 |
reply posted on 3-6-2006 @ 04:31 PM by urmomma158
|
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-6-2006 @ 05:33 AM by kilcoo316
|
Could you? [just out of pure interest]
How long does an F-4 have on burners?
If the E3 picks you up 320 kms out, and promptly turns away, it will take you 12 mins at 2,370 km/h to catch him at 800 km/h
If he turns off his radar as soon as he detects you and turns at a flight path normal to your approach vector, it will take you 8 mins to get to the
point he started from - 8 mins is 100 km at 800 km/h.
What is the range on an F-4's radar?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-6-2006 @ 07:15 PM by urmomma158
|
 Originally posted by kilcoo316
Could you? [just out of pure interest]
How long does an F-4 have on burners?
If the E3 picks you up 320 kms out, and promptly turns away, it will take you 12 mins at 2,370 km/h to catch him at 800 km/h
If he turns off his radar as soon as he detects you and turns at a flight path normal to your approach vector, it will take you 8 mins to get to the
point he started from - 8 mins is 100 km at 800 km/h.
What is the range on an F-4's radar?  I was being sarastic and not taking into account battlefield conditions. Just showing how it's stupid
talking about an armed plane vs an unarmed one.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-6-2006 @ 03:37 AM by kilcoo316
|
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-9-2006 @ 06:37 PM by Sonata
|
Would magneticly charged shaffing make them harder to spot as well?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-9-2006 @ 08:02 PM by iori_komei
|
I have a question, and sorry if it's already been asked/answered, this thrad has alot of very well written, but long redponses.
With the plasma buble/field the russian scientists were talking about
be able to be used on a helicopter that was stationary?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 17-9-2006 @ 02:04 PM by Wembley
|
Yes. With a helicopter the blades are a big issue but these could (in principle) be covered. I have not seen any suggestion of this though.
Note that with helicopters acoustic signature is the big issue. Conveniently enough, a plasma layer also damps out sound. 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-12-2006 @ 11:07 AM by fnord
|
theoretically speaking, if we did invent plasma stealth technology, and we had a corona around the plane, wouldn't the plane look like a
stereotypical ufo? (IE the glowing dots) such a result would explain why it never shows up on radar as well.
thoughts on this?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-12-2006 @ 11:58 AM by Wembley
|
Yes, it's been suggsted that plasma-equipped U2s were reported as UFO's in the 60's:
www.defensetech.org...
At high altitude it would like like a blurry, glowing/reflective disc.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-12-2006 @ 12:01 PM by intelgurl
|
Originally posted by fnord
theoretically speaking, if we did invent plasma stealth technology, and we had a corona around the plane, wouldn't the plane look like a
stereotypical ufo? (IE the glowing dots) such a result would explain why it never shows up on radar as well.
thoughts on this?
This COULD be one of the characteristics of plasma stealth, but it would not necessarily be one of the characteristics - simply
depending on methodology.
[edit on 12-29-2006 by intelgurl]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-9-2007 @ 06:48 AM by Eastpolar Commander
|
I took it from wikipedia
 Despite the apparent technical difficulty of designing a plasma stealth device for combat aircraft, there are claims that a system was offered for
export by Russia in 1999. In January of 1999, the Russian ITAR-TASS news agency published an interview with Doctor Anatoliy Koroteyev, the director of
the Keldysh Research Center (FKA Scientific Research Institute for Thermal Processes), who talked about the plasma stealth device developed by his
organization. The claim was particularly interesting in light of the solid scientific reputation of Dr. Koroteyev and the Institute for Thermal
Processes, which is one of the top scientific research organizations in the world in the field of fundamental physics. [see "Russian scientists
created revolutionary technologies for reducing radar visibility of aircraft", by Nikolay Novichkov, ITAR-TASS, January 20, 1999].
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-2-2008 @ 09:27 PM by tarkus07
|
A few years ago, two SU-27 over at low altitude on two consecutive occasions to a task force was where the aircraft carrier Kitty hawk to the
astonishment of the Marines who had not detected. This incident may be evidence of the use of any stealth technology by the Russians?
The link:
www.wnd.com...
It tries to explain that the planes were detected by radar, but expose ridiculous excuses to explain the reasons for not intercepting the time ...
[edit on 16-2-2008 by tarkus07]
[edit on 16-2-2008 by tarkus07]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-2-2008 @ 10:08 PM by Zaphod58
|
Not only are you wrong on why the carrier never launched planes, but you don't even have the right type of aircraft there (which is sad considering
that right in the start of your source article it tells you). Try again. One was an SU-27, the other was an SU-24. They were spotted on radar 40
minutes ahead of when the first plane was launched. It's kinda hard to launch planes when you're taking on fuel however.
