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.

 

Russian MFI

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 04:55 PM
link   
The Mig 1.44 design itself is not stealthy. It may have composites and RAM but that can be added to almost any fighter aircraft. The design of the F/A-22 itself is stealthy.


1.0 Stealth features of the F/A-22
Taking a look at the F/A-22, quickly reveals the fundamental principles of a stealthy design as discussed earlier.


2.0 Continuous curves
The F/A-22 uses a combination of different ways to keep radar waves from bouncing back to their origin. The most sophisticated system is the use of so-called continuous curvature.

Many of of the surface shapes of the F/A-22 are curves with constantly changing radii. These scatter radar beams in all directions instead of back to the radar source. There are no right angles on the exterior of the design.

In order to calculate the curves and the effect they have on radar reflections form any point in 3D space, requires a tremendous computing power.

The first plane using this technology
extensively is the B-2 stealth bomber, also known as the flying wing.

Since computer- and software development has sky-rocketed over the past 20 years, prediction models can now be calculated quite precisely ,taking in account radar reflection versus the shape of the plane, while supporting more naturally aerodynamic shapes.


3.0 Planform alignment
The second way to keep radar waves from returning to the sending antenna, the leading and trailing edges of the wing and tail have identical sweep angles (a design technique called planform alignment).

The fuselage and canopy have sloping sides. The vertical tails are canted. The engine face is deeply hidden by a serpentine inlet duct and weapons are carried internally.


4.0 Saw-toothed edges
The F/A-22 has a low height triangle appearance from the front. This physical cross sectional view ensures a small signature from the front and low observability touches such as paint and materials, as well as little "W" shapes where straight lines might have appeared, all tend to break up the signature by absorption or redirection.

The "W" shapes are found at numerous places on the stealth aircraft. For instance, in the forefront of the cockpit glass, there is a very apparent "W" shape. This reduces the radar energy reflected during a head-on pass to the radar emitter. The "W" shape is also found on landing gear doors, engine inlets and outlets, as well as other openings.


5.0 Engine nozzles
Reduction of radar cross section of nozzles is also very important, and is complicated by high material temperatures.

The approach taken at Lockheed is to use ceramic materials.

The ceramics may be either lightweight, parasitic sheets mounted on conventional nozzle
structures or heavier structural materials forming saw-toothed edges.


6.0 Cockpit
The pilot's head, complete with helmet, is a major source of radar return. This effect is amplified by the returns of internal bulkheads and frame members. The solution is to design the cockpit so that its external shape conforms to good low radar cross section design rules, and then plate the glass with a film similar to that used for temperature control in commercial buildings. Here, the requirements are more stringent: it should pass at least 85% of the visible energy and reflect essentially all of the radar energy. At the same time, one would prefer not to have noticeable instrument-panel reflection during night flying.


7.0 Antennas
On-board antennas and radar systems are a major potential source of high radar visibility for two reasons. One is that it is obviously difficult to hide something that is designed to transmit with very high efficiency, so the so-called in-band radar cross section is liable to be significant. The other is that even if this problem is solved satisfactorily, the energy emitted by these systems can normally be readily detected. The work being done to reduce these signatures is classified.


8.0 Paint scheme
In order to make the F/A-22 disappear for the human eye on the ground, when in flight, special camouflage schemes have been developed. This way the plane will blend with the background sky as much as possible viewed from the bottom and disappear in the ground texture when seen from above.

9.0 Conclusion
The result of all these as well as a number of un-disclosed or non mentioned measures is the F/A-22's BVR capability, meaning that it can detect, engage and kill an opponent fighter, while staying invisible itself.

All from www.f-22raptor.com...

[edit on 11/24/04 by jetsetter]




posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I had a friend who's father worked for lockheed martin...

He claimed that they are working on an active camoflage for it that will render it virtually invisible...Something with LEDs acting like a chameleon's skin...



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 09:39 PM
link   
k, all these physical features of the plane that make it more stelthy, don't improve the RCS that much

but, even though, if u didn't read the article clearly, it said that the MiG also has compnents that give a lower RCS such as canards, and that stuff, it was in the article



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   
The shape of an aircraft is the essence of stealth. Why do you think the F-117 looks as it does? The shape is what matters.


It also has similar stealth capabilities, with the canard, wing and fuselage structures incorporating carbon-fiber and polymer composite materials. Other stealth features include radar-absorbing covering, screening of radar-visible structure elements, and reduced heat signature.


