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: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Russian Scientists,

Reply from the other closed thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Hi Orange Tom,

Obviously you don't know what stealthy is.

Stealth in aircraft mainly refers to carbon fiber exteriour skins, with kevlar fuel tanks and fiberglass mixed in. Those particular cloths absorb radar signals instead of reflecting them. The specific angles also reduce radar signatures and hide heat and light signatures that might be detected.


I know what stealthy is. It refers to the whole package..not just its radar absorbent qualities.

Stealth refers to the whole package..not just radar but IR as well..which is why many such aircraft have their hot engine nozzels tucked into the body...or recessed. There are other stealth features which go along with this but this is sufficient for this topic.

I have also worked for many years on Americas Nuclear Submarie program..I know what constitutes stealthy.

In addition to this, live right next to the NASA Langley Research Facility in Virgnia. Lots of stealth aircraft come through here. The F-22 fighters are stationed right across from theNASA Langley Research Center at the Air Force Base.

Not everyone out here has spent thier lives watching television and computers thinking they know about stealth. Some of us have actually been out here and seen/worked on it.

Thanks,
Orangetom








[edit on 2-10-2009 by orangetom1999]




posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by guidanceofthe third kind
it may be an f-22 competitor but can it take the JSF. the JSF was the f-22's replacement and is faster and has more advanced optics and avionics. I know people that work for high-performance tech companies and they all say that to beat the JSF, the other aircraft has to be as invisible as air.


Puleeese. The JSF is a truck.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
two things

competition breeds success

Plus we need new fighters because we want stuff for ps3 game material A and B if there are no more fighters than can never be another Iron Eagles flick and we need symbols of American badassedness like the f22.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Russian stealth jets will have one problem

When the US air force built there stealth aircraft the US navy started testing the fusing systems of there Air to Air missiles to see if the proximity fuses detonate the warhead as it passes the target aircraft would work.

They did not.

The US navy then started a crash program to find fuse designs that would and now the sidewinder AIM-9X air to air missiles can track and kill even stealth aircraft.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


I thought the sidewinder is a IR missle. Or is there a radar guided version out now??
I do know that the sidewinder is one of the least expensive and also dependable AA missles out there. I just thought they were of the IR type.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by 21cdb
 


We've already tested with 360 degrees thrust vectoring and deemed it inefficient already, get with the times.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by RoofMonkey
 

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha yeah right.

The 35 is to the 22, as the 16 was to the 15.
Simple. They compliment each other.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


I believe they use IR for target tracking, and they use proximity detecting circuits to detonate. If I understand correctly, ANNED is saying that the missiles were unable to detect proximity to stealth aircraft, and that problem is what got fixed.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   

When the US air force built there stealth aircraft the US navy started testing the fusing systems of there Air to Air missiles to see if the proximity fuses detonate the warhead as it passes the target aircraft would work.


Radar guided missiles will easily detect stealth aircraft at short ranges, as will IR guided missiles. Early variants of these used magnetic fuses which were rendered obsolete by newer aircraft construction (not just stealth aircraft), so now they use other ways of detecting aircraft. On the Aim-9x for example, when the target starts to get smaller on a IR seekers, the warhead detonates. All new missiles are very similar to this approach, such as the ASRAAM. At the ranges an active missiles radar is used, it is very easy to see a stealth aircraft. This is also true with IR missiles. What you refer to is some past, long ago solved issues with the fuses which had nothing to do with stealth aircraft - but aircraft construction.

The purpose of stealth is to reduce detection ranges, and it does that very well. It is by no means a cloak of complete invisibility. The main problem with Russian stealth aircraft is they don't yet exist.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Don't forget - the Ruskies invented thrust vectoring and were able to make the failed X-29 forward swept wing plane work and named it the SU-47 - Never underestimate the Ruskies! They have a habit of improving our technologies, especially when we can't get them to work. Also, last I heard stealth planes can be found by microwave triangulation - or please correct me if I am wrong.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Since when did the X-29 fail? And since when did the Su-47 succeed? They were essentially technology demonstrators .

I don't think the Russians invented TVC - the Harrier did it long ago (did it invent it though?), furthermore the US has has many technology demonstrators.

Microwave triangulation is a complex technology and it helps detect stealth aircraft, but is not flawless.

It is not only Russian, I don't think Russia even has an operational system. Lockheed Martin made a similar system under the name "Silent Sentry", although its use is different, but operational. Their are many threads on it.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mattification
 



Yes...Thanks, I can see by certain construction methods Attempts have been made to reduce Infrared Signatures...the most noticeable being the engine nozzles being recessed into the aircraft body and not extended as in the afterburner configurations of these Russian planes in the sketches.

I am certain that the specifics of these construction methods and modifications/adaptations are classified in the F 22 series. By this I refer to the specifics of being able to go supersonic without the massive use of afterburner mode with its accompanying heat signature.
When at first I heard of this I was astonished and realized that it would involve a significant break through in thinking and technology.

