.

Yes, like all other countries they have made strides to reduce the RCS of their aircraft through shaping or the aplication of RAM in key areas. But there is a difference between doing that and designing an aircraft COMPLETLY around making it stealthy as the F-117 and B-2 were. The F/A-22 has taken this one step further by not compromising performance.

The F117 and B2 don't actually work in all weather conditions. They were designed to be 100% stealth but it has been proven that when flying through rain a certain British Radar that is fitted to British Type 42 destroyers easilly picks up the f117 and B2's signature. The radar itself is 1980's technology and nothing special and is used for normal day to day tracking of aircraft. Its just a fluke that it managed to pick up the "Stealth" aircraft. A fluke that I may add that is being exploited and designed into all new Radar systems that are being developed.
When this was first reported the Americans refused to believe it, until a team of scientists and military officials witnessed the radar return with their own eyes.
I'm sure that the next generation of Stealth aircraft will have been designed around this problem.

Originally posted by avriel


The F117 and B2 don't actually work in all weather conditions. They were designed to be 100% stealth but it has been proven that when flying through rain a certain British Radar that is fitted to British Type 42 destroyers easilly picks up the f117 and B2's signature.

This is a myth the B-2's stealthiness doesn't "melts in the rain." I have heard this repeated so many times. I have family members that worked on this plane and this is just not true. The B-2 works just fine in the rain

Another myth is that the B-2 maintenance requires special, fabulously sophisticated repair facilities. This is also not true.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by avriel


The F117 and B2 don't actually work in all weather conditions. They were designed to be 100% stealth but it has been proven that when flying through rain a certain British Radar that is fitted to British Type 42 destroyers easilly picks up the f117 and B2's signature.

This is a myth the B-2's stealthiness doesn't "melts in the rain." I have heard this repeated so many times. I have family members that worked on this plane and this is just not true. The B-2 works just fine in the rain

Another myth is that the B-2 maintenance requires special, fabulously sophisticated repair facilities. This is also not true.

Not sure about the maintenance. However I can tell you with 100% certainty that there is a British radar that picks up its signature. Its not a specially designed radar and it was not even realised that it could pick up its signature until it actually did it. The reason that it is able to pick up the signature is down to the rotation of the ariel and the frequency modulation. I am not going to say which Radar it is, as it remains (as far as I know) the only radar able to pick up a return on both the F117 and the B2 under certain conditions. I don't think that the ADAWS (Action data automated weapon system) system that the radar works in conjunction with has anything to do with this phenomina, its purely down to the unique qualities of the radar.
It's not a myth, I have witnessed it with my own eyes whilst tracking aircraft. The US military scientists are aware of it but due to the fact that certain prevailing weather conditions have to be in place and that only one radar has the qualities to recieve a radar return from the aircraft under these conditions I don't think they are really that bothered. It's just something that they will keep in mind for the next generation of stealth aircraft.

Originally posted by Murcielago
A bolt on kit - Highly unlikely.

If they have had stealth for such a long time the world would know.

Though I also think this is untrue
the majority of posts on this forum suggest that the US has very advanced black projects in the pocket but every one disklames the capebility of Russia to do such things but in fact the USSR was much better in hiding secrets from the public (that means all of us)

Originally posted by American Mad Man
This has been rehashed many times since I have been on this site.

All evidance tells us that Russian plasma stealth is not operational, has never been operational, and probably will not be operational for many years.

Add to that the fact that plasma stealth would make an aircraft glow very brightly at night and produce a large heat signature and it becomes aparent that this technology has serious draw backs that conventional stealth shaping and RAM coating techniques do not have.

Plasma stealth will give you a small RCS - but at the expense of making thermal signatures much higher. That is a bad trade off that US made stealth aircraft don't have - they make all signatures as small as possable.