All it said is that the canards were made of composites. Not much advanced about that really. Updates like composites and RAM can be added to almost any aircraft.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Any doubts that the MiG I.42 is NOT stealthy should be dispelled as soon as you look at that HUGE angular air intake and those massive afterburners on the back. Stealthy my foot


Just for clarification on the air intake, the similar Typhoon intake has a carefully curved profile to help its RCS, but it is not stealthy like, say, the F-35. Before this was even taken into consideration the intakes on the EFA as it was then, looked exactly like those on the MiG where even this minor improvement has not been made. Now stealth will almost certainly be a major feature of the Pak-fa but it is not a feature, or a physical feature, of the MiG.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Waynos, let's not give our little Dima a conniption, now.

Not only does he think that his mother Russia has an answer to the Raptor, but he thinks they were ahead of us.

Sometimes it's better to allow fantasy to surpass reality....It doesn't take anything away from us...

[edit on 25-11-2004 by engineer]



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   


9.0 Conclusion
The result of all these as well as a number of un-disclosed or non mentioned measures is the F/A-22's BVR capability, meaning that it can detect, engage and kill an opponent fighter, while staying invisible itself.


you talk only by details, is like say "i have better shirt because it have nice bellboys"

the true is that the raptor is stealther than nowdays fighters, but its not an truly stealth design. the airframe shape exposes it.

The russians proyects also are not stealth, but i think that an airframe based in the 1.44 proyect could have at least the same stealth level of the raptor , low wing is an advantage, the main problem is the side intake inclination (lateral), maybe the pakfa will be based in that shape

the 1.44 is better than the s47?????, hard question, but good conversation, i think that the berkut wing dont help in supercruiser, but maybe is more agile at very low speeds (below 350 Knb), the MFI could have more control at medium-high dogfight speeds and supersonic, i dont know if the berkut cannards have vortex efect over the main wing, but im sure about the 1.44, also this last have an stealthier shape (the nose have an similar efect like the F23)maybe something like su 34 nose, but remember both planes were not designed for rcs reduction.





[edit on 25-11-2004 by grunt]



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by engineer
Waynos, let's not give our little Dima a conniption, now.
Not only does he think that his mother Russia has an answer to the Raptor, but he thinks they were ahead of us.
Sometimes it's better to allow fantasy to surpass reality....It doesn't take anything away from us...


Dima isn't Russian first of all he is from Moldova as his signature says.
Second we do have an answer to the Raptor not, a direct equivalent, but S-400 should mean something to you... and MiG-31M coul try and do the job.


ExD

posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   


Jun 10 2004 4:06PM
Russian MIG to resume multi-role tactical fighter program
MOSCOW. June 10 (Interfax) - The Russian MIG aircraft building corporation decided to resume the fifth generation multi-role tactical fighter program (codenamed Project 1.44).

"The director general and designer general of our company made up his mind to continue the work on the 1.44 aircraft program," Andrei Karasev, Deputy Designer General and First Deputy Director General of MIG's Engineering Center, said at the MIG presentation to State Duma members, held in Moscow Thursday.

He also said that all the technological solutions pertaining to the engine, aerodynamics and aircraft systems are still far from obsolete.

As to the avionics, which has been developing intensively in the past years, it should be replaced. "The old avionics is no good now, of course. So, let us concentrate the resources on it, as the aircraft as a flying vehicle is ready," Karasev said.

He maintained that the Mikoyan Engineering Center was tasked to resume the tests of Project 1.44 by the year-end.




" For today the plane-demonstrator 1.44 has executed only two test flights. Within several years because of problems of financing of work under program MFI practically were not conducted. Now the decision to renew test " is accepted, - director of department of the information and public relations RSK "MiG " Jury Chervakov has told. It informed, that now there is a check of all systems and units of the plane 1.44 that up to the end of year to begin practical test flights of this fighter.

By J.Chervakova's words, (the project 1.44) is planned to use the experimental plane as flying laboratory for working off of perspective design decisions which will be demanded at creation perspective is export-focused a fighter.

" By the plane 1.44 carrying out of tests on working off of separate problems in interests of a perspective fighter, and also new updatings of a multipurpose fighter MiG - 29M1/M2 is planned ", - J.Chervakov has told.

