Some issues were mentioned with full plasma screens, the wind blowing them away at supersonic speeds and that partial stealth, like for the the radar antenna seem more feasible, howver,

Is it possible they might have solved these issues by using a mini-magnetosphere to contain the plasma ?

Indeed I haven't seen proof for Russian maneuvarable nuke warheads and lets hope we never have to ask 'm to deliver the proof


[edit on 15-3-2005 by Silenus]

All I can add to this discussion is based on observing actual events near my home.
The Apache has the ability to cloak. Period. We have surveillance crafts that cloak.
And before getting excited and asking questions I cant answer, I will gladly pick up the staff of ATS at one of 2 airports within a 2 hour drive from my home. If you would like to see our Governments surveillance at it's finest, let me know. They slowly take position around nightfall, and after watching them for a few seconds, you know beyond any doubt. To the eye that just happens to look up, they are just another star in the sky. YOu have to be in position to watch them ascend to their positioning and the red light goes away. Thats when they are simply "stars" in the night sky.
2 staff, thats it. We provide supper.
I research too many things to spend time reading and becoming an expert on one topic. I see many things here. Where I live is Chemtrail Central. It is Surveillance Central. And remember this.....when you post on ATS or any other site, know that you become very unpopular for exposing nasty truths, or even what you suspect may be truths about your Government. You may start to notice changes in your world shortly after expressing negative views of our Government and its ways.

No harm done, ghost.

Anyway some more info

Russian research into low-observable (LO) technology has remained largely secret, despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and the semi-privatization of the aircraft industry. However, a newly published paper from the Institute for Theoretical and Applied Electromagnetics (ITAE) at the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow, Russia), presented at the International Quality and Productivity Center’s conference on stealth, held in London in October 2003, shows that Russian researchers have made solid progress in key technologies for LO aircraft and have test-flown some technologies – such as the use of plasmas to protect targets from radar – that are not known to have been studied in the West.

In the paper, entitled "Stealth Technology: Fundamental and Applied Problems," Russian stealth researchers claim to have reduced the head-on radar cross-section (RCS) of a Sukhoi (Moscow, Russia) Su-35 fighter by an order of magnitude, halving the range at which hostile radars can detect it. The research group has performed more than 100 hours of testing on a reduced-RCS Su-35. According to other reports, the ITAE has demonstrated similar technology on a MiG-21bis, and it has been offered to India as part of a MiG-21 upgrade package. Similar modifications have been made to Western aircraft (such as the Have Glass package developed for the F-16), but it is not known whether they claim the same level of performance.

Russian investigators certainly have the basic scientific knowledge to apply stealth to aircraft. Some of the basic mathematical and optical theories that underlie stealth originated in Russia (such as Ufimtsev’s theory of edge diffraction), and some of the most significant early work on reducing the RCS of military vehicles was carried out by Russian warship designers. The Kirov-class battlecruisers – with a 22° "tumblehome" angle imposed on normally vertical bulkheads, screens, and skirts to shield high-RCS components from radar, along with extensive use of radar-absorbent material (RAM) – were remarkably stealthy despite their size. "If you saw a big wake with nothing in front of it," British marine LO expert Peter Varnish has said, "you knew you’d found the Kirov."

Most current Russian military aircraft show little evidence of stealth in their design, but that is not surprising, given that they were defined in the early 1970s. The more recent MiG 1.42 and Sukhoi S-32 fighter prototypes were designed as details of US stealth projects became known and, thus, represent a compromise solution. They carry their primary weapons internally, and the Vympel R-77 missile – which corresponds to this generation of aircraft – is designed for internal carriage. However, they do not reflect features found on US designs, such as the careful organization of wing, tail, and inlet edges along a few common alignments. They look like aircraft in which aerodynamics dominate the basic shape, and materials are used to eliminate RCS hotspots – very much the same as the technology described in the ITAE paper.

The dominant contributors to the Su-35’s head-on RCS are the inlets, which the ITAE researchers call "a huge problem." With a straight duct that provides direct visibility to the entire face of the engine compressor, the inlet might have been designed to advertise the fighter’s presence at the greatest possible range. (Lockheed stealth pioneer Alan Brown’s comment on straight ducts is that "the energy comes romping out like a lighthouse beam.") The ITAE, though, has developed a high-performance, ferro-magnetic RAM for the compressor face and duct walls. The material has to be thin, because it cannot constrict airflow or impede the operation of anti-icing systems, and must withstand high-speed airflows and temperatures up to 200°C. The ITAE team has developed and tested coating materials which meet these standards. A layer of RAM between

0.7-mm and 1.4-mm thick is applied to the ducts, and a 0.5-mm coating is applied to the front stages of the low-pressure compressor, using a robotic spray system. The result is a reduction of 10-15 dB in the RCS contribution from the inlets – more than halving the RCS.