I think you'r wrong.
Plazma isn't nesserely tha glowing thing that's in the sun or in a nuke...
plazma can be a synonim for ionized gases which can be prodused not only with heat ....for example the luminiscent lamps give pure white light but are not hot at all because the light comes not from heating a peace of meatal but from ionizing an amount of gas which is than called plazma

Originally posted by roniii259
Im not gonna lye to ya, i think this is a load of bull. Just because a website says that it exist doesnt make it the absolute authority, besides the plasma gasses would choke the engine and there is no point to a stealth plane that cant fly!

does someone here knows what plazma and ionized gases are

The Russians had a concept of a plane that shoots plazma infront of it and ionizing the incoming airflow so that a magnet inside the plane can push the air out of the way of the plane and redusing the friction. At high speeds (let's sey 5000km/h)i t was even supposed to create over 60% of the overall thrust. Researches showed that only a few ions per kubic meter air could reduse drag by 30%.
You are shurely asking yourself : why am I telling you that
The answer is that it proves that large quantities of plazma aren't nessery for achieving a reasonable effect and a few ions ber cubic meter will not diturb the worck of any engine and there can even be found ways of improving an engines efficiancy with such devises

Originally posted by vorazechul

Originally posted by American Mad Man
This has been rehashed many times since I have been on this site.

All evidance tells us that Russian plasma stealth is not operational, has never been operational, and probably will not be operational for many years.

Add to that the fact that plasma stealth would make an aircraft glow very brightly at night and produce a large heat signature and it becomes aparent that this technology has serious draw backs that conventional stealth shaping and RAM coating techniques do not have.

Plasma stealth will give you a small RCS - but at the expense of making thermal signatures much higher. That is a bad trade off that US made stealth aircraft don't have - they make all signatures as small as possable.

I think you'r wrong.
Plazma isn't nesserely tha glowing thing that's in the sun or in a nuke...
plazma can be a synonim for ionized gases which can be prodused not only with heat ....for example the luminiscent lamps give pure white light but are not hot at all because the light comes not from heating a peace of meatal but from ionizing an amount of gas which is than called plazma

Plasma stealth technology not only would make you glow, but also would give off a large heat sig. Read about it - everything I have ever read says it would.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Plasma stealth technology not only would make you glow, but also would give off a large heat sig. Read about it - everything I have ever read says it would.

show me what you've read....

Shadow XIX
Looking into Plamsa stealth I stumbled onto another effect of covering a plane in plasma besides stealth. If you look at how supercavitation torpedos work. They are surrounded by a "renewable envelope of gas so that the liquid wets very little of the body's surface, thereby drastically reducing the viscous drag" on the torpedo.

Water and air are very different, they react differently to gases.(as i'm sure you know)
It seems extremely un-efficient to spray a gas from the tip of the aircraft so it elevopes the entire thing, you would need a LARGE amount of the gas to cover the craft at fast mach speeds. The American way seems far better, it may cost more but the Russian way seems so pointless.

Originally posted by Murcielago
Water and air are very different, they react differently to gases.(as i'm sure you know)
It seems extremely un-efficient to spray a gas from the tip of the aircraft so it elevopes the entire thing, you would need a LARGE amount of the gas to cover the craft at fast mach speeds. The American way seems far better, it may cost more but the Russian way seems so pointless.

Exactly. It reminds me of the phrase "you get what you pay for."

The US has paid for it's technology to the tune of billions of dollars. In doing so it has refined it's technology to day or night, rain or shine. Not only is the RCS reduced, but so is visual and thermal signatures.

On the other hand, you have Plasma stealth. Plasma stealth is daytime only, as I have shown because of the bright light created. Plasma stealth also increases the thermal signature, which funny enough is the normal method of targeting a stealth aircraft. As I have also shown, your own radar can not be used to the best of it's ability. Now what is the use of stealth on a fighter aircraft if you can not detect enemy aircraft at BVR? That is the whole point of stealth on an air superiority fighter - to give it an advantage in BVR combat.

Basically the plasma stealth will not let you fight at night, and will not let you use your radar to it's fullest capability. In adition, you give off higher signatures in areas other then RCS, such as visual and heat signatures.

That is not making an aircraft stealthy. That is reducing one aspect of it's stealth at the expense of others. On the other hand there is western stealth, which reduces not only the RCS of aircraft, but also it's visual and thermal signatures.

Case closed as to which one is better.

Originally posted by vorazechul

Originally posted by Murcielago
A bolt on kit - Highly unlikel

Originally posted by Murcielago

Water and air are very different, they react differently to gases.(as i'm sure you know)
It seems extremely un-efficient to spray a gas from the tip of the aircraft so it elevopes the entire thing, you would need a LARGE amount of the gas to cover the craft at fast mach speeds. The American way seems far better, it may cost more but the Russian way seems so pointless.