As I also understand it there are procedures and techniques of reducing electronic signatures of these aircraft to enhance their stealth as well. Thus there is more than just reduced Radar Signatures involved in stealth operational principles.

Interesting explanation by COb on the IR adaptation/modification to the Sidewinder series of missiles. Thanks for that update.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FantasmaTaans
reply to post by 21cdb
 


We've already tested with 360 degrees thrust vectoring and deemed it inefficient already, get with the times.


Is that why the F-22 has 2D thrust nozzles (up and down)?


I fail to see why 360*TVC is a disadvantage. They greatly improve the pitch factor which in turn improves the aircrafts capability to turn. Its limits are more or less those of the pilot.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Is that why the F-22 has 2D thrust nozzles (up and down)?


en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

I suspect 2d vectoring was chosen for the F-22 primarily because of RCS concerns.

I highly doubt going from 3d vectoring to 2d vectoring it a huge loss - because we don't see aircraft yawing around the sky. Both 2d and 3d are using in pitch. And yes 3d does marginally improve capability.

Also, thrust vectoring has varying improvements at different speeds. At high angle of attack you get massive gains, and you can get lowered trim drag at supersonic speeds which lets the aircraft turn marginally faster.

However, the gains are marginal when at the speeds aircraft typically fight at. Jets are quiet sluggish when slow (look at the charts) and they do not have the ability to pull, or sustain, many 'g's. At 320 - 450 knots, where aircraft can turn and sustain 9 g's, TVC has a limited effect.

This is shown in some PDF file on the web which I can find if you really want... Also, aircraft are not limited by the pilot at low speeds where TVC is useful. They become very sluggish.

Also, some people claim that TVC somehow makes massive aircraft roll faster than F-16's. While this may be true at high AoA, it certainly isn't the majority of the time and there is no sources showing otherwise.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I'll post it again; Never under estimate the Russians. They are just as smart as the west, maybe more so in some cases. Their priorities may be different than ours, but, they certainly are not stupid. Russia will exist long after the USA has imploded into several smaller third world counties.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Confused and Dazed!
I'll post it again; Never under estimate the Russians. They are just as smart as the west, maybe more so in some cases. Their priorities may be different than ours, but, they certainly are not stupid. Russia will exist long after the USA has imploded into several smaller third world counties.


Of course the Russians are smart. However, there aircraft have nothing to do with ethnicity, but rather funding, and technology base. As of yet, they have not demonstrated anything with the mission systems of even a Super Hornet, and I doubt they even have parity with it in terms of LO reduction. And while India has done an excellent job maintaining the Su-30MKI, I have never seen anything that indicates any of this Russian "ruggedness" that everyone keeps talking about - much the opposite infact. I've only heard bad things.

The notion that early versions of the PAK-FA will be anything close to the F-22 (or F-35 in some regards) is simply a fantasy. It seems people just assume it will be equal because it's Russian and also because of idealogical beliefs (i,e, "the Russians are not stupid") rather than any meaningful data.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Really,

if you believe that the Pentagon sit around and blow smoke rings up each other asses with 50+ years future tech tucked away and poo-poo Russian tech then I suggest you get out of the house a little more often.


Like the USAF getting caught with it's pants down in the 80's when they seen what the new soviet airframes could do. And even today the Topol ICBMs, the US is pushing missile defence big time because of this bad boy. America has no equiv capable missile.

History is littered with Sputniks, 80's armour in Europe superiority and other one-upmanships on the US, today and tomorrow won't be any different.

Seriously, the US fear Russian air-defence tech, if they didn't then why are they making a big deal out of sales of the S-300 to Syria and Iran? If the S-300 was crap the US would have no issues of useless weapons systems to Iran.. they know that it's more than capable and losses of expensive million $ fighters and Sealth bombers make any attack on Iran a non-starter and removes Israel as the de-facto air power in the middle east. S-400 has allegedly already the anti-ballistic capabilities in the terminal phase when compared to US boost phase vaporware still-to-be-developed missile shield.

Nobody is saying the US military is inferior.... far from it but....

The US military by size and spend is unmatchable but do not mistake this for strength on all fronts. Tech is not some sort of military panacea and never will be, it can be your achilles heel especially when coupled with total arrogance.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   

50+ years future tech tucked away and poo-poo Russian tech then I suggest you get out of the house a little more often.

Who said that?


Like the USAF getting caught with it's pants down in the 80's when they seen what the new soviet airframes could do

They did? What's there to brag about?


And even today the Topol ICBMs, the US is pushing missile defence big time because of this bad boy.

US missile defense is not designed to counter Russian ICBMs and you know it.


America has no equiv capable missile.

The real question is - do they need one?


they know that it's more than capable and losses of expensive million $ fighters and Sealth bombers make any attack on Iran a non-starter and removes Israel as the de-facto air power in the middle east.

