ESA radars this is typically not needed unless it is on a gimball, and the catch is, the radar cannot be operated at the same time as the plasma.



2 points.

1. PESA radars would need it. AESA can be tilted away from the direction of flight to reduce the frontal RCS, but that doesn't mean the RCS hotspot does not exist, just at a different azimuthal angle.

2. True on Plasma on/radar off... but if you get someone on your IRST/RWR, its handy to be able to reduce your RCS to an absolute minimum.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bugman82
I seriously doubt "world powers have military equipment that we as civilians could not even dream of".


It's very true for any national army. I've talked to Canadian soldiers and they say they've worked and been trained to operate technology that civilians will either see many years in the future or never at all. That says a lot since we aren't too big on developing weapon systems.





top topics
 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join