It has noted, that " renewal of works on preparation for carrying out letnyh tests of the plane under the project 1.44 does not mean continuation of works on a theme of creation MFI ".


Well, MiG Corporation recovering from downfall. The orders on hand for the year has increased from 1.4 to 2.6 billion dollars, and by 2008, it is intended to extend it to 6 billion dollars. Andrey Karasev named as most prospective for Russian and foreign air forces such RSK MiG aircraft as the MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB and the MiG-29SM and MiG-29SMT fighters produced earlier are being upgraded to this level, the MiG-29M/M2 are completely new and the most modern airplanes of the family, which will be delivered to customers from 2005-2006, and also the MiG-AT new generation combat training airplane and MiG-31 interceptor, experimental design work on its completion is being performed in the interests of the Russian Federation air force.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Any info on the MiG-29M2? MiG-29's are sexy



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by khruschev
Second we do have an answer to the Raptor not, a direct equivalent, but S-400 should mean something to you... and MiG-31M coul try and do the job.
The S-400 is a formidabe missile, but it is primarily a TBM defense system. AFAIK it has never tested on a stealth target (at least as far as what's in the public domain). Even the testing against BM's has not been that comprehensive compared to the level of testing that western systems like the Arrow-2 and Pac-3 have done.

The Mig 31M could try, but I wouldn't want to be driving it when it did. The Mig has a very good radar, one of the best there is, but the Raptor would see it long before the Mig saw the F-22, and first look means first kill.

Russia hypes their missiles and AC a lot more than the US does, because we are not too concerned with foreign sales. Russia has to sell their systems to other countries, that's the only way they can be funded.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for the Russian aerospace industry. But their aircraft industry simply cannot match the kind of funding the US can invest. They have the capability to develop sophisticated platforms, but no money to build them.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   
yea, krushcev is right, i'm not russian, but i am an extreme supporter of russia, because were too small for anybody to notice, so i like to defend russia

and, have u seen what happened to the F-117, it flies like a rock, sure its body shape is meant for stealth, but whats the point, once a missile gets locked on, u're done

oh yea, the SR-71, well, i don't think an SR-71 can dodge a missile(AA-6 and AA-9 i believe both have max speed of Mach 4.5)(the next russian missile AA-13 will be a version of these, a continued develpoment, it'll be sick)

going at Mach 4.5, it won't take long to catch up to the SR-71

k, i'm going to admit it, the F-22 is better than any fighter in PRODUCTION in the world, but if u compare it to the cost, its not worth crap, just too expensive, it looks nice and its abilities are okay, but just too expensive

oh yea, last thing, first shot doesn't mean u have first kill hu ever said thatu can still maneuver away, and ECM doesn't work that well(i have said it multiple times, 12% success rate)



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dima
oh yea, last thing, first shot doesn't mean u have first kill hu ever said thatu can still maneuver away, and ECM doesn't work that well(i have said it multiple times, 12% success rate)

AIM 120's are very effective missiles. AMRAAM has scored combat victories over the skies of Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo. The missile was first used in combat on 27 December 1992 when an F-16C used it to shoot down an Iraqi MiG-25 over a no-fly zone in Iraq. The missile was used in a head-on shot at a range of about 3 miles, the two aircraft closing at about 800 mph. A second shot was on 17 January 1993, an F-16 shooting down an Iraqi MiG-29.

Those were the older versions, the new C version is even better. It has also proven effective at shooting down cruise missiles.

An aircraft will not dodge a missile that is traveling at Mach 4 and can pull 20G's. Not unless the pilot is damn lucky. ECM may or may not work, it depends on the circumstances, but the AMRAAM has a "home on jam" function, so a jamming aircraft will not automatically get away from the missile.

As to the cost of the F-22, of course they are expensive right now, when program costs are only spread among 40 or so AC. When full rate production is in place, the unit costs will decrease accordingly. At the current planned production of 276 AC, unit costs will be around 90 Million per copy. If additional units are produced for the RAF or RAAF, the unit cost will be further reduced.

[edit on 26-11-2004 by engineer]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   
the price will not decrease, it anything, it will increase, just like the price of all american aircraft have over the past few years

in 1991 an F-24 costed 20 million, and it now costs and now it costs 40 million

after the F/A-22 comes out, actually it will be slightly cheaper, but after a year, its price will go up

i have also heard that it will cost close to 150 million, and some indicate 250 million



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
sorry, i have a problem now using 2 instead of 1, i meant F-14



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Whatever, kid. It's a complete waste of time trying to explain anything to you. You have proven once again that you have absolutely no concept of program costs vs. unit costs vs. life cycle costs.

