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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Its the remains of a nighthawk that went done over yugoslavia. The exact details of why it went down are still unknown. It could have been pilot error or could have been shot down who knows. The F-117 was flown 1,300 combat sorties 1 loss aint all that bad when you consider the targets they go after




posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Sukhoi T-60S Stealth Bomber



The T-60S project was initiated by the Sukhoi bureau in 1984 and originally it was supposed to enter service in 2003. Very little information is available about technical characteristics of this aircraft, which remains to be classified by the Sukhoi Design Bureau. The project was briefly mentioned in the OKB Sukhoi - the semi-official history of the design bureau and its aircraft. The book was first published in English in 1996. The text reads (OKB Sukhoi, p. 277):

"T-60S Intermediate Range Bomber (Project)

Various sources indicate that Sukhoi, since the late 1980s, has had an advanced, supersonic intermediate range "Joint Continental Bomber" under development. Information that has surfaced to date indicates the aircraft is to replace the Tupolev Tu-22M during the first decade of the next century. It apparently incorporates low-observables technology and is powered by two state-of-the-art turbofan engines in an aft mounting above the fuselage (ala Tupolev Tu-22 Backfire).
The aircraft is quipped with canards, just ahead of a chined delta wing. Little else has surfaced concerning this aircraft. The status of the full-scale development is unknown."

The T-60S was briefly mentioned here and there with a few artist impressions appearing in the press, but factual information remains scarce. Recently an interesting article about T-60S and other perspective Russian bomber designs appeared in the Air International (Nov. 1998, pp. 274-278). The article suggests that the T-60S may be a high-altitude, high-speed bomber with a lifting body fuselage design and a swing-wing construction. It was also suggested that the aircraft is capable of supercruise at Mach 2 and its engines are equipped with two-dimensional thrust vectoring nozzles.

"Although no photographs of the T-60S are available, Piotr Butkowski (Air International correspondent on Russian aviation) believes that the T-60S features a variable geometry wing, flat lifting fuselage and two engines, equipped with two-dimensional thrust vectoring nozzles. The engine air intakes are believed to be shoulder mounted, slightly forward of the wing root. Armament is understood to include up to six Kh-101 stealthy cruise missiles, as well as AS-15 and AS-16 missiles, free-fall nuclear weapons and precision guided conventional munitions."

Looking at the two illustrations to the left it is difficult not to notice that the two configurations have absolutely nothing in common. The early configuration, with canards and the chined delta wing, however, is very similar to the early S-37 fighter design (not to be confused with the latest S-37 Berkut technology demonstrator.) The chined delta wing and canards also remind of the T-4 bomber design back from the 1970s and the S-21 business jet project which was design in co-operation with Gulfstream. The resemblance, however, is very general. So, where did this idea about a wide lifting fuselage and a variable geometry wing came from?

Sukhoi is not a traditional Russian bomber designer - this role was usually reserved for Tupolev. However, Sukhoi does have considerable expertise in designing ground strike aircraft (such as Su-22, Su-24, Su-25, Su-34). The design bureau also had one very promising bomber project in the works during the 1960s and early 1970s. This project was the T-4 supersonic, intercontinental bomber developed to counter the American XB-70 Valkyrie bomber. The aircraft was completed and successfully test-flown but then the program was abruptly terminated in 1973. The reasons for the termination are not very clear, some suggest that it was due to the termination of the XB-70, others - that it was a political decision. In any case, I think that it would be logical to look back on T-4 and its derivatives when considering a possible configuration of T-60S.

After seeing the Air International illustration I immediately remembered one visually similar development of the T-4 - the T-4MS (also known as "200".) As you can see from the illustration, there are some considerable similarities between this aircraft and the illustration from Air International - a variable geometry wing, a wide lifting fuselage, internal placement of weapons and auxiliary systems. The idea, that Sukhoi may be drawing on its past experience with bomber design, does not seem unreasonable.