I agree carrying a gas with you to produce a plamsa effect around your plane is impractical and really not worth doing. But with the torpedos that use this effect I believe they dont carry any gas with them they convert water into a gas, I think this happens at a speed of 182 knots underwater. Im not even sure at what or even if there is a magic speed when a plane will get hot enough to make the air around turn into plamsa.

This is the only way I could see this working and like was said before you would turn into pretty much a shooting star with a huge IR signature. I also think the American way is better.

Personaly I don't beleave plazma stealth has been yet invented but theoretically it is much more effisient than the "american style"

1) Why should it be so impractical to cary lets say 100kg of gases(compresed and liquified) for the porpose of invisobility . It will be enough for a copple of houers of work but a fighter doesn't fly much longer and if we are talking about a bomber than there will be enough place for the extra "fuel" (a plane using such a stealth device will be aerodynamically very efficient and will have no problems carrying heavy loads).

2) The assumption that plazma will inkrease the heat signaturre of a plane is right but only when you are using partical excelerators or the energy increas of a partical when it is heated to creat the plazma. If you're using electrostatic fields to ionize the gaz you will not heat it at all(it is possable but not necessary to pump more energy in the form of a microwaves to icrease the amount of plazma)

3)well the plazma cloud will surely block radiowaves of allmost any frequency but maybe not for all and a hole in the cloud might no be necessary for the communications and observer tech to work.
For an example Earth is sorounded by athe ionosphere which is unpenetrateble for most frequencies but not for the ultra short leinght ones
and those are that NASA uses to stay in touch with it's long distace misions.


All the material that I have personally seen on plazma stealth is full of assumptions and is no way of proving the uneffectiveness of such a technology, but untill there is proofe for it's existens Plazma stealth will remain only a theoreticall possability

PS: it just might glow like a UFO

Originally posted by vorazechul
Personaly I don't beleave plazma stealth has been yet invented but theoretically it is much more effisient than the "american style"

1) Why should it be so impractical to cary lets say 100kg of gases(compresed and liquified) for the porpose of invisobility . It will be enough for a copple of houers of work but a fighter doesn't fly much longer and if we are talking about a bomber than there will be enough place for the extra "fuel" (a plane using such a stealth device will be aerodynamically very efficient and will have no problems carrying heavy loads).


PS: it just might glow like a UFO

This might just be the reason why UFOs glow at night perhaps they are covered in Plasma.

About carrying 100 KG of fuel for plasma that might work for a few minutes. You would have to carry a insane amount of any gas to cover a plane for any real peroid of time. It would be very smart to have to carry 10 times your fuel weight in plasma gas and that still wouldnt cover you for any long amount of time.

When ever you release any gas into the air it does not want to stay in one place it goes off in every direction. Imagine how much propane it would require to keep a constant fireball around a plane moving at Mach 1. You would need tanks like the space shuttle booster rockets just to keep it for more then a few minutes.Even that amount of fuel couldnt cover a normal size fighter plane in plasma for hours.

They only practical way is to convert the air already around a plane into plasma. Thats the only way you could have enough of it to cover you for a long time and hope to be able to get off the ground.

Im sure there are people that could better explain why carrying a fuel for plasma just is not practical any way you think of it.

[edit on 6-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]

I've said it before, and I will say it again. Plasma stealth, at the very least, will light you up at night, making night missions impractical. Guess what - US aviation flies A LOT of sorties at night. Thus, you will not have the advantage at night.

US stealth is better and available today.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I've said it before, and I will say it again. Plasma stealth, at the very least, will light you up at night, making night missions impractical. Guess what - US aviation flies A LOT of sorties at night. Thus, you will not have the advantage at night.

US stealth is better and available today.

Do you know what characters of plazma and particulary low density plazma are?
this is just a question not an argument

He He
It wasn't that bad

[edit on 8-10-2004 by vorazechul]

can any body tell me about ruusian stealth fighter?

plasma is related to heat. will it give heat signature if russian use it as a new stealth technology?