Complete baloney.


S-400 has allegedly already the anti-ballistic capabilities in the terminal phase when compared to US boost phase vaporware still-to-be-developed missile shield.

(reminds me of PAKFA)

And Patriot PAC-3, THAAD, SM-3, ARROW II, and future SM-6 (and more) are non-existent then?


if they didn't then why are they making a big deal out of sales of the S-300 to Syria and Iran? If the S-300 was crap the US would have no issues of useless weapons systems to Iran..

OH COME ON.

If the USA did not have stealth, then why are the Russians making such a big deal out of the S-300?

If the USA did not have BMD, then why are the Russians making such a big deal out of the Topol-M?

[edit on 7/10/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadoMan
 


The X-29 did exactly what it was supposed to do, nothing more, nothing less. It was designed to test new technology and was never going to be put into any kind of service.


The Grumman X-29 was an experimental aircraft that explored a number of new technologies; the most immediately obvious being the forward-swept wings and canard control surface. The inherent aerodynamic instability of this arrangement required the use of computerized fly-by-wire control. Composite materials made the wing twist while bending, reducing the required rigidity and weight. The X-29 first flew in 1984 and two X-29s were flight tested over the next decade.

Two X-29As were built by Grumman Aerospace Corporation from two existing Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter airframes (63-8372 became 82-0003 and 65-10573 became 82-0049)[1] (after the proposal had been chosen over a competing one involving a General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon). The X-29 design made use of the forward fuselage and nose landing gear from the F-5As with the control surface actuators and main landing gear from the F-16. The technological advancement that made the X-29 a plausible design was the use of carbon-fiber composites. The Grumman internal designation for the X-29 was "Grumman Model 712" or "G-712".[2]

en.wikipedia.org...


Two X-29 aircraft, featuring one of the most unusual designs in aviation history, were flown at the NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility (now the Dryden Flight Research Center), Edwards, Calif., as technology demonstrators to investigate advanced concepts and technologies. The multi-phased program was conducted from 1984 to 1992 and provided an engineering data base that is available in the design and development of future aircraft.

www.nasa.gov...

The SU-47(or whichever designation you prefer for it) started life in the same manner. It was planned that they would recently build at least one more flying prototype and market the aircraft for production, but even the Russian military wasn't interested in it.


The Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut (Russian: Су-47 Беркут - Golden Eagle), also designated S-32 and S-37 during initial development, is an experimental supersonic jet fighter developed by Sukhoi Aviation Corporation. A distinguishing feature of the aircraft is its forward-swept wing, similar to that of the Tsybin's LL-3.[1] Its NATO reporting name is 'Firkin'. The sole aircraft produced is an advanced technology demonstrator prototype and manufacture of a planned second flying prototype is under question due to recent MIG developments of 5th generation Jet fighters.



Originally known as the S-37, Sukhoi redesignated its advanced test aircraft as the Su-47 in 2002. Officially nicknamed Berkut (Golden Eagle), the Su-47 was originally built as Russia's principal testbed for composite materials and sophisticated fly-by-wire control systems. The aircraft makes use of forward-swept wings allowing superb maneuverability and operation at angles of attack up to 45° or more.

TsAGI has long been aware of the advantages of forward-swept wings, with research including the development of the Tsibin LL and study of the captured Junkers Ju 287 in the 1940s. Forward-swept wings yield a higher maximum lift coefficient, reduced bending moments, and delayed stall when compared to more traditional wing shapes. At high angles of attack, the wing tips remain unstalled allowing the aircraft to retain aileron control. Unfortunately, forward sweep also induces twisting (divergence) strong enough to rip the wings off an aircraft built of conventional materials. Only recently have composite materials made the design of aircraft with forward-swept wings feasible.

The project was launched in 1983 on order from the USSR AF. But then, with the crash of the USSR funding was frozen and development continued only being funded by Sukhoi. Like its US counterpart, the Grumman X-29, the Su-47 is primarily a technology demonstrator, one intended to lay the foundation for the next Russian fighter. Such a fighter must not only be as advanced as the US F-22 Raptor, but must also compete for funding with the more conventional MiG 1.44. However, Sukhoi is now attempting to market the Su-47 to the Russian military and foreign customers as a production fighter in its own right.[citation needed]

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   


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.


Weeeell....your somewhat right on some things.

forinstance - Kursk - many of the russian tankers where so scared of the Tiger, and did whatever they could to dissable them, including lunitic suicidal ramming of them.

Remember: only about 15% of all german tanks was destroyed by other tanks, rest was done by artillery, airplane, or own crew due to breakdowns.

As for sheer firepower.
The german 88mm KWK 71, used on the Tiger 2, Elephant, Nashorn and Jagdpanther, was a terror alone, capable of killing IS2 tanks of a distance of 4.5 KM range.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join