A lifting fuselage design is not a very common feature in aviation, especially in Russian aviation. It would be reasonable to suppose that the idea of such a fuselage for the T-60S did not appear in the vacuum. It just so happens that the Myasishchev Design Bureau recently unveiled its new design for a high-altitude passenger/cargo/surveillance aircraft, featuring a wide lifting fuselage with two high bypass ratio turbofans installed side by side above the rear part of the fuselage. The aircraft is the M-60 (with a proposed GP-60D Katun *** cargo version) and was originally designed in 1980s and, therefore, is a contemporary of the T-60S project. The aircraft will be powered by two Perm PS-90A turbofan engines. It can cruise at 50,000ft (and can reach 65,500 ft) at Mach 0.7, has a range of between 5,000 and 15,000 km and can carry a load of up to 20 t. The GP-60 is a long way from being T-60S, nevertheless, there are some undeniable similarities.

Below is the table of T-60S estimated characteristics. To come up with this numbers I assumed that the T-60S is a flat lifting fuselage design that uses turbofan engines.


Type intermediate-range strike/interdiction aircraft
Powerplants two 23,500 kg (51,800 lb) turbofans
Max speed Mach 2.04
Cruising speed Mach 2.02
Max altitude 20,000 m (65,500 ft)
Cruising altitude 15,000 m (49,000 ft)
Max range 6,000 km (3,250 nm)
Range with max load 2,200 km (1,200 nm)
Weight (empty) 32,000 kg (70,500 lb)
MTOW 85,000 kg (188,000 lb)
Max load 20,000 kg (44,000 lb)
Wing span (extended) 37 m (121 ft)
Wing span (swept) 24 m (79 ft)
Wing angle (extended) 70 deg
Wing angle (swept) 30 deg
Length 38 m (125 ft)
Height 10 m (33 ft)
Armament maximum of 20,000 kg (44,000 lb) of free fall nuclear and conventional bombs, guided munitions, up to 8 cruise missiles, including Kh-101, Kh-55MS (AS-15 Kent) ALCM*, Kh-15P (AS-16 Kickback) SRAM**.


Taken from : iron-eagles.tripod.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 03:43 PM
link   
well the US shouls keep the F-117 and B-12 also cant wait for the black mant to be released to the publick it looks like a very kool aircraft.



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
The Russian fired upward of 1000 missiles during the cold war trying to bring down the SR -71. She was not overly stealthy but flew higher and faster than any missle in the soviet arsenal. I still don't think anyone has the capability of hitting one, regardless of radar profiles.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
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]


haha..your post are so funny "the US own so bad and everyone else suck"

I just wanted to point out that your entire stealth LCS ships are based on swedish design. We have had a ship out for testing for 10 years now. And the first real combat-ready ship was put to sea in 2000.

No you copy our design...LOL


Learn how to develop your own #.

quotes:

"Only one other mono-hull has been proposed for LCS. It is a displacement mono-hull, a derivative of the Swedish Visby-class 270-foot stealthy corvette. Leading this proposal is Northrop Grumman Corp., with a team that includes the Swedish design firm Kockums, United Defense LP, Band Lavis & Assoc. and Navatek.

The Visby has great performance, said Stitt. But a composite hull raises construction issues, because U.S. shipyards have lacked the infrastructure to work with advanced materials, he noted. Northrop Grumman, however, is better positioned to take this on than any other U.S. ship builder, he said. It currently operates a composite-ship yard in Gulfport, Miss., and has conducted research on composites for years."


You see, you don't have the infrastructe that is needed


www.network54.com...

www.rina.org.uk...

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org...


So remember when you see those LCS, they are not american ships, they are swedish


[edit on 22-8-2004 by Kim78]



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by sniper068
The Russian fired upward of 1000 missiles during the cold war trying to bring down the SR -71. She was not overly stealthy but flew higher and faster than any missle in the soviet arsenal. I still don't think anyone has the capability of hitting one, regardless of radar profiles.




Yeah that plane was truly a amazing aircraft. Thats why I think a replacement was created that was as fast or faster as the SR-71 but also really stealthy. I dont know how they got around the thermal heat at high speeds but perhaps they found away to mask it.

It makes no sense to have retired the SR-71 there is still a role for it as we still use the U-2 and have created the Global hawk.

and nobody in the Goverment made a stink when it was retired.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I think the Blackbird went out of service simply because satellites could do the same job only more efficently. I think that the remaining three SR-71s are currently used by NASA for high altitude research.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I heard to counter the SR71 the soviets flew jets in formation underneath it at a much lower altitude in order to block the 71's view .. i thought this was fake, can anyone back this claim up?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join