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.

 

Where's the Stealth?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I am a bit surprised that the US seems the be the only country with stealth tech why don't other countries have stealth like russia or the
uk?


[edit on 23-6-2004 by WestPoint23]




posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Maybe they do and it is...well...stealthy.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Exactly, they probably do, they just keep it secret.
The Royal Navy has a few 'stealth ships'.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna
Maybe they do and it is...well...stealthy.


Very nice
.
It is not logical to assume that the soviets never took an interest in stealth. (nor is it logical to assume that stealth is relevant to undetected flight against modernized militaries, since simple modifications to radar systems (involving two stations working together and detecting interfering objects) would be able to track radar deflecting or absorbing aircraft. The greatest advantage of stealth is actually the protection afforded against SAMs, which would need heavier modifications and good communications to be remotely guided by such a system. This is probably the greater motivation behind the RAM used on newer aircraft, and it bears mention that smaller nations could create cost-effective missile-resistant craft by only RAMing a certain part of the aircraft, which the pilots could be trained to expose to the missile while manuevering away. In that sense, partial stealth could actually proliferate quite a bit, while being less "stealthy" and more a passive countermeasure.

America's stealth really came into the open courtesy of the gulf war. In the 1970s and 80s, it was still largely a rumor, as can be seen in a chapter of Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising. The chapter is titled "the saucers of dreamland". Russia has yet to fight a war that will really reveal their abilities. The extent of the revelation in Afghanistan and Chechnya is that Russia does not employ proper combined arms tactics in urban environments, has a leadership vaccuum because of the absence of an American (actually, a US MARINE is the best example) NCO structure. And of course, it has been made pretty clear that Russian armor is highly vulnerable to infantry. We haven't gotten to see the Russians in action against heavy air defenses yet, but to my mind the question is not "did they have stealth?" but "can it still fly?".

The next wave in aircraft, I believe, will be drone attack aircraft, building upon the predator concept. I wouldn't be shocked to see a miniature remote-controlled helocopter developed for close support of infantry. This will cause the importance of manned fighters to shift to missions requiring large payloads or extreme precision. Random sorties against tanks will probably be taken over a drone airforce that can field 5 or 10 times as many planes that are smaller, more agile, and harder to hit, while using less fuel and costing less to transport. They are also more expendable.
I believe this is being kept in mind when Great Britain decided to reduce it's carrier force from 3 ships to 2. When the aircraft swarm concept is realized, surface ships will again be chiefly be offshore artillery batteries, and carriers will be reduced in importance. Submarines continue to be important, but the major benefit of being able to take out aircraft carriers is gone,



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Oh yeah right the U.K. and Russia not having stealth technology!?!!? Where have you been?? They have stealth planes, and advanced ones too. Also you think they'll come to your house, and show them their stealth tech, and plans for it?



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   
can you guys name some planes that they have? if you are so sure they have them!



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   
The new euro fighter to some degree has a more "stealthier" design,



but to my knowledge nobody apart from the US has a fully stealth platform, purely due to how much money they can afford to throw at R&D.

Peace

DJDOHBOY



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
An interesting note is that the inital research showing that radar could be deflected (and the source of the calculations used in both the F-117 and B-2) is a russian scientific paper (from the 60's I think).

As another poster said, I think it is unlikely that any other country has as advanced stealth aircraft simply due to the cost involved. The flyaway cost of a B-2 is around $2 Billion, and that is after all the money spent developing the first generation of stealth aircraft. As good as many other countries technology is (European and Russian), it is unlikely they could have spent the amount neccisary to independently develop "stealth" aircraft of the similar quality.

However, it probably won't be too long before the designs of US stealth aircraft are copied (completely), saving all of the R&D costs. As was the case with the B-29 following WWII (or the atomic bomb, or the hydrogen bomb, etc..)



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 07:51 PM
link   
The UK have a stealth tank....very low to the ground and made of a special material that reflects the radar signals away.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreamlandmafia
The UK have a stealth tank....very low to the ground and made of a special material that reflects the radar signals away.


Challenger 2 right? I wouldn't call it stealth. It's got a nice loud diesel engine, and all tanks (the Abrams worst of all) have heat signitures.)