Like the Have Glass F-16, the modified Su-35 also has a treated cockpit canopy that reflects radar waves. The ITAE has developed a plasma-deposition process to deposit alternating layers of metallic and polymer materials, creating a durable coating that blocks radio-frequency (RF) waves and does not trap solar heat in the cockpit. The plasma-coating process is carried out in a vacuum chamber by a robotic tool.

The ITAE and its partners use plasma technology for applying ceramic coatings to the exhaust and afterburner. Multi-layer coatings formed from microparticles of dielectric, metal, or semi-conductor material are deposited by an arc-discharge plasma under atmospheric pressure. Challenges include the need to keep the ceramic bonded to the metal structure over a wide temperature range (600°C to 1,200°C), despite the fact that the materials have widely different thermal-expansion characteristics. The coating materials also need to maintain constant electrical characteristics in the face of widely varying temperatures. Researchers describe this problem as "partially solved," and engines treated with ceramic RAM have already been flight-tested.

Video at the conference also showed the use of hand-held sprays to apply RAM to R-27 air-to-air missiles. There is no point, researchers say, in reducing the RCS of the airframe unless the reflectivity of external weapons can be reduced as well.

The ITAE has flight-tested a unique and exotic technology to mask the Su-35’s huge 35-inch radar antenna: the use of a low-temperature, "plasma-controlled screen." The screen is mounted in front of the antenna and is transparent to radar when switched off; it may be similar to a plasma TV screen, comprising cells filled with neon or xenon gas, which is excited by an electrical current. (Video shows a clearly defined luminous panel in front of the antenna.) When activated, the screen absorbs some incoming radar energy and scatters the rest in safe directions, over all RF bands lower than the frequency of the plasma-generation system. The screen switches on and off in tens of microseconds, according to the ITAE, thanks to years of intensive development of the gas mixture and plasma-generation system.

In principle, this is the same as the "plasma stealth" system that was reportedly developed by the Keldysh Scientific Research Center (also part of the Academy) in 1999. At the time, it was claimed that the system, using a 100-kg generator, could reduce the RCS of any aircraft by two orders of magnitude, or 20 dB. The ITAE has not attempted to develop a whole-aircraft system, which would use plasma-generating antennas to ionize the air flowing over the aircraft – an artificial version of St. Elmo’s fire – but researchers expressed the view that it would be difficult to apply except to a high-altitude, relatively slow aircraft, because the airstream would dissipate the plasma faster than it could be generated.

The ITAE paper gave some indications of the direction of stealth technology for future aircraft. Test facilities developed in Russia include compact, indoor RCS ranges for large-scale models and outdoor, ground-level ranges with short pylons, which can be used to test full-size aircraft (rather than the models used for US pylon tests). In future designs, one emphasis is on large, complex skin panels, reducing the number of gaps and mechanical fasteners in the skin. The ITAE paper showed an example of a single, 23-ft., monolithic fuselage panel, without indicating for which aircraft it was intended. However, it might form part of the upper fuselage of the S-32 Berkut prototype.

Russia’s ability to achieve an order-of-magnitude reduction in the RCS of a non-stealthy aircraft is significant for two reasons. First, it makes the Sukhoi family more competitive with Western aircraft, particularly in the case of export variants that may not feature LO modifications such as Have Glass. Second, it points to an ability to design low-maintenance, stealthy combat aircraft, missiles, and UAVs in the future.

– Bill Sweetman

Im wondering if the primary problem with this plasma technology (or should I say Plazma? ) is maintaining the ionized gas envelope barrier around an aircraft at speed in order to maintain its stealth efficacy. Presumably, doing so to cater for the maximum flight envelopes of the aircraft invovled is either extremely difficult or invovles power output that can only be distributed by high - and therefore heavier - power supplies that are impractical on the aircraft concerned. This reminds me of the inherent problems of laser projectile technology - at least in its initial development stages.