[edit on 2/16/2008 by Zaphod58]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-2-2008 @ 10:54 PM by bigfatfurrytexan
|
reply to post by intelgurl
This is a fantastic thread.
Do you know anything about work on gravitational radars? gravity wave research is certainly in its infancy, but one would think that this possibility
is certainly on the drawing board. Podkletnov claims to be able to make a "gravity ray", which would be a wonderful start, i suppose.
Gravity wave sensors have made leaps and bounds in the last 20 years.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 04:23 PM by StellarX
|
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Not only are you wrong on why the carrier never launched planes, but you don't even have the right type of aircraft there (which is sad considering
that right in the start of your source article it tells you).
Don't know how he missed that part if he thinks the thread is so great...
Try again. One was an SU-27, the other was an SU-24. They were spotted on radar 40 minutes ahead of when the first plane was
launched.
That's what the USAF claims but not what is supported by the available evidence! Where was the CAP? And is it impossible to interrupt fueling in 40
minutes? Why was the first plane in the air not a fighter aircraft if they were just waiting to launch after refueling?
It's kinda hard to launch planes when you're taking on fuel however.
Not when you don't know if the enemy planes are hostile or not! I can assure you that there is some kind of emergency procedure to get rid of those
lines in no time at all and if there isn't your just asking to lose two ships to submarine attack instead of two.
Another thing is why did they suddenly start a 24 hour a day CAP right after this fly by?
Thanks.
Stellar
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 17-2-2008 @ 05:08 PM by Zaphod58
|
According to someone ON THE BRIDGE at the time of the incident (a pilot who was working on the bridge that day), it was an SU-24 and an SU-27. The
Alert fighters were on Alert 30, and weren't able to launch in time. They were ordered to launch "Everything", and the first thing up was an
EA-6B. The Japanese radar watched them, and the carrier saw them coming in well ahead of time. The bridge received a warning from CIC, and ordered
the Alert fighters launched.
They started a 24 hour CAP because the Admiral and CAG were in a meeting and didn't even know it happened until they heard the roar of them going
overhead. They were pissed about it happening, and were determined to kick a little A and take some names of the people on the ship that let it
happen.
[edit on 2/17/2008 by Zaphod58]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-2-2008 @ 01:59 AM by StellarX
|
Originally posted by Zaphod58
According to someone ON THE BRIDGE at the time of the incident (a pilot who was working on the bridge that day),
And you must understand that while i have chosen to believe you not everyone will without a actual source?
it was an SU-24 and an SU-27.
As we could see from reading the actual sources...
The Alert fighters were on Alert 30, and weren't able to launch in time.
Why Alert thirty near the Russian and Chinese coasts?
They were ordered to launch "Everything", and the first thing up was an EA-6B.
And i suppose the EA-6B was on Alert 15 or in some way part of the exercise?
The Japanese radar watched them, and the carrier saw them coming in well ahead of time. The bridge received a warning from CIC, and ordered
the Alert fighters launched.
Right and they seemed to have managed to avoid this type of incident for thirty years before the last few years spate of incidents?
They started a 24 hour CAP because the Admiral and CAG were in a meeting and didn't even know it happened until they heard the roar of them
going overhead.
Lucky Russians!
They were pissed about it happening, and were determined to kick a little A and take some names of the people on the ship that let it happen.
Was this after or during the exercises and what's the point of doing so when no one was to blame? I know that it's not about fairness but what's
the point if not to prevent such intrusions from happening again?
Either way thanks for supplying a new view of events.
Stellar
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-2-2008 @ 05:18 AM by Zaphod58
|
They weren't IN exercises at the time. They had just left port in Japan a few hours before the incident occured. They were refueling to top of the
tanks, and to give non-bridge personnel a chance to cross train on steering the ship during an UNREP.
Sorry, can't post the source on that one.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-2-2008 @ 07:01 AM by intelgurl
|
Originally posted by tarkus07
A few years ago, two SU-27 over at low altitude on two consecutive occasions to a task force was where the aircraft carrier Kitty hawk to the
astonishment of the Marines who had not detected. This incident may be evidence of the use of any stealth technology by the Russians?
The link:
www.wnd.com...
It tries to explain that the planes were detected by radar, but expose ridiculous excuses to explain the reasons for not intercepting the time ...
It is unlikely that plasma stealth technology played a role in this incident. Japanese radar spotted the Russian aircraft - therefore stealthiness was
not the issue.
A more likely explanation is A) an unfortunate string of events B)incompetency of the aircraft carrier's command or C) military lethargy due to the
political environment surrounding the Clinton administration.
It bears mentioning that plasma stealth technology has been maturing over the years since this thread was originally posted, and an event like what
happened with the Kitty Hawk back in 2000 - except using plasma stealth tech is not out of the realm of possibilities today.
[edit on 2-19-2008 by intelgurl]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
