Originally posted by ghost
Hold On! Before this gets carried away, let me set the record straight!

First of all, you've missed one critical fact: All Steath relies on Plasma to some degree! The difference is, the Russians use a free form cloud that is generated around the aircraft, while the US relies on a hollow, honey-combed skin filled with plasma. Radar Absorbent Material (RAM), works by produsing plasma when an electric current is added to it. The main difference is that the US method requires less energy to maintain the plasma field then it's Russian counterpart, but requires more care and attention to detail during construction. The bottom line is: Plasma is a part of ALL stealth, but there are different ways to use it to get the same effect. For more info on plasma and stealth, see the B-2 Research Project.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Could you give me a supporting source ;

that's an astounding post, and will take some evidence to believe

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Those wings are U-G-L-Y UGLY!

Looks are deceptive !!

To my eyes it looks better than the F-22.

These are subjective matters

^^The last paragraph of that link speaks of plasma stealth in the Mig-MFI,. now that's cool

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Those wings are U-G-L-Y UGLY!

Looks are deceptive !!

To my eyes it looks better than the F-22.

These are subjective matters

I guess, but i still think that the rounded parts near the base look nasty (in a bad way).

The Raptor is a hot bird - the Blackwidow was def better though...

Stealth Spy, that is NOT a Pak-Fa! That is the Mig I-2000. Russia abandoned that project about 6 years ago. It has since been revived by Iran, and is known as Shafaq. It is a light attack fighter.

The Pak-Fa is based on the SU-47, but without the FSW.

Originally posted by longbow
Are some aircrafts using active stealth? I don't mean plasma or something like that it's called radar wave cancelation...

This is said to be the approach taken by the French on the Rafale. I don't have any details, but I am somewhat sceptical of this approach, because if it's not completely PERFECT, you would show up the on the enemy radar big time. The sensors and processing power requirements would be huge.

yo engineer, do u know wat country is testing this technology if any right now?

Raptor and Black Widow #ing sux.
This russian mega-aircraft bum-bum USA!!!

engineer are you sure, that you over 13 ?

Russian government want new fighter in light weight from mig (lfi) It will be bought for army.
Russia Forever!

When do you think Plasma Stealth will be revealed fully to the public??

never, or after then american construction will don't secret a steals.
that I think.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Great job as usual

1 big question. I noticed tha you said the US probably was looking at cold plasma. Is that to imply that there is hot plasma? What would be the difference as far as radar stealth goes? Would hot plasma give off a larger thermal signature? Which method would most likely be used by Russia?

I guess that really wasn't one question

[edit on 20-10-2004 by American Mad Man]

Cold plasma is electrically excited gas, and only about 1% of the gas molecules are ionized. Hot plasma is ionized throughout the whole.

Thats a beautiful aircraft, Stealth Spy.
Instead of an artists conceptual drawing(s), got an actual picture(s) of one built, being tested, etc? My reason for asking is because if I am not mistaken, a member just recently reported and stated that the Pak-Fa would be operational or go into serial production in 2006? IF so, then the aircraft in question should already have a number of working prototypes being tested, etc., correct?





seekerof

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Seekerof]

Folks,

I’m a new member, and have read your articles and posts very enthusiastically. Reading “intelgurl’s” comprehensive post on plasma shielding, a couple of questions came to my mind, and I’ll appreciate some answers:

1- As mentioned by intelgurl, the so-called “hot” plasma “would show up big time on an IR sensor.” It also show up that brightly on the visual spectrum as well. So what’s the notion of plasma “stealth” when it’s advertising itself day and ‘night’ like a glowing neon sign UFO? Speaking of UFOs, maybe plasma-stealth-aircraft could only pretend to be UFOs while overflying hostile territories Maybe that could explain recent surges of glowing UFO sightings in flashpoint places like Iran!

2- intelgurl mentioned a Russian 2003 project to use a plasma screen to shield Su-35’s radar array. It included this sentence:

“It is supposedly similar to a plasma TV screen made up of cells or rastars filled with neon, xenon or some other inert gas which is excited by an electrical current, and when there is no current going to the unit it is completely transparent to the Su-35's radar.”

So, how could it be ionized, if “there is no current going to the unit,” and how could it be translucent to the own radar signals, when ionized? Won’t it then be more like a ‘turned-off’ plasma TV?! Can “timed interval synchronization” rectify all this?

How the plasma cocoon can shield radar waves from entering, but at the same time remain completely translucent to the aircraft’s own radar and other sensors? Will EO (electro-optical) sensors – including imaging infra-red – be able to see (out) through plasma shielding?

Lampyridae wrote: “Lift could be achieved purely through electromagnetic interaction with the surrounding plasma field.”

Could you please explain more how lift is produced in such circumstances?

Thanks,
Thud

Originally posted by Seekerof
Thats a beautiful aircraft, Stealth Spy.
Instead of an artists conceptual drawing(s), got an actual picture(s) of one built, being tested, etc? My reason for asking is because if I am not mistaken, a member just recently reported and stated that the Pak-Fa would be operational or go into serial production in 2006? IF so, then the aircraft in question should already have a number of working prototypes being tested, etc., correct?

no not correct.

PAK-FA prototype comes out in 2006.

production after 2010.

this is according to a russian press release dated 2002.

russian govt is giving 1.5bill usd anually for the pak-fa

Originally posted by ghost
Hold On! Before this gets carried away, let me set the record straight!

First of all, you've missed one critical fact: All Steath relies on Plasma to some degree! The difference is, the Russians use a free form cloud that is generated around the aircraft, while the US relies on a hollow, honey-combed skin filled with plasma. Radar Absorbent Material (RAM), works by produsing plasma when an electric current is added to it. The main difference is that the US method requires less energy to maintain the plasma field then it's Russian counterpart, but requires more care and attention to detail during construction. The bottom line is: Plasma is a part of ALL stealth, but there are different ways to use it to get the same effect. For more info on plasma and stealth, see the B-2 Research Project.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

I have to disagree with you on this point. Germans in WWII coated schnorkels on U-boats with RAM to protect them from Allied radar. The SR-71 was coated with paint containing microscopic iron balls that effectively absorbed and dissipated incoming radar waves. Basically, RAM is like black paint in the radar frequency. Hell, even a glass of water is RAM.

And as to running plasma through the honeycomb structure of the B-2, I don't buy that one either. Why all the fuss over the paintwork? Any surface coating would have to be radar transparent (otherwise you'd be wasting your time with plasma under the skin).

Never ever believe anything Russia says unless they can prove it.

Plasma stealth = no proof
Maneuverable nuke warhead = no proof