[edit on 12/6/2005 by Plazma]

[edit on 12/6/2005 by Plazma]

I just joined the other day and was reading this post, with great interest. I have a few things to add to earlier comments, especially about the B-2 being tracked. Several things to remember, while the B-2 has wonderful passive sensors, it DOES have to occasionally use radar to find the target and confirm locations. This radar is very easily tracked, even when it's only active for a couple seconds. If anything is hanging in the slipstream, the RCS blooms in a huge way. All the beacons and other hanging objects are retractable into the airframe, but if any of them don't retract fully, or the doors don't close over them, they will cause the RCS to blossom in a big way. Rain is a very bad thing for stealth, because it WILL reflect radar. That's why if you look at weather radar, there is no problem telling where storms are, or how heavy the rainfall in them is. If a stealth flies through rain, then it will no longer be as stealthy, if it's stealthy at all. The coating doesn't melt, the water reflects the radar. A little known fact about the B-2 is that it's covered in special tape. Everywhere a panel joins and is riveted, there is a strip of duct tape looking tape over the rivet line. Rivets are a huge RCS magnifier. I don't know what exactly the tape is, they couldn't and wouldn't go into detail about it, but it looks a lot like regular duct tape. Obviously it has to have some special properties about it, but I couldn't tell you what they are. If this tape is torn, or missing, then the rivets will bounce radar back and you can track them.

The B-2 and F-117 have several ways to help defeat infrared, but none of them are perfect obviously. They do however cut WAY down on the signature. The F-117 uses bricks lining the back of the wing, and vents upward from the back of the wing. Northrop found with the B-2 the best thing to do is to lengthen the exhaust duct, along with a few other classified things to help with that.

Interestingly enough with both of these airframes, the biggest cause of RCS bloom is the pilots helmet. They had to use special material to make the canopy to absorb radar beams so that it wouldn't reflect off the pilot.

Just my $0.02 to add to the discussion.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

It is going to take me awhile to read and digest all of this thread but right off the bat I would like to say that Intelgurl did a great job with the first post describing this technology!!!!!!!

OK, from what I have read in the popular press, the B-2 uses a electric generator with a wire electrode positioned in the exhaust of the aircraft. This produces negative ions. If the wings are non-conductors, and they apparently are, an automatic positive charge (postive ions) are produced on the leading edge of the B-2s wing. It is this build-up of positive ions which bend the radar signal.

But we are talking about plasma here and there is a difference between plasma and ions(as applies to radar) as has been pointed out. According to Van Norstrands Scientific Encyclopedia:

Plasma: the region in a gas discharge with contains very nearly equal numbers of positive ions and electrons and hence is nearly neutral.

Ion: an atom or molecularly-bound group of atoms which has gained or lost one or more electrons, and which has thus a negative or postive electric charge: sometimes a free electron or other charged subatomic particle.

So, with ion stealth, we are discussing charged particles bending radar waves because they are charged. With plasma, we are talking about essentially neutral atoms or molecules bending radar waves--because????

Once again, what is cold plasma and how does it differ from an ion?

But assuming plasma stealth works in bending radar waves but covers an aircraft and can be sloughed off through aerodynamic action, how important is that in a tactical sense? For instance, I have "heard" that the attack strategy for the F-22 is that one flys 30 miles behind its partner. The second F-22 uses radar to find its target (less stealthy) but the target is taken out by the first F-22 which is 30 miles closer and comes as a complete shock to the enemy. If this is true, wouldn't the plasma cloaking device be of great help since by the time the second F-22 failed to find the target, the target might be within a distance to locate the lead F-22. Afterward, in a dogfight, who cares about stealth?

Look, I am not trying to be a wise-ass and radar is not my thing, I would just like these points clarified in my own mind.

Actually, the attack strategy of the F-22 will be to have an AWACS find targets, and they can use the datalink from the E-3 as fire control radar. There hasn't been an a2a engagement since Vietnam without some form of AWACS involved, whether it be an E-3, or an E-2 off a CVN. The radar on an AWACS can reach out over 300 miles so they wouldn't have to be anywhere near the F-22s. USAF doctrine is to always have an E-3 in a combat area for air supperiority purposes.

Great thread, big to intelgurl for starting it off so well.

Couple of things - Plasma to cover a whole airframe?

If its so hard, they (the Russians) might just worry about frontal RCS - all thats needed is a cloud over the wing/LERX leading edges and the engine air inlets - on the inlets, with colder air being better for jet engines, would cold plasma be close enough to ambient to have no/insignicant effects? If they want to protect the aircraft from a active radar say +-20 degrees from the nose, it greatly reduces the amount of plasma "coverage" needed, and there is no effect on the control surfaces (bar maybe the LE slats)

Someone asked earlier about electromagnetics and plasma being used to generate lift - well, plasma is charged, which should make it responsive to magnetic fields. Even if it is only used to control transonic boundary layer separation or spanwise boundary layer flow its still helping...