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Link to Russian Stealth
Link to Russian Stealth 2

Russia has stealth.

They have used it too.

The plasma generator was tested first on flying models and then on actual aircraft. The new Su-27IB strike aircraft (known in export - certainly without the plasma generator - as the Su-32) utilizes the system and is likely the first production combat aircraft with this critical technology.

Out,
Russian



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   
well russian we are also working on it.
"Work on plasma generation is not the purview of Russia alone, though. In the US, for example, research in this field is being conducted by Accurate Automation Corporation (Chattanooga, TN) and Old Dominion University (Norfolk, VA). French companies Dassault (Saint-Cloud, France) and Thales (Paris, France) are jointly working in the same area as well. - Michal Fiszer and Jerzy Gruszczynski, Journal of Electronic Defense, June 2002"

so the russians are not the only one to have it



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Russians have it US is researching it.

Out,
Russian



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian
Russians have it US is researching it.

Out,
Russian


The problem with such devices (from the US perspective) is that it would either disable or severly interrupt GPS and sattelite communications. Given the space resources available to US pilots in the cockpit this is an unnacceptable risk.

Obviosly the Russian's don't think so.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   
i have not seen any convincing proof that russia has them and no you can create pockets in the plasma to allow communications.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 01:36 AM
link   
well instead of creating a pocket you could maybe do like the subs and use a towed communications array while the plasmapocket is active?


E_T

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 02:14 AM
link   

It would also give a visible signature, the ions that neutralize will give off light which would be detectable. For a daylight radar blocking device though, it would be pretty good.




A while ago, there was an interesting post about putting a lighted candle in a microwave oven. while I did not actually do this myself (wife would kill me), apparently the flame, which is, of course plasma, absorbs the microwaves, and becomes self-sustaining, absorbing the microwave energy, and actually spreading. It may be that the Russian plasma generator works the same way, but of course, keeping the plasma going with EXPOSED R.F. generators would certainly be counter-productive from a STEALTH viewpoint, the plane would stand out like a beacon.

Well, that wouldn't work well, there's no point in being invisible to radar if you yourself send any radiation.

www.aeronautics.ru...



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 02:18 AM
link   
maybe but im not sure about that good idea though



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Why other countries doesn't have stealth? As someone already said it is too expensive. Russians simply didn't invest in stealth (they invested in radars etc...), they underestimated it, and after the fall of USSR they simply have no money to do it. When your early warning satelites are not working how could you invest into the new tech? The Su-27/30/35/37 is good example. Just upgrading excelent older design, but nothing new.
Plasma stealth - it will never work because you are stealth against radar, but on IR sensors you light like blimp. Thats the main reason the russians are NOT using it.
Maybe other countries have some knowlege in stealth, but only US has knowlege, money and EXPERIENCE. Eurofighter is not and was not designed as stealth plane, it has only lower RCS (like F-16 had lower RCS than F-15).
USA are really years, or maybe decades ahead of other countries.

[edit on 24-6-2004 by longbow]



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 08:24 AM
link   
The only non-U.S. combat aircraft to employ bonafide stealth features, which is also in service and production, is the French Rafale. And this is only partial stealth, unlike the F-22 or F-117. The Rafale has limited LO features which are drawn from subtle shaping of certain surfaces along with the application of indigenously-designed first generation RAM. However, maneuverability and combat effectiveness were first priority for the Rafale, and stealth features were only added when it was convenient and they would not degrade the performance of the aircraft in close air combat. Simple said, the Rafale is much more stealthy than say the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18. It is also much more stealthy than the Eurofighter, MiG-29 and Su-27 (and derivatives). It is not nearly as stealthy as an F-117, and not even close to an F-22.

The Eurofighter and MiG-35 (sometimes called the MiG I-44) are not as stealthy as the Rafale, despite their claims. And the MiG is not even going into production. Stealth is only relavant where you have an in-production, fielded combat system you can use against your adversaries. All the "this platform is stealthier than that platform" talk is just a bunch of yada-yada-yada if the platform doesn't fly, isn't in production, and is not a threat against your enemies.....




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join