Just more unsubstantiated, incorrect, overly biased nonsense derived solely from your own overactive imagination and desire to push your personal agenda.

The last F-14 rolled off in 1992. Unit cost for the F-14D was $38 Mil.

have a nice day


[edit on 26-11-2004 by engineer]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dima
the price will not decrease, it anything, it will increase, just like the price of all american aircraft have over the past few years
[...]
after the F/A-22 comes out, actually it will be slightly cheaper, but after a year, its price will go up
i have also heard that it will cost close to 150 million, and some indicate 250 million


Dima, please provide any support for your views.

Try and research why the price of American aircraft increases and that of ours decreases... Americans put new equipment onboard and it makes it more expensive, on the other hand we make equipment changes only for use in Russia, and that means that its price is not revealed since we are pretty good at keeping secrets.
A question for you, why do you think that F/A-22's price will decrease only for one year? How do you know it will go up? If you want your idea to be taken seriously, you should really try and provide some facts about what you say and not just provoke people around. I appreciate you supporting our country, but if you do it in these way it might leave a negative impression on some of the members.

Where did you find the price of $250 000 000? I would highly appreciate information on that one, since according to info we have it is supposed to be much lower.
____________

Someone said F/A-22 would see MiG-31M first... Well, MiG has a better radar than Raptor, which has a longer range. On the other hand, Raptor is stealthy so it will be harder to get track of it. Result: They are going to see each other at more or less same time, and it will be beyond the missile range.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by khruschev
Someone said F/A-22 would see MiG-31M first... Well, MiG has a better radar than Raptor, which has a longer range. On the other hand, Raptor is stealthy so it will be harder to get track of it. Result: They are going to see each other at more or less same time, and it will be beyond the missile range.

Perhaps. The Mig-31M has a very good radar, one of the best, but it is old technology compared it to the AN/APG-77. Besides, the Zaslon-M program was cancelled anyway along with the N014, so we're comparing a production radar with one that will not see production. And the AN/APG-77's range is not published, so how do you know that the Zaslon-M has a longer range?

The Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) capability of the radar defeats conventional RWR/ESM systems. The AN/APG-77 radar is capable of performing an active radar search on RWR/ESM equipped fighter aircraft without the target knowing he is being illuminated. Unlike conventional radars which emit high energy pulses in a narrow frequency band, the AN/APG-77 emits low energy pulses over a wide frequency band using a technique called spread spectrum transmission. When multiple echoes are returned, the radar's signal processor combines the signals. The amount of energy reflected back to the target is about the same as a conventional radar, but because each LPI pulse has considerably less amount of energy and may not fit normal modulation patterns, the target will have a difficult time detecting the F-22.
More on the F-22 Avionics suite:
www.globalsecurity.org...

There were only a handful of Mig 31M's produced, and it doesn't seem likely that they will ever go into serial production. So the chances of an encounter are not exactly high, since they will not be exported, and the US is not going to strike Russia. Even so, the Raptor has an altitude advantage, and reflected signals from the radar antenna will be directed up, so they will not be returned to their source. The F-22 also has systems to defeat passive surveillance and targeting systems, so it's not going to be an easy AC to get a lock on.

As to the missiles, the R-37 has a longer range, but the Raptor's ECM suite is designed to confound the missile's targeting radar. And we know how effective the AMRAAMs are from the encounters in the Balkans and Iraq.

So far I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that any Mig will be an even match for an F-22.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 08:05 PM
link   


So far I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that any Mig will be an even match for an F-22.


i never said it will. I said that is what might down an F/A-22, but since they won't encounter no need for worries.
As for radar range, sorry can't tell you.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by engineer
Waynos, let's not give our little Dima a conniption, now.

Not only does he think that his mother Russia has an answer to the Raptor, but he thinks they were ahead of us.

Sometimes it's better to allow fantasy to surpass reality....It doesn't take anything away from us...


Well i wouldn't say the Americans in this thread are without bias or haven't allowed their fantasies to surpass reality. It seems logical that the Russians aren't too far behind the US in Aircraft technology, the Su-27 is proof they were very close during the cold war. So since the Mig 35 is a newer plane than the F-22 it stands to reason that it would be close to being on par with it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join